"Nudity (or near nudity) is justified under the name of art"... how to counter?

[ExtraMedium]

EM:

Try Matthew 5.27 & 28.

Hospital workers, lifeguards, wedding photographers, etc., need to find a way to do their work, too, while avoiding difficulties.

I agree, but just because someone is naked doesn't mean we're automatically lusting after them. Like I mentioned in other threads, I know some men who are more attracted to women wearing sundresses than lingerie. Doesn't mean they can't go to malls, restaurants, schools, etc. And a lot of women find men dressed up in a suit & tie attractive; doesn't mean they're suppose to stay inside because of it.

 

[reba]

EM:

Try Matthew 5.27 & 28.

Hospital workers, lifeguards, wedding photographers, etc., need to find a way to do their work, too, while avoiding difficulties.

Call me a prude or old fashion and i will say Thank you!
Because the world sees nothing wrong in some of these so called wedding photos does not mean they are ok!
Comparing a 'wedding photographer' to a hospital worker is apple and oranges. Good grief . Modesty should be honored not scoffed at.
A christian girl on the beach doesn't need to ware a robe nor should she have the skimpiest bathing suit. (I well remember the girls who could not ware a swim suit but a WET T shirt was OK? )

As Christian as parents we should up hold modesty. The 'church ' is less and less separate from the world. Over and over i hear the excuses as to becoming more and more worldly.. This is just one of the areas. Others would be that could be listed would be off topic

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I know some men who are more attracted to women wearing sundresses than lingerie. Doesn't mean they can't go to malls, restaurants, schools, etc. And a lot of women find men dressed up in a suit & tie attractive; doesn't mean they're suppose to stay inside because of it.

How is this the same as purposely staring at sexually provocative men and women? At the mall, or at the beach you are in complete control of who you look at and for how long. But in a photo shoot or art studio you do not have that control.

This subject reminds me of the ex-alcoholic who surely has a high tolerance to alcohol because of past abuses who thinks he can still indulge alcohol in some safer amounts as he has judged that to be. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. Wisdom says don't find out.

 

[ExtraMedium]

How is this the same as purposely staring at sexually provocative men and women? At the mall, or at the beach you are in complete control of who you look at and for how long. But in a photo shoot or art studio you do not have that control.

Yeahhhh, I sort of get that. But then again, none of us really has 100% control about who we see. At the beach there will be women in bikinis, and the mall there will be teeny-boppers wearing way too suggestive clothing. Or even the gas station, airport, market... it's all around us.

I think the point is, whether painting a nude or seeing someone attractive on the street, it's how we conduct ourselves and how we let us affect us. I'm guilt of sin, and in the eyes of God, even being married 2 days, I'm guilty of adultery. Just coming to work today I got out of my car and a woman in our office building was also walking in. She had on a nice, tight pair of black pants which it her perfectly. She had on high heels which made a nice sound as she walked in front of me. I couldn't help but notice. I didn't think of her and I in a sexual way, but I obviously did notice her. Did I sin? But more importantly, does this affect my marriage to my wife? Will I think or act with her any different? no. Of course not. Same with the OP. (not sure if he's married, etc). But you paint something and then after you're done, you go home. Done. BUT, if it does affect you... and only you know this, then that's where you must remove yourself from the situation.

My 2c.

 

[farouk]

Call me a prude or old fashion and i will say Thank you!
Because the world sees nothing wrong in some of these so called wedding photos does not mean they are ok!
Comparing a 'wedding photographer' to a hospital worker is apple and oranges. Good grief . Modesty should be honored not scoffed at.
A christian girl on the beach doesn't need to ware a robe nor should she have the skimpiest bathing suit. (I well remember the girls who could not ware a swim suit but a WET T shirt was OK? )

As Christian as parents we should up hold modesty. The 'church ' is less and less separate from the world. Over and over i hear the excuses as to becoming more and more worldly.. This is just one of the areas. Others would be that could be listed would be off topic

reba:

Actually those who know me would say I am rather conservative. On another thread I've just been saying repeatedly that I wish people would dress sensibly! I guess another point I tried to make was, saying please be sensible is one thing, actually finding a way of implementing for other people being sensible in this way is really hard.

