|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 11:44:19 AM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
quote:
Isn't it simply possible that they desire to reside in a more natural, and frankly, in many respects, more modest, environment where the pretensions and titilations of clothing don't interfere with their activities and relationships?
No.
WHo died and made you omniscient?
quote:
quote:
You seem to assume their one and only focus is "a fascination with the naked human body", in fact one that exceeds their "fascination...with the character of God"*. How can you be so sure that is always, or even predominantly, the case?
Years of interviewing and spending time with people and discussing the recesses of the mind. As Solomon say in Eccliastes, there is nothing new under the sun. It seems that we (people) have this propensity to play with the verbiage of things until we come up with a definition we like that makes sin seem like it is no lonbger sin.
Prove that naturism is sin. Play with the verbiage all you like.
quote:
quote:
So the real question is not whether a group environment where nakedness is acceptable is right or wrong (it could be either), but whether an unyielding, unwarranted, uninformed, unsubstantiated, unscriptural, and ungracious view of that environment is right or wrong.
Hmm????
*unyielding because the POV refuses to accept that anyone might act and think different from you
*unwarranted because naturists pose no threat to you
*uninformed because no research has been done by you with actual Christian naturists to understand who they are and what their motivations are.
*unsubstantiated because you have provided no evidence that naturists actually are motivated by what you claim they are or think in the way you claim they do.
*unscriptural because still no one has provided any biblical justification to their objections to naturism (how conveniently the scriptural challenge gets avoided in the rhetoric here)
*ungracious because of the very pharisiacal legalism being employed to condemn naturists
Does that clear it up?
quote:
quote:
*Naturists would in fact argue the exact opposite. They would tell you they have a nearly complete lack of fascination with the naked human body in its general state.
So they say. But, what drew them to it intially? Seems that continued exposure would necissitate the control of bodliy functions and non verbal expressions. But, the initial attraction and the heart that led a person down that path does not change. Yet another who claims to know the heart of every man.
quote:
As we get older and our libido decreases, the private thoughts so not change. While they may decrease in frequency, they don't go away. I have yet to be convinced that there is truly any person who has no erotic thought life that involves someone other than their spouse. But that isn't the point. You would have a case if you could prove that being in a naturist setting increases those lustful thought, but you have no proof of that at all, at least for anyone other than yourself. Just because YOU would have an increase in lustful thoughts by being exposed to naked people other than your spouse doesn't mean everyone does. Again, the naturist would claim that the deemphasis of the sexual nature of the naked human body in non-sexualized social settings actually provides less temptation than you find in the average Sunday church service. They find they actually struggle more with lust amongst people wearing cloths designed specifically to bring about sexual reactions and acting in overtly sexual ways than they do in the relatively benign naturist environment. I find this makes perfect sense.
quote:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but we call it a dog, it's still a duck. What is "it"?
quote:
quote:
**What I am getting at here is that the bible contains neither a general condemnation of nudity, a negative stereotype about people who go naked, nor any correction regarding public and semi-private environments where nakedness exists as a cultural reality.
Then why the discussion? Why all the hype? Seems that some people have such a strong interest in an activity that their ultimate goal is to recruit others to join. How does this glorify Christ?
Who has made even one attempt to recruit anyone into that lifestyle? The discussion can end in an instant if you can produce such scriptural prohibitions as I have outlined above.
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/8/2008 11:50:43 AM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 11:48:32 AM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
You see, Adam and Eve WERE ashamed after the Fall, in a way that their nakedness didn't make then ashamed before the Fall. We do have to live with that.
Study the Hebrew. The word for naked in Genesis 2 is a different word than the one in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve were not ashamed because of the simple state of being naked (how silly), but because of their eyes being opened which exposed them to evil, sexual and otherwise. Their shame was because of sin in toto, not because their little bottoms were exposed.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 11:50:08 AM
|
|
|
faroukfarouk
Posts: 275
Joined: 4/16/2008
Status: offline
|
I am not going to convince you; but what you say is not the widespread and accepted interpretation of what nakedness is.
