|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 9:59:20 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11587
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
Your discomfort with viewing the self-portrait of God on our naked bodies is not an indication of the wrongness of nakedness, but rather the wrongness of your perspective towards it.
Show me one place where it is even hinted in the New Testament that after obtaining forgiveness people were told to shed their clothing as a way of enjoying their newly-restored relationship to God.
You, of course, are free to show your behinder to one and all. If you show it to me, however, I will alert the police.
See how far your argument would get with them.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 2:40:29 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9064
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
How did I miss this little gem of entertainment a thread?
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 3:20:12 PM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1166
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ad-Imaginem-Dei: Jesus died and rose again to enable you and me to be restored to the relationship with God and others that he made us fo.
Yes, Jesus died for communal nudity.
quote:
Can you show me where in Scripture we are told that we must NOT strive for Eden? Weren't we MADE for Eden? ... Our bodies are God's image in human flesh. How dare we consider them unfit to be seen?
Excuse me while I yawn.
This is nothing the majority of us here haven't heard a thousand times before. It's funny how it's never a live and let live attitude among those who come here to share their 'nude values'. It's always an aggressive and manipulative push, lots of scripture twisting, and lofty speeches to get everyone's kit off.
_____________________________
Aperture Science. We do what we must because we can.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 4:25:23 PM
|
|
|
designed
Posts: 228
Joined: 12/21/2007
Status: offline
|
I have to say, the quick wit of the "keep yer britches on" crowd has givin me a good chuckle today. I for one vote-clothes in public at all times please. Pretty please?? 
Really some of these counter arguments have me scratching my head. Are there actually Christian nudist environments out there who support this whole return to Eden theology? Can't say I have or care to read through the entire thread to see if this has allready been answred.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:35
Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The LORD of hosts is His name:
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 5:43:43 PM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1166
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
designed: Are there actually Christian nudist environments out there who support this whole return to Eden theology?
There are nudist groups that claim to be Christian, yes. One nudist used to post here all the time trying to hammer it into us how we had gone so horribly wrong by maintaining our 'clothed status'. He had no problem allowing children and teens to be nude alongside adults. Warnings about child predators were brushed aside. Over time, more and more things crept out of the bag, such as his take on history where he described the masses living in single room houses and therefore having sex in front of whoever was there... like children.
_____________________________
Aperture Science. We do what we must because we can.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 6:54:58 PM
|
|
|
designed
Posts: 228
Joined: 12/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
phosadaud-
I always thought we were supposed to strive for God's Kingdom and to reach the lost... I musta missed the memo that we are supposed to re-create what God kicked us out of....
WORD. And yeah I think God left that memo out of the Bible. Go figure.
quote:
lw9-
There are nudist groups that claim to be Christian, yes.
I've said it before on these forums.. I'd thought I'd heard it all. I'm just not buying it (reuturn to nekkid Eden frolicking). The way the world is today, in this sinful flesh...I really don't see how a large gathering of nudists could defy all lustful or other sinful desires in that sort of environment. I'm talking about those so called Christian nudist groups in particular. God said walk in the Spirit, not in the nude. Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and were then covered for a reason. because they/we now live in a sinful fallen world. Removing our clothes won't change that fact. It will just inevitabely cause problems. And possible dangerous ones at that. I really don't have so much of a problem with say skinny dipping/sunbathing in private with a spouse or even a dear, close trusted friend. It's the nude "culture" agenda promotion guised in cherry picked, out of context scripture that I find problematic. Just my opinion.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:35
Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The LORD of hosts is His name:
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 6:58:10 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
How dare we consider them unfit to be seen?
Did you miss the Bible verses on modesty?
That sometimes happens when you are picking and choosing which verses to follow and which verses to ignore.
Did you miss my detailed examination of that verse?
http://forums.christianity.com/fb.aspx?m=3263714
It's doesn't mean what you evidently assume that it means. A close examination of the underlying language makes it clear that Paul is not addressing the idea that a certain portion of a woman's body must be covered at all times.