I agree that wedding photography and hospital work is apples and oranges. My point, I guess, was that there are some very diverse situations and that context is significant, in diverse situations.

So I think we would agree quite a bit.

 

[cyberjosh]

I edited out the scriptures mostly to emphasize your words, not because I don't revere scripture.

Your post is a VERY thoughtful, well stated, analysis of our problem with nudity.
I commend you, and am tempted (talking about temptation) to steal this as my own. You can be sure I will quote parts of it from time to time, but I promise to credit you!

.
I'm afraid you're out of luck because indecent exposure is a cultural issue rather than biblical. Clothing wasn't God's idea; it was man's.

†. Gen 3:6-7 . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

It's really interesting that Eve made no attempt to cover her bosoms; and in many primitive cultures that's still the case. She and Adam covered only their pelvic areas: which tells me that one of the results of eating the forbidden fruit was a guilt complex over sex and the human body.

Another result of eating the forbidden fruit was a natural sense of right and wrong.

†. Gen 3:22 . . Then Yhvh God said: The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil.

At that moment, man become his own God— a know-it-all God who felt he needed no instruction from the real God in matters of right and wrong. In other words: what it boils down to is that frontal nudity isn't a sin and has actually never been forbidden: people just think it's a sin; and it's very difficult to convince them otherwise because man's natural sense of right and wrong has a very powerful grip on his conscience.

†. Jer 13:23a . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?

Answer: No.

†. Jer 13:23b . .Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Now let's fast-forward.

†. Rev 3:18. . I counsel you to buy from me white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed

The passage above makes frontal nudity look shameful but that's not what it's saying. God made coats of skins for the first couple so they would stop avoiding Him because even with loin cloths they felt indecently exposed. In other words, the white garments are so people will be comfortable in God's presence instead of squirming and looking around for somewhere to hide. God isn't offended by nudity, I mean, after all, He created man butt-naked and never once demanded Adam and his wife put something on when He came calling. The white garments (which are no doubt highly symbolic) aren't for accommodating God feelings; but man's.

Note: one of the hardest things I had to learn as a Christian was to forgive myself. In other words: you are never in this life going to shake your guilt complex over sex and the human body so you've just got to get over it and get used to living with it— the meanwhile keep reminding yourself that you weren't saddled with that complex by God, no, it was imposed on you without your consent by two very stupid grandparents.

Cliff
/

Cultural issue or not, I don't think your Edenic analysis shows both sides of the coin here. Paul did say, "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire" (1 Timothy 2:9).

Also from a theological standpoint God uses nakedness as shame and adornment as beauty and glory. Consider God's metaphor for his relationship to Israel in Ezekiel 16:

----
"7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. 8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.

9 Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil.

10 I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk.

11 And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck.

12 And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head.

13 Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth."
------

God also uses exposing nakedness as a symbol of shame in the prophetic books:

Isaiah:

"16 Because the daughters of Zion are haughty
and walk with outstretched necks,
glancing wantonly with their eyes,
mincing along as they go,
tinkling with their feet,
17 therefore the Lord will strike with a scab
the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts." (Isaiah 3:16-17)

Nahum:

"5 'Behold, I am against you,' says the Lord of hosts;
'I will lift your skirts over your face,
I will show the nations your nakedness,
And the kingdoms your shame.
6 I will cast abominable filth upon you,
Make you vile,
And make you a spectacle.'" (Nahum 3:5-6)

Habakkuk:

"15 Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
in order to gaze at their nakedness!
16 You will have your fill of shame instead of glory." (Habakkuk 2:15-16)

---------

Aside from that I agree with what Mike said in that we should not council someone to violate their conscience in promoting something that is a stumbling block to them.

Not to mention that nude art in the past during the Renaissance was also followed by an inordinate interest and revival of erotic books and novels. Just before the French Revolution (a revolution carried out by one of the most self-professed "godless" nations ever - France's atheism was unparalleled at that time in Europe, to Alexander Hamilton's horror) there was a massive explosion of publications for erotic literature in France (which fits under the Bible's definition of porneia - "fornication") which celebrated lewdness.

