|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/20/2008 3:46:37 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9808
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
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.
You are assuming that everyone who ever goes to these "subcultures" can completely break from culture and that everyone has the purest intentions. I, as well as most of us arguing here, would argue that you are wrong. Not only that, but it opens you and your family up to predators. If you don't think this happens, check again.
quote:
They had no experience of EVIL before the Fall. They did not know "good and evil" because they didn't "know" evil. They already knew good. They knew nothing BUT good. What they gained at the Fall was an intimate knowledge of evil, not a deeper knowledge of good.
Sorry, but that still makes no sense and is not what the passage tells us. First, do you believe temptation is "good"? Because they were tempted before they ate of the fruit. Second, God doesn't say that they now had experienced evil, therefore they "knew" evil now. It says, "This man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil".
quote:
quote:
First, I have never said they were examples of righteousness nor all their actions are models for our behavior. Duh! The Fall?! But you have said time and again that when they saw their nakedness, they covered it. They knew good and evil, and they responded to their nakedness accordingly. What am I supposed to think you are saying when you say that?
You seem to be saying that everything they did after the fall was evil and that anything they did after that point is bad. I'm not saying that. I'm saying, they screwed up and as a result things changed and their behavior had to change as a result. We're saying 2 different things here and I'm not sure how else to explain what I'm saying.
quote:
quote:
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."
Again, I say that the sentence structure demands that that reason for God's actions explains why He kicked them out of Eden, not why they had to be clothed.
Actually, verses 11-14 are God explaining why He kicked them out of Eden.
quote:
quote:
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?
That's exactly what God was doing. It's called "grace." And, I agree, God's grace doesn't make much sense to us. But I'm thankful for it anyway.
Yes, God gives us grace, but why here? God cursed the ground because of Adam & Eve. He didn't give them some nifty, thrifty tools to make it easier to work the ground. Why would he create thorns and then say, oops, well, I really don't want you to get hurt, so here, wear these? You are adding to Scripture.
Scripture says that because Adam and Eve now knew good from evil, they were ashamed of their nakedness and they hid it. God then clothes them. This is not a stretch.
quote:
There is a time and a place for sex. I agree. That has not at all been in dispute.
There is also a time and a place for nakedness... evidently that is not in dispute either. The dispute actually has to do with whether a nudist resort or a nude beach are legitimate times and places for nakedness.
But do you see the failure of your logic here. You say that because Scripture doesn't spell out when and where nakedness is and is not appropriate, that means hanging out in your birthday suit at a nude resort is ok. However, Scripture also does not tell us when and where a man and his wife can have sex. Yet, here we agree that doing it in the middle of a crowd of people would be wrong. Sorry, but your reasoning is illogical.
quote:
quote:
I don't know where you got the idea that we've said God has a problem with our nakedness. You haven't. It seems that we are more in agreement that first appeared. So why are you opposing me so strongly?
I don't think you are understanding me so let me put it this way. If I see my child naked, it would not disturb me. They are my child: I am their mother. However, if the neighbor across the street saw my child naked, it would disturb me.
God is not disturbed by seeing my body naked. That doesn't mean, He thinks it perfectly ok for the entire world to see me in all my glory. That's the difference.
quote:
quote:
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. He was not wrong to cover his nakedness, he was wrong to cover his nakedness out of fear and shame. In other words, He was still in the "right time and place" for nakedness at that moment, for God never had told him to be concerned with his nakedness. God made him naked. Gave him a job to do naked. A wife to run with naked. And a place to live naked... full time. There was never a moment's need to cover his body.
That didn't change because he ate the fruit. The "time and place" had not changed... only Adam had changed. It was very literally the WRONG time and place to be covered. And therefore, his reasons for doing so (fear and shame) were inappropriate.
What changed? Adam and Eve now knew the difference between good and evil. Innocence was gone. A baby can run around completely naked and not have a care in the world. Then they grow up and begin to understand the world better and lose their innocence.
quote:
While I cannot say conclusively that God outright condemned all three of Adam's responses at that moment (hiding, covering, and deflecting), I can very conclusively declare that there is insufficient evidence in the narrative of the Fall to conclude that any of the three of Adam's responses were "right" in any measure at all.
If you can't say that God outright condemned Adam's response, stop preaching that his response (shame which led to covering his nakedness) was sin.
quote:
God did not address the shame specifically because the shame wasn't the actual problem. God addressed the sin which spawned the shame. Correct the sin (the work of Christ!), and the power of shame is broken. Before God, we have no more need or cause to feel any sort of shame... even body shame. If not before God, then why should we embrace the "necessity" of shame before men?
Let me restate my illustration, so I'll summarize it here again:
My daughter is told not to eat the cookies I just made. She does and as a result of doing so, she ends up with an upset stomach and isn't hungry for dinner. According to your logic, there are 3 sins here: she at the cookies, her stomach is upset, she isn't hungry for dinner. However, that is not the case: Her "sin" is that she ate the cookies. The other 2 things are consequences. I am not mad at her because she has an upset stomach with her. When I ask her "Why is your stomach upset?", it isn't a rebuke for her stomach being upset.
The fact is, when Adam and Eve sinned, things changed. Forever. That sin could not be taken back, just as my daughter can no longer just say, I'm not going to have an upset stomach anymore because I realize I screwed up. Things changed that day in Eden - they changed forever. We cannot, no matter how hard we try, go back to Eden.
quote:
I just would not agree (I suspect) about what constitutes an appropriate "time and place."
Obviously, before a doctor for the sake of health care... no problem. Or between a mother (or father) and their naked children... no problem. Or even between an adult and their aging and failing parents! Again, no problem.
