I know and hear over and over again people who have problems with reluctant spouses, and or near relatives about nudism first, and social nudism progressively. Let us pray that those who are not so enlightened to nudism have still their ability to good reasoning, and the ability to refine themselves in areas they find new and different from the norm of every day routine. First as Christians we need to ask ourselves what is most important in life, the way we each think for ourselves as being right, or God's way as described in His word from Bible Scriptures?
As Christians we all accept and believe that the Bible is God's word, and that the same God is the creator of Heaven and Earth and all the things there in. Thus God's word from the Bible gives account of the beginning and creation of this earth in the first book of the Bible called the book of Genesis. The moment of creation is how the Bible begins in; Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
God created according to His perfect divine design all the water and seas and the fish in them, then the birds of the air, and later all the animals including bugs etc. The best God saved until all else was created, and then in His divine design He created His most prized creation, so beautiful in it's splendor He created Man male and female in His very own image and likeness. God created mankind naked unashamed and told them to be fruitful and to multiply and populate the earth and also to have dominion over all that was in the earth.
God saw all that He had created including the man and woman naked unashamed and said; Ge:1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Ge:1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Ge:1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Now seeing that God who was and is always infallible in all His ways, and the pentacle of perfection who purposely knew what is best when He created His prize creations so blessed to be made in God's own image and likeness naked unashamed, then who could surpass that which a perfect God and divine creator has created as His master piece? Who could make effort to change perfection? Who could actually think that doing the opposite of the way God said was very good and intended, would better please God than the way a perfect God created it in the first place.
Who is it that opposes God and the things of God? Only one - SATAN! - and those who choose to follow his rebellion and oppositions, and Satan is the one who causes people to shame as he is the one who most wants to cover and hide the true image and likeness of our God the divine creator. If you read and study the book of Genesis you will discover that God never mentioned shame in the entire book of Genesis as God said the man and the woman was naked and unashamed, thus any shame comes from doing contrary to what God says is good.
What God created was with out shame, what Satan caused was 'disobedience' and shame is the product of disobedience not nakedness. Thus shame occurs when we are disobedient to God, what a shame Satan would fall to his own vanity, and lead a rebellion of a third part of the angels all ready in Heaven. What greater shame it is when people here on earth choose to follow that imitator and deceiver into disobedience to God. The Bible instructs Christians who have had all there sins washed away by what Jesus did on the cross, to be imitators of God; [url=http://bible.cc/ephesians/5-1.htm][color=#000000]Ephesians 5:1 Therefore em style="font-style: normal;"be imitators of God, as beloved children;[/color][/url][color=#000000] Are you trying to be more like God intended you to be naked unashamed? don't you wish everybody did? [/color]Replies
- ST
SteveFeb 17, 2010The recent forum thread asking how members of religious groups might justify their nudism in the face of criticism from other members of their group got me thinking. It also sent me back to read some Bible, Genesis to be precise. The post above is quite old, but seemed like a good launching point for my questions. In truth, it's less of a question and more of an observation. But I am curious, and I wonder what others think.
In the story of Adam and Eve, the very first action that these two take after obtaining the "knowledge of good and evil" is to make aprons out of leaves. Shortly thereafter, the very first thing that God does when he learns that they have eaten the forbidden fruit, after roundly cursing them and the snake to boot, is to make them coats and clothe them before banishing them from Eden.
It's interesting that both man and God agreed that the most important (i.e. first) thing to do once man knew good and evil was to put on clothes. It seems to me that using the story of Adam and Eve as a biblical justification for social nudity is a tad off target. Am I missing something?ReactReply - TH
ThomasFeb 17, 2010Interesting observation and what is even stranger is that the church I do work for is starting a sermon series titled gread mistake of the bible and the reading this Sunday is from Genisis.
I make no claim to be a scholor, but will reread Genisis and offer my interpertation. I will say that even among scholars there is disagreement, even when it comes to translating the bible from the original Hebrew.
ThomasReactReply - MEMemberFeb 17, 2010
This is a complex issue, because there are so many interpretations of the Bible, starting with the basic issue of whether stories such as this are to be interpreted literally or metaphorically. I think it should at least be clear that nudity in the story of Adam and Eve is never presented as something bad. Man and Woman are nude when they are created in God’s image, and God says it is good. When they put on clothes, God does not commend them for it; rather, He asks them, “How did you know you were naked?” It seems unlikely that God would create mankind naked and then declare nakedness to be sinful.
