Quantcast

I have a question about nudity ! I was told by someone that they could never go to a nude beach because they were christian . I am a christian and going nude doesn't bother me at all . Where in the bible does it say nudity is bad ?

JOHNNY 2012/11/19 19:23:29
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Please help !
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ant0n1us 2012/11/20 00:59:08
    Honestly as you can .
    ant0n1us
    +9
    Johnny, one of the strongest tenets of Christianity is your "inner voice". Rules, laws, police, courts are no substitute for the "inner cop"--your conscience. This is the strongest teaching of Christianity--stronger than specific silly rules. Do what your conscience permits you to do, and don't cave in to peer pressure. So, if public nudity does not compromise your own conscience and integrity, then go with it, bro!

    permits cave peer pressure public nudity compromise conscience integrity bro

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Todd~AFCL 2013/11/05 16:08:53
    Please be specific .
    Todd~AFCL
    Check Genesis 3: 1-11, where Adam and Eve learned they were naked, after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. While it does not specifically say it is bad, it is implied from the fact that they only knew they were naked after eating from the tree.
  • Souless In The Abyss 2013/04/08 23:32:38
    Please be specific .
    Souless In The Abyss
    +1
    Look, i guess i can be categorized as a hippie. I enjoy wearing my clothes, but believe me when i say im not worried about what the good lord gave me. If you feel like you can spiritually handle going to a nude beach, just go and admire the natural beauty he created man. Nudity isnt a sin. Look at others nudity as works of art. Good luck my friend!
  • johnpaul 2013/04/08 23:20:01
    Honestly as you can .
    johnpaul
    +1
    A close look at nudity in the Bible, I can't fine that simple nudity being taught as a sin there. But just the opposite. When God finish creating them, God saw that they being both naked was very good. I have not seen anywhere where God retracted that statement. I do believe that we were created by an intelegent designer, an he created the beauty of our naked body to be enjoyed by our peers. One more thing we was created in the image of our Creator. So who do think would want to the most say that our naked body was shameful, or immodest?
  • NakedRei 2013/04/08 07:25:49
    Honestly as you can .
    NakedRei
    +3
    I'm a Christian nudist. I've even prayed naked in a church on occasion.
  • misterz 2012/12/22 18:35:36
    Please be specific .
    misterz
    +1
    Just do what you want - as long as you are comfortable. comfortable
  • Memnon 2012/12/22 12:12:44
    Please be specific .
    Memnon
    +2
    Can't say that I've read that. Follow your conscience.
  • stevegtexas@aol.com 2012/11/29 15:48:55
  • Aki 2012/11/23 09:32:42
    Honestly as you can .
    Aki
    +1
    I think I may have chosen the wrong options, but anyway onto the question. YOU don't care whether or not you go to a nude beach right? Who cares about what others and what the bible might say about it. Not everyone follows the rules to the absolute letter. If you're interesting in going go, if not; don't. Simple as that.
  • JOHNNY Aki 2012/11/25 06:27:57
    JOHNNY
    +1
    I care about the Bible but not the hypocrites !!
  • Aki JOHNNY 2012/11/25 23:49:24
    Aki
    +1
    Okay, if you want to get technical, Genesis 9:22-23 but this doesn't really say that it is bad. Exodus 28:42, again not really bad. Exodus 32:25 and Leviticus 18:6-18. Leviticus 18:6-18 is the only one that preaches against it. Now derive you own opinion.
  • bpf 2012/11/21 21:15:21 (edited)
    Please be specific .
    bpf
    +1
    Were can one start..just a few rules real Christians "MUST" live by .. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Luke 17:1-4 ..short part “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!..in other words if you make a person sin because of what you do and you know better then you answer to God and not to man.
    Matthew 6:24 .."No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (or Man's way).
    Christians do not follow the law because of the fear God but we follow the laws of God in faith and what Jesus has done for us!! That is why is is a lot harder to be a Christian (following the rules & the law in the Bible) in the World today than to walk in darkness or try to straddle the fence the Lukewarm is as bad as the lost. May God grant you wisdom we are in a battle every day for the souls of man, that's why we have freewill to chose.
  • MaryLewis 2012/11/21 08:05:57
    Please be specific .
    MaryLewis
    +1
    If you are a christian then you should pray and ask God for his guidance on this and not mans. IMO
  • killernick~PWCM~JLA 2012/11/21 01:33:59
    Please be specific .
    killernick~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    El Naturale is not on the bible .. so to speak !!
  • TikkiPurdy 2012/11/21 00:28:41
    Honestly as you can .
    TikkiPurdy
    +1
    I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say anything about nudity being a bad thing. It's just that "good Christians" don't do nude beaches apparently. Don't get it. As long as you aren't doing something you have no business doing on the nude beach, what's the big deal?
  • Elizabeth 2012/11/20 23:05:38
    Honestly as you can .
    Elizabeth
    +2
    I'm Christian and I've been to a nude beach. People need to lighten up. I see nothing wrong with nudity, period. Get naked, but don't do it where you are going to make some stiff uncomfortable.
  • Gabrielle 2012/11/20 19:38:56
    Please be specific .
    Gabrielle
    +1
    Nothing wrong with being nude. Ive never was told it was by any church but I guess they may thing it is disrespecting there bodies by showing them. Me I would never do that because I dont want people looking at my naked body if they arent my lover.
  • MiniB 2012/11/20 17:51:49
    Honestly as you can .
    MiniB
    +2
    I believe when God told Adam and Eve to cover themselves He spoke from his presence. They had sinned and were no longer pure.
    Paul went on to say in the New Testament that if you, as a Christian, believe something is what you feel to be sinful, then it is a sin for you. I don't think that includes everyone and their brothers judgement and advice.
    If you are comfortable with your naked self and want to run free, then do it.
  • Dub 2012/11/20 17:20:46
    Honestly as you can .
    Dub
    +1
    Even the first two people god created were nude until they sinned. So where's the problem of going to a nude beach as a christian?
  • Nat Turner 2012/11/20 17:06:17
    Honestly as you can .
    Nat Turner
    +1
    I personally can look at something better, I don't think people should be forced to look at that if they don't want to!
  • johnpaul Nat Turner 2013/04/08 23:36:28
    johnpaul
    No one can force you to look at any thing you don't want to look at. If you at a nude beach and you look at someone that is naked you made a choice to. Nobody to blame but youself.
  • patrick.bonacoscia 2012/11/20 15:04:11
    Honestly as you can .
    patrick.bonacoscia
    +1
    no issue here you can, especially that it's a nude beach
  • tredzwater 2012/11/20 14:37:32
    Please be specific .
    tredzwater
    +3
    It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible. In fact, many Christians have no problem with nudity. The closest the Bible comes to the topic is that clothing is a product of sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they lived in glorious nudity. Once they fell into the trap their god set for them, for some strange reason, this made them ashamed of being nude. It makes no logical sense. If their god had wanted them to wear clothing, he'd have created them with entire wardrobes. He didn't. He completely accepted their nudity.