But what of innocent non-sexual recreation? Can that not be an adequate reason to be unclothed? Is there ANY reason for swimsuits other than cultural propriety? Isn't it always more enjoyable to take a hot bath (or hot tub) without any clothes at all? Is that kind of innocent non-sexual pleasure to be spurned and rejected as reasonable "time and place"? I don't think so!
And here is the crux of the argument. In every other instance, there is a purpose behind nakedness. Every single instance. However, there is no purpose to "innocent non-sexual recreation". In addition, you are assuming that there such a thing. I say that after the Fall, there isn't. Does that mean that every single person at a nude resort is lusting after every naked body? No, but you will never be able to divorce yourself from society - no matter how hard you try. Do you have a polygraph set up to test everyone who comes to see if they find this "innocent" and "non-sexual"? Are you saying that you are never turned on by the human form? In addition, are you saying that society alone is what causes lust or do you understand that lust is part of our fallen nature?
quote:
- He walked in the garden as a man might walk.
- He met with Abraham and ate with him as a man might.
- He spoke with Moses face to face (God's own description) as a man would with his friend.
- He endured the flames with Daniel's friends in a form that resembled a man's form (but different enough to be commented upon by the king!).
- He wrestled with Jacob all night like a man might.
You added some parts there. Where does Scripture say He walked in the garden "as a man might walk"? The fact is, you are trying to make a mental of image of something that cannot be adequately described (God) and attributing to it "human characteristics". True, that's what the writers of Scripture use to describe God, but God is indescribable. Scripture describes God as a Lion, Jesus as a lamb, etc. That doesn't mean they have the form of those things. Do you understand metaphor and imaginery? And why it is used to describe the indescribable.
quote:
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.
Actually, satan tempted them to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it was AFTER they ate of that fruit that Adam was ashamed of his nakedness. It wasn't after satan talked to them.
quote:
quote:
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? Good answer! It is at least consistent with your belief that the image is not physical! You are only the second person I have ever asked that to who has answered that angels very well could also be considered in God's image.
But I am very squeamish about attributing to angels an honor that God so clearly and specifically declared at creation that was especially true of mankind. Ultimately, it makes men no more special than angels... in fact, we are weighed down with mortal bodies that hamper our ability to see the reality of the Spirit realm... unlike the angels.
You are assuming that God sees things in terms of 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place. One being made in God's image doesn't take away anything from the honor of another being made in God's image.
quote:
Interestingly enough, however, it seems that God cares DEEPLY about the significance of our Bodies. Orthodox theology will tell us that we will have them for all eternity after the final resurrection. It also tells us that Jesus took our sins not in His spirit, but in His body. It also tells us that if Jesus' body was not literally raised from the dead, our faith is useless. And it tells us that just as he ascended bodily into heaven, so he will bodily return. He tells us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. He tells us to present our bodies as living sacrifices.
If our bodies are not deeply significant to God, then all these things simply make no sense. Why is the human body so significant to God? I find a compelling answer in Gen. 1. It bears his image... physically.
Sorry, you simply cannot logically draw this conclusion. What separates us from animals is not a physical body. Did you know that we share 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees? However, we are VASTLY different from them.
quote:
Who said "adorn" was one of the meanings of that work "kosmeo"? Is that inspired?
No. Here you go.
quote:
quote:
And hence your problem: You are basing your definition for kosmioß on a poor conclusion for the definition of kosmeo. Just above, you said this: "One does not translate by doing a word inventory and picking a definition based on that." Yet it seems to me that that is precisely what you want to do. You say that it means "order" and a list of other somewhat related but actually different words... and you believe that one of the lesser used meanings is best for this passage. No, we cannot pick the favored meaning from a list of definitions. We try to discern the ONE definition of a word which is consistent with all of Scripture's use of the word, and then discern the meaning of the text at hand based on THAT definition.
Incorrect, I am staying within the context of the Scripture in question. I am not pulling definitions for the term from a Scripture in a completely separate part of the Bible and trying to use that to determine the meaning of the term in another context. Context. Context. Context. For instance:
A "When I went camping last week, I saw a doe and a buck."
B "The sale was great. I was able to buy all this for a buck."
To determine the meaning of "buck" in A, I need to understand the context of A. The context is camping and seeing deer, so I know the "buck" here is a male deer. If I use your method of translation, I would look at B and try to apply the definition of B to A. This would lead me to an error in translation because the context of B is completely different from A. Especially, as most words have more than one meaning as in this case.
quote:
quote:
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. I was going to just take your word for it and concede the point, but then I thought I'd better actually take a look... here's what I found at dictionary.com
Translation (best I can decipher it anyway...): "attire" is related to the word "tier," not "tire." They come from different time periods altogether.
Did your research reveal something different?
Here I chose the wrong "tire", but the conclusion still stands.
quote:
I'm going to take your word for that... but if I were to look into it, I'd look at every place where that word is used, and try to distill a single definition from them all together that makes it work in every instance. Unless there is clear contextual evidence that a particular instance is using a word metaphorically, that is the safest way to clarify the precise definition of a word, and stick with it wherever it appears.
The only way you can do your form of translation is if every word has one and only one definition. This isn't true in English and it wasn't true in Greek or Hebrew. You simply cannot come up with a single definition for many terms in Scripture. Period.
quote:
quote:
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)
The article you referenced says this: quote:
"It [nudity in sports] spread to the whole of Greece, Greater Greece and even its furthest colonies, and the athletes from all its parts, coming together for the Olympic Games and the other Panhellenic Games, competed naked in almost all disciplines, with the exception of chariot races." That sounds to me like it WAS common. And since the time of Paul was during the time of Roman rule (which was HIGHLY influenced by the Greek ways), it is completely reasonable to conclude that it was common knowledge when Paul wrote his letters. And his references to running, wrestling, and boxing make it clear that he knew what sports were used in the Grecian Games.