The wearing of clothes shows that Adam and Eve felt exposed and ashamed. The replacement of the fig leaves could indicate that God acknowledged their sense of shame, or it could indicate that when they were sent out of the Garden of Eden heavy clothes became necessary to protect themselves from the elements. The animal skins also suggest the idea of animal sacrifice and prefigure the atonement of Jesus.
I personally believe that for a Christian, nudity is symbolic of a return to the state of innocence and grace brought about by the atonement. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that in the early days of the church, baptisms were always performed in the nude. They were symbolic of a rebirth and a return to a state of innocence. When the Bible talks about modesty, the emphasis is not on covering up certain parts of one's body, but on not wearing lavish jewelry and expensive clothes that distract others from seeing your true self. Nudity is a way of being more honest about yourself. It is also a way of symbolizing one's complete dependence on God and lack of attachment to worldly things. Saint Francis of Assisi sometimes went nude in public to make this very point.
My faith supports my nudism in many ways, and my nudism supports my faith as well:
Nudism for me is a return to the state of innocence that existed before the fall.
Nudism is a way of being at one with God, nature, and the universe.
Nudism is a path to absolute simplicity and honesty before God and man, and a step towards letting go of the attachments that bind us to worldly affairs and concerns.
That is my personal point of view. Other Christians may have their own reasons for practicing nudism, or indeed for disapproving of it!
ReactReply - STSteveFeb 17, 2010
We're off to a good start. Thanks to everyone so far, and I look forward to more. In the spirit of full disclosure (no pun intended), I am an atheist. I only read Bible stories as metaphors, but I naturally wonder at what we can take from these stories in terms of the nature of the God they intend to reveal. It's a bit of a conundrum that man, as long as he has no knowledge of good and evil, is apparently unaware of the fact that he is naked. When his eyes are opened, nakedness is the first thing he notices, and in some sense, the first thing he corrects. God does not seem to argue with the conclusion that clothes are now needed.
The story is also compounded by the fact that there are only two people in existence at the time, and they are in fact "married". They have apparently not had sex prior to this.
Maybe that is the key - social nudism is all about naked interaction without sex, and this is precisely what Adam and Eve had. So maybe the story is a good basis for nudism. Hmmmmmm.
ReactReply - GE
Gerry-4Feb 18, 2010[quote]My image and likeness are most like my mom and dad.[/quote] Yep, me too!ReactReply - STSteveFeb 19, 2010
There are definitely similarities between the way that Adam and Eve perceived their world and the way that children do. Children, before a certain age, are blissfully unaware of many things, including their nakedness. Innocence and ignorance go hand in hand. We often describe people, even adults, as "innocent" when they are naive about what we call the real world and it's consequences. For Adam and Eve, true innocence was lost through a single act, the same act that provided them with knowledge. I think most people would argue that whatever shame ensued came not from their nakedness per se, but from their realization of rebellion. Given that their entire existence was wrapped up in tending the garden and eating fruit, I suppose their only possible manifestation of shame was to cover themselves. We in the modern world, however, have many ways to express our shame. Nudity is but a small step in shedding some of that shame.
Nevertheless, I still find it interesting that the author chose nakedness as the first awareness for fallen man, and that clothes are the first thing God provides. Making the interpretation that God wants man clothed is not entirely off base.