_____________________________
Trust the Bible.
Trust the Lord.
Don't trust the appearance of things.
(Some tattoo designs look nice, though...)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 11:54:01 AM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
I think it's good and important to be modest.
The naturist would agree. But, they would challenge you to prove that clothing makes one inherently modest, or that a lack of clothing inherently makes one immodest.
quote:
I think also that it's good to assume that other Christians are making a reasonable attempt to be modest and that if they draw the line in a slightly different place from others we don't need to pay too much attention, assuming they are not trying to attract attention.
That is the gracious approach. The remaining question is if you can continue to apply this attitude all the way to the naturist setting where the participants would assure you that they are making not only reasonable but extraordinary attempts to be modest.
quote:
In a church I was in, a number of the conservative and serious minded women would sometimes happen to wear tops that were somewhat ... open at the neck, but I guess the best thing is not to pay a lot of attention.
Yes. Can you accept that what you were exposed to in that church setting was actually more immodest and more tempting to a naturist (because it is patently sexualized) than the non-sexualized exposure they have to the others in their community? If so, you will begin to understand where they are coming from.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 11:56:04 AM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
I am not going to convince you; but what you say is not the widespread and accepted interpretation of what nakedness is.
Do you mean the "nakedness" in Genesis 3. I disagree. I challenge you to provide one biblical commentary that claims their shame was soley because of their condition of being unclothed. At any rate, I need not "convince" you that the words in the two chapters are different words. That is a linguistic fact.
I again provide the very conservative Matthew Henry commentary as evidence:
quote:
where observe, (1.) The strong convictions they fell under, in their own bosoms: The eyes of them both were opened. It is not meant of the eyes of the body; these were open before, as appears by this, that the sin came in at them. Jonathan’s eyes were enlightened by eating forbidden fruit (1 Sa. 14:27), that is, he was refreshed and revived by it; but theirs were not so. Nor is it meant of any advances made hereby in true knowledge; but the eyes of their consciences were opened, their hearts smote them for what they had done. Now, when it was too late, they saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they had fallen from, and the misery they had fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favour forfeited, his likeness and image lost, dominion over the creatures gone. They saw their natures corrupted and depraved, and felt a disorder in their own spirits of which they had never before been conscious. They saw a law in their members warring against the law of their minds, and captivating them both to sin and wrath. They saw, as Balaam, when his eyes were opened (Num. 22:31), the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand; and perhaps they saw the serpent that had abused them insulting over them. The text tells us that they saw that they were naked, that is, [1.] That they were stripped, deprived of all the honours and joys of their paradise-state, and exposed to all the miseries that might justly be expected from an angry God. They were disarmed; their defence had departed from them. [2.] That they were shamed, for ever shamed, before God and angels. They saw themselves disrobed of all their ornaments and ensigns of honour, degraded from their dignity and disgraced in the highest degree, laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven, and earth, and their own consciences.
And Adam Clarke's commentary
quote:
1. Their eyes were opened, and they saw they were naked. They saw what they never saw before, that they were stripped of their excellence; that they had lost their innocence; and that they had fallen into a state of indigence and danger. 2. Though their eyes were opened to see their nakedness, yet their mind was clouded, and their judgment confused. They seem to have lost all just notions of honour and dishonour, of what was shameful and what was praise-worthy. It was dishonourable and shameful to break the commandment of God; but it was neither to go naked, when clothing was not necessary.
BibleGateway.com comentary
quote:
When too late, Adam and Eve saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they fell from, and the misery they were fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favour forfeited. See her what dishonour and trouble sin is; it makes mischief wherever it gets in, and destroys all comfort. Sooner or later it will bring shame; either the shame of true repentance, which ends in glory, or that shame and everlasting contempt, to which the wicked shall rise at the great day.
