Nudity

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will wait to hear the biblical arguments that teach nakedness is permissable for art, story telling, etc. It has been 3 pages though...

I gave an argument from scripture in post 74 to which no-one responded so I assumed I'd won ;)

I just now read the post, thanks for the effort. However, I fail to see where you argued FROM Scripture. That is, where did you lay out what the Scripture TEACHES on the matter?

Scripture teaches us about sin, it's origin and method, which fits every other case of sin apart from this one absolutely (i.e not in some outlying circumstances). I would like to know how James 1:14-15 is not sufficient to explain to this lady who let a breast fall out how and why she is sinning, again, given the only verses which give an absolute verdict have an apparent high cultural context. This lady would say to me, "Yes I cover myself and dress modestly to avoid tempting anyone else to lust; you are telling me that there is another part of my body which I should cover that no-one around here thinks is sexual. You might as well tell me I have to cover my ears - there is as much scriptural warrant."


A couple good place to check for scriptural references:

WSC

Q. 70. Which is the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 71. What is required in the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment requireth the preservation of our own and our neighbor's chastity, in heart, speech and behavior.

Q. 72. What is forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment forbiddeth all unchaste thoughts, words and actions.​

WLC:

Q. 137. Which is the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.​

I, of course, agree entirely with that and it changes nothing. I am arguing that it is not an absolute because to one person's immodesty another wouldn't blink. Naturally we should be considerate to others of different views (so, e.g. if I had a problem with that lady's breast, then I could tell her that she's being inconsiderate, but even that seems unfair on her because the probability there was a white person walking behind her was negligible) and so default to the lowest common denominator, but I object on principle to people saying that their cultural norms are absolute because that way lies great danger, in effect to interpret the bible in your own worldview and elevate the worldview to inerrant. Some 19th Century missionaries did that and did great damage.
 
Archlute;

I think your comment to be somewhat inappropriate in its inference, but this behavior actually seems to be confined to old men.

No intent to offend, I was merely curious if the young men were more modest, in this respect, and if not, do others wince at the sight of young men doing the same.

As a woman, I've seen women of all ages in the locker room after working out, some are more modest than others..but those who are more modest typically make comments about how they wish they were not so ashamed of how their bodies look without clothes. Not that the other women looked 'better' physically, they were just comfortable with how they look.
 
Can we watch the olympics, or are the competitors nekked? That swimmer dude in his special sleek outfit looks pretty nekked to me. Should Christians boycott the olympics until the swimmers wear pants? Am I less sanctified because I see no problem and don't feel convicted by all this?


Nakedness for erotic purpose (outside of marriage) is wrong. But given certain cultures and contexts there is a range of permissibility. All levels of undress are not nakedness and I think that a lack of nuance infects the church.

My main argument is that National Geographic is not the same as Playboy, and erotic imagery is not the same as anthropological record. There are mitigating factors invovled and I am trying to figure out all of those factors.

However, some do not want to admit that there is a difference in the permissibility of certain levels of undress based on culture, purpose, and context. Some do not admit any difference.



I know a fundy church that does not believe women should wear pants, both due to that silly interpetation of Deut. but also because the cloth should not split up a woman's legs (i.e. pants show the shape of a woman's legs, even if loose). So, at a church softball game, all the girls, in order to bat, used a clothespin to fasten their skirts in the middle - thus making a pair of pants.

For churches like that, though, is no in-between. They are not able to proces any nuance and the louder that one one decries some sort of sin, the more sanctified they must be. That is why many churches advocate tee-totalerism, because if drunkenness is a sin, then drunkenness begins with just a little drink. So they decry and rail against drink totally. The same is true about modesty.


So again, I am asserting that all levels of undress are not nudity and that there are factors which reduce the sinfulness of some forms of nudity. All nudity is not erotic nudity, but some nudity even serves a purpose, such as medical exams. And some nudity is permissible due to the reasons annexed to it, i.e, an anthropologist recording the life of a tribe should record things realistically to make a realistic record, if he put t-shirts on them before filming, this would instantly ruin his attempts at realistically recording a culture. Also, due to work, sports or other reasons, some levels of undress are appropriate whereas those same clothes would be inappropriate in another conext. If Michael Phelps, the swimmer dude, wore his speedos to Wal-Mart that would be inappropriate. If he wore a suit and tue to a swim meet, that would be ridiculous.


