|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 10:26:09 AM
|
|
|
DenimDiva
Posts: 6313
Joined: 9/28/2007
From: CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
i thinkw we should absolutely follow adam and eve's pre fall example:
they appeared naked only in their own home, and only in front of their spouse.
Good point!
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 12:22:02 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9808
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
Again, this is getting way too long, so I'm shortening the post
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
I think you missed Lewis' point that the standard of "modesty" is a man-made convention. Isn't that what he said? Isn't that what he meant? Do you agree or disagree?
He's not saying modesty is a man-made creation. He's saying what makes one modest is a man-made creation (in some cultures a woman's ankles are sexual, in other's their breasts, etc).
quote:
Hiding from God must be good, because Adam and Eve knew good and evil and chose the good.
Deflecting the blame when confronted with sin must be good. Adam and Eve knew good and chose it.
Covering their nakedness must be a good thing. Adam and Eve were, by this time so experienced with fighting the lies of the Enemy and overcoming the negative effects of the Fall, that they instantly knew that nakedness was evil so they covered themselves. Shame and covering has to be good.
Don't twist what I'm saying please. Please read it slowly:
When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they obtained the knowledge of good and evil. When they did, what's the first thing they observe? They are naked. They literally didn't notice this before because they did not have the knowledge. Now that they have the knowledge (and according to God are more like God because of it), they cover themselves. This is not a sin and God does not list it as a sin. To conclude that choosing to get dressed because they were now choosing evil is absurd.
quote:
It might be worth taking a look at that word "know" or "knew" in reference to their "knowing good and evil"... it's the same word that is later used when it says "Adam knew his wife and she conceived." It's about experiential knowledge, not content knowledge.
That makes zero sense. It doesn't say that they "experienced" being naked so they clothed themselves.
quote:
They did not receive some great depth of wisdom and discernment from that tree. Instead, they were defiled by its fruit. There is no other reasonable position! We cannot presume that any of their actions thereafter are to be models for our behavior. They were at that moment, unrepentant sinners in rebellion against God. They were NOT examples of righteousness.
First, I have never said they were examples of righteousness nor all their actions are models for our behavior. Duh! The Fall?!
And, from God's own mouth:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
quote:
quote:
God, not satan, then covered them.
Also read Genesis 3:21-24 where God clothed them. What does He say as He does this? "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Do I need to explain that? That quote has to do with why He kicked them out of Eden. It has nothing to do with why He clothed them.
And exactly what does the Bible say about why He clothed them? I've looked. It says nothing. It is never even referenced again in all of Scripture. Not even to comment on the "sacrifice of an animal for Adam's sin." Was there a sacrifice? We are not told. Yes, it was "skins" (presumably -- but not stated -- from an animal). We can guess (but are not told) that the animals died at the hands of God as a sacrifice. We can see a "type" of "blood that covers" here, but nowhere in Scripture is that referenced, proclaimed, or taught. Only men teach that. It may be true... and there's some beauty to the concept, but we really can't know for sure.
Aw, yes. The typical argument of nudists. I was waiting for it to show up. I'm sorry that apparently God has to spell stuff out for you to believe. He wasn't preparing for them to live outside of Eden. Why would He? He didn't prepare them in any other way - He was punishing them. Why protect them from thorns when He was punishing them with death and toil and pain and such. That makes absolutely zero sense. "I'm going to protect you from what I'm punishing you with". Hello?
The only explanation is that He clothed them because "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". That doesn't mean nakedness is evil, it just means that there is a time and a place - just like there is a time and a place for sex.
quote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I have not promoted nakedness here in anything I have posted. (can you find one instance in which I have?). I am only promoting "the middle ground." I believe that God does not forbid nakedness, therefore neither should we. Period. (The converse is true, too, of course... God does not forbid clothing, and neither should we.)
Funny, I thought I was promoting the middle ground. I have never said that nakedness is always bad - rather that there is a time and a place for it. For instance, sex is not bad. However, even sex with your spouse shouldn't be be done in the middle of a stadium with people watching. By your logic, that would be ok because Scripture does not specifically forbid it and sex is a beautiful thing that God created right?