If you disagree, you are welcome to double-check my work and show us all where and how I have misrepresented the truth.
Isn't it more important that we strive to be faithful to the original intent of the author than it is to preserve a long held understanding which is actually contrary to what the Scriptures teach?
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 7:41:41 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
Your discomfort with viewing the self-portrait of God on our naked bodies is not an indication of the wrongness of nakedness, but rather the wrongness of your perspective towards it.
Show me one place where it is even hinted in the New Testament that after obtaining forgiveness people were told to shed their clothing as a way of enjoying their newly-restored relationship to God.
You, of course, are free to show your behinder to one and all. If you show it to me, however, I will alert the police.
See how far your argument would get with them.
(I'll get to that question in a moment, but first let me quote something else to you)
C.S. Lewis makes some very interesting statements in "Mere Christianity" in his treatment of the topic of sex.
quote:
ORIGINAL: C. S. Lewis
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of 'modesty' (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle.
Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare's time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned.
When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.
Was Mr. Lewis mistaken about modesty? Is it really possible that women in one culture who go topless or even naked within their cultural contexts may be equally "modest" as a Victorian woman who covers all but her face?
Mr. Lewis continues:
quote:
I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing.
Quite contrary to what most Christians think, wouldn't you say? Don't we generally assume that "well-covered" is chaste, and "uncovered" (to whatever degree) is unchaste?
And to consider the relaxation of such rules "a good thing."?!?
Is Mr. Lewis really so wrong in this masterpiece of Christian Literature?
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 8:18:53 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
Your discomfort with viewing the self-portrait of God on our naked bodies is not an indication of the wrongness of nakedness, but rather the wrongness of your perspective towards it.
Show me one place where it is even hinted in the New Testament that after obtaining forgiveness people were told to shed their clothing as a way of enjoying their newly-restored relationship to God.
For the record, I have never stated that we are told to pursue Eden. My point has been that we are never told that we must not.
The burden of proof lies with those who claim that God changed the standard of dress that He obviously established and intended in the Garden.
I have never said that we should all go unclothed at all times. But others claim that the Bible says we must remain clothed. The burden of proof is on the one making that claim.
I am most interested in sticking with what the Bible actually says and teaches, not what our culture or even our Christian heritage tells us that is says.
So your challenge to me is really more appropriately a challenge to yourself. Show me where God ever forbids dressing as they dressed (in harmony with His will) in Eden?
But I will answer your challenge with some interesting observations:
What was Jesus wearing when He washed the disciples' feet? It says very clearly that He took off his clothes. The towel was for the purpose of drying feet, not personal modesty. Even if he had the towel around His waist (although that's a different Greek word), he would not have been able to keep it there while drying their feet.
When Jesus commanded his followers to "go the extra mile" and when someone demanded their tunic (the inner garment) to also give the cloak (the outer garment), if they literally obeyed Jesus' words, what would they be wearing at that moment? Furthermore, was this teaching just for men? What if a female disciple faced that challenge... shouldn't she obey, even though she had no bra or other inner garment on?
When the women who were with Jesus at the foot of the cross looked up at our naked Savior, did they in any way dishonor Him because they did not turn their eyes away?
No, the Bible doesn't tell us that we must strive to be naked as in the Garden. But neither does it tell us that we must avoid being seen naked at all costs.
I don't think God has an opinion worth expressing about it, or else He would have been clear about it. Every person who's ever lived has to address the issue of how he manages his/her nudity. Why is God not more clear? Therefore, the biblical Christan can neither condemn those who wear clothes or those who do not. Anything other than that is adding to God's Words... a clear sin in itself.
If I am mistaken, please use Scripture and "rightly divide" God's Word to demonstrate my errors or oversights.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 8:26:53 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lw9
quote:
Can you show me where in Scripture we are told that we must NOT strive for Eden? Weren't we MADE for Eden? ... Our bodies are God's image in human flesh. How dare we consider them unfit to be seen?
