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
|
|
|||||
|
74 votes
|
|
68% | |||
|
35 votes
|
|
32% | |||
Please help !
Top Opinion
-
ant0n1us 2012/11/20 00:59:08Honestly as you can .
+9Johnny, 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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...
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
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.
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...
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 hours ago you posted - "Show me the Hebrew text that backs up your statement, you said you could so why dont you?"
Obviously, our posts crossed each other.
4 hours ago I posted - "I did post the Hebrew. Do you not read?"
It has now been 5 hours since I posted the Hebrew. Were I to follow your example, I should be posting asking you when you were going to respond to the Hebrew quotes. However, being posessed of both patience and a knowledge that SH isn't RL, I'll be kind.
I'll post that question in 24 hours.