    Nudity, as a secular crime, needs to be off the books. Now! If society wants to dictate when and where a person can be nude, as it dictates what one wears to a wedding, that's up to the society.

    Religious laws enforced by a secular government are unconstitutional.
  • lucky 2012/11/20 13:38:34
    Honestly as you can .
    lucky
    +1
    It never says specifically you cannot go nude in the NT, however there are many verses where nudity is presented as being bad, not bad as in immoral but bad as in a type of punishment or something someone should be pitied for. I believe Corinthians has the most verses about nudity in the NT, its kind of hard to explain but the other problem with nudity is what other people feel, in a sense some verses talk about nudity as if you are tempting others to sin. As you know tempting others is viewed nearly just as bad as sinning yourself.

    The OT on the other hand mentions woman being modest and is very specific about woman wearing clothes although I dont remember any mention of men, and although now days modesty is is a personal view, in biblical times not wearing clothing was seen as very immodest.

    In my experience some Christian do not do certain things not because the action itself is a sin, but because it may tempt them to sin or tempt others, maybe that is the person you mentions reasoning, why didnt you just ask them, most Christians even those more strict are willing to explain their beliefs and where they get that belief from.
  • johnpaul lucky 2013/04/08 23:48:07
    johnpaul
    It says in Genesis 1,27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. If you or I, created something in our image it would be because we like our image. So i would want it to be displayed for all to enjoy. So it would be a given, that whoever it was that proclaim other wise would be someone that hated me. So it would be a given that we should be prould to display our naked body & our creator would be very please for us to do it.
  • lucky johnpaul 2013/04/10 10:57:02
    lucky
    My opinion is based on the New Testament not the Old Testament but since you brought it up.

    Genesis 3:21

    "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

    If the Lord wanted us to run around naked he would not have made clothing for Adam and Eve.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/09 00:33:53
    tredzwater
    In the Bible, right after being saved as the most righteous man on the planet, Noah celebrated his righteousness by getting drunk and laying around in his tent...naked as a jaybird. (This, of course, means that Christians who believe in blblical inerrancy are descended from a naked drunk... Just sayin'.)