Here is the middle:
Nakedness is always bad There is a time and place for nakedness Nakedness is not forbidden
quote:
God seemed to be "ok" with nakedness before the Fall of man... and He already knew "good and evil." God did not change, man did. If God was fine with nakedness before the fall, when and how did His perspective change? (can God change His perspective??) No, it was only MAN'S perspective on nakedness that changed. Not God's. Before the fall, Man's perspective matched God's. After the fall, their perspectives no longer matched (God doesn't change). Man was wrong.
I don't know where you got the idea that we've said God has a problem with our nakedness.
And man was not wrong to cover his nakedness - he was wrong to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
And God says, AFTER the fall that man now had become more like God - knowing the difference between good and evil. He never says man was wrong to see that he was naked and desired to cover himself.
quote:
If we read the passage with the clear understanding of the immutability of God, then we must find another understanding of "God clothed them" than "because their nakedness now offended him."
Answer this... why IS it a sin before God to be unclothed? Is it just around other people? Or can we pray and approach him even if we are unclothed? Is there anything about our bodies that offends the holiness of God?
Again, no one here has claimed that God is offended by our nakedness. I'm not sure where you are getting that from my or anyone else's posts.
quote:
quote:
quote:
All of these things existed in perfection before the Fall. All of them, we still to this day fight hard to overcome. There is only one impact of the fall which the world seems to tell us is beyond redemption...
Before the fall, there was no shame about their bodies. At the first sin, they suddenly had shame. But rather than fight that shame, we have embraced it as if it were God's will. This in spite of the fact that God was not pleased that Adam was concerned about his nakedness (Gen. 3;11 is a rebuke, not an affirmation.)
God asked Adam who told him he was naked because the only way Adam would have noticed that was that he had eaten what he wasn't supposed to. God was not upset by clothes. He was upset that Adam's shame meant he did what he wasn't supposed to do: eat of the fruit God told him not to. Your child takes a cookie from the jar right before dinner. You find him/her with the cookie in hand and you ask, "Who told you you could have a cookie?" Was that a statement of affirmation, or a rebuke?
Of course, you know the answer.
In like manner, God's question was a rebuke.
Adam sinned by eating. But his sin didn't stop there. Being ashamed of our bodies is sin. Covering our bodies is not sin. Covering them because of shame for our bodies IS sin... not because of the covering, but because of the shame.
Being ashamed of our bodies is sin? Chapter and verse please.
Also, God's question is not a rebuke for being ashamed and clothing oneself. Please reread what I wrote:
God was not upset by clothes. He was upset that Adam's shame meant he did what he wasn't supposed to do: eat of the fruit God told him not to.
God wasn't upset that Adam was suddenly ashamed of being naked in front of God and country. He was upset because the only REASON Adam was ashamed was because he had disobeyed God and eaten the fruit.
Let me put it this way: If I tell my daughter not to eat the cookies I just made then at dinnertime, she has an upset stomach and can't eat because she ate those cookies, I am not upset with her because she has an upset stomach and can't eat. I am upset with her because that was the result of her doing what I told her not to do.
quote:
quote:
I never said nakedness can only be considered a sexual expression. I used to be a CNA. I've seen more naked bodies than most nudists. Don't twist what I'm saying. Great. Then you should really know the truth of what I'm trying to say! There was no disgrace nor dishonor for you to see people's naked bodies. It is nothing more than a significant part of who they are! It's not all about sex. They were NOT in sin to allow you to see their bodies, and you were not in sin to see them. They did not disrespect you by being uncovered, nor did you disrespect them for having seen them. That is what is true and right.