Excuse me while I yawn.
This is nothing the majority of us here haven't heard a thousand times before. It's funny how it's never a live and let live attitude among those who come here to share their 'nude values'. It's always an aggressive and manipulative push, lots of scripture twisting, and lofty speeches to get everyone's kit off.
Have I twisted Scripture? Have I been aggressive and manipulative? Have I told anyone that they must remove their clothing?
Of whom are you speaking?
And it sure seems to me that the ones who are unwilling to "live and let live" are the ones who are so sure that the Bible condemns all public nudity.
I welcome your biblical correction.
AID
< Message edited by Ad-Imaginem-Dei -- 4/17/2008 9:19:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 8:53:27 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9064
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
Mr. Lewis wasn't a nudist.
Scripture does not say we are to seek to return to pre-Adam times. In fact, God made sure when He kicked Adam & Eve out of Eden, that they would never return.
Nakedness in and of itself is not wrong. However, as with all things, there is a time and a place. That's the way it is with most things: there is a time and a place. Sex is not "bad" - but if you abuse it, if you have sex outside of how God intended, it is bad. The same is true of nakedness. Nakedness is not "bad", but that doesn't mean it's ok to run around in your birthday suit for all the world to see. 
1Ti 2:9
Likewise, women to adorn (1) themselves with proper (2) clothing (3), modestly (4) and discreetly (5), not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
(1) kosmeo: to put in order, arrange, make ready, prepare
to ornament, adore
(2) kosmioß: well arranged, seemly, modest
(3) katastole: a lowering, letting down
a garment let down, dress, attire
(4) aidoß: a sense of shame or honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect
(5) sofrosune: soundness of mind
self-control, sobriety
It doesn't say: Women, it doesn't matter if you wear anything at all. It says don't be more concerned about being a beauty queen than you are about your character. It is not a license to be a nudist. It's not about nudity and the very verse implies that women should be covered. How much? That does depend a lot on culture. For instance, in other Scriptures, Paul exhorts women that IF it is a disgrace to have their hair short, they shouldn't have their hair short. Why? In many cultures at that time, short hair was a way of advertising that you were a temple prostitute.
The fact is, Jesus was not a nudist. The apostles were not nudists. The early church leaders were not nudists. There is no Scripture that says we should try to create Eden on earth and try to live before the Fall. The fact is, the Fall changed things. We can pretend all we want that men will not have to toil on the earth, that women will not have painful childbirth (we can mask it all we want, it's still hard work). We can pretend all we want that nothing changed and we can even try to live like it didn't, but that isn't Scriptural. Scripture tells us that because of the Fall, we must now live in a Fallen World. In a fallen world, nakedness means something. In our culture, nakedness means something. You can live in a fairy world all you want, but it doesn't change reality and it is disrespectful not only of your brothers and sisters in Christ, but it is disrespectful of everyone around you.
Christianity is not about our freedom. It's about following Christ. It's not about doing what we want and what we like. It's about loving our neighbor and reaching the lost.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 9:06:26 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9064
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
What was Jesus wearing when He washed the disciples' feet? It says very clearly that He took off his clothes. The towel was for the purpose of drying feet, not personal modesty. Even if he had the towel around His waist (although that's a different Greek word), he would not have been able to keep it there while drying their feet.
Actually, if you look at the Greek, what he removed was his cloak (outer garment). He didn't strip down to His birthday suit. Which makes sense. Why would he need to strip naked to wash people's feet?
quote:
When Jesus commanded his followers to "go the extra mile" and when someone demanded their tunic (the inner garment) to also give the cloak (the outer garment), if they literally obeyed Jesus' words, what would they be wearing at that moment? Furthermore, was this teaching just for men? What if a female disciple faced that challenge... shouldn't she obey, even though she had no bra or other inner garment on?