    Noah's son saw his dad polluted and bare & told his brothers. Did the biblical god punish Noah for the horrible, sinful example this most "righteous" man set for the only other people on earth? Nope. Did this just deity punish the son who witnessed the nakedness and sottishness of his father? Nope.

    This "god of Justice" punished the grandson...who was totally innocent of any possible sin or crime. Way to go, Yahweh! Way to show these humans how to behave!
    If I ever decide to rob a bank, I'll make sure the FBI gets onto my neighbor's kid and leaves me alone.

    After all..."It's God's Will."
  • lucky tredzwater 2013/04/10 11:22:42
    lucky
    That type of logic is why the Bible should never be read in pieces, If you had read the entire Bible you would understand that when Noah got drunk at that time drinking even in excess was not forbidden nor was he just laying around, he was asleep, more than likely what we call passed out drunk, it was that moment that excessive drinking became a problem.

    You also misunderstand the entirety of the story, Noah's son did not go into that tent with his father's best interest at heart, he did not tell his brother's out of the goodness of his heart, what he did was intentionally try to humiliate his father by telling others of his father's failures and during that time seeing another man's nakedness was considered extremely taboo which is why the two other brothers went in and covered their father while looking the other way. God did not punish the son, Noah himself cursed his son for his disrespect, a curse which was carried out because of Noah's covenant to God. Why do you think only that one son was cursed instead of all 3 in that particular story.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/11 05:04:23
    tredzwater
    First of all, I've read the Bible in its entirety, cover to cover, 4 times. I read the Douay-Rheims version once and the KJV 3 times. The last time I took notes. Reading the Bible is one of the main reasons I'm an atheist.

    Secondly, did the god of Abraham rescind any curses? Did Yahweh say, "Hold on a moment, Noah. YOU got drunk and wasted. YOU lay around your tent with your dick hanging out for all to see. YOU did these things. Where do you get off cursing a total innocent for all of the life of humanity? What kind of an unjust cretin are you?" Is there anywhere in the Bible where your god spoke against such despicable injustice?

    Hardly, probably because the cases of that god's own injustices are almost too numerous to count. It perfectly fits all the other descriptions of that god's behavior. To choose an unjust, bottom-feeding sot as the foundation sire of all humankind is exactly what I'd expect of him.

    So, to accede to YOUR spin on the story, Bible-believing Christians are all descended from a naked, UNJUST drunk. A guy so wasted he didn't even know his son had come into his tent. A guy so unjust that he curses a kid who had nothing to do with the whole mess.

    Personally, I'd rather have a simple horsethief in my family tree. At least I wouldn't be nearly as ashamed of him.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/11 12:14:15
    tredzwater
    By the way, you didn't address my premise that it was NOAH who needed to be cursed, in simple justice.

    Here we have the world devastated by the "wrath of God". Nothing, whatsoever, is growing that Noah didn't plant. (Although how he managed to re-start banyan trees, baobabs, cacti, alpine flowers and slime algae is beyond me.) So...Noah plants and, with the very first grape harvest, he gets wasted and falls into a naked, drunken stupor.

    How is that "righteous"? Had Noah not used the first fruits of post-flood husbandry for his own excesses, the whole thing would never have happened. Yet, the biblical god supports Noah's curse? To the extent of "punishing" an entire bloodline? (I have always considered this, at bottom, to be the biblical god's curse, since he allowed it. After all, if a baby is raped, is it not "God's will", even if he wasn't actually the rapist?)

    And, THIS is the best that god can do in finding someone to carry humanity past his "wrath"? This is the one and only "righteous" man? This is the forefather of all Christians, Muslims and Jews?
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/11 12:20:50 (edited)
    tredzwater
    As far as the "seeing" being so very evil, what did Ham do? He entered his father's tent. The account says NOTHING about Ham going into the tent for any evil purpose. He just went into dad's bedroom. Or, if there was only one tent, Ham went into his own home.

    The unlovely vision of his father lying drunk with everything on display certainly wasn't Ham's fault. It was NOAH'S fault! So, the great crime of seeing another man's genitals can be laid directly at the feet of the world's only "righteous" man. All Ham did was tell his brothers.

    You have ZERO evidence that Ham "intentionally" tried to "humiliate his father". There is NOTHING in the story that says that. What is SAYS is that he told his two brothers. I see nothing about humiliation. It doesn't even say he snickered. As far as the account goes, he just said something like, "Hey, guys, dad's wasted and naked.", which was the plain, vanilla truth.

    Why was there all that nonsense about getting a garment and walking backward to cover drunken ol' dad? Why not just close the tent flap and put up the Noachic equivalent of a "Do Not Disturb" sign? After all, it isn't as if there were millions of people who had to be warned. Why not just say, "Hey, family, keep out and let dad sleep it off." (In fact, had they done that, Noah would n...