I've never denied that he knew what went on. That is entirely different than saying that he was giving that particular image (naked athletes) when he referenced running a race.
Example: I know full well that many people speed down highways. However, when I use an illustration of driving down a highway, I am not trying to make people think of speeding down the highway or that speeding down the highway is ok.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/21/2008 12:33:37 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
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.
You are assuming that everyone who ever goes to these "subcultures" can completely break from culture and that everyone has the purest intentions. I, as well as most of us arguing here, would argue that you are wrong. Not only that, but it opens you and your family up to predators. If you don't think this happens, check again. I'm not assuming anything of the sort. But the fact that some people act contrary to the mores of a particular subculture does not invalidate the existence of that subculture. It simply means that they are violating the mores of the culture... and they are at fault, not the others who are acting within the agreed upon mores.
For example, there is a culture of dignity towards naked human bodies that is normative for the medical profession. You cannot be sure that every doctor/intern/nurse who might see you when you go there has the purest intentions... but you go anyway. And if a doctor/intern/nurse does NOT have the purest motives, then THEY are at fault and need correction, not the subculture's mores... and least of all, you!
Let me turn the statement back on you, though...
Are you assuming that everyone that operates within the "clothed" culture has -- by virtue of wearing clothes -- conquered all impure intentions? I would argue that if you do, then you would be wrong.
It's not the mores that are wrong, is the one who violates the rest of the culture by violating the agreed upon mores.
quote:
quote:
They had no experience of EVIL before the Fall. They did not know "good and evil" because they didn't "know" evil. They already knew good. They knew nothing BUT good. What they gained at the Fall was an intimate knowledge of evil, not a deeper knowledge of good.
Sorry, but that still makes no sense and is not what the passage tells us. First, do you believe temptation is "good"? Because they were tempted before they ate of the fruit. Second, God doesn't say that they now had experienced evil, therefore they "knew" evil now. It says, "This man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". My point is that Scripture uses the word "know." In English, we think only of "content" when we think of "knowing" something. But in Hebrew, it evidently has a slightly different meaning, judging from how it's used in reference to sexual relations between a man and wife.
The important meaning of the word is not the English meaning, but the Hebrew meaning. You seem to be presuming that the English meaning is the final word. If you do, I disagree, and I find reason to believe that the Hebrew word is more experiential than the English word is.
quote:
quote:
quote:
First, I have never said they were examples of righteousness nor all their actions are models for our behavior. Duh! The Fall?! But you have said time and again that when they saw their nakedness, they covered it. They knew good and evil, and they responded to their nakedness accordingly. What am I supposed to think you are saying when you say that?
You seem to be saying that everything they did after the fall was evil and that anything they did after that point is bad. I'm not saying that. I'm saying, they screwed up and as a result things changed and their behavior had to change as a result. We're saying 2 different things here and I'm not sure how else to explain what I'm saying. Yes, I'm suggesting that even the covering of their flesh in response to their shame was bad.
But all that I can insist upon (as opposed to "suggesting") is that it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion that their shame and covering themselves was GOOD based upon this narrative. We can have NO confidence that they did anything right at all at that moment.
quote:
quote:
quote:
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."
Again, I say that the sentence structure demands that that reason for God's actions explains why He kicked them out of Eden, not why they had to be clothed.
Actually, verses 11-14 are God explaining why He kicked them out of Eden. True. But our topic at hand has to do with why He clothed them. To say that He clothed them because they were no longer in Eden is valid. To say that he clothed them because they "knew good and evil" is not valid.
quote:
quote:
quote:
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?
That's exactly what God was doing. It's called "grace." And, I agree, God's grace doesn't make much sense to us. But I'm thankful for it anyway.
Yes, God gives us grace, but why here? God cursed the ground because of Adam & Eve. He didn't give them some nifty, thrifty tools to make it easier to work the ground. Why would he create thorns and then say, oops, well, I really don't want you to get hurt, so here, wear these? You are adding to Scripture. Why here? Because that is the character of God. He's been gracious from day one. He has never changed. His grace is even indicated in the curse of the serpent and the woman! (Her seed will crush your head, serpent). It is not adding to Scripture to perceive an act of God to be an expression of grace.
quote:
Scripture says that because Adam and Eve now knew good from evil, they were ashamed of their nakedness and they hid it. God then clothes them. This is not a stretch. (Not "good FROM evil" but "good AND evil")
The stretch is presuming to KNOW why God clothed them when He doesn't tell us. I have my understanding and you have yours. We're both trying to base it upon God's revealed truth, but in this case, that detail is not revealed.
quote:
quote:
There is a time and a place for sex. I agree. That has not at all been in dispute.
There is also a time and a place for nakedness... evidently that is not in dispute either. The dispute actually has to do with whether a nudist resort or a nude beach are legitimate times and places for nakedness.
But do you see the failure of your logic here. You say that because Scripture doesn't spell out when and where nakedness is and is not appropriate, that means hanging out in your birthday suit at a nude resort is ok. However, Scripture also does not tell us when and where a man and his wife can have sex. Yet, here we agree that doing it in the middle of a crowd of people would be wrong. Sorry, but your reasoning is illogical. God does not give locations or times about sex, but I'm glad about that, because my wife and I have been free to have a lot of fun finding unique times and places to express our sexuality together. But I would never suggest that it is to be a public spectacle. And I can find evidence in Scripture supporting that (see my other posts).
You seem to be trying to say that if I believe that nakedness need not always be covered publicly that I must also believe that public sexual expression is permitted. That simply is not the case.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't know where you got the idea that we've said God has a problem with our nakedness. You haven't. It seems that we are more in agreement that first appeared. So why are you opposing me so strongly?