Wow... That's so far off the edge, you have fallen off... You missed the entire point Jesus was trying to make there...
quote:
No, the Bible doesn't tell us that we must strive to be naked as in the Garden. But neither does it tell us that we must avoid being seen naked at all costs.
I don't believe anyone here is saying we should never be seen under any circumstances. That is a FAR cry however from going to a nudist beach and letting everything flap in the wind.
quote:
I don't think God has an opinion worth expressing about it, or else He would have been clear about it. Every person who's ever lived has to address the issue of how he manages his/her nudity. Why is God not more clear? Therefore, the biblical Christan can neither condemn those who wear clothes or those who do not. Anything other than that is adding to God's Words... a clear sin in itself.
I think God was pretty clear about it when He dressed Adam and Eve once they had knowledge of good and evil. Coincidently, once they gained that knowledge, the very first thing they did is cover themselves and not show all to all...
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 9:33:53 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 10799
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
I do not believe God meant for anybody to be able to return to the Garden of Eden. Here is what the scriptures say In Genisis 1,
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Don't sound much like He intended for us to return.
_____________________________
Everybody has Eternal Life. But only two Addresses to chose from.
Qtman's Musings
Avatar Help
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 10:38:51 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11587
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
Your discomfort with viewing the self-portrait of God on our naked bodies is not an indication of the wrongness of nakedness, but rather the wrongness of your perspective towards it.
Show me one place where it is even hinted in the New Testament that after obtaining forgiveness people were told to shed their clothing as a way of enjoying their newly-restored relationship to God.
You, of course, are free to show your behinder to one and all. If you show it to me, however, I will alert the police.
See how far your argument would get with them.
(I'll get to that question in a moment, but first let me quote something else to you)
C.S. Lewis makes some very interesting statements in "Mere Christianity" in his treatment of the topic of sex.
quote:
ORIGINAL: C. S. Lewis
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of 'modesty' (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle.
Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare's time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned.
When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.
Was Mr. Lewis mistaken about modesty? Is it really possible that women in one culture who go topless or even naked within their cultural contexts may be equally "modest" as a Victorian woman who covers all but her face?
Mr. Lewis continues:
quote:
I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing.
Quite contrary to what most Christians think, wouldn't you say? Don't we generally assume that "well-covered" is chaste, and "uncovered" (to whatever degree) is unchaste?
And to consider the relaxation of such rules "a good thing."?!?
Is Mr. Lewis really so wrong in this masterpiece of Christian Literature?
AID
You are remarkably consistent. I see you do not limit your eisegetical masterpieces only to Scripture, and now are appealing to Mr. Lewis to try and plead your case.
It will not avail you. Lewis does nto help make your case, in fact, within what you quoted he proves you quite wrong:
quote:
When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable
So, were you to wander around with your bits and pieces showing in America is the first part of the 21st century, where both custom and law require said parts to be covered in public, you would be wrong, unless you were an ignoramus. You would either be committing an offense against chastity or charity--take your pick.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/17/2008 11:30:03 PM
|
|
|
keepitreal
Posts: 55
Joined: 12/21/2007
Status: offline
|
I've been pondering for a couple of days, why the nudist crowd always gets so very passionate about their arguments, trying to persuade others of the benefits of getting naked. Today a sickening feeling came over me, that maybe they just want to keep an influx coming, of NEW naked bodies, after seeing the same ones over and over. And herein possibly lies the problem; when nakedness becomes so commonplace, it seems to take more and more unfamiliar and unusual to satisfy. Kinda creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/18/2008 12:13:36 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
First of all, let me thank you for your thoughtful and content-rich reply.
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Mr. Lewis wasn't a nudist.
No, he wasn't. he was a Christian apologist and a clear articulator of core Christian truth.