So, there are mitigating factors and we need not be like some Fundies and call National Geographic by the name National Prngraphic. I can enjoy anthropology and anthropological books (even with pictures) without feeling dirty.
 
...Or reading a medical manual?

Anyone who would read a medical manual just to see the drawings and/or photographs of people naked really, really, really needs to take up stamp collecting, or something... :lol:

I never thought of Gray's Anatomy as a source for "entertainment."

When I wanted to be a doctor (before I realized how terrible I am at biology) I tried to read Grays Anatomy..... nothing entertaining about it.
 
The problem we seem to have here is that we are wrestling with two opposing thought processes:

1) on one hand, the Bible clearly associates nudity with negative things such as:

i) the shame of Adam and Eve
ii) the naked crazy man of the gospels
iii) the naked blind church members in Revelation
iv) the immortality of the Golden Calf worshipers and certain pagan societies

2) on the other hand, total or partial nudity seems to be allowable in other cases like:

i) competitive swimming or diving
ii) fine art
iii) hot climates
iv) study of native cultures

Perhaps God knows how we view nudity in our hearts. Perhaps if our hearts are innocent when we view fine art, or whatever, we are not condemned.
 
Mason says that as a doctor, the sight of a naked woman means nothing to him. It's the same way with me, due to my advanced age, so I'll not comment.

I will, though, look forward to hearing what the other men here are willing to disclose about themselves.

I'm just now jumping into this thread and have a lot of reading to do, but just wanted to comment that nudity means nothing in the context of medicine. Outside medicine nudity still means something to me - just ask my wife! I think the other physicians on here will agree that in the context of a medical clinic the most beautiful woman in the world could be standing completely naked and stir no feelings other than curiosity about the medical problem...
 
All but proves literal nakedness?

So was the part where Shem and Japheth metaphor also? That they didn't cover Noah with a blanket, but forgave his sin?

I believe that Shen and Japheth were of the elect and knew that they were as unrighteous as Noah. They like another christian need to forgive each other for our sins.

It is possible that Noah was physically naked. But that is not the point of this chapter. The point of this chapter is to show us that Noah was just like us. A sinner covered by the righteousness of Christ. Every "hero of the faith" is exposed in his fallen state to the elect. The non elect do not recognize this. They think that they share in Noah's innate nature do be righteous.

Actually, the point of the chapter is to show that Noah was just like Adam. The echoes of the creation story in the Noah story are unmistakable. The end of chapter 2 being echoed in the shame of Noah's nakedness all but proves that it was literal nakedness. See my sermon on the passage.

I am using incorrect hermeneutics?

Correct hermeneutics employ interpreting the literal or plain meaning of the text to be literal or plain in it’s historical context. But the figurative and symbolic passages must be interpreted figuratively and symbolic.

So when we are talking about Noah’s nakedness how are we to determine whether it was physically or symbolic nakedness. The three possible options are thus.

a. He was physically naked.
b. He was symbolically naked, (his sins exposed or uncovered)
c. He was both physically and symbolically naked.

So how do we interpret this text:

Ex 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Is God concerned about man approaching him as being physically naked? There was nothing wrong with man being physically naked as God walked in communion with Adam in the garden before he had sinned. Adam, being God’s creation being created in the image of God was considered by God to be good. Genesis 1:31 “And God saw everything that he made, and behold, it was very good” and Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. They were not ashamed “before” the fall. But man, in his fallen state corrupts the gifts of God and through the lust of his heart disfigures God’s creation and turns it into an object of sinful desires.

Now in Exodus 20:26, man cannot approach the face of God uncovered bearing his shame. Thus this passage in interpreted symbolically. The word nakedness in Strong’s concordance is:

Nakedness 6172

nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda
pudenda (implying shameful exposure) nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour exposed, undefended (fig.)