Though art majors may deny it and say that the classic nude Renaissance paintings were rather inspired by the Ancient Greeks who went nude in the Olympic games (that's not how the whole society was though) I tend to see a correlation/similar origins between the rise of the Renaissance nude art and the rise of erotic literature in Europe. In other words it was true humanism (Italian humanism was what birthed the Renaissance): focus on man and not God. And any long-term focus on man which excludes God leads to the "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). "Culture" is not exempt from God's laws over how man should conduct himself - and if nakedness is a synonym for anything in the Bible it is most certainly shame.

 

[reba]

Cyber it is not fair to use common sense when referring to Scripture!


Nice reply

 

[Ace1234]

Maybe it was clothing that gave the body such sexual appeal. My views changed more or less when I worked with church missions in places like Africa and Borneo where most people ran around naked from childhood to adulthood. Since their culture didn't teach nakedness was lustful or evil, they had no real concept of lust. A womans breast or privates in full view had no effect on the men there, actually beauty is viewed much different, they look more to size, face features, etc.. A skinny model here would be ugly to the men there.

Many of the different mission groups faced issues, some started teaching them nakedness caused lust, etc...tried to dress them, etc...the result, lust wasn't an issue before, but became one, as did jealously. It seemed the more they were taught western values the more problems they had with jealousy, lust and sexual sin.

It was difficult to teach them christianity within their culture, but many missions did so. It was strange to go to church, a huge tent and see several hundred people totally naked praying, singing and worshipping God with all earnest, if all the women did that in America the men would be falling apart from so called sexual lust, needing to cover their eyes lest they fall into uncontrollable sexual thought.

The problem is we confuse lust with sexual desire, the bible does not. Lust is not even a sexual word, it simply means to covet or extreme desire that leads to good or bad behavior, one can lust for wealth, power, etc.. Sexual desire stems from puberty, not lust. It's sad we take God's wonderful design of the body and
turn it into evil.

I think most perverted sexual sin actually stem from the teaching that sexual desire is sinful and lustful. We are taught that viewing a naked body will cause us
to fall into uncontrollable lustful behavior so we act that way.

 

[ExtraMedium]

I think most perverted sexual sin actually stem from the teaching that sexual desire is sinful and lustful. We are taught that viewing a naked body will cause usto fall into uncontrollable lustful behavior so we act that way.

I'm applauding over here. Beautifully stated. The only reason Westeners consider the naked body sinful is because we say it is.

Never thought about the application of nakedness in Africa. And obviously because they don't see the naked body as sinful or lustful they have much less sexual crimes & issues involving jealousy and abuse.

Thank you for this.

 

[Lostear]

Cultural issue or not, I don't think your Edenic analysis shows both sides of the coin here. Paul did say, "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire" (1 Timothy 2:9).

Also from a theological standpoint God uses nakedness as shame and adornment as beauty and glory. Consider God's metaphor for his relationship to Israel in Ezekiel 16:

----
"7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. 8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.

9 Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil.

10 I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk.

11 And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck.

12 And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head.

13 Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth."
------

God also uses exposing nakedness as a symbol of shame in the prophetic books:

Isaiah:

"16 Because the daughters of Zion are haughty
and walk with outstretched necks,
glancing wantonly with their eyes,
mincing along as they go,
tinkling with their feet,
17 therefore the Lord will strike with a scab
the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts." (Isaiah 3:16-17)

Nahum:

"5 'Behold, I am against you,' says the Lord of hosts;
'I will lift your skirts over your face,
I will show the nations your nakedness,
And the kingdoms your shame.
6 I will cast abominable filth upon you,
Make you vile,
And make you a spectacle.'" (Nahum 3:5-6)

Habakkuk:

"15 Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
in order to gaze at their nakedness!
16 You will have your fill of shame instead of glory." (Habakkuk 2:15-16)

---------

Aside from that I agree with what Mike said in that we should not council someone to violate their conscience in promoting something that is a stumbling block to them.

Not to mention that nude art in the past during the Renaissance was also followed by an inordinate interest and revival of erotic books and novels. Just before the French Revolution (a revolution carried out by one of the most self-professed "godless" nations ever - France's atheism was unparalleled at that time in Europe, to Alexander Hamilton's horror) there was a massive explosion of publications for erotic literature in France (which fits under the Bible's definition of porneia - "fornication") which celebrated lewdness.