My point was that if such a man as this refused to declare all exposure of skin to be sinful, how is that so many others are so sure of things that would be in direct contradiction to such a highly regarded Christian spokesman?
I would add that simply declaring that he was not a nudist is not sufficient response to the clear statements that he made. I asked if he was wrong. I think it's a fair question and I'd like to hear why people would disagree with his statements.
quote:
Scripture does not say we are to seek to return to pre-Adam times. In fact, God made sure when He kicked Adam & Eve out of Eden, that they would never return.
You are quite correct. And the good news is that God told us exactly why He forbade them to return. It was so they would not take from the Tree of Life and live forever. God's words. God's reasons. Should we read any more into the reason that precisely what God declared? I don't think so.
Again, I reiterate, God never told us that any of the goodness of the Garden was to be rejected in our lives today. In fact, He wants us to live in relationship with Him. He wants us to pattern our marriages after the model set forth in the pre-fall Garden (see Gen. 2:24 and Matt 19:4-8 where Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24). Women will have pain in childbirth, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to alleviate that pain. Thorns and weeds will grow to inhibit the cultivation of good plants, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to eradicate them from our gardens.
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.)
No, we are not told that we must go naked. But neither are we told that we must not. Why should anyone feel they must condemn a person who makes an effort to live without shame for their unclothed bodies?
quote:
Nakedness in and of itself is not wrong. However, as with all things, there is a time and a place. That's the way it is with most things: there is a time and a place. Sex is not "bad" - but if you abuse it, if you have sex outside of how God intended, it is bad. The same is true of nakedness. Nakedness is not "bad", but that doesn't mean it's ok to run around in your birthday suit for all the world to see.
I agree with your first statements. but you have made an erroneous jump to the assertion that it's not "ok."
God gave us very clear limits on the expression of our sexuality. He did not give us such limits on nudity. The only way you can reach that conclusion is if you presume that to be naked can only be considered a sexual expression. Yet that notion is not declared as absolute in the Scriptures (of course, sometimes it is, but also, sometimes it is not). A simple and honest survey of the Scriptures will reveal that.
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.
We have forgotten how to treat the image of God on our bodies with honor.
And don't suggest that covering them is an act of honor... (If I draped a towel over the photograph of my wife when guests come over, it would NOT be considered an act of honor, particularly if it was a self-portrait!) That's what Adam and Eve did at the bidding of Satan. It's an insult to God... IF we do it out of shame, fear, or embarrassment over simply being seen naked.
If we clothe ourselves for practical reasons (warmth, protection, social appropriateness), then that's no problem. Furthermore, if we UNclothe ourselves in order to express illicit (outside of marriage) sexual expression, then we also dishonor that image.
Satan wants us to be ashamed of our bodies. It started with Adam and Even and it continues to this day.
quote:
1Ti 2:9
Likewise, women to adorn (1) themselves with proper (2) clothing (3), modestly (4) and discreetly (5), not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
(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.
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"
But this also means that using this verse to declare that a woman must always be "adequately covered" is a misuse of Scripture. That's not at all the meaning to be found in a word that really means "ordered" or "arranged"
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.
2. Strong's will also tell you that katastole (a noun) is related to the verb "katastello" which does appear twice in the NT. Both are in Acts 19:35-36 and it is translated "After quieting the crowd" and "you ought to keep calm"
I ask you: How can a word that means "keep calm" in the verb form mean "attire" in the noun form?
3. Our suspicions that "attire" might be incorrect are deepened when we note that Paul's instructions to the women indicates that you can know if they are disobeying by what they wear, but you will know they are obeying by what they DO. Therefore, whatever the word "katastole" means, it must be able to encompass BOTH attire AND actions. And... in Paul's mind, actions are a fitting measure of compliance.
