There are three people who got into trouble regarding nudity.
Ham, son of Noah, who make a big deal about seeing his father (Noah) nude and passed out drunk in his own (Noah's) tent. Ham got into trouble, Noah did not.
David, who lusted after Bathsheba, who was bathing on the roof of her house -- seems odd now, but that's what they did then. No big deal. Everyone did it. Totally acceptable. David got into trouble, not Bathsheba.
Michal, David's wife. David had been dancing, jumping, twirling, and such down the middle of the road with throngs of spectators. David was only wearing a linen ephod, which doesn't exactly cover much even if the wearer is just walking over even standing. So, yeah, everyone saw his junk. Michal had a problem with it. She got into trouble, not David.
Of the twenty or so people in the Bible who were nude, none of them ever got into trouble for being nude.
Bible says that our bodies are "good," we are made in the very image of [the almighty], we are "fearfully and wonderfully made," our bodies are "the temple of the set-apart spirit."
There are three Hebrew words that get translated into "naked," or "nakedness." One of them means naked as a baby is born -- wearing nothing at all. A good deal of Christians do not accept that this is what this word means. "Certainly, he simply didn't have his outer clothing on. Had to have still been wearing his Jockey Briefs." The other two are metaphors and figures of speech and have to do with exposure and vulnerability (mental/emotional; not physical). A good deal of Christians believe that these two words mean nude -- as a baby is born.
When the Bible uses the word "modest," it's used in its former sense. Which, in some situations, we still use. If I said someone had a modest house, you would not imagine I meant that all of the windows were cover with heavy draperies on the inside and shutters on the outside. You'd understand that I was using "modest" in its "humble" sense. A modest house is a small unimposing house. Similarly, he lives on a modest income.
I've often wondered what would happen if The Church actually taught what the Bible really says.
I've often wondered what would happen if The Church actually taught what the Bible really says.
Me too. A few rimes Ive been in church and a pastor is telling a story about some event where someone is exposed or dressed in a revealing way and says something along the lines of No one wants to see that or that its disgusting. In my mind he just called God or Gods work disgusting or something that no one wants to or should see. If were made in Gods image then who are we to say God or Gods creation disgusting? Doesnt that fly in the face or worshiping God? Based on that an image of God is. a 350 lb guy with bad skin, bad teeth, and balding. If thats the case shouldnt that be as an attractive image or even more so than an image of an airbrushed model that the media tells us attractive?
I'm not sure what official teachings are among the various denominations or religions for that matter. One thing I do object to is the attitude that puts all of the effort on the part of the female. If their mode of dress causes lust for them, it is their obligation to dress more conservatively. Hence, Catholic nuns in their top of the head to the toes medieval dress, Muslim women in much the same, Amish in full length dresses, and the list can go on. That is in my opinion a fallacy.
The one piece swimsuit still reveals the shape of the person wearing it. The body hugging outfits that Muslim athletes have been wearing still reveal the shape. These customs then are essentially accusing men of not being able to control themselves. Another objection. Honorable men can and so have control as to how they view another person. It should be no different if we were nude in places where nudity was practical. I think it has been shown many times that nudity in itself does not affect physical attraction as much as types and styles of clothing.
People who are not exposed to a normal life lived naked seem to have a desire to see nudity even in its slightest forms. Look at the number of videos posted that give a split second shot of a nipple slip, or breast popping out of a top, or the wind lifting a skirt to show a thong or no underwear at all. These would likely all go away if "officialdom" would come out and say that nude is not only okay, but perhaps the better way to live.
These would likely all go away if "officialdom" would come out and say that nude is not only okay, but perhaps the better way to live.
Unfortunately it will never happen as the lobbyists for the textile and fashion industries would and probably do push to make sure their sales are not impacted and instead are increased.
Unfortunately it will never happen as the lobbyists for the textile and fashion industries would and probably do push to make sure their sales are not impacted and instead are increased.
As it is written, "The love of money is the root of all evil."
And/Or, "Thou shall not covet."
A tenant of the church that should be as our personal litmus test.
Do: Love your neighbor! Don't: Covet
It is God's key instruction as to how we should interact with our fellow man.
Do: Love your neighbor! Don't: CovetIt is God's key instruction as to how we should interact with our fellow man.
Love your neighbor as yourself! Yes. And first we need to love ourselves! Earlier in the thread we talked about the creation stories in Genesis. The prologue of John (In the beginning was the Word) is also a relevant creation story whereby "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
What does it mean? That the divine became human, flesh, penis, warts and all? Is it a one shot deal that died with Jesus? Or do we share Jesus divinity as regular flesh dudes? Is his continuation of divinity solely through the Church? And if so, which Church body? Following the Apostle Paul's view of our human body as a negative "thorn in the flesh" and his view of the Church as the Body of Christ, challenges us as Christians to accept and love ourselves, doesn't it?
