Nudity

[AThornquist]

Am I the only one here that sometimes watches these immodestly dressed women on TV?

No, but that's a reason I don't watch TV other than the show 18 Kids and Counting. The question itself suggests my rationale.

 

[Pergamum]

Again, I know I'm jumping in late and can't make many new points, other than to say I generally agree with Pergy in his view of the appropriateness of nudity, depending on the context. Taking that a step further, I would argue the appropriateness of nudity depends on two factors:

1. The context of the nudity
2. The culture of the nudity

For context, I think we all agree husband-wife private nudity is appropriate, along with medical nudity. I would argue that nudity at the beach (at least partial nudity, as in women going topless) is acceptable, and nudity in art is acceptable as long as it is without prurient undertones. The same applies to movies/theatre.

I'm sorry but I have to really challenge your thoughts here. I've studied the topic of modesty quite a bit in the Scriptures...and modesty is never defined by context nor culture! The principle of modesty always remains the same however the application of it will vary with time and culture. True modesty would be applicable in all contexts, so I disagree with your statement.

If I was to equate the shame of nudity (which is what the Bible teaches) with the shame of having relations with one's own sibling (which is also a shame in the Bible) according to your logic....it would be perfectly acceptable to have relations with one's own sibling depending on the acceptance of that practice within context or culture! So I completely disagree with your logic.

In all honestly, if something was truly modest and honorable then it should it be modest enough to be worn to church. So my question to you is, how would you feel if your wife showed up at church one day topless? Is that an honorable or modest way to approach and worship God? If this is not something that you would consider acceptable within the context of church, then why would you consider it acceptable on beaches, in art, or even movies for that matter?

And this isn't directed just at you, I am also addressing Perg because I find his logic weak as well! Sin is sin in the sight of God! Yes, there are some sins that are more heinous than others, however, to sit here and justify sinful behavior because it is acceptable practice among pagans, and artists, and even national geographic photographers is exactly what unbelievers do! They create standards for themselves and call the things that are evil good, and yet they do not take heed of God's standards and ultimately fear Him! They justify their actions lest they be held accountable, and continue to make excuses for their unholy behavior. And it seems to me that everyone that is in favor of nudity or partial nudity has yet to find any Scriptural warrant for it! So the burden of proof falls on you!

"I will behave wisely in a perfect way.
Oh, when will You come to me?
I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.

I will set nothing wicked before my eyes;
I hate the work of those who fall away;
It shall not cling to me.
A perverse heart shall depart from me;
I will not know wickedness." - Psalm 101:2-4

Sin is sin huh? Without any factors which increase or lessen those sins?


It must be nice to live in such a black-and-white, un-nuanced world.

 

[Idelette]

Sin is sin huh? Without any factors which increase or lessen those sins?


It must be nice to live in such a black-and-white, un-nuanced world.

So, when you are on the mission field do you share a gospel that people must repent of only "their big sins" or are you sharing a gospel that they must repentant of ALL sin? Because this is what the Bible says:

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[a] also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." - James 2: 10-11

 

[Pergamum]

There are factors which increase or decrease the heinousness of sins.

Some of these factors are culture, context and intent/purpose. It is for that reason that I do not think that the naked tribals that I talk to are in the same category as playboy bunnies.

It is also why I do not make the bone-headed statement that National Geogaphic and other anthropological materials are "pronographic." Because common sense says that there is a difference in types of nudity/undress.


About preaching against nudity: No, I do not preach against nudity, because there are lots bigger fish to fry. It is a matter of stewardship of time/effort and proper prioritization that we preach on internal sins primarily and often times the extenal manifestations take care of themselves.

 

[ewenlin]

I don't live in America, but wouldn't the things you guys mentioned (skimpy beach wear, skimpy sports apparel, renaissance p0rn types) be shunned even by heathen men 50 - 100 years ago? An unbelieving woman will never even think of wearing a bikini to the beach as modest attire at that time am I wrong?

This is how far society is on the downhill, when Christians can deem appropriate what heathens will condemn years back.

OK, if we agree that bathing suits, miniskirts, etc. are immodest, do you avoid TV because commercial TV is loaded with women exposing thighs, bellies and worse. You can see this during swim meets, football games, beer commercials.....

Its easy to say that society, or other people, is sexually corrupt. To what extent do you protect your eyes and your children's eyes from this filth?

Am I the only one here that sometimes watches these immodestly dressed women on TV?

As I said, I don't live in America and we don't have as much of those things you've mentioned. Notwithstanding that, neither do I watch television save for the rare occasions and only shows that I know don't contain as such. I use Netnanny as well as K9 web protection for my internet. But this isn't about me is it.

Personally, I don't watch television not primarily because of sexual content. With or without it I am of the opinion that television largely serves to pull us away from what is truly important, that of constant communion with God. I've never been able to watch television "to the glory of God" as Tim Conway puts it. That's another issue though!

I agree with py3ack, but is the minimum specifically defined by the bible? And if so, what is it?

 

[Paul Nowlan]

There are factors which increase or decrease the heinousness of sins.

It is also why I do not make the bone-headed statement that National Geogaphic and other anthropological materials are "pronographic." Because common sense says that there is a difference in types of nudity/undress.

Isn't obvious that the intent of National Geographic is to educate and the intent of Playboy is to stimulate, and this difference of intention is important?

Does not the intent of the nudity have any bearing?

Or, is just being nude or partially nude automatic condemnation?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This is my problem. I am not arguing for nudity, yet it seems that when we cover body parts like the Muslims cover female heads, the lust for these body parts increases.

Sounds like a chicken or egg issue to me...

Yet again.... The chicken and egg are no issue. The Chicken came first. That is like asking who came first, Abel or Adam?

And no one has responded to the following, if I am not mistaken.

(Gen 9:21) And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

(Gen 9:22) And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

(Gen 9:23) And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

I have seen the commentaries that imply what you are saying. But there seems to be assumption in those commentaries. Maybe I am missing something. If that was the whole problem why did the sons not just walk in and cover him up. The scriptures do specifically say that the other two went in in such a way as to not look upon the nakedness of their father. So I would say that there was a shame in seeing the nakedness.

 

[Paul Nowlan]

And no one has responded to the following, if I am not mistaken.

(Gen 9:21) And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

(Gen 9:22) And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

(Gen 9:23) And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

I have seen the commentaries that imply what you are saying. But there seems to be assumption in those commentaries. Maybe I am missing something. If that was the whole problem why did the sons not just walk in and cover him up. The scriptures do specifically say that the other two went in in such a way as to not look upon the nakedness of their father. So I would say that there was a shame in seeing the nakedness.

Forgive my speculation, but perhaps Ham wanted to humilate his father and the other two sons wanted Noah to maintain his dignity.

This strongly implies that nudity when it is associated with drunkness and a lack of self control is shameful. (Please forgive my observation if it is incorrect or slanderous. Noah was a noble man who had too much to drink in this case.)

There are other cases in the Bible where nudity and/or lack of self control is also shameful.

Is all nudity shameful?

Does that mean that partial nudity associated with gymnastics, swimming, hard work in hot climates is also shameful?

Is the nudity associated with fine art shameful?

There is no question that the Bible cites numerous cases where nudity is associated with a lack of self control (the golden calf incident), weakness (a bad church in Revelation) and shame (the forbiden fruit incident).

The question I have is is nudity or partial nudity always to be condemned?

And, is Pergy right to treat this as a relatively minor temporarily overlookable sin in his quest to bring the good news to non-Christians.

And, is it right to watch commercial TV with all its immodestly dressed females?

 

[kvanlaan]

My uneducated opinion is this: when bringing the gospel to the lost, you don't start on their clothing choices, you start with the gospel. The clothing issue should be an issue of sanctification, not of soteriology.

 

[Idelette]

There are factors which increase or decrease the heinousness of sins.

Some of these factors are culture, context and intent/purpose. It is for that reason that I do not think that the naked tribals that I talk to are in the same category as playboy bunnies.

It is also why I do not make the bone-headed statement that National Geogaphic and other anthropological materials are "pronographic." Because common sense says that there is a difference in types of nudity/undress.


About preaching against nudity: No, I do not preach against nudity, because there are lots bigger fish to fry. It is a matter of stewardship of time/effort and proper prioritization that we preach on internal sins primarily and often times the extenal manifestations take care of themselves.

I just wanted to clarify, because I'm not sure if my post was understood or not. I wasn't referring to preaching against nudity on the mission field, my point was that in the sight of God at the end of the day.....sin is sin! If we break the smallest of the commandments we are guilty of breaking them all! So, its really irrelevant to talk about degrees of sin, or what causes them to increase or decrease.

 

[Pergamum]

It is not irrelevant because even our confessions speak of degrees of sin and things that increase or aggravate sin or lessen sin. Failure in ability to distinguish between National Geographic and Playboy is VERY relevant and is a worthy topic to discuss. We need more nuance on this particular topic.

But, you are right, if a thing is a sin, then, yes, all sin IS sin. But, to clump anthropology in with eroticism is silly.

 

[DonP]

There are factors which increase or decrease the heinousness of sins.

Exactly, some sins are worse. But they are still sin, so you don't get to do them or permit them.

I agree you don't start with nudity seeking to reform a people before conversion but as the law is preached, you do preach the law don't you?, they need to hear what sin is and what holiness God requires so they need a savior and begin to sanctify and live holy they may drop many sins all at once or in a short period of time.
But only those they know are sin and against God's word. You are duty bound to point our the gross and obvious sins.

And trust me in African cultures whether nudity or not their is lust and incest. And the fact it is culturally accepted by heathen does not make it OK or not sin.

Would you not teach against incest?

Seeking to justify it is non-Christian reasoning.
God forbids it, it is sin. No one should seek it or allow it. If it happens we correct it as soon as possible.

As for how little clothing one may wear this may not be an issue of nudity but may be an issue of modesty and some liberty of conscience. But nudity is clear and not a matter of conscience and liberty

But Christians do not think, how little can I wear, how much can I get away with and not cross the line to sin. They think, what is godly and honoring to Christ and in reverence of God.
Not how much of the world can I keep and be like.

 

[Pergamum]

There are factors which increase or decrease the heinousness of sins.

Exactly, some sins are worse. But they are still sin, so you don't get to do them or permit them.

I agree you don't start with nudity seeking to reform a people before conversion but as the law is preached, you do preach the law don't you?, they need to hear what sin is and what holiness God requires so they need a savior and begin to sanctify and live holy they may drop many sins all at once or in a short period of time.
But only those they know are sin and against God's word. You are duty bound to point our the gross and obvious sins.

And trust me in African cultures whether nudity or not their is lust and incest. And the fact it is culturally accepted by heathen does not make it OK or not sin.

Would you not teach against incest?

Seeking to justify it is non-Christian reasoning.
God forbids it, it is sin. No one should seek it or allow it. If it happens we correct it as soon as possible.

As for how little clothing one may wear this may not be an issue of nudity but may be an issue of modesty and some liberty of conscience. But nudity is clear and not a matter of conscience and liberty

But Christians do not think, how little can I wear, how much can I get away with and not cross the line to sin. They think, what is godly and honoring to Christ and in reverence of God.
Not how much of the world can I keep and be like.

I am not trying to justify sin, only trying to properly nuance things such that eroticism is not clumped into the same category as anthropology.

 

[Idelette]

It is not irrelevant because even our confessions speak of degrees of sin and things that increase or aggravate sin or lessen sin. Failure in ability to distinguish between National Geographic and Playboy is VERY relevant and is a worthy topic to discuss. We need more nuance on this particular topic.

But, you are right, if a thing is a sin, then, yes, all sin IS sin. But, to clump anthropology in with eroticism is silly.

Perg,

I can see your point....but you have to admit its a dangerous slippery slope. At what point is it no longer "anthropology" but wicked paganism? During the times of the Corinthians, the people practiced sexual temple worship and orgies and modern anthropologists look back and are fascinated with the "culture" of the time! You may see it as silly to clump the two together....but I don't think it is so far-fetched to think that Lord may view them just as equally wicked! What did the Lord do to Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness?

As Christians, we should be the last people on earth to conform to the cultures around us or justify their ungodly behavior! In fact, we ought to be the salt and light.....purifying and exposing the sins of the world!

 

[Pergamum]

There is SO much drunkenness in the world. I can see the point of many who like to drink...why the PB even has a beer section....but it's such a slippery slope! Why drink at all.

Thanks for seeing my point, though. I also see and appreciate yours. Thanks for the blessing of your input. I am going to bow out of this thread soon.

 

[JennyG]

Is this thread anthropology or just niche theology? Either way there must be an awful lot of mad-keen afficionados here.
Did you notice it has had a staggering 2,300-odd views??
Ok one of those is me, now, but - but-

 

[OPC'n]

Is this thread anthropology or just niche theology? Either way there must be an awful lot of mad-keen afficionados here.
Did you notice it has had a staggering 2,300-odd views??
Ok one of those is me, now, but - but-

I guess the topic of nudity gets everyone's attention.

 

[ewenlin]

wasn't that Pergy's intention? Haha just kidding.

 

[CDM]

Fyi

WLC:

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
A. All transgressions of the law are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
A. Sins receive their aggravations,
1. From the persons offending; if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, willfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord's day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.​

 

[DonP]

Yes key word there: SIN

means don't do it, don't partake in others doing it.

The world can call it anthropology or curiosity but what it is is people watching other ungodly people sin.

They are not cute little naked innocents. They are ungodly wicked people given over to depraved minds from the fall who need to hear the gospel to be delivered out of the blindness of Satan.

Now there is some Biblical anthropology for you.

There is nothing innocent here. This depravity is a result of the fall and God not having mercy on these people to get them the gospel.

Their nudity is cause to cry and look away from them and pray for missionaries to get the gospel to them. We do not look on this to get joy or satisfy curiosity anymore than we look at their incest or thievery and accept it.

It is satan seeking to cause us to call evil good.
It is satan seeking to cause us not to be careful in our conscience .

And it has nothing to do with beer. Drinking is a matter of conscience, drunkenness is sin.
There is no slippery slope in nudity, it is as drunkenness, sin.

There is a slippery slope in immodest dress as we have seen, once they started raising hemlines above the ankles it never stopped until they hit the bikini. There is nothing left except nudity.

Just yesterday it was on the news there is no rule in Oregon against nudity at your home so one woman is going naked in her front yard and the police said it was no problem.

So unless people protest this, we may be the anthropology

 

[Pergamum]

wasn't that Pergy's intention? Haha just kidding.

It's not merely pot-stirring. This has missiological implications, implications on how we prioritize issues to address, implications on how we apply the Gospel to cultures, and how we view art, and how we view anthropologocial records. This is a very practical thread, especially so I need not feel dirty when I watch the Discovery Channel! Plus, I LOVE the National Geographic magazine!

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:25:26 EST-----

Just when you hope a thread will die...

I am done on my end. I would love to wrap it up.