Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.nude > #45197

Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Anna wrote:

> 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

You will find more from me down at the bottom
[oops a covered bottom I should add]

>
>
> > "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.

Not surprising, the man being simply a myth an all . . . . . .

Jesus -

CURTAIN RISES

[Menam, a Priest, is talking with his buddies in the temple].

ÒBrothers the flock are restless and I'm tired of them asking me 'Where is that
god you want us to pray to', they keep insisting on seeing him"

Rastus, [another priest]:

"I have the same problem, it's getting me down, they keep saying 'Produce him'.
You know the Vishnus down the road have a wooden god in a hut and more and more
people are going there to pray these daysÓ

Influx [The Senior Priest]:

"Listen, let's invite that preacher fella Jesus to join us, he is popular and he
preaches well. We'll tell 'em he is god's sonÓ.

Rastus. [Laughing]

ÒDon't be silly, how can we say that, he's just a preacher, gods don't send their
sons down to earth.  How do we say he got here?Ó

Influx. [Thinks]

ÒWell we can tell them 'e was borne of a virgin. [Scratches head] I'm sure we can
find a virgin somewhere, if we look hard enough.

Rastus.

That won't be any use, when 'e dies we'll have to start all over again to find
another 'son of a god'. Anyway, they are not going to buy that yarn of yours a
second time around!

Influx. [Grins]

Aaah but listen. [Chuckles] When 'e dies we'll hide him away in a cave, steal the
body in the middle of the night and then, listen to this, your gonna love this,
[nudges Rastus in the ribs], then we'll tell them ÒHe floated slowly up into the
sky to heaven just above the clouds [raises arms and makes floating motions] and
he now sits up there with god - Fellas we'll have 'em in the palm of our hands
for eternity.

[All priests together]:

"Spontaneous cheeringÓ.


On a serious note, they forgot that 'He' was once a teenager and they omitted
those most important years from the cradle to age around twenty.  Not surprising
though, people didn't ask too many questions in those simple days !



Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)

Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content

Back to rec.nude | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> - 2026-06-14 08:46 +0000
  Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:02 +0000

csiph-web