John Wesley
quote:
Shame and fear seized the criminals, these came into the world along with sin, and still attend it. The Eyes of them both were opened - The eyes of their consciences; their hearts smote them for what they had done Now, when it was too late, they saw the happiness they were fallen from, and the misery they were fallen into. They saw God provoked, his favour forfeited, his image lost; they felt a disorder in their own spirits, which they had never before been conscious of; they saw a law in their members warring against the law of their minds, and captivating them both to sin and wrath; they saw that they were naked, that is, that they were stripped, deprived of all the honours and joys of their paradise state, and exposed to all the miseries that might justly be expected from an angry God; laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven and earth, and their own consciences.
I could go on and on. Biblical scholars are completely in agreement on this point. Their shame had nothing to do with their actual physical state of having no clothes on.
People may find this analysis interesting:
THE THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY IN THE BEGINNING: GENESIS 3
From that source - "The idea that a consciousness of sex came only after the Fall seems to be largely based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of Gen 3:7 and its relationship to Gen 2:25. It has been argued that since, according to Gen 3:7, Adam and Eve knew that they were naked only after the Fall, then Gen 2:25 must mean that they were not aware of their nakedness (or sexuality) in the beginning. But this line of argument fails to recognize that Gen 2 and 3 utilize two different Hebrew words for 'naked.'"
And more - "Adam's nakedness described here (Gen 3:10) is also obviously more than physical nudity, for Adam depicts himself as still naked even though already covered with fig leaves. The nakedness of Gen 3 seems also to include a sense of 'being unmasked' a conscious-ness of guilt, a nakedness of soul."
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/8/2008 12:46:05 PM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:03:03 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
I really would hesitate to call those ladies immodest.
Some ppl have shall we say more natural endowments than others, and the neck will kind of demonstrate it sometimes.
But anyhow.
How do you define "immodest"?
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:07:31 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
I really would hesitate to call those ladies immodest.
Some ppl have shall we say more natural endowments than others, and the neck will kind of demonstrate it sometimes.
But anyhow.
How do you define "immodest"?
In this context, I do not believe they were setting out to be so.
Hope that helps.
I'm looking for an actual definition. I could provide one, but I want to know what you think constitutes immodesty.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:16:35 PM
|
|
|
DenimDiva
Posts: 2987
Joined: 9/28/2007
From: Concord, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
I'm looking for an actual definition. I could provide one, but I want to know what you think constitutes immodesty.
I'd like to hear your definition.
_____________________________
Roberta
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:22:59 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
I'm looking for an actual definition. I could provide one, but I want to know what you think constitutes immodesty.
I'd like to hear your definition.
Immodest, generically, is the state of drawing attention to oneself. The real question is if ignorance to the offense nullifies the offense. I would say, no it doesn't, at least not in a practical sense. If a woman who is well endowed wears a low cut dress, she is undoubtably going to draw attention to herself, whether she intends to or not. In my mind, she is therefore immodest, whether or not that was her intent.
farouk would place great weight on those intentions. I'm ok with that. I just wanted clarification.
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/8/2008 12:29:00 PM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:27:16 PM
|
|
|
DenimDiva
Posts: 2987
Joined: 9/28/2007
From: Concord, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
I'm looking for an actual definition. I could provide one, but I want to know what you think constitutes immodesty.
I'd like to hear your definition.
Immodest, generically, is the state of drawing attention to oneself. The real question is if ignorance to the offense nullifies the offense. I would say, no it doesn't, at least not in a practical sense. If a woman who is well endowed wears a low cut dress, she is undoubtedly going to draw attention to herself, whether she intends to or not. In my mind, she is therefore immodest, whether or not that was her intent.
farouk would place great weight on those intentions. I'm ok with that. I just wanted clarification.
If that is the case, then a woman who is not "well-endowed" wearing a high cut blouse can be immodest? Or maybe women who are not "well-endowed" are never immodest?
_____________________________
Roberta
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:27:26 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
It also would depend on just HOW low cut it was, as well, I guess.
Well, in your example it was low cut enough that you personally have to forcefully avoid looking at her cleavage for fear of lusting.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:45:02 PM
|
|
|
SonClad
Posts: 37
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
On the one hand, you dismiss the sexual aspect of a nude body. On the other hand, you seem to think that a man can look upon his wife's naked form and desire her like lust is some kind of switch you can just turn off and on at will and with no temptation. You can't have it both ways.