I believe we're called to cocreate with God in this time and place, our time where we find ourselves on Earth. We need to accept our human body alone - both vulnerable and beautiful - first before we can accept our body as an object to be covered. Otherwise the covering is the object, and that diminishes our beauty. You don't put a basket over a latern, do you? That's an analogy Jesus made which I believe applies to our bodies. Why cover them when our divinity shows from our human naked selves?
So I bless you for the light, beauty and truth God created in your naked human body for you to show up in naked glory, and it's all good.
These would likely all go away if "officialdom" would come out and say that nude is not only okay, but perhaps the better way to live.Unfortunately it will never happen as the lobbyists for the textile and fashion industries would and probably do push to make sure their sales are not impacted and instead are increased.
Any change in our way of living will being lobbies to oppose it. Our capitalist system is geared to create more money from what we have and do with it, be it physical or intellectual. It is money that drives change and we can be assured that if nudity among us made money, it would be more commonplace.
It is no secret that church attendance and religious practices are in a decline for at least a generation if not more. Is that decline at least partly responsible for relaxed attitudes about naked behaviors? Nudity in our society does make money, but that nudity that makes money involves sex. We profess that nudists live a more pure lifestyle, but we have not really shown how living nude can be a money maker.
nudeyooper wrote:It is no secret that church attendance and religious practices are in a decline for at least a generation if not more. Is that decline at least partly responsible for relaxed attitudes about naked behaviors?
It seems to me that public attitudes are becoming less relaxed, rather than more relaxed, regarding public nudity. If they were more relaxed, I think you would see nudism go mainstream, with more resorts and nude beaches and camps, and therefore more opportunities for a revenue stream. But I don't see that happening.
But the decline in church attendance indicates something possibly positive for us. I think it's due to the fact that the kind of religion encountered there is less of a fit with the attitudes of young people. They can't relate to many of its tenets, such as no premarital sex, no abortion, no stepping up to address the real social problems of their communities, and no commitment to addressing real gender equality in some cases. That's pretty much what tore it for me.
But if young people opt out of organized religion, they may also opt out of many of the dictums of those religions, and seek moral guidance from people who don't consider social nudity a sin.
Churches mainly exist so that people can find other people of like minds. Some reinforce each other's faith, some reinforce each other's prejudices, some are merely to provide some sort of social life in groups that otherwise lack it. Some do real social good, others just collect wealth for their clergy.
There is really no one church position on social nudity. Some churches have a decided position but many others do not and, even within denominations, different priests/pastors/ministers have widely divergent viewpoints. For many who practice Christianity as their faith journey social nudity is a deeply personal decision; it was for me. To follow a church in everything they practice does not, to my mind, give us the freedom of choice implied by a believe in free will. I often struggle with denominations who insist that their way is the only way because that is not my experience. I have dear friends in more denominations than you can count on two hands yet all, ALL, are convinced of the rightness of their personal relationship with God. Many of us take years resolving our own questions before we step out into social nudity, hence my 65 years and a first year social nudist. Because, for me, social nudity was a huge step I had to resolve my internal questions regarding nudity and sexuality long before I took my clothes off in front of other people. I had to deliberately remind myself every time I took my clothes off, even at home in private, that I was in a safe space and nudity was my choice. When it came time to actually strip down it was a non issue because the resolve was already there.
I watched a friend as he explored social nudity as a Christian and vicariously followed his journey in silence. My embracing social nudity was my choice and I have no regrets. The actual social nudity was not as big a step as I had made it in my own mind BUT it is my choice and it is not something I share randomly. I dont know if my church has a definite position on social nudity and I really dont need their approval because I do not believe that my decision on social nudity has any effect on my faith or beliefs. I have found a level of freedom in social nudity that I have never experienced before and I cannot believe that that discovery jeopardizes my salvation or my relationship with God.
This is a personal response; I cannot speak for any church nor for any other practitioner of Christianity. This has been my journey and there may be changes in my beliefs as I spend more time as a social nudist. I am quite excited for this journey and I am loving being comfortable in my own skin, even and especially, when I am in nothing else. Be comfortable in your own mind and soldier on. Like Dr. Seuss said: be yourself...those who mind dont matter and those who matter dont mind.
Great continued thoughts on this thread. I see young people rejecting the tenets of both churches and nudist organizations for the same reasons: they are prejudiced/exclusive and out of touch with the values and motivators they care about. But young people care deeply and often just aren't willing to put up with the crap and dysfunction that for us older people was just a given.
Money is always a driver. It seems like things start out of strong principal with no financial incentive and then stabilize to a golden period. When people figure out how to monetize it, it gets corrupt and defeats its original purpose. I see that as relevant with churches and nudist resorts. They are the purveyors of religion and nudism, but increasingly irrelevant in their current practices and organizations to how people wish to express their faith and body freedom.
In my mid-50's, I have no crystal ball to see how young people will define the future relevant to Christianity or nudism, but I believe in them more than what is disintegrating before me now.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!