    As far as the "seeing" being so very evil, what did Ham do? He entered his father's tent. The account says NOTHING about Ham going into the tent for any evil purpose. He just went into dad's bedroom. Or, if there was only one tent, Ham went into his own home.

    The unlovely vision of his father lying drunk with everything on display certainly wasn't Ham's fault. It was NOAH'S fault! So, the great crime of seeing another man's genitals can be laid directly at the feet of the world's only "righteous" man. All Ham did was tell his brothers.

    You have ZERO evidence that Ham "intentionally" tried to "humiliate his father". There is NOTHING in the story that says that. What is SAYS is that he told his two brothers. I see nothing about humiliation. It doesn't even say he snickered. As far as the account goes, he just said something like, "Hey, guys, dad's wasted and naked.", which was the plain, vanilla truth.

    Why was there all that nonsense about getting a garment and walking backward to cover drunken ol' dad? Why not just close the tent flap and put up the Noachic equivalent of a "Do Not Disturb" sign? After all, it isn't as if there were millions of people who had to be warned. Why not just say, "Hey, family, keep out and let dad sleep it off." (In fact, had they done that, Noah would never have known that anyone saw him. Therefore, his "humiliation" came about because his sons put a different covering on him.)

    And, for that, an entire bloodline was cursed? For that, an omniscient god allowed black people to be enslaved for generation upon generation? (These verses were used to justify chattel slavery during the during the Arab Islamic period and the European slave trade.)

    :P
    (more)
  • lucky tredzwater 2013/04/12 10:42:50
    lucky
    If you read the Bible the same way you read my comment its no wonder you have a problem with it. you have comprehended it based on your own bias.

    First, you seem to believe what Noah did was a sin, something that he should have been punished for and you dont seem to understand that the problem wasnt that he did something wrong based on God's law but that he did something wrong based on man's perception of what was appropriate behavior at that time.

    Second, you still do not have the story in context. Do some research on those passages about Noah's son as they were written in Hebrew, and also research man's view of nakedness during that time. Once you have that information then you can see the story in its full context and understand why what Noah's son did was so bad and why his other son's felt the need to cover him up.

    Regardless, I see little point in continuing a discussion because neither of us are likely to change our views.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/12 19:31:48 (edited)
    tredzwater
    I have commented on EXACTLY what the Bible actually says. Shall I do it again and include the actual Hebrew text?

    The problem with interpretation, with "context" is that it defeats the entire claimed purpose of the Bible. It turns the Bible worthless.

    Supposedly, the Bible is "God's" way of communicating with mere humans. It exists SOLELY to serve as a template showing humanity how to live and how to deal with that god. In fact, inerrantists claim that each and every syllable is from "God's" mouth to man's ear. Without that, the Bible is useful only to replace a broken chair leg.

    If you must interpret those words, if you must read sociolgical context into those words, if you must lie and invent meaning, as you did, then the god who inspired it was an idiot. He was completely unable to communicate his clear meaning in a way that all of humanity could understand it...and understand it in the same way.

    So, either your god was totally unable to say what he meant or he did say EXACTLY what he meant and, in the Noachic story, what he meant was to glorify a naked drunk who unjustly punished an innocent for the drunk's own "crimes". What he meant is that Noah was gold, no matter what a vicious sot he was, and that Noah's god would support even his most despicable actions.

    OR...the Bible is just a collection of primitive creation myths with an infomercial to pimp a new god stuck on the back of them.

    Works for me...
  • lucky tredzwater 2013/04/14 11:34:41
    lucky
    Actually yes, in actual Hebrew not a translation from Hebrew.

    Second I have little care what an anti-religionist thinks of my comments. You see exactly what you want to see.

    Third, you once again see sin where there was no sin in regards to Noah... you seem to have something against a drunk passing out naked in their tent so much so that you want to see them punished.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/14 12:28:18 (edited)
    tredzwater
    I don't recognize the existence of "sin". Sin is a concept that one has broken the laws of some god. Since I don't see any evidence that gods exist in reality, I certainly don't accept that breaking their supposed "laws" is an evil.

    Although I don't drink alcohol, I don't consider getting drunk an "evil". I consider it a stupidity. People who drink alcohol are willingly damaging their own brain cells and brain cells don't regenerate. (Neurobiologists on SH...I'm trying to keep this simple.) How many times have you heard of people saying, "I was drunk." as an excuse for bad behavior? Even murderers have used it as a defense in court.

    So, for me, Noah's "sin", his evil, lies not in getting wasted but in the aftermath of his being wasted, just as that murderer wasn't wrong to get drunk but was wrong to kill while drunken. The death was, by his own admission, the direct result of his getting drunk.

