Re: Bible supporting public nudity

[Rex]

If you believe the version of the Bible which it suits you to believe, or the version you have been taught to believe, then what it says in regard to this and that may be relevant.

If you have different spiritual beliefs, or no particular belief at all, then someone else's version or interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant.

I'm always happy to discuss all sorts of things in a civil manner, but suggesting that my attitude to nudity is or is not supported by the Bible, you may as well refer me to a computerised translation of the hieroglyphics found in the tomb of Tutankhamen.

[Rex]

If you believe the version of the Bible which it suits you to believe, or the version you have been taught to believe, then what it says in regard to this and that may be relevant.

If you have different spiritual beliefs, or no particular belief at all, then someone else's version or interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant.

I'm always happy to discuss all sorts of things in a civil manner, but suggesting that my attitude to nudity is or is not supported by the Bible, you may as well refer me to a computerised translation of the hieroglyphics found in the tomb of Tutankhamen.

[johny]

1) Noah:
God never condemned a Noah for just to BEING nude. He condemned the son, and not both seeing their father nude but those who LAUGHED about father nakedness.

2) Shame and nakedness:
Seems You cant say against the fact that many christians and pre-christians, especially for dirty jobs used a buff style (fishermen, peasants, carpenters etc).
Plus general dresses was so expensive then dresses become a measure of one`s richness. Linking both things - if nake = means poor - what was ingrewn slowly in the nation mind.
So there is no wonder that shame and nudity was allready PARTIALLY linked at First Christian Age, and as further as stronger.

But it wasnt a God intention. Why? What do You think, if he exclaimed that human beings in the initial Paradise are Perfect, does that means that He change His mind and started to count that further nakedness WILL BECOME a shameful?? You what! Gods Mind is, by the definition, Perfect, so it makes allways a Decisions with no need to change them later (Genesis).

It means that God constructed the Garden of Eden as a small scale Sample Product to what all the Earth round sooner or later will be converted by the effort of man itself. It means God DESIGNED there being full of naked people, by initial plan, if any He gave a birth and no fur or clothing by a beginning.

But regarding those many facts in Holy Scriptures linking nakedness and shame - seems SOME layers of population really FELT that link. And other trained for work nude felt not. So society was the same polarized as nowadays.

3) ""I was naked, and you gave me clothing.""

It`s the speach about hunger and COOLNESS. When man are frozen then of course the clothes are beneficial.

3) ""White garments""
Those You refer are coming used for what personalities - arent them dressed on the man what are sitting at LEFT AND RIGHT HAND of the Christ. Where? Wouldnt You be so kind and should read that it at Revelation book that happen in the HEAVENLY part of Gods Kingdom - the Heavenly Rulers Table staying far above over the Earthly part where happy people will growing a sheeps, building the houses, sitting each under own vineyard etc (Jessaya book end).
Heavenly personalities dont have a material flesh for they has a spiritual flesh having no relation to material things. So they have a SYMBOLIC white clothes. Not a true clothes. Those are SYBMOLIZING washing down the sins.
Thus heavenly spiritual creatures CANNOT literary use a clothes and that shown us are only symbols of something far off from the nakedness/dressness question.

Here we are....

[Rex]

I didn't start this thread. The topic starter was a new poster on the INA Forum, with [I believe] a 2 lower case letter "name". He/she posted a very long piece claiming Biblical evidence that God didn't want us to be publicly nude. There was nothing in the post which deserved deletion by an administrator so he/she must have deleted it.

[BackpackerBrian]

Romans 14:14 - I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

Titus 1:15 - To the pure, all things are pure. But to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

[jon71]

AMEN BROTHER BRIAN. Preach it!

[Rabid_Clam]

There was a time when the masses including top scientists of the time thought the world turned because of the turtles that carried the planet walked in circles.

Yet over time we learned that to be other than true. We have found many other artifacts of ancient knowledge to be other than true as we learn truth.

That is our purpose on this planet and in this life is to seek the truth. We seek truth in our external aspects and our internal aspects. each is a monumental task. The external to us as a species to work on, the internal is for every person to work on and this continues no different now as it did at the beginning of man.

The search for truth within is anew with each and for each birth. It is the same task for king and pauper, head of state to street bum and equally regardless of race, religion or national origin. The search goes on, and will go on.

[gamblefish]

quote:

Originally posted by Rex:
I didn't start this thread. The topic starter was a new poster on the INA Forum, with [I believe] a 2 lower case letter "name". He/she posted a very long piece claiming Biblical evidence that God didn't want us to be publicly nude. There was nothing in the post which deserved deletion by an administrator so he/she must have deleted it.

That's odd. I thought if the topic originator deleted his/her originating post, the whole thread was deleted? No?

[David77]

quote:

That's odd. I thought if the topic originator deleted his/her originating post, the whole thread was deleted? No?

No. Not any more. A person who starts a post can not delete the entire thread if anyone else posts on that thread.

[gamblefish]

Oh.