Take not that it not only means being physically naked but can also mean to imply shameful exposure or improper behavior exposed.

Now we read 2 Samuel 6:14 “And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod”. And then 6:20 “Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows “shamelessly uncovereth” himself!”

Now David was not completely physically naked, but was wearing his linen undergarments. But, he had disrobed himself of his royal garments, and shamed himself before the real King of Glory. This was an act of humble submission to grant all of the glory to his King.

Another passage that breaks the description of physical nakedness with shamefull exposure can be found in Leviticus 20:20-21 “And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath “uncovered his uncle's nakedness” (symbolically shamed) : they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. And if a man shall take his brothers wife, it is an unclean thing; he hath uncovered his brothers nakedness, they shall be childless. The act of these acts “shamefully exposes” or “uncovers” the uncle and the brother, not just physically removing the literal garments of the wife.

In your sermon you made the following statement:

We do not know how much he drank, whether he was extremely drunk, or only mildly so. It does not matter much. The point is that Noah drank enough to become sleepy. We know this, because of verse 24, which says that Noah awoke. Wine does tend to make a person sleepy. And in verse 21, we see that Noah was in his own tent, and lay uncovered. We do not know whether Noah intentionally uncovered himself, or whether it was an accident caused by his falling asleep.

Now it does not say that Noah went to sleep. It said that he was drunk and then he awoke from his wine. Not that he awoke from his sleep. In other words he “sobered up”.

9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
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.
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

See also Psalm 32:1, 85:2, Prov 17:9, 28:13 and Strongs 3722 in regards to "covering" being symbolic

So, this passage is either talking about literal physical nakedness and covering, or
Literal physical nakedness and also has symbolic meanings to it as well, or
It is speaking in symbolic terms only as is:

Ex 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

I believe that interpreting Genesis chapter 9 in it's symbolic context alone is the strongest argument. But the fact that Noah was also physically naked is possible. The option that it is speaking of physical nakedness without any symbolic meaning is weak. But holding any of the three I would say is hardly dangerous as some have charged.
 
A few common answers thus far:

"...I think if you're swimming [mostly] naked it is fine..."
"...Hey, if it’s hot get naked..."
"...Well, if you're a savage it's alright..."

And the rationale? "I really really think this is so."

In the spirit of this thread, I'll take this moment to say, surely, "Chocolate is better than vanilla."

I believe that interpreting Genesis chapter 9 in it's symbolic context alone is the strongest argument. But the fact that Noah was also physically naked is possible. The option that it is speaking of physical nakedness without any symbolic meaning is weak. But holding any of the three I would say is hardly dangerous as some have charged.

How do you interpret his sons walking backwards with his robe to cover Noah? I apologize if you have provided an answer earlier and missed it.
 
Archlute;

I think your comment to be somewhat inappropriate in its inference, but this behavior actually seems to be confined to old men.

No intent to offend, I was merely curious if the young men were more modest, in this respect, and if not, do others wince at the sight of young men doing the same.

As a woman, I've seen women of all ages in the locker room after working out, some are more modest than others..but those who are more modest typically make comments about how they wish they were not so ashamed of how their bodies look without clothes. Not that the other women looked 'better' physically, they were just comfortable with how they look.

You have my apology for misinterpreting your question, Bobbi. Yes, the younger men do tend to be more modest. There is always a range of both fitness and age wandering around in the locker room, but even the middle aged weight lifters still wear a towel when walking around the changing areas or when shaving. For some reason unknown to me the majority of old men do not. Maybe they get winded in the middle of changing, and have to take a break before they finish getting dressed - I honestly have no clue.
 
Adam, it may be culture. I remember when one Mexican illegal alien wouldn't strip down with the rest of us after gym, and he was physically assaulted by a coach in the locker room. This would have been in the mid 70's. I also remember in Germany with an all-star wrestling team. After the match, we all hit the communal shower, just like back in the States. But that time there was confusion :lol: at the time, we Americans didn't know that we were circumcised, and we honestly didn't know why we looked different :lol:

Perhaps the young guys weren't so forcibly homogenized as what previous generations of public educator though necessary for American youth :lol:
 
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.