I believe the word has to do with the state of keeping oneself quiet rather than any sort of garment. Both the etymology of the word and the immediate context support this understanding. In fact, the rest of Paul's instructions to the women simply continues that same theme. "quiet in church," "not to teach a man," "submissiveness." Paul is not emphasizing the use of clothing, he's emphasizing a quiet spirit.
quote:
(4) aidoß: a sense of shame or honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect The KJV's "shamefacedness" is a very good representation of this word. It refers to keeping the face down. It's the opposite of putting you face forward, or promoting yourself or demanding to be noticed.
Again, to take it to mean "modest" as in "adequately covered" is to veer away from its meaning. It refers to the face, not the body. And it certainly makes no reference or inference to clothing.
quote:
(5) sofrosune: soundness of mind
self-control, sobriety This one is very straightforward and accurate.
quote:
It doesn't say: Women, it doesn't matter if you wear anything at all. It says don't be more concerned about being a beauty queen than you are about your character.
That is very true!!! What strikes me as odd then is the fact that this verse is so heavily used to declare that a woman should be clothed at all times!!! Yet as you have correctly pointed out, it's not about clothing, it's about character!
quote:
...It is not a license to be a nudist. It's not about nudity and the very verse implies that women should be covered. Actually, it does not imply that. It very accurately implies that women are prone to use clothing to gain attention. And that is precisely what Paul is instructing against. To say that this is an emphasis on making sure that a woman is clothed is to miss Paul's point.
quote:
How much? That does depend a lot on culture. Exactly. And that was Mr. Lewis' point as well. The "how much" that is appropriate could vary tremendously from culture to culture.
Take note that you have just acknowledged that the Bible doesn't tell a woman how much of her body to keep covered. Not here, nor anywhere else in Scripture.
quote:
For instance, in other Scriptures, Paul exhorts women that IF it is a disgrace to have their hair short, they shouldn't have their hair short. Why? In many cultures at that time, short hair was a way of advertising that you were a temple prostitute. I've heard things like that before. Do you have historical documentation of that assertion? I truly do not know if it's true or not. But, I fully concur with your implication that understanding a passage within its historical context is crucial to understanding the original author's actual intent.
quote:
The fact is, Jesus was not a nudist. The apostles were not nudists. The early church leaders were not nudists. Nor were they "prudists." Peter fished nude. Jewish and early Christian baptisms were performed nude. Paul refered to the the Greek sporting events of the time (boxing, wrestling, running, exercising), all of which were performed in the nude... yet he never once thought to mention that "oh, by the way, the fact they they are naked while doing that is a bad thing... just so you don't think I approve of THAT part of the illustration I just gave..."
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?
quote:
There is no Scripture that says we should try to create Eden on earth and try to live before the Fall. I have never claimed that there was such a Scripture. I have claimed that there was NOT any Scripture that prohibited it. And as yet, no one else has produced any such Scripture.
quote:
The fact is, the Fall changed things. We can pretend all we want that men will not have to toil on the earth, that women will not have painful childbirth (we can mask it all we want, it's still hard work). We can pretend all we want that nothing changed and we can even try to live like it didn't, but that isn't Scriptural. Agreed. I've never suggested that the desire to regain what was lost was a denial that much WAS lost. I have suggested that to desire and pursue those things that were lost is right and good. And by this, I do not only mean the freedom from shame over our bodies... but there is no basis to exclude that desire while allowing the others.
quote:
Scripture tells us that because of the Fall, we must now live in a Fallen World. In a fallen world, nakedness means something. In our culture, nakedness means something. Again, this is a very good point. We must ascertain exactly what nakedness DOES mean in a fallen world and in our culture. But we must not presume that we must accept what our fallen world (under the control of Satan) and our culture (sexually saturated as it is) as the final word on what nakedness should mean.
The truest and most significant meaning of nakedness is to be found in Gen. 1:26-27.
quote:
"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;' ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (NASB)
And when God got done with that job, and he stepped back to inspect His work, the man and the woman were fully nude.