I don't think you are understanding me so let me put it this way. If I see my child naked, it would not disturb me. They are my child: I am their mother. However, if the neighbor across the street saw my child naked, it would disturb me. That's understandable... but not an moral absolute from God. If your pediatrician lived across the street, I dare say it wouldn't bother you then. It all has to to with the cultural context and mores. In some cultures, if the guy across the street saw your ankles and knees, it would disturb you. In other cultures, if the guy across the street saw you naked, it wouldn't disturb you. What makes American culture correct? Nothing. That's my point.
quote:
God is not disturbed by seeing my body naked. That doesn't mean, He thinks it perfectly ok for the entire world to see me in all my glory. That's the difference. That's a good way to put it: "all your glory." The beauty of your naked body is the direct handiwork of God Himself. Glorious indeed. It need not be hidden from those who will honor its beauty (without lust) and honor the Creator for what He has wrought. Do you not wish to glorify God? Can the display of His beautiful artistry in your body glorify Him? Of course it can.
The unfortunate thing is that our culture has "outlawed" glorifying God that way. And I believe that's the direct result of the lies of Satan which pervades our culture. We see God's glorious handiwork and all we can think of is illicit desires. It's tragic.
quote:
quote:
quote:
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. He was not wrong to cover his nakedness, he was wrong to cover his nakedness out of fear and shame. In other words, He was still in the "right time and place" for nakedness at that moment, for God never had told him to be concerned with his nakedness. God made him naked. Gave him a job to do naked. A wife to run with naked. And a place to live naked... full time. There was never a moment's need to cover his body.
That didn't change because he ate the fruit. The "time and place" had not changed... only Adam had changed. It was very literally the WRONG time and place to be covered. And therefore, his reasons for doing so (fear and shame) were inappropriate.
What changed? Adam and Eve now knew the difference between good and evil. Innocence was gone. A baby can run around completely naked and not have a care in the world. Then they grow up and begin to understand the world better and lose their innocence. Point of note: the bible never says that they now knew the difference between good and evil, it says they simply knew good and evil. I know that's what you believe it means, but that's not what it says. And that difference defines how you and I understand the meaning of that phrase.
Good point about the baby running around naked. But the truth is that they do not grow up and "figure out" the world better and so to lose their innocence. They learn shame because we teach it to them... a thousand different ways! "Go put some clothes on!" Don't touch yourself there!" "Close the door when you're dressing or in the bathroom!" "You can't come in right now, I'm not 'decent'" "Aren't you old enough to know not to run around naked?" We start that at age three or before, and never let up until its so deeply ingrained that they are just positive that there's something wrong with them... particularly their genitals. They have no idea why, but there's no denying the reality of the shame we have forced upon them.
quote:
quote:
While I cannot say conclusively that God outright condemned all three of Adam's responses at that moment (hiding, covering, and deflecting), I can very conclusively declare that there is insufficient evidence in the narrative of the Fall to conclude that any of the three of Adam's responses were "right" in any measure at all.
If you can't say that God outright condemned Adam's response, stop preaching that his response (shame which led to covering his nakedness) was sin. And you should stop preaching that having shame for our bodies is a good thing.
To be accurate, though, I think I've been pretty sure that I have indicated that that's my opinion about these passages. When God doesn't say outright, none of us can presume to know for sure. Not me, not you.
quote:
quote:
God did not address the shame specifically because the shame wasn't the actual problem. God addressed the sin which spawned the shame. Correct the sin (the work of Christ!), and the power of shame is broken. Before God, we have no more need or cause to feel any sort of shame... even body shame. If not before God, then why should we embrace the "necessity" of shame before men?
Let me restate my illustration, so I'll summarize it here again:
My daughter is told not to eat the cookies I just made. She does and as a result of doing so, she ends up with an upset stomach and isn't hungry for dinner. According to your logic, there are 3 sins here: she at the cookies, her stomach is upset, she isn't hungry for dinner. However, that is not the case: Her "sin" is that she ate the cookies. The other 2 things are consequences. I am not mad at her because she has an upset stomach with her. When I ask her "Why is your stomach upset?", it isn't a rebuke for her stomach being upset. There are several things wrong with your comparison.
1. A stomach ache is a physical health issue. Shame is a spiritual/psychological issue.
2. The fact that the shame came was perhaps as natural as feeling of guilt over any sin. However, it was not the shame itself that was the problem (to repeat myself), it was his submission to the shame and his attempt to accommodate the shame instead of addressing its source.
A more fitting illustration with your daughter would be if your daughter ate the cookies before dinner, and as a result, she wasn't hungry at all when dinner came. So instead of confessing her sin, she refuses to eat a meal (which is one that she enjoys) and attempts to cover her sin by trying to tell you that she doesn't like that food anymore. You would rightly discern that such should not be the case, and that actually, she was not hungry because she had disobeyed about the cookies. She would be hiding her actual sin by lying about the real reason she was not interested in eating a favorite food.
"Adam, where are you?" -- "Daughter, Why aren't you eating?"
"I was afraid because I was naked" -- "I don't think I like this anymore"
"Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten?" -- "When did you stop liking your favorite meal? Did you eat the cookies?"
It was Adam response to the shame which was all wrong. But it seems that you and others hold out his response (covering) as a model for living that we should all follow. And that's simply untenable.
quote:
The fact is, when Adam and Eve sinned, things changed. Forever. That sin could not be taken back, just as my daughter can no longer just say, I'm not going to have an upset stomach anymore because I realize I screwed up. Things changed that day in Eden - they changed forever. We cannot, no matter how hard we try, go back to Eden.
