Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Neosapienis wrote:

>
> 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.

That is because animals have no knowledge of good and evil

> "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.

That is not relevant to the question of whether it is appropriate to
be naked in a mixed gender situation. It just says that husband and
wife should have sex and it is good for society when they have
children (although that was more important in earlier times than now
as there are now 5-6 billion people in the world).

> "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.

They did so after eating from the fruit of the knowledge of good and
evil. They had gained knowledge of the sexual implications that can
arise from nudity.

> "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.

I believe that. But I don't think everyone can be naked without being
seductive and non-provocative. Now it might be by choice or people who
study human behavior always debate how much is behavior is influenced
by people's genes.  Some people may just be genetically hardwired to
be more "horny" than others. It could be something in their background
that developed that tendency in them (the whole nature vs nurture
thing) or it could be a combination of both. Still as humans I like to
think we ultimately have free will over such matters. Even if a person
is "hard wired" for something or even if they are "conditioned" for
something it doesn't mean that they ultimately can't use their free
will to control their actions. At least I hope that's the case because
even if it wasn't we need to hold them accountable for the protection
of others.

> "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.

There needs to be more just and honest people involved with nudism.
Actually everyone needs to behave and think as saints, as angels, at
least while they are at the nudist venue.  Nudism depends as Wiccans
say in their creed "Perfect Love and Perfect Trust".

> "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.

Again, I ask, please look at WHY he was commanded to do that. When you
find out let me know and tell me why as it is really an example of
"bad nudity". There was a specific reason commanded to do so given a
specific situation that was going on.  Please tell me what it was.

But it does show that mixed gender public nudity doesn't rise to being
an actual "sin".

> He has also overlooked the
> mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the road
> when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.

All their clothes? Or just some of their garments.  I will have to
look that up.

> "Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.

I disagree with half of that. At least I disagree with the Bible
indicating that public nudity rises to the level of a "sin".

> 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 potentates 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).

Perhaps he overstated that. Yeah, I disagree that it always has to be
the case. But it isn't good of you to wish him death for making such
as statement as wrong as it may be.

> "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. "

That's the key part about those specifics. It would be interesting to
see what Hebrew words were actually used. The passages there were
obviously about sex and not simple nudity.

>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."

Agree there, but that statement has to do with people who are scantly
clad and wear provocative clothes instead of about social nudity as
practiced (or should say claimed to be practiced) by nudists.


> 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.

True.


> Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.

I have heard somewhere (I need to find the quote) that Jewish culture
found "Seeing naked People" as worse than being naked yourself.

> "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.

He didn't speak against nudism because nudism didn't exist in his
culture. Now you are right nudity was more prevalent in his culture
but it seems that was for the most part single gender nudity and
perhaps young children.

> "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'.

Flesh has to do with the body, which means don't set ones mind on
physical pleasures like eating and having sex and stuff like that. Not
saying one shouldn't eat or have sex. Just saying that shouldn't be
the focus of their mind.  It is kind of like saying don't focus on
"earthly treasures".

> "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."

That's the nudist line and I believe there is a great percentage of
people who participate in nude recreation that can do that. But the
problem is with those who are unwilling or unable to do that.

> 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.

We aren't talking about only full on sexual activity. We are talking
about anything that sexualized the environment including dirty talk.
There can be no middle ground for nudism to work.

> "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.

Yeah, I don't totally agree with him on that statement. Although
regarding your statement it is all about how one defines sex, isn't
it?  If sex is only the insertion of a male penis into a woman's
vagina, then he is right, that can only be done with at least both
people's bottom clothing down. But commonly when we define sex we
include more activities than that, as we should. That is why when you
say that as long as there is no "full on sexual activity" at a nudist
venue then it's okay. Any activity that sexifies the environment
including dirty talk, feeling of breasts, etc is inappropriate at a
nudist venue.

> "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."

That is kind of a lame example. After all it is the mystery that makes
it exciting in a sexual sense. It is in the "unwrapping of the
present".  What would make more since in this example would be for
when a couple first meet they should wear a multilayer thick burlap,
because then there would be more to unwrap as they become more
intimate.

> This is a strawman's argument.  Women are just as visual, maybe even more
> so, than men by what attracts them to men.

Actually I think studies show that men are more visual when it comes
to sex.

>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.

Well first one could say that this is an attempt for females to be
more "male" in their sexuality. Kind of a feminist reaction saying if
males can do it we can too. But also I didn't say that women aren't
visual at all when it comes to sex, just that men are far more so.

> I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
> sexy any more than nakedness.

His point was that if there were no connection between nudity and sex
then people would find it more sexy to take on clothes than to take
them off, but since they find it more sexy to take off clothes than to
put them on that proves there's a connection between sex and nudity.
I find it a faulty argument but that is the one he was making.

> "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.

I didn't see Jesus teaching one way or the other on public nudity.