Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

On Mar 3, 3:20=A0pm, FLTom <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:22=A0pm, Anna <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is what =A0a 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=92s 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, =93And the man and his wife were both naked and
> > were not ashamed.=93 Further, God declared all that He created to be
> > =93very good=94 (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
> > =93were 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: =93The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
> > wife, and clothed them.=93(Genesis 3:21)
>
> > One commentator lucidly notes the change, =93Their 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.=941
>
> > Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
> > as =93very good=94 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=92s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
> > blessing and provision of God.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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 =93=85the unjust knows no shame=94 (Zeph=
aniah
> > 3:5).
>
> > 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. =A0The beliver=92s 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.
>
> > 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, =93=85the unjust knows no shame=94 (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity=
 is
> > humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God=92s way and
> > elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
> > fornication=85..
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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=92s plan. =93Christians 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=85early Christians conformed
> > their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
> > vain spirit.=942
>
> > The Scriptures remind us, =93For 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=93(Romans 8:5).
> > Therefore, we are commanded, =93Set your mind on the things above, not
> > on the things that are on earth=93(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
> > in light of the warning =93Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
> > appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
> > earthly things=93(Philippians 3:19).
>
> > Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
> > who promote public nudity as =93innocent=94 or =93social and not sexual=
=94
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Ronnie W Rogers typifies a certain view associated with Protestant
> Fundamentalism, and drives away reasonable and thoughtful people in
> the process. Rogers rejects Darwinism when he thinks it helps his
> argument, and then himself employs a Darwinian fact (i.e., the visual
> emphasis in male sexuality) to strike what he thinks is the final blow
> against the position that "public nudism" may be moral. One sees this
> type of confusion more and more in public discourse, as Darwinian
> theory, more accurately referred to as theories of evolutionary
> biology and evolutionary psychology, overtake and replace inadequate
> and flawed theories of human behavior based on Biblical authority. It
> appears that even a fundamentalist preacher knows he can't win over a
> modern audience with arguments from Biblical authority alone.
>
> An early Catholic saint, St Anthony, preached in the desert for
> decades. He never wore a stitch of clothing. The body wasn't assigned
> its degraded status in Christian thought until the fifth century, when
> the formerly promiscuous and libidinous, and very brilliant, St
> Augustine decided to atone for his sins by inventing mind-body
> dualism, a philosophy that harshly rejects the flesh, especially the
> flesh below the waist. Most philosophers today agree that Augustine
> was wrong about the mind's independence of the body. His manichean
> error resulted largely from the fact that his understanding of biology
> was absurd. He can be forgiven, somewhat, since he lived in antiquity
> without access to modern science. Those living today have no such
> excuse.
>
> Augustine remains highly revered in the Catholic Church, which goes a
> long way to explaining why so many Catholics, and many other
> Christians who, knowingly or not, belong to ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

you seem to be confused about Christianity..most.all Christians
believe man and woman was created by intelligent design...and reject
human evolution from primates....so to say that the preacher uses
evolution periodicly to pitch his story is erroneous...if you are not
Christian why dont you tell us what you believe rather than try to
trash a person that eloquently tells us what he believes....are you
just a simple run of the mill hate freak....rec nude is full of
em.....jz