| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Turk
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 06/11/2005 : 08:48:35 AM
|
Hey Ya'll,
Excellent Topic. I want to say that I believe it was not fully but largely the fault of the teaching that nudity = sex that I have had the problems I have had. (Wow, that's a strange sentence.) Since I have discovered that the Bible does not agree with nudity = sex and that nudity has nothing to do with sexuality on it's own, I have had a much more enjoyable and free life. Many issues that I struggled with for years are no longer issues for me. I read somewhere that the brain is the largest sex organ and if you can control what you think then nudity will not = sex. I agree and have enjoyed being a naturist for some time. I am a Christian and was raised by great, caring parents. I think, though, that being so secluded from the obvious namely, our bodies, as I was growing up I opened myself and mind up to some scary things.
Thanks for the great topic!
Jon
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 14 |
 |
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 09/23/2005 : 11:29:24 AM
|
For just a moment lend me your naked ear:
Might we separate Christianity from the folks who say they follow Christ? Well-meaning tho they may be, often basic selfishness clouds the view of Christians.
Jesus said simply: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . and Love your neighbor". If He said anything touching on sexual morality, the context was not to condemn but to note that self-overindulgence in any activity can move one away from the two "commandments" previously stated.
I think Christianity is silent on the topic of nudism. Only those "Christians" who want to impose their own version of morality on others speak to such matters. Perhaps they are the "false teachers" Jesus warned of?
The desire for power or a capacity to control others seems to subvert the good in some. The "terrorist" who uses a person's true faith (in conjunction with their ignorance) as a tool to prey on and use them as, say, a human bomb is a current example of man's selfishness.
Christianity is tolerant of all. It is the self-proclaimed "Christian" who seeks only to control (for whatever purpose) that needs be identified and gently corrected.
|
Edited by - GeeWilly on 10/05/2005 1:02:46 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
old hippie
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/26/2005 : 8:34:48 PM
|
To my mind the heart of my faith is Jesus' statement, "By this shall all know that you are my followers: that you have love for one another."
When I see anyone who acts in a manner disrespectful of another human being, it is my LAST thought to associate them with Christian love. That is true whatever their state of life, their occupation or attire. Clothed or nude, we are all creatures of the same universe. God didn't make no rejects.
Old Hippie
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 327 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 4:56:25 PM
|
"Love for one another" . . . you see the point, old hippie, but hesitate to continue beyond our weak, human, view. Jesus would see the disrespect you speak of and see ONLY Christian love. That the sinner, cloaked in the love of his friends (Christians), might be redeemed and receive full wage for working only the last hour.
There are no "rejects" because each may repent and be born anew. God gives each of us the choice.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
old hippie
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 09:21:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeWilly
"Love for one another" . . . you see the point, old hippie, but hesitate to continue beyond our weak, human, view. Jesus would see the disrespect you speak of and see ONLY Christian love. That the sinner, cloaked in the love of his friends (Christians), might be redeemed and receive full wage for working only the last hour.
Your point is well taken; we all owe it to one another to treat fellow humans with the assumption of their worth as creatures of this Earth.
That was why I described the less-than-respectful behaviors as exhibiting a lack of that love. If someone sees me (or you, or anyone) treating another human being with care and respect, that should reflect my intention to imitate the example of Christ. If my treatment of others lacks that quality, then to that extent it demonstrates how far short of that example of perfection I am, though still trying.
My intent in the previous post was to suggest, as Willy had, that there is no conflict between true Christianity and naturist philosophy. The thought control police in pseudo-christian disguise - well that's a different story. My point was supposed to be that a true follower is not upset by nudity, but is offended by cruelty. So treat each other with respect, and wear (or don't) whatever you want.
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
|
Edited by - old hippie on 10/04/2005 09:22:04 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 327 |
|
|
|
DevilRocks
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/19/2006 : 01:57:35 AM
|
I can't find anywhere in christian/religious teachings where it says "you can't be a nudist". You cannot look in the bible and find that anywhere, i have never heard a preacher or pastor say that anything is wrong with it. Although many differant ones may say differant things.
However, many people religious or not seem to think that it is wrong. They have the view that it's a sexual thing and that we are all swingers or something. Or if they don't have that view they don't understand it and are afraid of it so they make incorrect judgements.