Though art majors may deny it and say that the classic nude Renaissance paintings were rather inspired by the Ancient Greeks who went nude in the Olympic games (that's not how the whole society was though) I tend to see a correlation/similar origins between the rise of the Renaissance nude art and the rise of erotic literature in Europe. In other words it was true humanism (Italian humanism was what birthed the Renaissance): focus on man and not God. And any long-term focus on man which excludes God leads to the "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). "Culture" is not exempt from God's laws over how man should conduct himself - and if nakedness is a synonym for anything in the Bible it is most certainly shame.

Maybe it was clothing that gave the body such sexual appeal. My views changed more or less when I worked with church missions in places like Africa and Borneo where most people ran around naked from childhood to adulthood. Since their culture didn't teach nakedness was lustful or evil, they had no real concept of lust. A womans breast or privates in full view had no effect on the men there, actually beauty is viewed much different, they look more to size, face features, etc.. A skinny model here would be ugly to the men there.

Many of the different mission groups faced issues, some started teaching them nakedness caused lust, etc...tried to dress them, etc...the result, lust wasn't an issue before, but became one, as did jealously. It seemed the more they were taught western values the more problems they had with jealousy, lust and sexual sin.

It was difficult to teach them christianity within their culture, but many missions did so. It was strange to go to church, a huge tent and see several hundred people totally naked praying, singing and worshipping God with all earnest, if all the women did that in America the men would be falling apart from so called sexual lust, needing to cover their eyes lest they fall into uncontrollable sexual thought.

The problem is we confuse lust with sexual desire, the bible does not. Lust is not even a sexual word, it simply means to covet or extreme desire that leads to good or bad behavior, one can lust for wealth, power, etc.. Sexual desire stems from puberty, not lust. It's sad we take God's wonderful design of the body and
turn it into evil.

I think most perverted sexual sin actually stem from the teaching that sexual desire is sinful and lustful. We are taught that viewing a naked body will cause us
to fall into uncontrollable lustful behavior so we act that way.

I have to say, Cyberjosh use of the scripture was exactly what I was looking for.

Ace1234, could you please show me some scriptures to support your side? To be fair, Cyberjosh's quotes of the verses shows that just simple nakedness is something to shy away from at the least, and some of these verses don't even address the lust/sexual desire that you are discussing about.

I want to hear both side of it, even opinions and thoughts, but only if it is reinforced by the scriptures.

The scripture is something that I am a little weak in right now so that is exactly why I'm asking for it. So I can look it up and learn more about it. Nothing against you and the people here, I just know to trust the bible far more than what people says.

 

[cyberjosh]

I have to say, Cyberjosh use of the scripture was exactly what I was looking for.

Ace1234, could you please show me some scriptures to support your side? To be fair, Cyberjosh's quotes of the verses shows that just simple nakedness is something to shy away from at the least, and some of these verses don't even address the lust/sexual desire that you are discussing about.

I want to hear both side of it, even opinions and thoughts, but only if it is reinforced by the scriptures.

The scripture is something that I am a little weak in right now so that is exactly why I'm asking for it. So I can look it up and learn more about it. Nothing against you and the people here, I just know to trust the bible far more than what people says.

Hi Lostear,

That's great that you are holding up Scripture as the ultimate standard. That is certainly in line with the command to, "Test all things and hold fast to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

I can maybe say a few more things on this topic. To consider another Scripture, in Leviticus 18, which lists things which a person must refrain from doing in order to be holy (it is in the context of Leviticus chapters 17-26 which is sometimes called the 'Holiness Code'), God commands:

"None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother.
She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6-8).

It goes on to elaborate the same command for all close relatives.

The phrase "uncover the nakedness" is well known to be a euphemism for sexual relations but the literal picture on which it is based evidences the fact that to look upon someone's nakedness implies sexual intimacy. So unless it is yours to look upon (morally right only in matrimony) do not do so, is the command. You also saw in the Scripture I quoted from Habakkuk 2:15 about the prohibition of doing this with people outside your family as well ("his neighbors"), so it is not just an issue with incest.