No, I'm not saying what your saying. I'm saying there is a time and a place. When I was caring for folks in healthcare, there was a reason for the nakedness. They weren't walking around nude for all the world to see. I have never said that nakedness is always sexual, nor have I said that nakedness is sin. I have said that there is a time and a place and outside of that time and place, nakedness is not appropriate.
quote:
That is my whole point!!
quote:
quote:
The unclothed human body bears the literal visual likeness of God. I don't know how that works, but that's exactly what God's Word says. "Image" in Scripture never means anything different.
The most notable and significant observation that can be made about a naked human body is that it is a self-portrait of God. Therefore, to consider it lewd, indecent, lustful, sexual (only), or immodest is actually an insult to God Himself. And that is exactly the perspective that Satan has carefully cultivated in our culture... and in our churches.
Wow. You think God is a physical man sitting up on a physical throne? Sorry, but you are wrong. God is not a physical being. Image is not referring to a physical image. That's another thread though. You have to think outside your box here. Read what I wrote very carefully... I never once even hinted that God was in any way physical. He's a Spirit. We know that.
But we are pretty clueless about the true nature of the spirit realm. Do we know that spirits have no shape? Of course we don't know that.
But what exactly is meant in Exo. 12:8... "With him [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds he form of the LORD."? What did Moses "behold"? It was God, no doubt, but He obviously had some "form" that could be seen. (The same word is used in the OT to describe the physical beauty of Rachel and Joseph).
If I made a clay model of a candle in flame, you would recognize it immediately, even though the substance of the clay is utterly different from the substance of a flame. Therefore, to say that Man bears God's "image" is not saying anything about the essence of God Himself... just His shape.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the Scripture right there in Gen. 3:8 where it clearly states "They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,..." God was walking. How can that be? The Scriptures clearly indicate that God was walking... that requires legs of some sort... even if they are non-corporeal spiritual "legs". They were evidently physical-like enough to make noise while He walked. I can't explain it. But I can't deny it, either.
You cannot simply dismiss "image" based upon the truth that "God is not a physical being."
And once again, I assert that the word here translated "image" is not used in Scripture EVER where it does not reference visible likeness. Do not dismiss that without proving it to be wrong.
OK, first you say that God is Spirit, then you proceed to go on and on about how God has form and our being made in God's image can ONLY be interpreted as being made in the same physical form.
Read John 1. God became man when He came to earth as Jesus. Jesus was with God from the beginning but was not man. He became man.
And again, it is poor translation to say that a word must mean "x" because in other places in Scripture that have nothing to do with the verse in question and are discussing entirely different facts, it means "x". Or do you think that Mary wasn't really a virgin because no where else in Scripture is there a virgin birth? Or that Jesus didn't really die on the cross and rise again because no where else in Scripture does that happen? Or what about the term sheep? God calls us His sheep. Does that mean we are woolly, 4 legged creatures?
quote:
quote:
And even if it were true, what God speaks when He clothed Adam would contradict your little image of God sitting up on His throne buck naked. (I have not spoken disparagingly towards our God. I would appreciate you not trying to put such disrespectful words in my mouth...)
So now nakedness is disrespectful?
quote:
What did God "speak" when He clothed them? I see no spoken Words of God... there is even no inspired commentary on the event. Nothing. Just a single 15 word sentence reporting a factual historical event. No command. No explanation. No comment.
Genesis 3:22
quote:
God did not intend for there to be any comment on the event. He did not intend for us to presume a "command" to be covered at all times. Commands are spoken. Commands are given. There is nothing of the sort here.
I never said God commanded us to be covered at all time. That would make certain things rather difficult don't you think?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Satan wants us to be ashamed of our bodies. It started with Adam and Even and it continues to this day.
Where does Scripture make that assertion?
I conclude that from the clear implication that it was Satan that told Adam and Eve that they were naked. I conclude that because the very next thing God tells us after he declares Adam and Eve to be "naked and unashamed" was that Satan showed up and started telling his lies. Next thing you know, Adam and Eve are ashamed of their naked bodies.
No, it's not stated straight up, but that's why I conclude it.
So you can conclude things in Scripture that aren't spelled out in stone, but no one else can?
