Re: Is it Befitting for a Christian to be a Nudist?

On Feb 5, 1:14=A0pm, "Bill S" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zee, =A0I'll admit, I stretcheth thy truth a tad when I say "hats and sho=
es",
> my reference Bible (New American Standard actually only says Lord God mad=
e
> garmets of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. =A0It says God s=
aid
C. S. Lewis wrote:

>
> > "The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body
> > should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what
> > words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while
> > the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the
> > rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing
> > hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes
> > might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the
> > standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by
> > their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste)."
>

[snip]


> > "When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and
> > place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others,
> > then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it
> > through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad
> > manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to
> > shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste,
> > but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take
> > pleasure in making other people uncomfortable. I do not think that a
> > very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or
> > any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and
> > simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a
> > good thing."
>

I'm not a Christian, but there isn't very much that I would disagree
with here--except for the insistence on "chastity".  Rather than
insist on "chastity", as usually defined, I would just insist that any
sexual activity that one engages in should be biologically,
emotionally, and relationally harmless and truly consensual. But
that's just me.

But back to what Lewis wrote. I agree with most of what he wrote; but
I think that he failed to mention one other possibility, which is that
one might sincerely feel that current rules of propriety are much too
restrictive, and should be revised and relaxed to accord more closely
with rules requiring only harmlessness and consensuality. Lewis wrote
that he "regard[s] the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule
which has taken place in [his] own lifetime as a good thing". I agree.
But this relaxation and simplification occurred only because some
people were willing to go beyond current rules and standards of
propriety.

Bert
Sacramento, CA, the Left Coast