ReactReply - MEMemberOriginal PosterFeb 19, 2010Perhaps a deeper interpretation will help here, first let's consult the verses in reference here;Ge:3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.First off the onset of new knowledge (opened eyes) caused Adam and Eve to be aware that they were exposed of their guilt, the naked truth was obvious. So knowing they were in trouble with God they inner twined sticky fig leaves to their bodies (like camouflage) and hid in the bushes from the boss.Ge:3:8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.They knew where God would be coming from and where to hide.Ge:3:9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?Here comes trouble.Ge:3:10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.The confrontation, can't hide from God. Note Adam did not say he was ashamed, but rather that he was afraid.Ge:3:11: And he said,Who told thee that thou wast naked?Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?Note here the first thing charged from God toward Adam was "Who told thee that thou wast naked" (it was not God who made them think they were naked)thus being covered was the the first thing God addressed against Adam, for who would ever want to cover up the image and likeness of God? Satan was the influence giving the idea to covering up the image and likeness of the most high. Now on to the clothing bit; .Ge:3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.In the original Hebrew text you will find that as being part of the curse God took the life of an innocent animal and gave the divided hide from that animal (most likely a sheep hide) half to Adam and half to Eve as a cover, most likely apron size good for sitting on in the cruel had world they were cast out to as another part of their curse.Ge:3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.As for a covering for nudity, a half of a hide might be enough to lay on at night and the other half good to cover with to keep the misquotes from eating you alive. Also a half hide is good to drag food while forging for stuff to eat and aid in shade from the harsh hot sun.ReactReply
- STSteveFeb 19, 2010
Thanks for your comments, seeing as how your original post was a springboard. But I am not sure that elaborating on the text is valid. Some of the English versions that we have to read today are translations of the Hebrew bible, and I'd be surprised to learn that the "translation" left out key elements. Some versions, like King James, are known to be less than direct translations. But more recent versions, at least as far as I know, take great pains to present direct translation. So when I read skins (plural) and coats (plural), I take it at face value that God in fact made clothed them with "clothes".
But that is not to me the central question. And this is not a theological question per se. My curiosity lies in the fact that the author deals exclusively with nakedness. Of all the things that Adam and Eve could have their mind opened to, the only thing mentioned is nakedness. And of all the useful things that God could give them upon their banishment, the only thing provided is clothes. No seeds, no farm tools, no weapons - nothing but "the shirts on their backs".
We can of course draw many conclusions as to what nakedness symbolizes. But from a narrowly focused (myopic?) reading of the text, both man and God seem most concerned that nakedness not continue.
ReactReply - MEMemberOriginal PosterFeb 19, 2010[quote]Thanks for your comments, seeing as how your original post was a springboard. But I am not sure that elaborating on the text is valid. Some of the English versions that we have to read today are translations of the Hebrew bible, and I'd be surprised to learn that the "translation" left out key elements. Some versions, like King James, are known to be less than direct translations. But more recent versions, at least as far as I know, take great pains to present direct translation. So when I read skins (plural) and coats (plural), I take it at face value that God in fact made clothed them with "clothes". But that is not to me the central question. And this is not a theological question per se. My curiosity lies in the fact that the author deals exclusively with nakedness. Of all the things that Adam and Eve could have their mind opened to, the only thing mentioned is nakedness. And of all the useful things that God could give them upon their banishment, the only thing provided is clothes. No seeds, no farm tools, no weapons - nothing but "the shirts on their backs". We can of course draw many conclusions as to what nakedness symbolizes. But from a narrowly focused (myopic?) reading of the text, both man and God seem most concerned that nakedness not continue.[/quote] The main focus was disobediences to God and the consequences thereof. A curse of many sorts followed; Ge:3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Ge:3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Ge:3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Ge:3:24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Thus the skin for covering was a part of their curse, we might ask for what reason would there be for them to clothe themselves from each others sight? they were the only two people there. Here is a clip from the leading theology scholars about the one hide issue.;
Also the other main focus is that Adam and Eve now had attained the knowledge of good and evil from the forbidden tree.ReactReply - MEMemberOriginal PosterFeb 19, 2010
I would also like to add;
*Also it is well worth noting that there was only one of God's creations so
blessed to be created in the image and likeness of God himself, something that
Satan in all his vanity became so jealous about, that and the fact that Adam and
Eve were also given dominion over all the other creations God created. Satan's
motives so that he sought to take away the things he did not have, from those
who did. Much of the entire plot of the Bible is how the sacrifice of the
Lamb of God (Jesus) was to pay the price for all sin to enable the restoration
of all who believe. Being restored makes believers to be free to be the way God
intended from the beginning in the eyes of God, including being naked and
unashamed.ReactReply - STSteveFeb 20, 2010
Since I do not read the myths of Genesis through a Christian filter, I doubt we will ever agree on the meaning of the symbolism. But it is interesting to hear from nudists how these verses can be interpreted and related to modern life. That nudism can be a spiritual experience I have no doubt. For believer and skeptic alike, seeking innocence through nakedness is a common pursuit.