There is a great illustration of this principle in Scripture in the book of Genesis when Ham, the son of Noah, broke this command (although the law had not yet been given - it stood in moral principle) when Noah got drunk and uncovered himself (sounds similar to the situation in Habakkuk which also mentions a connection between alcoholic indulgence and nakedness) and Ham looked at him willingly.

"20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.
21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.
22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders
and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father;
and their faces were turned away,
so that they did not see their father’s nakedness." (Genesis 9:20-23)

Why would Noah's other two sons turn their faces away and walk backward to cover their father if seeing his nakedness were not an extremely shameful thing? And this clearly assumes that what Ham did was wrong. Noah was quite angry about it when he woke up too.

Something told Shem and Japheth that looking at their father's nakedness was wrong and they immediately sought to cover him. And note that they even took action to remedy it, rather than do nothing at all (which they could have done without looking at their father's nakedness just as well).

[I will continue this in a following post - for length's sake]

 

[cyberjosh]

cont'd

Now as to your original inquiry about how to counter someone trying to tell you nude art is nothing shameful, wrong, etc. First, although a somewhat pessimistic assumption (and I have in mind my own experiences at a university), it is doubtful if you tell your professor, classmate, or whoever that it is wrong because the Bible says so that they will feel convicted or be convinced, because most people I have met who think that about nude art are not Christians. They might even laugh at you for having "old fashioned values" (but really, who cares what the world says about us who know the living Christ?).

For their sake (I will cover what it means for you in a moment) I think you would have to reason with them as to the history (it's always important to know where something originated from) and the purpose of the nude art. They may come up with answers of "cultural appreciation" or historical examples of nudity, such as the Greek Olympic games, and from there you can discuss the relative (non)value of such "appreciation" and how relevant it is for the goal of what the art is supposed to convey. You are not obliged to agree with the goal or message of the artist, and no one can reasonably expect that of you. Every artist has a message - find out what it is and then make a judgment call. I most often can launch my apologetics message to an unbeliever by first reasoning with them and engaging the content of the discussion candidly. If you can steer the discussion of the art toward its goal and purpose/meaning you will find it easier to grasp more objective reasons (and associated ideas/values) to reject or not reject it's purpose. Also, it is ridiculous to assert that all art must be appreciated, especially when some art pieces are polar opposites of one another in composition, content, and message. You can probably make a rather reasonable objection to nude art based on objections of its content and message as such. But nonetheless you can still appeal to the Bible to them as your ultimate authority against which you make such judgment calls.

Now, as for you: Say you are watching a movie and unexpectedly a fully nude person makes an appearance on screen. Okay, well - whoops, you've already seen it - but now you have a choice. Do you continue to look at it and take it all in (which can, certainly, lead to lustful feelings if fed) or do you avert your eyes (as did Noah's two sons) immediately once you realize/see it? Some things which you see (however briefly) are out of your control, but you have a choice of what you do with it once you see it. I have taken a basic art class in college before and we came across such nude paintings as the Birth of Venus (which is rooted in mythology - concerning a goddess of love and sex: and there is your history/origin of this art piece, for analysis, to which you can apply biblical principles on love and sex - which Venus certainly didn't adhere to) and I was made to look at it in class (however briefly, and I made a point not to stare), but outside of class I have the choice of whether I want to go back and look at it more or leave it alone.

Of course now I have delved somewhat into 'intent' for seeing nakedness. When you go to the doctor sometimes for a physical you have to strip for a full examination but the purpose is medical, and the privacy of what the doctor sees for medical examination is implicit. There is a major difference, and certainly that doesn't fall under the category of what we are talking about here, art.

Anyway I hope some of this has been helpful. Feel free to ask me for any elaborations if something was unclear.

God bless,
~Josh

 

[ExtraMedium]

Loster, from what I'm researching there are no verses in the New Testament that associate nudity with sin. Nudity in the NT was typically used to reference vulnerability, shame or the poor. But the NT doesn't say anywhere (that I'm aware of) that seeing someone nude is a sin.