Yes, your daughter could not go back and eliminate her stomach ache, but she could get over it, restore her relationship with you, obey, and be just fine at dinner tomorrow. Adam could have, too. You would seem to suggest that since your daughter has a stomach ache today, she will have to live with that stomach ache the rest of her life. And guess what... you, as her mother, would not want that. Neither did God want that shame to persist for Adam... or for us.
You and everyone else keep saying that "things changed that day" and that we cannot recover the ability to be shame-free "no matter how hard we try," But I've noted before that it seems the only thing that "no longer applies" or is no longer even pursue-able is is shame-free nakedness.
What makes that different than everything else? The pre-fall commands are still valid. The pre-fall relationship models are still valid (man-wife, man-God), but the pre-fall shame-free nakedness is not. There is no basis upon which to declare that to be true. If God had intended such a drastic change in policy, He would have said so! And in all of Scripture, He didn't. And it's not as if God is not very good at making detailed laws for His people to follow.
quote:
quote:
I just would not agree (I suspect) about what constitutes an appropriate "time and place."
Obviously, before a doctor for the sake of health care... no problem. Or between a mother (or father) and their naked children... no problem. Or even between an adult and their aging and failing parents! Again, no problem.
But what of innocent non-sexual recreation? Can that not be an adequate reason to be unclothed? Is there ANY reason for swimsuits other than cultural propriety? Isn't it always more enjoyable to take a hot bath (or hot tub) without any clothes at all? Is that kind of innocent non-sexual pleasure to be spurned and rejected as reasonable "time and place"? I don't think so!
And here is the crux of the argument. In every other instance, there is a purpose behind nakedness. Every single instance. However, there is no purpose to "innocent non-sexual recreation". How can you possibly say that??? Have you ever read the reasons that naturists write about why they do what they do? You may not respect them or what they might say, but you are in no place to judge their motives. For the record, true naturists do it for health and comfort reasons. Google it and you'll see that I'm right. (swingers and the licentious are not true naturists.)
quote:
In addition, you are assuming that there such a thing. I say that after the Fall, there isn't. Key point.... "YOU SAY..." It is only your opinion and you do not have Scriptural proof.
Evidently, working in a boat (like Peter) is legitimate reason to be naked socially. And if work is ok, why would you say that recreation is not? Since when does God draw a distinction for appropriate attire for work as distinct from recreation? On the other end of the spectrum, where does God permit you to allow your doctor to touch your breasts or your pudenda? Yet you would allow one and not the other.
You have here entered the realm of situational ethics. And God doesn't go for that. If something is intrinsically wrong (being nude around an opposite gender adult not your husband), then it is wrong in all contexts... no exceptions unless you can find one in the Scriptures. God's moral laws are not subject to situational non-application.
quote:
Does that mean that every single person at a nude resort is lusting after every naked body? No, but you will never be able to divorce yourself from society - no matter how hard you try. Do you have a polygraph set up to test everyone who comes to see if they find this "innocent" and "non-sexual"? Are you saying that you are never turned on by the human form? In addition, are you saying that society alone is what causes lust or do you understand that lust is part of our fallen nature? Several important points:
1. You and I are not responsible for the secret thoughts and intentions of others. I can no more guarantee that people will NOT lust at a nude gathering than you can that they will NOT lust at a non-nude gathering. What makes it my responsibility to ensure that no one will do so? If a man is of a mind to lust, he will do so regardless of the state of dress of the women he sees.
2. Why is it that it is with nudity alone that we are under some sort of obligation to eliminate lust in others? In the NT, the word is "lust." In the OT, the word is "covet." When Paul quotes the commandment about coveting, he uses the Greek word for "lust." Therefore, biblically, they are equivalent (check me on that if you wish).
I am not to covet (lust after) my neighbor's house, goats, cars, boats... or wife. He has no obligation to keep his boat covered so that I will not see it and covet (lust after) it. He is under no obligation to hide his house so that I would not be tempted to gaze upon it and covet it in my heart. But he's under strict obligation to keep his wife's body covered so that I not covet her, right? That's because if I don't see her body, I will not covet/lust (false), and if I DO see her body, I WILL covet/lust (also false).
It is not our obligation to remove everything from our neighbor's sight that just might entice him to sinful coveting/lusting. Especially if we are in a context in which the expectation is NOT lust (as it is in a true naturist/nudist resort). If it's a context where it is absolutely expected that people will lust after nudity (like American society at large), then THERE we should limit our freedom for the sake of "weaker" people around us (That is completely biblical.
It's just like the fact that you have NO responsibility for the lustful heart of a doctor who's examining your body. HE (or even SHE!) is the one who's in the wrong, not you. He's the one to change. He's the one who would be expelled from that context because he violated it. You would be free to go to another more upright doctor without fear or shame.
Therefore, if the context is designed to be a non-sexual clothes-free context, you and I are not obligated to wear clothesin an effort to avoid any possible lust. The guy (or gal) who violates that is about to be kicked out (that's exactly what good resorts do... and if the person has a criminal history... they don't get in at all... and yes, they check.)
quote:
quote:
- He walked in the garden as a man might walk.
- He met with Abraham and ate with him as a man might.
- He spoke with Moses face to face (God's own description) as a man would with his friend.
- He endured the flames with Daniel's friends in a form that resembled a man's form (but different enough to be commented upon by the king!).
- He wrestled with Jacob all night like a man might.