Oh yea, and i tottally agree with old hippie. You make a good point!!!
"Sometimes it's easier to Fight than Surrender"
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 23 |
|
|
|
bornnude
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/19/2006 : 07:41:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by DevilRocks
I can't find anywhere in christian/religious teachings where it says "you can't be a nudist". You cannot look in the bible and find that anywhere, i have never heard a preacher or pastor say that anything is wrong with it. Although many differant ones may say differant things.
However, many people religious or not seem to think that it is wrong. They have the view that it's a sexual thing and that we are all swingers or something. Or if they don't have that view they don't understand it and are afraid of it so they make incorrect judgements.
Oh yea, and i tottally agree with old hippie. You make a good point!!!
"Sometimes it's easier to Fight than Surrender"
It has been said that with the Bible you can prove just about anything. That usually involves pulling things out of context of the whole Bible.
I have, however, heard several Christian leaders head down that road, even though, as you state, there is no prohibition of nudity.
The only places I have found that condemn nakedness or call it sinful are related not to nudity as such but to lewd or sexual behavior. (Lev 18 -- http://tinyurl.com/zrhrd -- for instance). The logic, however is that God would not tell or cause his people to sin but told or caused some of his prophets to be naked. (Isa 20:2 -- http://tinyurl.com/j5fuy -- and I Sam 19:22-24 -- http://tinyurl.com/g9lz6).
Putting nudity in context, most of the commands to clothe the naked come, not because nudity is wrong or bad but, because being naked meant you had no wealth or were a slave so it was a shameful situation.
Information on Nudity and the Bible is available at Fig Leaf Forum (http://www.figleafforum.com).
** Note, the tinyurl links above forward to http://www.biblegateway/
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 462 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/19/2006 : 12:42:31 PM
|
Let me join in your assessment, bornnude. The King James Version seems to use the term "nakedness" in Leviticus 18; Wycliffe's Commentary notes that the word "nakedness" is a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse. (The NIV uses the latter term.)
(Suppose that is one of the reasons non-nudists look askance of nudists?)
The phrase, "stripped and bare for three years" as used in Isaiah 20 clearly has no connotation of wrong-doing since the Lord is directing His prophet to do so (in condemnation of Egypt).
And Saul "stripped off his robes" in 1Sam 19 without any concern for being naked. Not unlike Adam and Eve before their eyes were opened.
As the Fig Leaf Forum debates, the only use of the Word to speak out against naturism is using Paul's warning not to cause your friend to stumble (as by lusting after another who is unclothed). Seems to be just a little bit of a stretch.
|
Edited by - GeeWilly on 05/19/2006 12:43:54 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
StuffedTiger
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 02:02:24 AM
|
St. Paul talks about modesty. His teachings have everything to do with seeking the kingdom of God rather than seeking the wealth of Rome and dressing to show that.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 246 |
|
|
|
jeanluc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:23:23 AM
|
Being raised and still being a devout a Catholic, I relate to many of my fellow Christian forum members who write about the way we were taught growing up. However my parents, though good God-fearing people, were a little less stringant on nudity. Maybe that is why I have gravitated to wanting to enjoy an even greater awareness of my nudism than before.
Pope John Paul II, who is considered my most Catholics to be one of the saintly people who have lived in our lifetime, wrote a series weekly of articles spanning 5 years which comprise a teaching known as "The Theology of the Body". Before he was Pope, he also wrote a book called "Love and Responsibility". In it he says "But this by no means signifies that impurity of body is identified simply with partial or total nudity. There are circumstances in which nudity is not impure. If someone uses it to treat the person as an object of pleasure - even if it is by bad thoughts - he alone is the one who commits an impure act. Impurity of body only occurs when nuditity plays a negative role with respect to the value of the person." This from a man that led the Catholic Church and was seen and loved by people from all over the world.
I don't think this is taken out of context, but the site I found this was written by those who feel he was wrong in his teaching. I do not. I think he has hit the nail right on the head and we as Catholics or Christians or Jews or whatever should not be ashamed if we are nude as long as in our mind we are not doing it for impure or immoral reasons.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 50 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 6:16:32 PM
|
My experience and mental wanderings have led me to think that the languishing Victorianism is still around, which is more social in nature. Most Christians cannot find much in the Bible that is against nudity, but many of them are still ingrained in hyper-textilism because of their upbringing with Victorian parents.