Nor is he attempting to. He is not dismissing the sexual aspects of the nude body at all. He is saying that naturists are able to put those sexual aspects in their proper place. The simple truth is that a person can desensitize themself to the sexualized aspects of the human body in given contexts. If they couldn't none of us would dare go to the doctor ever. The true error here is in the over sexualization and obssession with the sexualization of the human body by those opposed to naturism. You people who can't possibly see how anyone could be in a non-sexual social setting with others who happen to be naked are blind to that possibility only because you yourselves couldn't handle that situation. But you are not everyman. Just because you can't handle it doesn't mean someone else can't.
Thanks genwall - that's precisely what I've been saying. There are certain situations where nudity IS modest and chaste. There are some that just can't conceive of it and insist that there must be some sexual element involved, but I speak from experience and know it is possible to dissassociate sexuality from nudity in a social setting - just like one would at the doctor.
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
And again, we live in a fallen world where things that God designed for good have been warped and twisted by sin. Whether you like it or not, that fact changes things. Sex and desire is one of those things. If you claim that you are free from this temptation and free from this fallen state, you sir, are sadly mistaken.
I'd like to address this point phosadaud. We do indeed live in a fallen world - we are in agreement there. As Christians, we are called to be a light to the world - to reflect God's glory in all things. Let's step back and take a closer look at a couple of key passages in Genesis regarding the fall:
quote:
Gen 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
Note: Adam and Eve acquired something (knowledge of good and evil) through their disobedient act. As a result, they attempted to hide themselves. Q: What is the essence of their nakedness - is it first and foremost that of physical nakedness or something else (spiritual)? The answer can be ascertained from further reading...
quote:
Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" Gen 3:10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself." Gen 3:11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?"
Note a few things:
1) "Adam and his wife hid themselves" even though they had covered their bodies. Again we read "...and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." Q: Why are they hiding from God if their nakedness is covered? Q2: Why are they hiding their bodies from one another if they are the only two people on the planet and they are married? The answers are telling... there is more to their "nakedness" then mere physical nudity.
2) Why does the LORD God ask: "Who told you that you were naked?" Surely God knows what has happened since He is omniscient. And why would God use the words "Who told you..."? I do not believe God is asking to acquire knowledge, but is asking the question for the man and woman's benefit, but the key is "Who". Who is this "who"? Again, the answer is eye-opening to this topic.
3) Adam and Eve disobeyed. We know this to be a wrong action on their part. Adam and Eve then tried to hide from God. We also know this is futile and prevents us from being reconciled to God when we've sinned. Adam and Eve covered their bodies as part of their attempt to hide. Why should we then adopt their action of covering out of shame of our bodies any more than we'd adopt their actions of disobeying or hiding our sins (not to mention they also passed the blame)? Why treat this particular response on their part any different than the others that we know to be wrong? Go back to the "who" in v. 11 and you'll see why this is not a wise action to imitate (at least for the reasons of being ashamed). We are new creations in God; forgiven and we no longer have anything to be ashamed about if we are in harmony with God's will.
Yes, we live in a fallen world - let's not cling to it or adopt it's way of thinking with respect to nudity or sexuality or anything else. The nude body was not intended to be shameful as can be seen in the above passages. It is a gift (as is sexuality, but they are not synonomous). Let us not make the mistake of seeing the body in a worldly manner and buy the snake oil. We are to be in the world, but not of the world. Christ's work on the cross was complete.
< Message edited by SonClad -- 5/8/2008 2:04:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:50:35 PM
|
|
|
SonClad
Posts: 37
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
I'm looking for an actual definition. I could provide one, but I want to know what you think constitutes immodesty.
I'd like to hear your definition.