And by the way: Scripture says that when they ate of the fruit, they realized they were naked and were ashamed. It DOES not say someone told them.
quote:
Tell me this... I have yet to hear ANYBODY give me even a remotely plausible answer to this question...
Being in God's "image" and "likeness" are about much more than our physical form. But if we reject the physical aspect of image-bearing, in what way are we in God's image any more than the angels?
I submit to you that if you take away the physical aspect, there is NOTHING that makes us more in God's image than the angels. Every God-like characteristic that we have, they also have.
Therefore, I suggest that it was the motivation of jealousy in Satan's heart that prompted him to urge shame in the heart of Adam over the one thing that Adam had which Satan did not have... a body literally in God's image.
Who says that angels are not made in God's image? They are separate creations to be sure, but where does Scripture say that they aren't made in God's image?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
(1) kosmeo: to put in order, arrange, make ready, prepare
to ornament, adorn
The root word means "order." ornament and adorn do not support that root word meaning and are associated in English with decorating something to make it more visually appealing. yet it's clear from Paul's instructions that the "decorating" is not what he is commanding. For this reason, I don't believe that the word "adorn" is a good translation of the Greek word. "order," "arrange," and "prepare" seem to capture the concept of "order" in the Greek word much better. And they do not contradict the context.
I listed the meanings of the "root word" from the Greek. You have chosen to reject the ones that don't fit your agenda. Poor exegesis sir. Check it again.
You will find that root word "kosmos" is always translated "world" in the NT... except where it is describing a woman's presentation of herself. (1 Peter 3:3) Therefore, to conclude that it has some meaning of "adornment" or "decoration" when it references a woman is not credible. We must seek to understand the word as having the closest possible meaning to its consistent usage elsewhere in the Bible. I fail to see how "adorn" does that better than "arrange." And like I said, "adorn" has ENGLISH connotations which were NOT part of the Greek, and which border on being in conflict with Paul's instructions in the rest of the verse. (in other words, "adorn" is contrary to the immediate context, the most important consideration in regards to a word's meaning)
No, we must seek to understand the word in it's context in a particular Scripture. One does not translate by doing a word inventory and picking a definition based on that. One translates by knowing the definitions of the term (of which adorn is one) and determining, via the context, which definition fits.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
(2) kosmioß: well arranged, seemly, modest "well arranged" seems to me to capture the meaning of the word's root meaning of "order" here.
The word "modest" has little or nothing to do with "order." In my opinion, "modest" only fits with describing the rejection of ostentatious attire. That is one of the meanings of the English word "modest"
And your false assumption in the first definition, leads you to a false conclusion here. How can a word that means "order" possibly mean "adequately covered"??
The root meaning ("order") has nothing to do even with avoiding dressing ostentatiously! In fact, it has nothing to do with dressing at all! That's a completely different Greek word. It is only the context which demonstrates that Paul was using the word to tell women to not overdress. But I submit that the essence of what Paul was trying to say is carried by 'katastole," not by "kosmios." That's the adjective. His point was in the noun.
And hence your problem: You are basing your definition for kosmioß on a poor conclusion for the definition of kosmeo.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
(3) katastole: a lowering, letting down
a garment let down, dress, attire Yes, that is the definition found in our reference materials, like Strong's and Vine's.
However, there are several observations worth making about this word.
1. This is the only place it appears in all of Scripture. Therefore, we cannot look to other passages to help us discern it's true meaning. We have to rely upon context, etymology, and extrabiblical sources.
Context is always the way to determine a word's meaning. Looking at other verses out of the context to determine a words meaning is poor translation. Here you are simply mistaken. Context is the key. But context comes in many forms, and all of them are important... but in descending priority:
1. immediate context (the words right around it).
2. Author's context (same author, same book).
3. Scriptural context (the rest of the testament and the rest of the entire Bible)
4. Linguistic context (the language that is used)
5. Historical/Cultural context (when and to whom it was written)
So we must consider how the word is used elsewhere. And we find that the word kosmios, for example, is also found in 1 Tim 3:2 where it is translated "respectable" That's not the same as "modest" at all... especially the kind of "cover my body so no one can lust after me" modesty.
The suggestion that "katastole" means a garment fails the first test of context above, because whatever it is, it must encompass both overdressing (the negative) and doing good works (the positive). So even from the most important contextual consideration, "clothing" (or "apparel") is questionable as a valid translation! We have nothing on it from #2 or #3 because it simply is nowhere else used in the Bible. We can mix #3 and #4 by considering Scriptural use of etymologically related words (just like you invoked with kosmos, kosmios, and kosmeo above), and from that sort of contextual analysis, we can find NO basis for thinking that katastole is a garment.
You need to understand what "context" is sir. Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with a word count and using a passage in Scripture that is discussing something completely different is not context.
quote:
quote:
By your logic here, I suppose attire, whose root word is "tire" means that my attire (clothing) has something to do with feeling worn out and exhausted. The words in your example are not etymologically related, so your example of comparison is nonsense.
But your deflection with a spurious example enabled you to avoid the direct question that I asked.
"How can a word that means "keep calm" in the verb form mean "attire" in the noun form?
Would you please address that question, or else demonstrate that my research is invalid?
Bear in mind that it is a linguistic fact that etymologically related words which are rarely used in common speech will always be more similar in meaning than etymologically related words which are used everyday. In this case, the two words that I compared were used a collective total of 3 times in all the NT. Their meaning must be related.
The root word for tire and attire is the same etymologically (look it up). However, that does not mean that tire and attire must have related meanings.
Let's look at the Hebrew word for honor:
Hadar: In every place in Scripture, this refers to "honor" or "showing partiality to". However, this root word also refers to "crooked places". Talk about a different definition!
The only place it is used in this manner is Isaiah 45:2 - I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
Now, according to your translation efforts this creates some problems.
First, this is the ONLY place in Scripture where Hadar is used in this manner. According to how you translate, that means that Hadar cannot be translated as "crooked places" - it must be translated as it is everywhere else in Scripture as "honor". See the problem?
quote:
If God really wanted us to stay covered all the time, then He would have said so directly. What I hear instead is the promotion of a man-made rule to be on level with God's Word. And that is sin. None of us are under ANY obligation to accept and live by any man made rule as if it were God's absolute law. Period. Even the one about nakedness. If God didn't say it, then it isn't His rule.
So, if God doesn't specifically spell it out, it isn't His rule and making a rule about it is a sin? So, what do you say about an example used earlier: a man and wife having sex in public?
quote:
quote:
quote:
The writer of Hebrews referenced the running of the race, too... and actually invoked the mental image of the runners casting "aside every encumbrance... which so easily entangles us" -- an obvious reference to their casting off their clothing to run unencumbered -- as an example to us that we cast off our sin so as not to be encumbered in running the race of service for Christ. Would he invoke such a mental picture if the activity was actually a sin to participate in or observe?
Nudity in sport was not common back then, so I seriously doubt that Paul was trying to get folks to imagination nude folks running down a race track there. In fact, even where it occurred, women & children were often banned from participating or spectating. Please do some honest research on this. Google "ancient Greece" "olympics" and see what you come up with. There is no credible dispute of any sort that they did not compete in the games naked. It's even captured in their artwork. They were naked. Everyone in ancient times knew it. The writer of Hebrews used it as an illustration to teach spiritual truth.
Some did - but it was not common. And note that the evidence for nudity in sport was from artists depictions. We need to be very cautious in how we interpret that. Was it commonplace? Was it even realistic simply an artistic convention (check out works of art to see that nudity is often used artistically when it would not have happened in real life)? Etc.
Nudity in sport
(I hate using wikipedia as a source, but I'm not going to spend 5 hours on this post and it gives a pretty decent history here)
And Paul was not writing to just Greeks. He used the race analogy to Greeks, to Romans, to Hebrews, etc. So, to assume that he was pointing to naked running is beyond a stretch.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Christianity is not about our freedom. Gal. 5:1 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."
It's not?
Context.  It's not talking about freedom to do what we want, when we want. It's freedom from the bondage of sin and the wages of sin. We are no longer slaves to sin.
I agree. But it's a tactical mistake to say something so dogmatically without giving the context when there is a verse in Scripture that so directly contradicts your declaration.
It doesn't contradict what I said. Read the context of what I wrote.
quote:
But beyond that, it is important to note that the context into which Paul wrote those words was to tell the Galatians to NOT submit to man-made rules about circumcision being required for salvation! It is also interesting to note that the "man-made" rule that Paul was talking about was a rule that God had genuinely established for the nation of Israel! So, in a sense, it was really a God-made rule that Paul still considered a man-made rule because they were trying to apply the rule in the wrong context!!! How much more should we reject man-made rules which are never declared by God to be His rule!
So should we resist and reject trying to end abortions because God never specifically commands us to not do that? Or do you recognize that maybe there is more to determining God's will than trying to see if there is a specific verse that specifically spells out what we are supposed to do and not do?
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 3:47:19 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wunderschon
I have wondered why quite a few things here on Crosswalk, a Christian forum, have been defended, rationalised, and justified by Christians-including some things that people who don't profess Christianity wouldn't defend. It's been either enlightening or disillusioning, I'm not completely sure which. Thank God my faith is in Him and not man.
One can use the Bible to defend just about anything, don't you think? I've met many Christians who defend getting high on pot and make their defense from scripture. What about the polygamist compound in Texas that has been making the news lately? They claim to be "Christians" as well.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 3:48:29 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Oh, and I forgot snake handling churches as well. (smile)
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 3:54:50 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kjvthumper
What do the scriptures say about such a thing?
Le 18:6 ¶ None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Ah yes, to which the nudist Christian will reply, "We don't live under the law. For freedom Christ has set us free." And after all, when one has been forgiven of their sins, are they not restored back to God and thus in a state of grace just as Adam and Eve were in the garden? They needed no fig leaves to cover them while they were living in harmony with God their Creator.
Like I said, the Bible can be used to support all sorts of things.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 4:27:26 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
i thinkw we should absolutely follow adam and eve's pre fall example:
they appeared naked only in their own home, and only in front of their spouse.
And where exactly in the Bible does God expressly establish that as the only norm for human culture?
Remember that it was into that very context that God "clothed them."
If God intended that "clothing" to be the guideline for us all, then we must conclude that it is no longer permitted with husband and wife, either.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 4:32:20 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Hey, Terry.Culp, if you're still out there. Do you also recommend smoking reefer with your brothers and sisters in Christ? After all, marijuana is part of God's creation. What bad thing can come from God's creation anyway?
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 4:35:29 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Ya know, I think I've found the answer for the quandary I've found myself in. I need to look for a nudist church. Looked in my phone book but none are listed. Yeah, I think worshipping naked with other naked people could be a most liberating experience.
Now, where do I find the First Assembly of Nudists?
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 4:45:44 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: qtman
Nudity in and of itself is not sinful. But it could and does lead to sinful behavior. It is temptation at the very least. Jesus Himself was tempted and how did he respond. "Get thee behind me satan". We are tempted enough in normal everyday life. We do not need to put ourselves deliberately in a position of temptation that can easily be avoided. Besides most of us just look better with our clothes on. 
Whiterose:Excellent.
Yeah, but what is what Gengwall has stated, there are some who are actually more tempted and aroused sexually by those wearing clothing?
Ah, what a predicament we find ourselves in. Should I wear clothing or be nude? For some folks, the answer is a given.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 4:51:22 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: wunderschon
I have wondered why quite a few things here on Crosswalk, a Christian forum, have been defended, rationalised, and justified by Christians-including some things that people who don't profess Christianity wouldn't defend. It's been either enlightening or disillusioning, I'm not completely sure which. Thank God my faith is in Him and not man.