ReactReply - CO
Curt, or CowboyFeb 20, 2010[quote]We can of course draw many conclusions as to what nakedness symbolizes. But from a narrowly focused (myopic?) reading of the text, both man and God seem most concerned that nakedness not continue.[/quote] It's my opinion, and the argument I've presented many times, that their "nakedness" meant that God could see what was in their hearts. Their new-found knowledge of good and evil, previously absent and "hidden" from them, was now "naked" and discovered. They attempted to cover this nakedness, not necessarily their human bodies. Further, I maintain that this has been misinterpreted by conventional application of "modern" narrow definitions to the words, which even today can be argued is not what they mean in this context. Though I have no personal objection to this presented here, it does seem that one of the theological groups might be more appropriate, as some may take offense. I'm told I most resemble my father in both appearance and humor.ReactReply - STSteveFeb 21, 2010
RnB and Curt:
Unfortunately, if the discussion takes place on a group page, it's unlikely that people from both sides of the fence will see it and have a chance to comment. If it's in the atheist group, no believers will see it, and vice versa for the Christian group. And since the original post, which dates to two years ago, was posted in this forum, it seemed reasonable for me to start here too.I for one have not read anything offensive in the posts so far. Believers belive, atheists don't. Those facts don't preclude discussion.
ReactReply - PH
PhilfreeeukFeb 21, 2010[quote]The OP has a group for christians, and this preaching does not belong of the forums.[/quote] I'm not taking a fence, but I feel like taking the whole bloody lot, gate an all! I can see your point bicycle, but it really pisses me off to keep seeing this here."Believe it, ............. or not?"But in any event, I thought we had an unwritten rule of no Politics or Religion on the main forum, THAT is what the special interest groups are for. If everyone selfishly used this forum to preach their own beliefs, there would simply be no room left for anything else. I'm quite sure it is no accident that TT, chose not to dedicate a forum here for this controversial subject. So please, let this thread die again, and take you debate to the appropriate place. Oh, ..... and I look like Jesus, ....... but I can assure you, that is purely a coincidence!
ReactReply - STSteveFeb 22, 2010
So be it. I understand the importance of leaving plenty of space in the forum for the debate about what to do with an erection. Clearly that topic warrants page after page.
ReactReply - MEMemberFeb 22, 2010
I gotta agree with bicycle nude on this. It's an interesting debate and question. I thought the thread started by Liloandstitch was interesting as well, until it degenerated. Thank you bicycle, for bringing your question to a thread that already exists instead of creating a new one. It's interesting, to me anyway, to read something other than threads about erections, the unfair treatment of single males, the complaints of women being bomarded by single male friend requests and arguments over whether sexual discussions, groups, etc belong on a site who's rules state that they don't - there's about a dozen threads for each one of those subjects. At least this is different. This thread is specifically about how religion and the interpretation of a holy book supports or doesn't support nudism. The thread is about religion and how it pertains to nudism, not about foisting one's beliefs or ideals onto another or how one belief system is better than another.
Phil and Rabbit - you know I love you guys, you are two of the best - but, if you don't like the thread don't read it and if you have nothing to contribute other than deciding it doesn't belong here, then don't post to it and bounce it back to the top.
Jen
ReactReply - PHPhilfreeeukFeb 22, 2010[quote][quote] Phil and Rabbit - you know I love you guys, you are two of the best - but, if you don't like the thread don't read it and if you have nothing to contribute other than deciding it doesn't belong here, then don't post to it and bounce it back to the top. Jen[/quote] Jen, isn't that what wankers say in the chat room, if you don't like it, don't look at the cam? The first post in this thread, is preaching. It's not the opening of a debate or a real question. It should rightly be on his group, not in the faces of those who DO take offense to it. Religion and Politics are two things that should never be in any website forum not dedicated to those subjects.[/quote] Thanks Rabbit, I nearly missed this, you are of course, absolutely right. Jen, breaks my heart but, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one!
ReactReply - CA
catbirdFeb 22, 2010Indeed there are two groups for Christians. There is Christian Naturists that VicJane created, and there is Christian Nudists. Christian Naturists has the bigger membership. I am a member of both groups. However the two groups are somewhat inactive, in that weeks may go by without any new posting.
However I agree with Jen and Bicycle, that this is an interesting topic. It is unfortunate that the first post comes across as preaching, but Vicjane sincerely loves The Lord. I too love you both, Phil and Rabbit. Let's agree to disagree.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is a higher power. I have seen so much evidence of this. I have at times felt very near The Lord when nude. Take a deep breath and feel God's air in your lungs. At Gunnison Beach, there is the ocean that goes far, far, far beyond the horizon, and I praise God for that creation. I feel awesome at that I fit into that creation. I thank God for my body.
