I'm a clothing-optionalist. By that, I mean nudity isn't a big deal to me, and I have no problem going to nudist parks and playing volleyball or swimming, or hanging out at my apartment in clothes or out of them. It has nothing to do with sexuality; it's often simply more comfortable to not have to worry about clothes- a soggy swimsuit being a prime example.
What do women think of this? And would you be able to handle having a male friend who sometimes went nude around the house as long as you knew both of you had no romantic interest in each other?
Um, I highly doubt that I would find it "therapeutic" to see a bunch of naked people. "Disturbing" is more like it.
I think that it is one thing entirely for a woman to change clothes in a locker room with other women (or for a guy, in a locker room with other men), and quite another to go about normal activities in the nude. If you want to hang out alone at home naked as a blue jay, go right ahead...but put on some clothes when you leave the house, please. Perhaps YOU don't feel that you are sinning, but you are most likely causing other people to stumble and sin.
Also, think about it this way. Say you get married to a girl who is ok with social nudity. One day at a nudist event, she meets a guy who finds her to be attractive. Perhaps the attraction is not just one-sided...she kinda likes him too. Because of the attraction, they start to "notice" each other a bit more, and the nudity allows their minds to lust after each other. Would you still be OK with her going to nudist functions and being around that man? Yes I know that the same thing could happen if two people are fully clothed, but I somehow think that the nudity issue might cause even more temptation.
By the way, I've never seen a naked man. OK, so I guess I've seen some artwork, but that's not the same. I've never seen a "real live" naked man. I truly hope that my husband will be the first and last naked man I see.
1st of all, I want to say to you that I'm getting a kick outta this entire conversation.
I seriously think that you're 1 cool dude!
I'm also quite taken by the thought you've given this....no matter what anyone says, that's a REAL good thing!
Alright,
Try and bring this back to Christ. Our ways of thinking need to be in alignment with the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and the example lived out by Christ and those God chose to represent Himself to us throughout scripture. Can we agree on that?
If we can agree, then we'd need to take a look at the example given to us throughout scripture.....which is somewhat of a clothed example.
I totally agree with you that as Adams and Eves we need to be naming things in truth - naming being the act of coming to know all things including ourselves. But Christ did not tell us to live as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. Instead, He gave us the example of laying down our lives for others. Even if that might mean wearing clothes.
Could Christ, Moses, Paul and the 12 disciples have lived their lives without clothing? Yes, they could have. Were there moments when they might have disrobed in front of one another? Possibly so. Does scripture place an emphasis on those instances? No, it does not. Therefore it is likely that we shouldn't either.
To be honest, I'm a bit surprised of the question.. And about this question relates to therapeutical, I've read on the news about one American therapist is doing the same treatment to make her patients more "comfortable" during the therapy session. She has problems with her license of her unusual therapy system.
I've noticed that some people have brought verses here which is very great, but maybe you want to consider another question of, "What would Jesus do?" If He was here, alive, as a human, would He do the things you do, like sometimes went nude around the house with his females students gathered around him.. Hearing his teachings and stared at His nudity..
My point is, if it's not something Jesus would do, then don't do it.
Your assertion that a female's chest serves no sexual function isn't particularly true. While they are mainly designed to feed babies...let's see...how do I translate what I learned in Health class... stimulation of the chest causes sexual arousal in the female of the species, thus giving the chest a sexual purpose.
First off, I want to say that my belief in the acceptability of social nudity is not held above my walk with God. I'm active in reaching out and trying to bless people's lives, and if I have a friend who isn't comfortable with me being nude, I keep clothes on. Paul did eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols when he was around other believers who also knew that idols weren't real gods at all, because the meat belonged to God in reality and was still good for food. That said, nudists and those who enjoy clothes-free outings make up a large number of people in the world, and they need God just like everyone else. I didn't become a clothing-optionalist to witness to them, but I can impact them for God now when other Christians wouldn't really be able to reach them. I'm not saying I would do drugs to reach druggies, because that's immoral and has negative effects on one's body; but exposure to simple nudity (no intentional sexual reason for it happening; in person) hasn't been shown to have negative effects on people. (Note that most Christians here seem to assume that two people naturally open to physical attraction to one another are the ones that are getting nude around each other; but just like people wouldn't date just anyone, so also nudists and clothing-optionalists won't date or get involved with just anyone. There are a decent amount of Christians who have gone too far physically with someone else, but that typically starts with clothes on, which shows that it's a people issue, not a nudity issue). Being around someone of the opposite sex who is nude, even if one's body does become a little sexually aroused, can actually help, because when the person doesn't show any sexual or romantic interest back, it helps to reveal to a person that sexuality isn't seated in nudity, it's seated in a person's soul, and this allows a person to detach nudity from sexuality even more.
Imo, Jesus may not have done it because he wanted to reach as many people as he could, and clothes were simply a more efficient way of doing that, because people would be more willing to come up to him if he was wearing clothing. Second, who wouldn't want to wear clothes in winter? Clothes just make sense when it's cold. But I don't have Jesus' first problem, because there are a TON of people who are or would be okay with nudity, and some (like nudists) who may be only able to be reached by it. And Jesus didn't walk around in his glory all the time either, though he could have. So therefore Christ's choice of what he looked like was intentional.
Sexual arousal from stimulating the chest is irrelevant. Kissing a woman's neck can often be a huge turn on too, but it doesn't mean the neck is a sex organ that needs to be covered. Also, babies feed from their mother's chest. Are you saying that the female chest is naturally sexually aroused by all stimulation, and therefore babies are making their mothers hot and heavy when they feed?
Imo, I'm helping many more than I am being a stumbling block to. When guys realize that the female body isn't inherently as sexual as society has played it up as, it makes their friendships with females that much easier to deal with and safer. I don't advocate sitting around and enjoying porn, or going to strip joints for a show. I hope both those latter things get destroyed, because women shouldn't be treated like objects. Nudity isn't inherently sexual though; Americans have just seen too much nudity mixed with sexuality, and so they have become conditioned to think of the two as part of each other. And one could say that even the Bible is a stumbling block to some people, because they read a particular passage at the wrong time in their lives and they take it way out of hand and do something stupid because of what they read. Does it mean we should get rid of the Bible? No. People can stumble over just about everything; it doesn't mean we get rid of the truth because some people misinterpret it.
You've made a couple comments about Americans bombarded with sexuality and I completely agree with you! I can't drive five miles to work each day without seeing 4 billboards with a woman in lingerie (sp?) It's 4 separate signs, not 2 front-and back signs. I look on my computer screen as I write this, and the zoosk.com girls on the top are all wearing enough makeup to go out on broadway, and the match.com girls on the right hand side don't look like anyone I've seen around my hometown, yet it says they're all from there. The CDFF girls are CUTE! Nobody's naked though.
Being American, I'm not allowed to walk around my house naked if anyone can see in. It's considered "public indecency" even though it happens inside my home, because people who don't want to see it can. There's also a five-year old and his single mother next door. She's not the kind of girl I want seeing me naked. I can close the blinds and wear the birthday suit all I want. I'm a dude, things happen and I completely understand. As a man, I know how many guys towel off and walk naked to their room to get dressed after taking a shower. (sorry guys.)
Everything's got a time and place, and I genuinely appreciate you talking about keeping it at a nudist colony for example.
If someone were to start walking around my neighborhood naked, the best thing that can happen is that they get arrested, and quickly. There's lots of kids around here, and lots of dads. It could also be seen as a sign of mental illness. Nudists are people too. Light shines best in darkness. Just be careful, cause when light goes in the darkness all by itself, it does get surrounded by darkness. It may not make sense to you, but there may be reasons most Christians, even Evangelicals avoid certain situations. Be careful man, please.
To go into a little more in depth than my first response . . .
A.
Before The Fall Adam and Eve were naked. This is perfectly acceptable because at the time they were still in a state of complete innocence and without sin. They were as innocent as a new born baby with no sense of right or wrong. In Genesis 2:25 in describes Adam and Eve as being naked without shame. However as soon as sin entered the world they became ashamed of their nakedness and hid from God. They attempted to cover their own sin and shame with leaves but God provided them with animal skins because their own efforts were wholly insufficient (both in a literal and symbolic sense).
Throughout scripture, we have references to nakedness being associated with shame and sin and forbids it. Here are just a few of the examples:
1. In Exodus 28:42 priests were warned to wear undergarments so that their nakedness would not be uncovered when walking up to the altar in their robes.
2. Leviticus 18:6-18 is very thorough in pointing out that it is unacceptable to uncover the nakedness of others even family members.
3. Habakkuk 2:15 where it mentioned the sinfulness of getting someone drunk to uncover their nakedness.
B.
I think it is important to note that both in the Bible and in modern English that nakedness can mean a lack of proper clothing or insufficient clothing as opposed to being completely without clothes. This helps explain the "nakedness" of Saul, David, Peter, etc.
In Isaiah's case there is a question as to whether he was completely naked or had an undergarment. Whether he was completely naked is not important. The passage in Isaiah is not about nakedness is it about obedience. God hasn't asked us to go around naked for three years but He has asked us to obey Him! In the instance with Isaiah God wanted to demonstrate that the king of Assyria would lead the Egyptians and Ethiopians into captivity naked and barefoot just as Isaiah in his nakedness.
At the time the Egyptians and the Ethiopians were pretty much super powers along with Assyria. The king of Assyria was on a conquering spree of the ancient world and the Jewish people were afraid. They wanted to ally themselves with the Egyptians and Ethiopians for protection against Assyria. The Jewish people were relying on them for protection instead of trusting in God. The whole three years Isaiah is warning the people not to place their faith in the Egyptians but in God because soon even the Egyptians and Ethiopians would be carried off as slaves naked and barefoot.
The point Isaiah was not sinning when he obeyed God. Nakedness is not inherently sinful and that is why it is perfectly acceptable for a married couple to be naked in front of each other. More often than not nakedness or immodesty is sinful because of the sexual sins such as lust and immodesty that are associated with it
C.
I Timothy and I Peter references immodesty with flashy, extravagant clothing, etc. While it does not directly mention nakedness here as being immodest or sinful in these passages, it can be logically inferred. More often than not a virtue or principle is often found in the middle of two extremes or vices. Take the virtue of courage for example. We would all agree that courage is a virtue while considering brashness (too much courage) and cowardice (too little courage) as vices.
In the case of modesty as a virtue, the Bible in I Timothy and I Peter is describing the vice of excessive/expensive clothing as being immodest. This is one extreme. Naturally the opposite of excessive/overly expensive clothing is too little or no clothing at all which is also a vice. Another example is the virtue of truthfulness. Lying is can mean stating more than what is true or stating less than what is true (being intentionally deceitful by omission). Both extremes are lies, both are sin.
To sum it all up, modesty is a virtue that God commands us to follow. This includes both the lack of proper clothing (nakedness) and the extravagance of excessive, flashy, or overly expensive clothing. Obeying God is never legalism and often we as Christians often forget that truth in seeking to overly extend our freedom in Christ.
I agree wholeheartedly with Anthony. Awesome post =) I like how articulate you are!
Mark Driscoll has said in a few of his sermons that what we should be asking ourselves is not, "How much can I get away with?" but, "How can I obey God fully in this?" (And that's a bad paraphrase!). There are a lot of factors to consider is something such as public nudity, but I think we should ask, "Is this the BEST choice? Is the choice that honours God the most and brings glory to Him?" Given the choice between putting your clothes on or throwing them off, which choice is most God-honouring?
That's truly great if you don't personally struggle with any kind of lust issue at all, but that's not common. Most guys (and many women) struggle with lust. The bottom line is that we live in a fallen world; that's our reality. One of the consequences of The Fall is that our minds our perverted. Sexuality has been warped. I think that it is foolish and ignorant of us to choose to ignore that reality and pretend that sexual immorality isn't a factor. The images that we get in our head can be like photographs... They're just just fleeting things. What we see and what we choose to look upon becomes a part of our minds. Should we really be putting images of nude people in our minds?
Another consideration here is that we are all called to honour the marriage bed and keep it pure and undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Does it truly honour marriage to treat nudity so lightly? Sex is a sacred, beautiful thing, and one aspect of that is nudity. Sex is not just physical pleasure; it is visual pleasure. We are supposed to take delight in looking upon our spouse's nudity. I think it takes away from the purity and intimacy of that when we separate nudity from sexuality. I wouldn't want my husband to look at me and feel nothing because he's looked at hundreds of other women nude and sees it as nothing special.
