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

Groups > rec.nude > #45197 > unrolled thread

Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Back to article view | Back to rec.nude

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#45197 — Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#45854

"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message 
news:49AF666E.57E0539A@netvigator.com...


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

Shame they can't snip posts! :-)

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

Just look how anthropomorphic most of them are! Read the OT and it tells the 
story of an irascible old man (sorry - "god") who commits genocide on a huge 
scale, orders his "chosen people" to do likewise (always in the political 
interests of those "chosen people" of course). And who said they were his 
"chosen people"?, why the "chosen people" did! To quote Mandy Rice Davies, 
"well they would say that, wouldn't they?".

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | rec.nude

csiph-web