Then again, other religions might not look kindly on nudism. For European-based peoples, the secular dogma was that in the late 1800s, you couldn't even have piano legs uncovered, let alone a female ankle. You dare not utter the word, "legs" in public -- too evil a word. Your grandparents probably were much more attuned to covering up at nearly all times, and their beachware was far less revealing.Wow!! Times have changed!
Social, secular styles and comfort zones change over time, although I don't foresee Queen Elizabeth sitting on her royal throne in the nude anytime soon. I remember quite well the flower children era in Berkeley, Calif. They were quite often nude around the city streets. Fashion designers made clothing that hid far less than before. This was a death knell for the leftovers from the Victorian days.
Christian come in many different "flavors," so it is hard to pin them down in a sweeping statement. The same can be said for agnostics, or more secular people. Also, some churches change with the times, but their basic theology stays the same. Ex., I remember as a boy, in a church, you'd find most everybody dressed to the hilt in very formal attire. You could go there now, and people are laid back and quite casual. Which style is better -- the 1950's or now? I don't know, but the 1950s were kind of a kick, as far as ultimate in formal clothing was concerned.
Those are my two cents worth.
That government governs best, which governs least - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
catbird
Forum Member
|
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 6:42:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warmskin
My experience and mental wanderings have led me to think that the languishing Victorianism is still around, which is more social in nature. Most Christians cannot find much in the Bible that is against nudity, but many of them are still ingrained in hyper-textilism because of their upbringing with Victorian parents.
Well spoken Warmskin. The anti-nudism of many Christians is not biblical. Instead it is the result of a Puritan upbringing. United States is essentially Puritan.
Naturally, Catbird
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 202 |
|
|
|
prism2525
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 05:33:23 AM
|
On the Maltese bible it says that God made clothing for Adam and Eve and dressed them.
I however do not believe he did it as punishment but rather because they were ashamed of their nudity and so God wanted to put them more at ease.
just my 2 cents
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"If God had intended mankind to run around naked, surely we'd have been born that way!"
now wait a second.... :D
|
|
Country: Malta
| Posts: 102 |
|
|
|
bornnude
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 07:20:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prism2525
On the Maltese bible it says that God made clothing for Adam and Eve and dressed them.
I however do not believe he did it as punishment but rather because they were ashamed of their nudity and so God wanted to put them more at ease.
just my 2 cents
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"If God had intended mankind to run around naked, surely we'd have been born that way!"
now wait a second.... :D
I think there is one other reason, one that may not apply so much in Malta. Protection, clothes can protect from cold, thorns, etc.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 462 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 6:03:32 PM
|
The fallacy that Christians should not be nudists, to me, is based on purely secular interventionism. As Jesus never taught us to avoid nudity, so the likes of the Victorians have. The 1800s were rife with not considering the human body worth much, except as a vehicle to act as a transport vehicle, and a communications vehicle.
Movements in latter 1800s minimized the significance of the body, and overemphasized other facets of humanity. Back then, you could not leave the home without gloves on, because to do this might be a sexual come-on. Somehow, I cannot seem to find this kind of thinking in the four gospels.
The latter 1800s were a dramatic departure from the teachings of Jesus. Take note of how those people dressed back then, with all that tedious, detailed coverup of their bodies. Even piano legs were covered up, lest they cause a sexual feeling in a concert listener. I don't think, with all sincerity, that pianos legs were a topic of Jesus' teachings. However, they were the hot topic of the Victorians.
Queen Victoria does not = Jesus!!! When you can understand that, you can see that nudism is not a problem for real Christians. Matters of the heart, behavior, civility, and speech are.
If anyone in this forum has a problem with society's rejection of nudity, don't blame Christianity, blame the holdouts from the Victorian age. Unfortunately, many Christians, or their religious leaders cannot tell the difference between Christian teachings and Victorian declarations of the evilness of the human body. The ability to make distinctions in this case are crucial.
That government governs best, which governs least - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
How some Christians feel about non-sexual nudism