One can use the Bible to defend just about anything, don't you think? I've met many Christians who defend getting high on pot and make their defense from scripture. What about the polygamist compound in Texas that has been making the news lately? They claim to be "Christians" as well.
Heavendweller
That is not true... unless you allow any sort of exegetical approach you want. I want my study to submit to the highest standards of exegesis that I know of.
If we don't agree on the exegetical principles, then we will never agree in our conclusion.
If we do agree on the exegetical principles, then by very nature of the process both parties agree upon, the conclusions reached will have a high degree of compatibility.
That's one of the reasons discussions like this tend to get nowhere. One party believes one thing about how to understand the Bible, and the other believes another way. They'll never agree.
Instead, we just argue, and nobody will ever budge, because they have not changed their fundamental approach to Scripture.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 4:52:39 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gengwall
Specifically, if the people here discreetly misbehave with each other and indulge approvingly in porn, this is not the type of family oriented Christian naturist resort I am familiar with. It sounds like a swingers club.
So there are actually Christian nudist resorts out there? Do they have a statement of faith and do they worship on Sunday? If so, do they worship in a building or in the woods or on the beach?
This thread is VERY interesting indeed.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 5:01:30 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1063
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
i thinkw we should absolutely follow adam and eve's pre fall example:
they appeared naked only in their own home, and only in front of their spouse.
And where exactly in the Bible does God expressly establish that as the only norm for human culture?
Remember that it was into that very context that God "clothed them."
If God intended that "clothing" to be the guideline for us all, then we must conclude that it is no longer permitted with husband and wife, either.
AID
at the time of adam and eve's sin they were told about the consequences. it included information about the generations to follow. their fall affected all of mankind. sin results in death. blood was shed to cover the nakedness.
the word nakedness in the bible is overwhelmingly is used to refer to shame, poverty and inappropriate behavior.
there is nothing in the bible that suggests clothing became no longer required beginning at some point.
we have the opportunity to be restored into right relationship with God but we are not now unfallen man. we are redeemed sinners. we did not regain our innocence as in we still know what adam and eve learned in the garden about good and evil. we are not sinnless, we are fogiven, pardoned. not the same thing.
our full restoration becomes complete in heaven.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 5:08:31 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: kjvthumper
What do the scriptures say about such a thing?
Le 18:6 ¶ None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Ah yes, to which the nudist Christian will reply, "We don't live under the law. For freedom Christ has set us free." And after all, when one has been forgiven of their sins, are they not restored back to God and thus in a state of grace just as Adam and Eve were in the garden? They needed no fig leaves to cover them while they were living in harmony with God their Creator.
Like I said, the Bible can be used to support all sorts of things.
HD
Those passages have to do with incest. There is no Hebrew word for "incest" so God described it to us this way... and it is absolutely clear.
In the Bible, that word "ervah" (nakedness) is consistently used as a reference to a person's active sexuality. It is not used as simple nakedness.
For example, if you look at verses 8 and 16 quoted above, if you take the meaning of "nakedness" as being "simply unclothed," then those two verses especially make no sense. "don't uncover HER nakedness, because it is HIS nakedness." But if SHE is unclothed, it does not mean that HE is, too. It's not talking about HIS level of attire, it's talking about HERS.
If, however, you take the word "ervah" as "active sexuality" or "expressed sexuality," then the whole thing makes perfect sense... "Do not uncover HER active sexuality because her active sexuality belongs to HIM."
And this is not some sort of "nudist" understanding... the NIV doesn't even use the word "nakedness" in its translation. It's talking about incest, and that understanding is not in dispute.
Therefore, using this passage to oppose simple nakedness is not sustainable.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 5:26:00 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
i thinkw we should absolutely follow adam and eve's pre fall example:
they appeared naked only in their own home, and only in front of their spouse.
And where exactly in the Bible does God expressly establish that as the only norm for human culture?
Remember that it was into that very context that God "clothed them."