I'll pipe in here with a comment - one's sense of propriety is quite different than chastity; don't confuse the two. What is considered perfectly acceptable attire in one part of the world might violate another's sense of propriety elsewhere, but we are called to be chaste regardless. Modesty then reflects one's chastity and not necessarily one's idea of propriety. In other words, someone can be perfectly chaste (modest) while being completely nude, or completely unchaste (immodest) while being completely clothed.
< Message edited by SonClad -- 5/8/2008 2:08:21 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:53:27 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonClad
Thanks genwall - that's precisely what I've been saying. There are certain situations where nudity IS modest and chaste. There are some that just can't conceive of it and insist that there must be some sexual element involved, but I speak from experience and know it is possible to dissassociate sexuality from nudity in a social setting - just like one would at the doctor.
What naturists I have talked to have said is that they respond to sexuality via the function of the human body, not the form; that their spouses are "sexy" to them because they act sexy in intimate settings, not because of the simple existence of their actual physical bits and pieces. Since others in the community are not "functioning" sexually in group settings, they are not perceived sexually. One's spouse "brings" sexuality into the marriage by actions, not simply because of the physical fact they have certain parts. Would you concur with this perspective?
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/8/2008 12:59:56 PM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 12:58:29 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonClad
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
I'm looking for an actual definition. I could provide one, but I want to know what you think constitutes immodesty.
I'd like to hear your definition.
I'll pipe in here with a comment - one's sense of propriety is quite different than chastity; don't confuse the two. What is considered perfectly acceptable attire in one part of the world might violate another's sense of propriety elsewhere, but we are called to be chaste regardless. Modesty then reflects one's chastity and not necessarily one's idea of propriety. In other words, someone can be perfectly chaste (modest) while being completely nude, or completely unchast (immodest) while being completely clothed.
Excellent point. Even in biblical times, there was "a time and a season" for everything, including public or semi-private nakedness. Work was often done naked or at least topless. Baptism was performed naked. Prophesying often was done naked. Bathing was public and, obviously, done naked. The list is quite extensive. People in these situations were perfectly modest for the situation, even though they were naked.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 1:12:31 PM
|
|
|
SonClad
Posts: 37
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NewYork74
The people here that argue for nudity, I dont see why you want to be nude so bad? Sunlight is bad for your privates anyway. Anyone who wants to be nude in public, something is wrong with them. And can you guarantee me that everyone at the nude resort will be absolutely pure of lusting thoughts, including me? Why do you tempt people to be nude with each other? I didnt read one post where someone said "I like to be nude with people" Are you ashamed to say it? You should at least state clearly where you stand, before you make your arguments.
Actually, sunlight has been shown to be beneficial as it is a primary source of Vitamin D and air/sunlight is quite beneficial "for your privates" as well.
Q for you: Can you guarantee that everyone at _________ (fill in the blank with whatever social setting you find yourself) will be absolutely pure of lustful thoughts? You see, lust (a sin) originates from the heart and our clothing does not prevent it. I am not tempting anyone to sin - God forbid! If being nude in the presence of others would violate your conscience, by all means you should refrain. On the same token, unless you can clearly show where the Bible prohibits enjoyment of being nude in a non-sexual social setting, then perhaps you should refrain from telling others there's "something wrong with them." I would like people to stop adopting a worldly view of God's wonderful gift of the body and I am not ashamed to say I enjoy being nude with others who have a healthy outlook toward the body. Artificial barriers and social constructs are removed; people are then on equal footing and we can get to know them for who they truly are. I enjoy sharing Jesus with others in a naturist setting also, which requires spending time with them in the setting they enjoy - a setting that many Christians would not venture into.
< Message edited by SonClad -- 5/8/2008 3:04:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 1:45:48 PM
|
|
|
SonClad
Posts: 37
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
|
Something to think about in light of the "Who" in Gen 3:11...
There is one thing that we as humans have that Satan does not - a physical body. Furthermore, being "in the image of God", we have the ability to procreate eternal beings, which Satan cannot do. I find it interesting that our physical nudity became the one thing that Satan targeted for his shameful lies that so many buy into today. He twists and distorts everything that God declared to be good (inclusive was our initial state of being nude in the Garden of Eden). Satan tells us we should be ashamed of being in God's image; of our nude bodies. Who are you going to believe - Satan or God? Satan is the only logical identity for the "Who" that God is inquiring about in Gen 3:11; the one that spreads lies.