Then Scripture records these remarkable words: "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Gen. 1:31)
This is the truth about our bodies...unclothed. This is God's Word. It is true.
Yet that truth is abandoned, ignored, redefined, spurned, argued against, and explained away.
Instead, we are horrified if we must see that nude form, and yet more horrified if someone else sees our own nude form.
We have accepted the lie that the "natural" response to seeing it is lust. The natural response should be AWE at the image of God in human flesh.
If indeed what I have just said is actually true, then whose ideal is it that it always be covered (unless of course it is to defile it and degrade it as an object of illicit sexual gratification)?
Who destroyed "naked and unashamed" (last verse in Gen. 2)? What does the next verse say?
It says this (first verse in Gen. 3): "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Indeed, has God said...'"
And so begins the story of humanity's acquisition of shame for our bodies.
The serpent? Yes, we know his name. And he is no friend of God or man.
quote:
You can live in a fairy world all you want, but it doesn't change reality and it is disrespectful not only of your brothers and sisters in Christ, but it is disrespectful of everyone around you. I fail to see how it is disrespectful to honor God's image on our bodies as real and significant. It's as real for you and every other person on this planet as it is for me. He put it on all of us. It's up to each of us to determine how we respond to it. Should we hide it in shame? Well, that was Adam's way. It was not God's way. Not God's idea. Not God's will.
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?
quote:
It's about following Christ. It's not about doing what we want and what we like. It's about loving our neighbor and reaching the lost. I would agree. And since Christ never commanded us to always keep our bodies covered, then it must be concluded that one's choice to be unclothed a cannot be considered, by itself, an act of disobedience to Christ.
However, I would suggest that judging/condemning a brother or sister over a "disputable" matter is indeed disobeying the Word of God. (Rom. 14:10) I truly hope that none of us here will allow ourselves to fall into that sin.
Thanks again for a thoughtful post!
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/18/2008 12:43:15 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
Mr. Lewis continues:
quote:
I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing.
Quite contrary to what most Christians think, wouldn't you say? Don't we generally assume that "well-covered" is chaste, and "uncovered" (to whatever degree) is unchaste?
And to consider the relaxation of such rules "a good thing."?!?
Is Mr. Lewis really so wrong in this masterpiece of Christian Literature?
AID
You are remarkably consistent. I see you do not limit your eisegetical masterpieces only to Scripture, and now are appealing to Mr. Lewis to try and plead your case.
I take it that you are accusing me of eisegesis. Can you give me a clear and defensible example? If not, then making such an insinuation is "uncharitable."
quote:
It will not avail you. Lewis does nto help make your case, in fact, within what you quoted he proves you quite wrong:
quote:
When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable
So, were you to wander around with your bits and pieces showing in America is the first part of the 21st century, where both custom and law require said parts to be covered in public, you would be wrong, unless you were an ignoramus. You would either be committing an offense against chastity or charity--take your pick.
First of all, you deftly sidestepped the clear questions that I asked... seeking your responses and opinions in reference to Mr. Lewis' words. I want to know what YOU think he means and if you disagree or not. And why.
Secondly, I fail to see how his words "prove me wrong." I agree 100% with his words in that passage. If you believe that his words contradict mine, then you have either misunderstood me or him.
And I take it that you are presuming all sorts of things about me that you have no way of knowing. I know the laws of our land and I abide by them. What could possibly make you think otherwise?
Do you really believe that I have any intent to "shock or embarrass" anyone? Or that I have intent to incite lust? Read my words. I have denounced the treatment of the human body as an object of illicit sexual gratification. It is absolutely my conviction that that response/intent is part of Satan's lie. And I believe that the church has bought right into it.
We believe that by rejecting the naked human form as indecent, that we are actually promoting chastity. I would ask... how well is it working in our churches? Are the Christians in America models of sexual purity? Maybe, just maybe, our bondage to sexual impurity is connected to our distorted view of what our nude bodies really represent.... the very image of God.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