For culture, it depends I believe Pergy's point about National Geographic and "native nudity" is well taken. We are commanded to be modest, but modesty is entirely culturally dependent. What is acceptable in tribal Africa is vastly different from the United States, which is very different from conservative Muslim countries.

So once again, I agree with Pergy in the OP - making a blanket statement that nudity is always wrong (outside of unbiblical sexuality) cannot be supported.
 
It is interesting to read everyone's responses. It seems that what it really boils down to is this: is nudity subjectively shameful or objectively shameful? or in other words, is nudity shameful only in certain circumstances but appropriate in others, or is it always a shameful thing to be publically nude?

I would just say that if Adam and Eve were ashamed in the Garden and then "the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them" that it is pretty clear that nudity, although not sinful, is at least shameful. Also, the rule of expediency that the Apostle Paul gives us in that " 'all things are lawful,' but not all things are helpful" can be used in this situation. Is it really necessary to have nudity in national geographic? Is it really necessary to have nudity in movies whether it's for enticing others to lust or not? The fact is, although SOME may be able to bear it without sin, it is not helpful for all, because it is a fact that there are those who are weaker than others and will sin more easily than others, whether it's a national geographic or an erotic film. Why test the limits?
 
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.

For culture, it depends I believe Pergy's point about National Geographic and "native nudity" is well taken. We are commanded to be modest, but modesty is entirely culturally dependent. What is acceptable in tribal Africa is vastly different from the United States, which is very different from conservative Muslim countries.

So once again, I agree with Pergy in the OP - making a blanket statement that nudity is always wrong (outside of unbiblical sexuality) cannot be supported.


Are you married? If so, how does your wife feel about the conclusions you have made that are in bold above? I doubt she would share the same conclusion.

Also, since when does culture determine what is Biblically correct? Modesty is not determined by culture but by the Scripture.
 
Are you married? If so, how does your wife feel about the conclusions you have made that are in bold above? I doubt she would share the same conclusion.

Also, since when does culture determine what is Biblically correct? Modesty is not determined by culture but by the Scripture.

I agree with you, the Word determines what is right and wrong, not culture. However, do you know of any absolute biblical definitions for modesty? I sure don't. If the Bible told us exactly how to dress then I agree, culture and context would be irrelevant.

And yes, my wife agrees with me.
 
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.

For culture, it depends I believe Pergy's point about National Geographic and "native nudity" is well taken. We are commanded to be modest, but modesty is entirely culturally dependent. What is acceptable in tribal Africa is vastly different from the United States, which is very different from conservative Muslim countries.

So once again, I agree with Pergy in the OP - making a blanket statement that nudity is always wrong (outside of unbiblical sexuality) cannot be supported.


Are you married? If so, how does your wife feel about the conclusions you have made that are in bold above? I doubt she would share the same conclusion.

Also, since when does culture determine what is Biblically correct? Modesty is not determined by culture but by the Scripture.

These sorts of threads always come down to culture verses Gospel (or, your interpretation of Gospel).

Person A says that some moral principle varies on the basis of culture, context and purpose/intent

Person B comes back and says,, "Whoa Whoa, this moral principle is not determined by culture but by the Bible and the Bible never changes..." Then they usually try to push the West's view of how that moral principle applies (like the 19th Century missionaries who, in the name of modesty, tried to institute Victorian ethics).


But the truth is, that particular applications of universal biblical truth DO change as we apply the Gospel across cultures and in different contexts.

How we respect our elders, what constitutes public property and theft, what is lying, and even what constitutes modesty are all affected by culture, context and purpose/intent. Culture, context and purpose/intent all serve to affect the morality of actions and may even lessen or increase the heinousness of sins. But, let it be clear that there is no such thing as an a-cultural theology.
 
2) on the other hand, total or partial nudity seems to be allowable in other cases like:

i) competitive swimming or diving
ii) fine art
iii) hot climates
iv) study of native cultures

But are we just commenting on what is now a social norm in this listing, or actually saying that these things are biblically acceptable?

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 08:44:30 EST-----

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.

On what basis? If you say that it is "in context", it is not biblical context, it is secularly-based context. What if public nudity is OK'd in general, and not just confined to the beach? Then it is OK again? No, no, no. When we conform ourselves to the world, we fall.
 
Promotes lust. Nothing in Schindler's List would promote lust, for sure as it was of the holocaust. The others of which you speak do stimulate one toward lusting after the flesh, sin! They stimulate the senses and suggest you should be experiencing similar sensations as they portray. Watching National Geo or history shouldnt be doing such unless you truly have a great problem! Besides, I've always had an aversion to the thought of being spectator in someone elses bedroom!

Shindler's List doesn't 'promote' lust, but it doesn't help (AS I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER).

To your 'great problem', it would seem that maybe you don't know men very well.
 
I would say that in art, nudity is allowable if it is necessary.

As an example, I saw the film Andrei Rublev, Andrei Tarkovsky's film about a 14th century icon painter (2nd commandment issues abound, naturally) in which there is a scene of Andrei captured by Russian pagans when he stumbles upon their orgy. I personally don't think Tarkovsky's critique (or Andrei's spiritual struggle) would have been nearly as powerful had there not been nudity.

I'll also say that to some degree, modesty is culturally based. In old Charleston, SC it was considered shocking (and worthy of a shotgun wedding) if a young man saw a young lady's ankles. On the other hand, our scots ancestors wore kilts and it has only been in the last two hundred years that anyone ever swam while wearing anything (I recall a humorous story involving a female reporter catching T Roosevelt swimming in the Potomac).

Cultural norms of what constitutes modesty change, but the scriptural command to be pure and modest does not.
 
Art is still real people

I agree that there are some very tasteful, beautiful pieces of art with nudity. But I think it needs to be considered that there is a model posing for the art. My husband teaches theater at a community college, in his job he constantly has to make decisions about what to allow in a play. He has to choose scripts carefully and often has to edit out offensive language. In the department that he works in some of the art classes have nude models. Would you want your son or daughter working at a model in a classroom? Do they need to draw, paint or sculpt nudes. It's easy to accept when it's an old piece of art, the artist and models long gone. But these are real people. Is it the right thing to do? The art teacher at our school demands that the models be treated respectfully, but I'm glad my husband doesn't teach these classes and I'm glad he would never put on a play that included nudity.
 
I don't want to discuss other people's sins now.

My questions are:

1) Is it permissible for me to watch figure skating, diving, swimming, gymnastics, etc. knowing those female athletes have skimpy and immodest outfits?

2) Is it permissible for me to watch TV knowing that many shows and commercials have women immodestly exposing thighs, bellies, cleavage, etc?

3) Can I view Rembrandt's Bathsheba?
 
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.
 
Scripture certainly does give some guidance on modesty - for instance, Exodus 28:42 goes some way towards defining what having your nakedness covered means for men, and Isaiah 47:1-3 suggests that a similar approach applies to women.
 
Scripture certainly does give some guidance on modesty - for instance, Exodus 28:42 goes some way towards defining what having your nakedness covered means for men, and Isaiah 47:1-3 suggests that a similar approach applies to women.

Yes, it isn't certainly ALL culture. There are biblical principles, which are universal. But most only stress this universal-principle side of the equation, and not the variances in application of principle due to culture, context and purpose/intent.
 
Perhaps we can say that the Bible gives us a certain minimum, and then by enjoining propriety and not seeking attention by our appearance, encourages us to blend in with cultural norms while they do not transgress that minimum universal requirement.
 
Perhaps we can say that the Bible gives us a certain minimum, and then by enjoining propriety and not seeking attention by our appearance, encourages us to blend in with cultural norms while they do not transgress that minimum universal requirement.

OH, but should we be happy with just the minimum!

Just kidding. I like your summary very much!
 
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.

Ding. Ding. Ding.
 
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?
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top