Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------