    Had Noah not gotten drunk, he wouldn't have lay around naked in a stupor. Had he not been lying naked when his son entered the tent, he would not have felt humiliated. Had he not felt humiliated he wouldn't have been angry. Had he not been angry, he would have cursed no one.

    Had he not been a drunken, unjust prick, millions of blacks might still have been enslaved but no one would have been able to claim that it was "God's will".
  • lucky tredzwater 2013/04/17 15:20:56
    lucky
    Im trying to think of a better way to reword what I was trying to get across.

    My reply about sin was not meant that YOU personally believed it was a sin but more in that you seem to believe Christians view it as a sin or God should have viewed it as a sin.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/17 16:07:06
    tredzwater
    What part of "I don't accept the existence of 'sin'." do you not understand? I cannot think that "God" should have viewed it as "sin" if I don't think that either "God" or "sin" exist in reality.

    Nor do I care what Christians see as "sin" because my views that Christianity is a culturally-induced psychosis are well-known on SH. I may pity the thought processes of the psychotic but I certainly don't consider them as "sinning".

    I, most clearly, also said that I consider getting drunk a stupidity, not an evil. I said, "I don't consider getting drunk an "evil". I consider it a stupidity." You really need to guard against taking the clear words of someone else and twisting them to fit your own agenda. I know a lot of people do it but it doesn't serve one well, in the long run.

    I, also most clearly, said, "So, for me, Noah's "sin", his evil, lies not in getting wasted but in the aftermath of his being wasted...". This means that I see Noah's post-drunk BEHAVIOR as being atrocious, vile, vicious and about as un-righteous as one can get.

    So, I say again... Noah was a vicious, unjust drunk and, considering that his behavior was approved by the god involved, that god was supporting a vicious, unjust drunk.

    This means, for me, a god totally unworthy of any sort of respect, let alone worship.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/14 12:36:10
    tredzwater
    I see what IS. It is the theist who can read the Bible and declare it a good thing, a template for ethical human life.

    The fact that you had to lie, to insert something totally missing from both the English and Hebrew text, in order to twist it into your preconceived belief system demonstrates to anyone who reads our exchange that YOU are the one who sees what you want to see.

    Try reading your life-driving template as if each word is EXACTLY what your god planned it to be.
  • lucky tredzwater 2013/04/14 13:03:33
    lucky
    Show me the Hebrew text that backs up your statement, you said you could so why dont you? Show me any evidence at all from an actual none-partisan biblical scholar that backs up your statement, you cant because none exists. The Talmud uses that same language in several places and each time its used in a situation where someone suffered an indignity.

    You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, twisting a biblical account to suit yourself.

    There is no evidence Ham was even black, that assumption didnt even start until the 17th century and is irrelevant because Ham was not the one cursed in the first place, it was actually his 4th offspring that was cursed. Canaan was cursed twice, once by Noah and a second time by God for settling in Shem's territory. If anyone was black it would have been more likely that it was Cush, Noah's first son who wasnt cursed.

    Nearly every bit of the nonsense you have posted comes directly from anti-religious websites and your same old tired argument has been used and debunked so many times its like hearing a broken record play over and over.
  • tredzwater lucky 2013/04/14 14:49:46 (edited)
    tredzwater
    Ummm...three things.

    I did post the Hebrew. Do you not read?

    I don't read anti-religious websites...ever. I don't even use them for quotes because I recognize that theists consider them biased. I go to the source, as I did here, or I quote elite scientists, if that is the base of the discussion. Occasionally, I'll quote a major university, particularly those with a Department of Theology. I do NOT use institutions such as Patriot University.
    patriot university

    I'm an iconoclast and have always marched to my own beat. Everything I wrote to you came from reading the Bible, accepting that the words written are the words meant and using logic and intelligent reasoning to reach my conclusions. If "anti-religious" websites are saying what I'm saying, I can only feel gratified.

    You are obviously not well-educated. There are hundreds of Christian sermons on the Web from 17th, 18th and 19th century Christian leaders supporting slavery, saying it was biblical (it is) and calling blacks "sons of Ham". Since you haven't read the Hebrew I, most carefully, researched and printed for you, I have no desire to increase your piss-poor education through my own time and labor.

    Google those sermons yourself.
  • lucky tredzwater 2013/04/17 15:52:19
    lucky
    If you want to act like a petulant 5 yr old who is throwing a temper tantrum I have much better things to do and I have little patience for people so lacking in intellectual confidence that they feel the need to mirror their own intellectual failings onto others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/10/23 08:10:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals