Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

I am not condemning him for reading the Bible as much as I am for coming to 
false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.

Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a 
Nazi.



-- 

Best wishes,

Dario Western

Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859

Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zee" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 4, 6:28 am, "Neosapienis" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> "Here is what a blogger says on this issue. Not saying I necessarily
> agree with him but I thought it might be interesting to throw this
> into the general discussion. As it is a blog you can comment there as
> well as here.
>
> http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bckash
>
> Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you
> well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely
> social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral
> about public nudity. What does the Bible say?
>
> First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and
> social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for
> such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article
> does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be
> nude in public, in mixed company other than with one’s spouse, and/or
> for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or
> social nudity."
>
> "Nudity is beautiful prior to the fall: There is nothing inherently
> evil about nudity. For example, Genesis 2:25 says concerning man and
> woman before the fall, “And the man and his wife were both naked and
> were not ashamed.“ Further, God declared all that He created to be
> “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, the naked body as created by
> God is beautiful; however, this was before the fall of mankind. Before
> the fall, the nudity of man and woman did not provoke temptation, but
> sin introduced distortion into the created order that did not
> previously exist. This distortion can be seen by comparing Genesis
> 2:25, which says prior to the fall that Adam and Eve were naked and
> “were not ashamed to (Genesis 3:7) whereas immediately after the
> introduction of sin into the world Scripture describes their attempt
> to hide their nakedness with clothing. More importantly, God clothed
> their nakedness: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
> wife, and clothed them.“(Genesis 3:21)"
>
> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig
> leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to
> their state of shame. Shame is a man made think that does not occur with
> any other species in the world be they animal or sentient. Added to that,
> there were also other religions and cultures prior to Judaism where some 
> of
> its adherents wore clothes and others went naked.
>
> "One commentator lucidly notes the change, “Their bodies were
> sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
> with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
> body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
> turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
> of the flesh.”1"
>
> That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of
> God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'.
> Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to
> reproduce.
>
> "Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
> as “very good” and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
> Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
> after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
> the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
> state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
> in one’s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
> blessing and provision of God."
>
> That's bullshit. See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe
> themselves, which the author has clearly missed.
>
> "The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
> by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
> potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
> for humans."
>
> This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue. Many Europeans both
> Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non
> seductive and non-provocative.
>
> "Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
> without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
> sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
> express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
> shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
> whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
> hardness of the heart from sin “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah
> 3:5)."
>
> Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others. There are
> as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are
> some unjust and dishonest types.
>
> "Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
> Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
> animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
> God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
> argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
> determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
> body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
> sex, and social or sexual nudity. The beliver’s body is not only
> sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
> of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
> wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
> Holy Spirit."
>
> There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this. He has overlooked 
> Isaiah
> 20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for
> three years to people other than his family. He has also overlooked the
> mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the 
> road
> when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
>
> "Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
> That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
> deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
> said, “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
> humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God’s way and
> elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
> fornication….."
>
> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me,
> hey? I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God
> with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
>
> "Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
> Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
> appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
> very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
> influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
> dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
> taboos."
>
> The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking
> advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner.
> Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.
>
> "Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
> they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
> God’s plan. “Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
> gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
> these goods from selfish to pious uses…early Christians conformed
> their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
> vain spirit.”2"
>
> The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of
> Augustine. Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot
> more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.
>
> "The Scriptures remind us, “For those who are according to the flesh
> set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
> according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit“(Romans 8:5).
> Therefore, we are commanded, “Set your mind on the things above, not
> on the things that are on earth“(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
> in light of the warning “Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
> appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
> earthly things“(Philippians 3:19)."
>
> Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather
> 'selfishness'.
>
> "Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
> who promote public nudity as “innocent” or “social and not sexual”
> seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
> support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
> walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
> opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
> organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."
>
> Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position. This is just 
> as
> wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex
> orgies. We need some kind of middle ground here. Being naked with others
> CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not
> necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.
>
> "First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
> marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
> sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
> disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
> the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
> regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
> for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
> connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
> photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."
>
> Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'. Added to that, pornographers
> actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy
> clothing than ones who are merely naked. The reason: it is far more
> alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.
>
> "It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
> known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
> prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
> connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
> intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
> with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
> multilayer thick burlap."
>
> This is a strawman's argument. Women are just as visual, maybe even more
> so, than men by what attracts them to men. There are strip shows for
> females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men 
> plastered
> on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you
> can find. I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
> sexy any more than nakedness.
>
> "Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
> intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
> man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
> basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
> reign supreme with no shame."
>
> What rot! Jesus never taught this. This self made fascist authoritarian is
> making up his own rules.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
>
> Home: (07) 3267-0099
> Mobile: (0437) 428-859
>
> Web Page:http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------

Dario....why do you and other nudist become so filled with contempt
when a person reads his Bible and naturally forms an opinion and yet
you call him a fascist.....am i a fascist because i read the Bible and
conclude killing of other humans.is wrong and sinful...i notice you do
not attempt to explain your thoughts on how you feel about the
scriptures...why is that....it does seem that folks agree with this
preacher but hate him because he said it....wow....jz