The laws of the old testament does mention covering the naked body for reasons of shame and it does touch on it quite a bit. Jesus came to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament by example. (MT 5:17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."). Jesus never says anything bad about nudity. Jesus was about love, grace, forgiveness and compassion. In fact in Mar 10:46-50, Bartimaeus gave his life to Jesus and approached him after disrobing, and Jesus did not condemn him. Thus, Jesus saw he was naked, and neither man sinned.

Be careful when someone makes statements like, "... is well known to be a euphemism for..." or "nakedness implies sexual intimacy" or "...means..." these are all personal interpretations. And this is where Christians, as a whole, come up with broad interpretations to convey their blanket policy they want everyone to believe. I see it as a form of brainwashing. Making broad interpretations and then saying it means something they want it to. Most Christians won't argue it, because via Sunday school or when they became Christians, they were told, "these are the things we do, and don't do because the bible says so" without ever researching it or praying on it themselves. If an elder tells me, then that's probably what it means. You are to have a personal relationship with Jesus, which "means" you should pray and look into these things yourself

Jesus himself was naked in front of his disciples:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]John 13:4-5: Jesus "... riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded." This is a passage from the last supper. After finishing eating, Jesus removed all of his clothes, wrapped himself in a towel and later used the towel to wash the feet of his disciples.[/FONT]

Jesus has no problem with being naked. The problem lies in people sinning. Sinning can be caused from taking action, or from impure thoughts. Bottom line, if your eyes do not burn from seeing a naked person, then no sin has occurred. As discussed in previous threads, if seeing a nude body (presumably of the opposite sex) excites you in a sexual way, then that temptation is probably a straight road to sin on your part. But if you're able to view a naked body for the sake of art or as portrayed in a movie without feeling that temptation, then where is the sin?

 

[cyberjosh]

Be careful when someone makes statements like, "... is well known to be a euphemism for..." or "nakedness implies sexual intimacy" or "...means..." these are all personal interpretations. And this is where Christians, as a whole, come up with broad interpretations to convey their blanket policy they want everyone to believe. I see it as a form of brainwashing. Making broad interpretations and then saying it means something they want it to.

You are making assumptions that I have not studied this before or consulted anyone else. Admittedly my posts were getting long as they were and I didn't stop to quote authority on it, but I can do so if you wish.

I have read many commentaries and I have never read any that said otherwise about Leviticus 18 other than it is rather clearly talking of incest. Incest does not involve looking only, it involves actual intercourse. You yourself read that chapter and then tell me what you think it means. But if you prefer an actual analysis on the Hebrew phrase translated "uncover the nakedness" I can perhaps consult one of the foremost scholars on the book of Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom, and see what he says about it, assuming I can find a copy of his commentary. But please do offer your alternate interpretation of Leviticus 18 if you can support it with the Scriptural context.

P.S. You should also perhaps take into account what I pointed out about the story of Noah and his sons also. The terminology is very similar.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Also there are indeed valid biblical euphemisms and figures of speech which are well known. Consider for example Genesis 4:1, "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain". How much convincing would you need to believe that "knew" implies and means that Adam had sexual relations with his wife? The same principle applies to Leviticus 18.

 

[ExtraMedium]

You are making assumptions that I have not studied this before or consulted anyone else. Admittedly my posts were getting long as they were I didn't stop to quote authority on it, but I can do so if you wish.

I have read many commentaries and I have never read any that said otherwise about Leviticus 18 other than it is rather clearly talking of incest.

~Josh

Hey Josh,


Yep, I think we're in agreement on Leviticus implying that sex with relatives is a sin. And even if it's looking at the naked body of a relative, such as a parent or cousin is not only a sin, but just sick & wrong. I'm going to guess that 99.9% of the people here agree with that.

But I don't see anywhere in Leviticus 18 that it mentions sex or nakedness with non-relatives, right? As with Noah, who got drunk and passed out naked.. his son Ham covered him up so he wouldn't be naked while he slept. But Noah, a man of God, was upset at his son Ham for doing this. Thus, Noah didn't think being naked was bad either. Agree?