If God intended that "clothing" to be the guideline for us all, then we must conclude that it is no longer permitted with husband and wife, either.
AID
at the time of adam and eve's sin they were told about the consequences. it included information about the generations to follow. their fall affected all of mankind. sin results in death. blood was shed to cover the nakedness.
the word nakedness in the bible is overwhelmingly is used to refer to shame, poverty and inappropriate behavior.
there is nothing in the bible that suggests clothing became no longer required beginning at some point.
we have the opportunity to be restored into right relationship with God but we are not now unfallen man. we are redeemed sinners. we did not regain our innocence as in we still know what adam and eve learned in the garden about good and evil. we are not sinnless, we are fogiven, pardoned. not the same thing.
our full restoration becomes complete in heaven.
I'm sorry, but none of what you've written rises to the level of "expressly established" as I asked.
The word "arom" (H6174) is NEVER used in a way that presumes shame. It means a person is simply and innocently without clothing.
"ervah" (H6172) seems to always also mean some active expression of sexuality as well. Yet, as we know, not all active sexuality is wrong. When it's between a husband and wife, it's a good thing. When it's not, then it is bad. And as I indicated in my post about Lev. 18, when it's your brother's wife that we're talking about, it's bad for you, but good for him. Same word is used for both.
Here's the problem... you seem to be ok with considering this level of theological speculation to rise to the level of "commanded of God." If what you stated above is satisfactory for you to consider any public nakedness to be forbidden, then by all means, do not violate what you believe is the Lord's will for you.
But there are others who do not accept that level of conjecture regarding what is NOT written to be tantamount to a Biblical mandate nor condemnation. The fact is (as we are amply demonstrating here) that the narrative can be interpreted and applied many different ways. You and I must apply it to our lives in obedience as we understand it (even if we are actually mistaken). I am doing so. I trust that you are, too.
It simply is not expressly established by God that all public nakedness is forbidden.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 5:39:57 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1063
Status: offline
|
God covered adam/eve's arowm-ness because nakedness is different after losing your innocence. there has not been another innocent human since.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/19/2008 10:34:47 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Again, this is getting way too long, so I'm shortening the post
And again, I have to thank you for taking me seriously enough to take time to cogently respond to more than just a line or two here or there. None others have done so, it seems to me.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
I think you missed Lewis' point that the standard of "modesty" is a man-made convention. Isn't that what he said? Isn't that what he meant? Do you agree or disagree?
He's not saying modesty is a man-made creation. He's saying what makes one modest is a man-made creation (in some cultures a woman's ankles are sexual, in other's their breasts, etc). Exactly.
When we apply God's word to how we live here in our own culture, we must surely take into account the mores and customs of those that are around us.
But the opening post was asking about nudist resorts or nude beaches. The fact is that a place like that is an area which truly has a different culture and a very different response to and understanding of nakedness than is true in the rest of our culture. So, if in that subculture (insulated as it is from the rest of our culture) the standard of "modesty" is quite different than it is in American society at large.
Going with no clothing in that context is completely "modest" while doing so in most public places otherwise in our country could land you in jail.
quote:
quote:
Hiding from God must be good, because Adam and Eve knew good and evil and chose the good.
Deflecting the blame when confronted with sin must be good. Adam and Eve knew good and chose it.
Covering their nakedness must be a good thing. Adam and Eve were, by this time so experienced with fighting the lies of the Enemy and overcoming the negative effects of the Fall, that they instantly knew that nakedness was evil so they covered themselves. Shame and covering has to be good.
Don't twist what I'm saying please.
I'm not twisting because I wasn't attributing that to you. I was trying to demonstrate the folly of presuming that Adam's concern over his nakedness and his response to it was appropriate or right at any level at all.
quote:
Please read it slowly:
When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they obtained the knowledge of good and evil. When they did, what's the first thing they observe? They are naked. They literally didn't notice this before because they did not have the knowledge. Now that they have the knowledge (and according to God are more like God because of it), they cover themselves. This is not a sin | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