The world pushes porn by confusing nudity with sexual temptation. Many in the body of Christ also buy into it unfortunately - the idea that nudity is inherently shameful; and that such shame is actually 'good'. NO! This is not only unhealthy and unbiblical, but is hurting the Church and making it ineffective in dealing with the core problem. The inability to distinguish between chastity and propriety, between nudity and sexuality only makes the problem worse. Christians and non-Christians alike fall prey to this lie: that nude is lewd -regardless of the circumstances, but this premise does not reflect God's view. If it were true, then every baby born is being lewd, every time we visit the doctor we are being lewd, every time we get into the shower... etc.
Wake up people! - we are called to be a light and stand out in the world and have a different attitude about the things of God (including nudity).
< Message edited by SonClad -- 5/8/2008 3:01:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 3:28:47 PM
|
|
|
NewYork74
Posts: 26
Joined: 3/5/2008
Status: offline
|
Yes Im saying that the less clothing females wear around me it makes it easier for me to fall into lust. I did know some nudists, and they were creepy and perverted, not exactly your run of the mill righteous folks.
If you want to see a definition of someone being imodest, go look at a Britney Spears video.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 3:41:04 PM
|
|
|
NewYork74
Posts: 26
Joined: 3/5/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk
quote:
ORIGINAL: NewYork74
Yes Im saying that the less clothing females wear around me it makes it easier for me to fall into lust. I did know some nudists, and they were creepy and perverted, not exactly your run of the mill righteous folks.
If you want to see a definition of someone being imodest, go look at a Britney Spears video.
I think it's the habitual proximity of bosses to their secretaries and the possible, current state of their marriages, rather than the length of their secretaries' skirts or the height of their heels, that are often the cause of trouble. (At the same time, Christian secretaries need to dress within reason, and not go out of their way to be 'alluring'.)
Right, there is a certain threshold that people cross. It can not be specifically defined, but if I had to, Id say I like the way people dressed in the 1950's. Im young so I wasnt there to see it, but I like anything I see on tv from that era.
There is a certain happy medium that I like, and that lies somewhere in between women wearing burkas and your average 19 year old today. Like I said 1950's. I loved how people dressed back then.
< Message edited by NewYork74 -- 5/8/2008 4:03:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 3:58:56 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NewYork74
Yes Im saying that the less clothing females wear around me it makes it easier for me to fall into lust. I did know some nudists, and they were creepy and perverted, not exactly your run of the mill righteous folks.
If you want to see a definition of someone being imodest, go look at a Britney Spears video.
I understand that, believe me, I do. The point in this thread is - do you presume that reaction by everyone or do you recognize that is you and others may be less reactive? Incidentally, naturists will point out that there is a distinct difference between them and "nudists". Nudists are generally more "swinger" types and are definately in it for sexual reasons. I agree, they are creepy and perverted.
Let's focus on your Britney Spears example for a moment. What makes that lust inducing? Is it the manner that she is dressed or is it what she is doing in those clothes with her body that is at the core of any lustful thoughts? Granted, if she were just standing there in what ever little she might be wearing, it may trigger a little reaction. But the majority of the sexual reaction to a Britney video comes from what she is doing with her body, wouldn't you agree?
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/8/2008 4:01:03 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
Right, there is a certain threshold that people cross. It can not be specifically defined, but if I had to, Id say I like the way people dressed in the 1950's. Im young so I wasnt there to see it, but I like anything I see on tv from that era.
There is a certain happy medium that I like, and that lies somewhere in between women wearing burkas and your average 19 year old today. Like I said 1950's. I loved how people dressed back then.
Actually, cleavage was pretty big in the fifties, as were tight fitting sweaters and shirts and halter tops. From the waist up, the fifties were not that different from today.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
