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.

[Dakotawalker]

I believe that god did not write the bible, but man did. Man wrote the bible, perhaps with dreams or spiritual messages/beliefs of what to write. So, If god speaks to man, and I believe he does so - privately, then man writes, or wrote way back then, what he believes god told him. But in my belief, what man may have written way back then is not necessarily what god actually said; there were many authors to the bible.

[Leon Cristopher]

Mark 14/51 tells about Jesus and some of his friends travelling through the Gardens and meeting a young man (teenager?) who was naked followed by Jesus getting locked up and put on trial. He eventually gets released becuase nobody wanted to be a witness and testify. Even back then we had stupid laws to protect people from things they did not care about.

[puffledud]

Leon Christopher wrote:

quote:

Mark 14/51 tells about Jesus and some of his friends travelling through the Gardens and meeting a young man (teenager?) who was naked followed by Jesus getting locked up and put on trial. He eventually gets released becuase nobody wanted to be a witness and testify. Even back then we had stupid laws to protect people from things they did not care about.

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but my version of the bible reads: "One young man who also was following Him had nothing on but a linen cloth. They tried to grab him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked"

Just not sure how you got the interpretation of the teenager being locked up and then set free because no one wanted to testify. Maybe your bible is different than mine.

Dave

[Rabid_Clam]

Dakotawalker, you are exactly correct in that there were many who wrote the bible and that many men wrote it. It is a good book, full of good advice and reasoning yet many aspects were written to answer man's questions using imagination and not fact. After all, proof in the pudding is that Adam and Ever were the first two persons, correct? And Ever bore two children, Cain and Able, correct? THen if the first two people bore two sons, who did Cain and Able marry? The bible also states comments about their wives.

Right away that dispells the Adam and Eve story.

Yet that may have been where there were a number of people around evolving however they do, and God then chose these two to become acceptable humans in his court. After all, somewhere there was a line to cross when Homosapien no longer was part of the animal world but did cross over to the human element.

This is another question to be answered by God when we meet or at some point after we cross over to the promised land when our body expires.

[Nude in the North]

quote:

Adam and Ever were the first two persons, correct? And Ever bore two children, Cain and Able, correct? THen if the first two people bore two sons, who did Cain and Able marry?

The Bible says Adam And EVE were the FIRST two people created. NOT the ONLY two people.

And it doesn't mention how long a day is to God either. For all we know one of Gods days could be a Billion years from our perspective.

We need to keep in mind that we earthlings are on the Inside, looking out. And we can't see everything.

Steve