But what does that have to do with just viewing someone naked? The Bible still doesn't say it's a sin.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hey Josh,


Yep, I think we're in agreement on Leviticus implying that sex with relatives is a sin. And even if it's looking at the naked body of a relative, such as a parent or cousin is not only a sin, but just sick & wrong. I'm going to guess that 99.9% of the people here agree with that.

But I don't see anywhere in Leviticus 18 that it mentions sex or nakedness with non-relatives, right? As with Noah, who got drunk and passed out naked.. his son Ham covered him up so he wouldn't be naked while he slept. But Noah, a man of God, was upset at his son Ham for doing this. Thus, Noah didn't think being naked was bad either. Agree?

But what does that have to do with just viewing someone naked? The Bible still doesn't say it's a sin.

Okay, I see what you are asking now. Well, I did provide the scripture from Habakkuk 2:15-16 which says not to get your neighbor drunk (so not limited to families only) so that you may look on their nakedness (which sounds like a modern past time for young people in many societies today). I do understand what you are saying about just seeing someone naked is not a sin if it happens to occur (in specific contexts though). I mentioned to Lostear the example of having your doctor give you a physical, or even there is also the example of one of the disciples who fled naked from the Romans when Jesus was arrested (I think Joseph did the same as well when running from Potipher's wife - actually in the haste of running away from sexual immorality). Not to mention in men's locker rooms, an experience I do not enjoy, most of them are walking around naked trying to get to the shower. The question is not whether you do see something, but why you would want to? It comes down to intent.

God used exposing a person's nakedness (as I adequately showed from Scriptural quotations in my original post) as a form of punishment and humiliation for someone's transgressions. Why would we seek out something that is said to be shameful? Yes, in the Edenic paradise it did not seem to matter, but now covering the "secret parts" (Isaiah 3:17) has become expected and is even used as an illustration by God himself (see the scriptures I quoted). Defying the norm just to say that you can would scandalize many, and almost says that you are confusing Edenic paradise with the mess humanity is in now. We are not in that perfect blissful state.

Why else would Paul so solemnly warn the Corinthians to have their women dress modestly and to have young men marry rather than be caught up in sexual immorality? The temptation for such sin is almost infinite, with a restless enemy against us, and the flesh always loves depravity. No, not the merest glimpse of nakedness is a sin, as you say. But if you choose to look at it, what are you taking in and what are your motives for doing so? It seems only appropriate to do in necessary/practical situations (doctor physicals, fleeing for your life, and [God save us] even men's locker rooms) and everywhere else only in matrimony or parenthood (babies come naked into the world - entirely practical and unavoidable).

Your thoughts?

 

[Webers_Home]

.

And even if it's looking at the naked body of a relative, such as a parent or cousin is not only a sin, but just sick & wrong. I'm going to guess that 99.9% of the people here agree with that.

Count me in the 1% because Leviticus doesn't condemn viewing one's kin naked; but rather, "uncovering" their nakedness. In my sage opinion, that whole section is meant to define the various aspects of incest rather than condemning gazing at one's kin in their birthday suits. The reason I feel that way is because Lev 20:20 caps the section by relating uncovering with forbidden sex.

As with Noah, who got drunk and passed out naked.. his son Ham covered him up so he wouldn't be naked while he slept.

Wasn't it the other two sons who covered their dad rather than Ham?

But Noah, a man of God, was upset at his son Ham for doing this.

Oddly, Noah expressed no dismay over Ham's conduct, nor even so much as scolded the man. The curse was leveled at Canann instead.

Cliff
/

 

[cyberjosh]

Oddly, Noah expressed no dismay over Ham's conduct, nor even so much as scolded the man. The curse was leveled at Canann instead.

Yeah I always thought it was odd that he cursed Ham's son and not Ham himself. I've read a few commentaries that try to guess on the significane of that. Maybe he was just still drunk. j/k. I'm sure there's a better theological explanation.

 

[woodlandapple]

My two cents.

I think Viewing nudity as sinful Is a very dualistic way of looking at things. Ie. the worldview that suggests things are either good or evil.
Nudity isn't bad. Its the sin and evil that infested it that is the bad stuff.

As far as defending your stance, I would go the route of that it isn't honoring God for you and that you feel uncomfortable being a part of it.