I don't insist that anybody belong to my religion. All of you are entitled to your opinion.ReactReply - PHPhilfreeeukFeb 22, 2010[quote]So be it. I understand the importance of leaving plenty of space in the forum for the debate about what to do with an erection. Clearly that topic warrants page after page.[/quote] Many a true word spoken in jest, ............ and sarcasm! Given the shear number of guys, that have considerable difficulty in grasping an understanding of the need to be discreet, not to mention a welcome flow of nebies, looking for an education in this fine lifestyle, tiresome as it may be to the seasoned members here, YES, ....... I would say, ..... it IS important.ReactReply
- MEMemberFeb 22, 2010Rabbit, You can't compare wanking in the chat room (which is against the stated rules) to a debate on whether or not the bible says social nudity is acceptable (which is NOT against any stated rules). Well, okay, I guess you can since you just did but it's nonsensical IMHO. Vic and Pip were practically the first people to post on this forum and while I don't particularly care for their "preachiness" it's still an interesting topic to some. That one single post has sat there for almost two years. And an atheist brought it up because he had a curiosity. He didn't start an entirely new thread. The forum is not being flooded with religious zealousy. When you bring it down to it's basics it's a debate about the interpretation of a book, for crying out loud. Phil, back to the Liloandstitch thread - the one where a newbie to nudism had a question and concern about reconciling their religion to a newly chosen lifestyle and came to the forum for informatin from people of ALL religions and beliefs - how is that ANY different than the newbie who comes to the forum and has questions and concerns about an erection? Why is one acceptable and the other is not? Why is an erection important but a reconciliation with one's faith and beliefs unimportant? Come on guys - just because it's a subject that you have no interest in, doesn't mean that others don't. I could just about scream if I see another thread about erections - but I don't. And I don't criticize any one for asking the question or having the concern. The discussion is about a book in the old testament - Is there anyone out there who is Jewish, who would like to weigh in on this? Jackie, you were practically a "bride" what's your opinion on this? I still love you both
JenReactReply - NA
Naked-HoustonFeb 22, 2010It's probably moot at this point.
The thread has been kinda dragged off topic discussing whether or not it should be allowed. :)ReactReply - MEMemberOriginal PosterFeb 24, 2010[quote]Well said, sister Jen. Consider these stats as of this moment (8:27 PM EST): Number of threads: 1,399 Number of posts: 21,417 Number of threads at issue here: 1 Number of posts at issue here: 30 % of total threads: 0.07% % of total posts: 0.135% Location of this thread: General Discussion Why is this thread intolerable?[/quote] Speaking of stats, there is approximately 50,000 nudists just in the USA alone, of which 65% claim Christianity! so why not allow the majority their rights? All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men (and or Christians) to do nothing. Many thanks to those who seek the good. [color=#800000] [/color]ReactReply
- GEGerry-4Feb 25, 2010[quote]Well said, sister Jen. Consider these stats as of this moment (8:27 PM EST): Number of threads: 1,399 Number of posts: 21,417 Number of threads at issue here: 1 Number of posts at issue here: 30 % of total threads: 0.07% % of total posts: 0.135% Location of this thread: General Discussion Why is this thread intolerable?[/quote] If I may add my own opinion, while I'm not sure I would have put this in "General Discussion" (but I'm nit-picking in this case), it certainly would belong in "Anything Goes," and would rightly attract the attention of those people interested in these discussions. I joined the Atheists/Agnostics retreat because there are like-minded people there and I can occasionally rant about something they would understand. I did not join any of the Christian nudist groups because I am definitely not Christian. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading about Christianity and how it relates to nudism. Indeed, if a Christian were to tell me that anyone who practices nudism is going straight to Hell, I'd like to be able to say that not all Christians agree, and present the other case to them, so to speak. In that sense, I find these discussions useful. Quoting scripture only works on people who have a certain respect or admiration for the scripture. I no longer do, but that doesn't mean I don't like reading about it and seeing new interpretations. It's sort of like hearing an old classic song all over again for the very first time. You hear elements in the singing and music you didn't notice before. It CAN be very interesting.ReactReply