You added some parts there. Where does Scripture say He walked in the garden "as a man might walk"? The fact is, you are trying to make a mental of image of something that cannot be adequately described (God) and attributing to it "human characteristics". True, that's what the writers of Scripture use to describe God, but God is indescribable. Scripture describes God as a Lion, Jesus as a lamb, etc. That doesn't mean they have the form of those things. Do you understand metaphor and imaginery? And why it is used to describe the indescribable. Allow me to make an adjustment to my statements to satisfy your objection so that you cannot sidestep the real issue with a spurious criticism:
Change "as a man would" to "as a physical being would." God interacted with the physical world like a physical being, all the while NOT physical... not physical -- but with some sort of shape. And Gen. 1 tells us what that shape is... it looks like people (or people look like Him, to put it more accurately) This is the plain understanding of Gen. 1-3
It's not about mankind trying to describe God... Adam and Eve actually heard God "walking" in the garden. God WAS walking in the Garden. The narrative says so, and Adam professes that he actually heard it. Now either God's word is true and God was walking, or God's word isn't true.
That was not metaphor or imagery. It was a historical event that was recorded. There's not one hint of indication that it really metaphorically means that it was "as if" they "heard" the "sound" of God "walking" in the Garden (even though they didn't actually hear any real sound because God really can't walk.) The Bible means what it says.
As I've heard many times, "if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense."
It makes perfect sense just the way God wrote it.
quote:
quote:
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.
Actually, satan tempted them to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it was AFTER they ate of that fruit that Adam was ashamed of his nakedness. It wasn't after satan talked to them. Point of fact, it WAS after Satan had talked to them. They listened to his lies and ate the fruit. And if you think Satan shut up at that point, you are not very familiar with the ways of Satan.
There is no reason to conclude that He never said one word more than what is recorded. In fact, God's question to Adam in Gen 3:11 clearly implies that someone DID tell him. (if the plain sense makes sense...).
The all-knowing God would not ask a question that had no real answer. He asked "who?" because the answer was a "who." Since God knew the answer before asking the question, that's only logical conclusion. Simple deduction and process-of-elimination thereafter concludes that the "who" had to be Satan, and it in NO WAY conflicts with the rest of the narrative.
If God asked "Who told you...?" Then we must believe that someone DID tell him. Otherwise, God must be counted a liar. God never asks questions to learn the answers, He asks questions to get us to think about the answers. And he certainly doesn't ask questions that would lead us to believe something that was actually false! (asking a "who?" question when the answer is really "nobody!" -- It was not a trick question.)
Since I must conclude that Satan was the idea-guy behind the "nakedness is now shameful and should be covered" concept, then I, for one, am determined to not buy into the lie. Don't you all realize that when you insist that such shame is not inescapable that you are actually becoming complicit in the spread of a lie from Satan? Doesn't that bother you?
I don't blame you, of course. I was taught and used to believe the same way. But then I took a very honest look at these Scriptures and discovered that I simply could not defend the position I had been taught and had believed all my life... the very position that you are attempting to defend now.
quote:
quote:
quote:
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? Good answer! It is at least consistent with your belief that the image is not physical! You are only the second person I have ever asked that to who has answered that angels very well could also be considered in God's image.
But I am very squeamish about attributing to angels an honor that God so clearly and specifically declared at creation that was especially true of mankind. Ultimately, it makes men no more special than angels... in fact, we are weighed down with mortal bodies that hamper our ability to see the reality of the Spirit realm... unlike the angels.
You are assuming that God sees things in terms of 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place. One being made in God's image doesn't take away anything from the honor of another being made in God's image. Image-bearing is only declared of Mankind. During Creation, God stopped and had a "discussion" within the Godhead (for our benefit only, of course; He already knew what He was going to do) about a very special creation... and with a very special distinction. That's what the Bible records. I'm not assuming anything about how God "sees" things... I'm just looking at what He said. He only describe mankind as image-bearers. And I'm very uncomfortable suggesting or believing that any other created being has that same distinction. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not going to suggest it if God didn't mention it.
quote:
quote:
Interestingly enough, however, it seems that God cares DEEPLY about the significance of our Bodies. Orthodox theology will tell us that we will have them for all eternity after the final resurrection. It also tells us that Jesus took our sins not in His spirit, but in His body. It also tells us that if Jesus' body was not literally raised from the dead, our faith is useless. And it tells us that just as he ascended bodily into heaven, so he will bodily return. He tells us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. He tells us to present our bodies as living sacrifices.
If our bodies are not deeply significant to God, then all these things simply make no sense. Why is the human body so significant to God? I find a compelling answer in Gen. 1. It bears his image... physically.
Sorry, you simply cannot logically draw this conclusion. What separates us from animals is not a physical body. Did you know that we share 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees? However, we are VASTLY different from them. What dies DNA have to do with bearing God's physical likeness? Nothing at all. DNA is about the chemical building blocks of ALL life. DNA does not set us apart. God set us apart. And that's all it took.
quote:
quote:
Who said "adorn" was one of the meanings of that work "kosmeo"? Is that inspired?
No. Here you go. Thanks, but I've already acknowledged that today's lexical documents say that "adorn" is a valid translation of that word. They say that because sometime before them, the word was used to translate kosmeo with the word "adorn" (the KJV translation predates Strong's). That's circular logic and is therefore no proof of any sort (it proves it neither false nor true).
But "adorn" in English implies the enhancement of beauty. That is simply not part of the root meaning. kosmos describes the universe and it's order. kosmos carries zero reference to it's beauty beyond the beauty of its order. It doesn't deny it either, of course -- it simply has no implications about beauty.
"Adorn" implies attention to beauty... maybe even MORE attention to beauty than might be given to arrangement or order. Therefore, it's not a good translation of the verb form of that root word. I believe the translators made a mistake in this specific instance, and that mistake has propagated into Strong's and other resources today.
quote:
quote:
quote:
And hence your problem: You are basing your definition for kosmioß on a poor conclusion for the definition of kosmeo. Just above, you said this: "One does not translate by doing a word inventory and picking a definition based on that." Yet it seems to me that that is precisely what you want to do. You say that it means "order" and a list of other somewhat related but actually different words... and you believe that one of the lesser used meanings is best for this passage. No, we cannot pick the favored meaning from a list of definitions. We try to discern the ONE definition of a word which is consistent with all of Scripture's use of the word, and then discern the meaning of the text at hand based on THAT definition.
Incorrect, I am staying within the context of the Scripture in question. I am not pulling definitions for the term from a Scripture in a completely separate part of the Bible and trying to use that to determine the meaning of the term in another context. Context. Context. Context. You have yet to acknowledge that there is more to "context" than the immediate passage. Search that out. You'll see that you are mistaken in your rejection of Biblical and linguistic context beyond the immediate context.
The very reason that I've reached my conclusion is because of context... and I find reason to question the use of "adorn" and "modest" on multiple levels of contextual analysis... including the immediate context.
quote:
For instance:
A "When I went camping last week, I saw a doe and a buck."
B "The sale was great. I was able to buy all this for a buck." This is another spurious example.
The quotation I gave you about word definitions a few posts ago showed clearly that if a word was so common in usage as to develop a meaning of its own, apart from its origins, then it means what it means according to how it's used. But if it is not such a word, (kosmeo, komios, and katastole are not such words) then the etymology is the key to understanding its true meaning.
Your comparison of a common but clearly defined word with another word that is completely from the realm of slang is simply too inapplicable to this discussion to even address.
quote:
To determine the meaning of "buck" in A, I need to understand the context of A. The context is camping and seeing deer, so I know the "buck" here is a male deer. If I use your method of translation, I would look at B and try to apply the definition of B to A. This would lead me to an error in translation because the context of B is completely different from A. Especially, as most words have more than one meaning as in this case. Yes, many words do have more than one meaning... the common ones most typically, but not even all of them. Uncommonly used words do not have more than one meaning.
Furthermore, we should never start from the assumption that a word has more than one meaning... we should always assume that a word has one unique meaning unless the evidence compels us to acknowledge more. My entire point here is that there is no reason to presume more than one meaning for these words because the "one" meaning that they have which is not in dispute works just fine here, too!
It seems to me that you want there to be two meanings to this word so that you can have the text mean something that you want it to mean! I know you're thinking that I'm doing the same thing, but the difference is that I'm trying to use a consistent definition, and you're trying to allow multiple definitions that then change the meaning of the passage. That is the path to error.
quote:
quote:
quote:
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. I was going to just take your word for it and concede the point, but then I thought I'd better actually take a look... here's what I found at dictionary.com
Translation (best I can decipher it anyway...): "attire" is related to the word "tier," not "tire." They come from different time periods altogether.
Did your research reveal something different?
Here I chose the wrong "tire", but the conclusion still stands. No, you're still wrong.
Evidently, there is a word spelled "tire" which is associated with "attire," but the definition of that particular "tire" is NOT the one you used in your example, for it has nothing to do with fatigue. You treated "tire" (noun-a covering) and tire (verb-to become fatigued) as if they were the same word with the same etymology.
Therefore, you still made an incorrect etymological comparison.
quote:
quote:
I'm going to take your word for that... but if I were to look into it, I'd look at every place where that word is used, and try to distill a single definition from them all together that makes it work in every instance. Unless there is clear contextual evidence that a particular instance is using a word metaphorically, that is the safest way to clarify the precise definition of a word, and stick with it wherever it appears.
The only way you can do your form of translation is if every word has one and only one definition. This isn't true in English and it wasn't true in Greek or Hebrew. You simply cannot come up with a single definition for many terms in Scripture. Period. As I said above, you must assume only one until the evidence demands that you acknowledge more than one. And it is only the common words which develop multiple meanings. These words were not common, and there is no evidence that they must be defined multiple ways.
At the same time, the words in one language only rarely have parallel words in another language that absolutely mean the exact same thing. There are almost always subtleties in one language which do not translate fully into another language. That's why we often see a word translated one way in some contexts and translated another way in other contexts. That doesn't mean it has two distinct definitions, it means that the true meaning lies somewhere between the two words, and neither captures it perfectly. So they use the word that most nearly captures the true meaning in the particular context in which it is found.
Again, how many times have you heard a preacher say, "The Greek word is ____ but it also has reference to _____ in the original language." That's what they're talking about!
quote:
quote:
quote:
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)
The article you referenced says this: quote:
"It [nudity in sports] spread to the whole of Greece, Greater Greece and even its furthest colonies, and the athletes from all its parts, coming together for the Olympic Games and the other Panhellenic Games, competed naked in almost all disciplines, with the exception of chariot races." That sounds to me like it WAS common. And since the time of Paul was during the time of Roman rule (which was HIGHLY influenced by the Greek ways), it is completely reasonable to conclude that it was common knowledge when Paul wrote his letters. And his references to running, wrestling, and boxing make it clear that he knew what sports were used in the Grecian Games.
I've never denied that he knew what went on. That is entirely different than saying that he was giving that particular image (naked athletes) when he referenced running a race. Of course that's what he meant. He was writing from a particular historical context to an audience withing that same context, using a specific language context, and referred to a reality that was contextually understood. We must understand the FULL context in order to fully understand what he was saying.
quote:
Example: I know full well that many people speed down highways. However, when I use an illustration of driving down a highway, I am not trying to make people think of speeding down the highway or that speeding down the highway is ok. It would if you used the very act of breaking the speed limit as the illustration of how we are to live our Christian lives.
That's exactly what the author of Hebrews did. He said that we should run spiritually naked of "sin" just like they run physically naked of clothes.
You might have a case in that regard if there were other passages where we find public nudity clearly condemned, but we find none, so there is no reason to presume it here. In fact, it really means that public nudity was a common enough phenomenon in NT times that people knew all about the activities that occurred nude in those sporting events. Yet neither Paul nor any of the NT writers ever bothered to speak directly to that current cultural issue.
It gets worse... In the Hellenized Roman world, every major city had a gymnasium (read all about it in the "Hellenism: The Center of the Universe" article). "Gymnasium," of course, comes from the Greek word for "naked" gumnos. And all the activities inside were entered into in the nude... from the baths, to the workout rooms to the open fields, to the classrooms.
Even Jerusalem had an active Gymnasium while Jesus and the Apostles were living in Israel. it was actually built in 175 BCE. And it is referenced in the Book of Maccabees. Should a Godly Jew go to the Gymnasium (nudity required) or not? It WAS a hot button issue of that day. (Sadducees said "no problem" and Pharisees said "problem!").
But instead of condemning the gymnasium so that every good Christian Jew and converted Greek (NT calls the Gentiles "Greeks") would stay away from them, the writers of the NT simply ignore the issue. Jesus didn't bother settling it, either. It was right next door to the temple, but He made a scourge of cords to clean out the wickedness in the temple, not the wickedness of nakedness next door.
Public nakedness was a well known reality in Jesus' and aposles' day, but they never once condemned it nor told Christians to abstain from participation. We can only conclude that they didn't because they had no reason to; God doesn't mind it.
God didn't commend nakedness to us (else we would make it a requirement for righteous living) nor did He condemn it (but that hasn't stopped us from making CLOTHING a "requirement" for righteous living!).
Neither should we.
I do not commend nakedness to you.
I commend to you the rejection of shame for your naked body.
I commend to you the beauty and honor of carrying God's image on your naked body.
I commend to you the rejection of the man-made rule that you must never let anyone but your spouse see it.
I commend to you the freedom to enjoy the beauty of God's image as represented on every human body in the world... and the freedom and power to do so without lust. It is ours in Christ.
How you apply these truths in your life is up to you.
(FollowtheRabbi.com does NOT promote or even condone public nakedness, but it does give us this historical context. The conclusions I've reached as a result of understanding that data are my own.)
AID
< Message edited by Ad-Imaginem-Dei -- 4/21/2008 1:10:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/21/2008 3:04:25 AM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 16989
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: online
|
I really need to point out TOS 11
11. You will not post disruptive content, such as chain letters, all caps, unnecessarily long messages, or meaningless text.
It might be prudent to try and shorten up future messages.
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/21/2008 8:31:36 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kath
I really need to point out TOS 11
11. You will not post disruptive content, such as chain letters, all caps, unnecessarily long messages, or meaningless text.
It might be prudent to try and shorten up future messages.
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
Thank you. I suspect that "unnecessarily long" is a somewhat subjective criteria, but your point is taken.
I think I'm pretty much done now, anyway. Only short posts herafter... if at all.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak freely in this forum.
AIM
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/21/2008 9:21:35 AM
|
|
|
Mennonite
Posts: 2
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
I like visiting nude resorts. It's fun to swim in the nude and to play nude volleyball. My whole family used to go to such places when I was a child.I see no conflict between nudism and Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/22/2008 11:45:58 PM
|
|
|
WhiteRoseBlessings
Posts: 26671
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Here, but subject to change . . . stay tuned!
Status: offline
|
LOL!
_____________________________
.
.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 4/22/2008 11:54:25 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1273
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mennonite
I like visiting nude resorts. It's fun to swim in the nude and to play nude volleyball. My whole family used to go to such places when I was a child.I see no conflict between nudism and Christianity.
Sorta like those kids in Texas don't see the problem with polygamy.
_____________________________
You can take the man out of Alaska, but you can't take Alaska out of the man.
Me
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/1/2008 11:02:56 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
Quite frankly I'm very pleased that I can walk into a grocery store or wherever and not see nude bodies roaming about.
Of course, the preferences of a person do not define the standards of God.
The fact that you are "pleased" to not see nude bodies says nothing about God's perspective.
quote:
God gave us the means to provide clothing for ourselves. Please wear them so you don't wilt the veggies. 
I realize that you're trying to be clever and a perhaps humorous, but isn't it worth noting that when God put the first couple in a garden, they were quite nude, and the "veggies" were in no danger of wilting? It was, quite literally, the way God intended things to be.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/2/2008 2:13:32 AM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8694
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mennonite
It's fun to swim in the nude
Kids will no longer be afraid of Jaws.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/2/2008 9:12:04 AM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
Quite frankly I'm very pleased that I can walk into a grocery store or wherever and not see nude bodies roaming about.
Of course, the preferences of a person do not define the standards of God.
The fact that you are "pleased" to not see nude bodies says nothing about God's perspective.
quote:
God gave us the means to provide clothing for ourselves. Please wear them so you don't wilt the veggies.
I realize that you're trying to be clever and a perhaps humorous, but isn't it worth noting that when God put the first couple in a garden, they were quite nude, and the "veggies" were in no danger of wilting? It was, quite literally, the way God intended things to be.
AID
Yes, but God made clothing for them. If He didn't want man and woman clothed, He wouldn't have bothered to make them clothing at all.
That's rather presumptious. I think it is just as likely that God made clothing for them because of the harsher environment they were about to face outside of the garden.
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/2/2008 2:38:19 PM
|
|
|
NewYork74
Posts: 26
Joined: 3/5/2008
Status: offline
|
I wouldnt have a problem going to an all male nude beach. Ive been to one as a kid and I was with my dad. The men and women had separate nude beaches. I havent been to one as an adult because I dont feel comfortable naked in front of strangers. But if I must I would go to an all male one because I am not attracted to males at all and I would be able to look at it without any sexual thought. I wouldnt go to a nude beach with females, because I know for a fact I would have lusting thoughts, so why tempt myself?
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
