Natural

[Classik]

Naturalists and morality?
Providence


Some people are so natural in all they do...and even down to going naked. No canned foods, probably against computers and phones, little or no science.

I read a link on BBC.com. I doubt if there is anything in particular that is wrong with it...if someone chooses to live and exist this way. No idea if this is against morality

But when I read the verse: where God made some clothes for Adam and Eve I began to wonder what to accept on the OP topic. But we were born naked.

 

[Gary]

There's really nothing wrong with being a "Naturalist". We all start out as one. But within minutes of our entrance into the world, our nakedness is covered. God, before sending Adam and Eve out into the world, made sure they were covered.

I personally see nothing sinful in being a naturalist as long as it's kept within the confines of the naturalist's immediate surroundings. (ie. their home) However, when a naturalist goes out into the world, they need to be covered.


Here's something to ponder for all those brothers and sisters that feel it is their right to shed their coverings.


1 Corinthians 8
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.


Romans 14
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

.

 

[for_his_glory]

Gary I was thinking those same scriptures when I read this. I also see nothing wrong with it as long as it's done in privacy.
Some people just don't want to see certain nasty parts

 

[Kathi]

Naturalists and morality?
Providence


Some people are so natural in all they do...and even down to going naked. No canned foods, probably against computers and phones, little or no science.

I read a link on BBC.com. I doubt if there is anything in particular that is wrong with it...if someone chooses to live and exist this way. No idea if this is against morality

But when I read the verse: where God made some clothes for Adam and Eve I began to wonder what to accept on the OP topic. But we were born naked.

I am very modest so I would not do well in a nudist camp.When I was in 3rd grade a couple of my friends and myself found a nudist camp magazine along the road.We really had the giggles in reading that.
I have a land line phone but I do not have a television reception.Computers are a mandatory thing now days but if that was not the case I would not have a computer either.Sooo is your name Gary?

 

[KevinK]

What has been seen cannot be unseen. What is known cannot be unknown. Adam and Eve did not care or even know they were naked until they ate the fruit from the TOKOGAE. It is too late to go back now. Nudists can pretend they don't know they're naked, but they know. Denial is no substitute for true innocence. Human beings are no longer innocent, and it is no longer appropriate to go about without clothing (exception being the privacy of your own home).

As for the larger topic of naturalism- hemlock is natural. 100% natural. Anyone care for some?

 

[Obadiah]

Interesting topic and answers this morning! But I'm not so sure that someone who wants to live as "naturally" as the can (eating more natural foods, not letting things like computers or TV control their lives, etc) necessarily means they also go without clothes and I can't imagine what the moral problem would be with any of those other things. Did a little reading on this. (Which can cause things to appear on your computer screen that you may not want to see or want others to see if they look over your shoulder, so much caution is advised!) Here in North America it seems the people that go naked sometimes are calling themselves "naturists" these days, not naturalists. These are the ones we all used to call "nudists" but it seems to me that they didn't like the negative connotations that name got, so they want to change what they call themselves now. It seems the nudity aspect of this is what most here are focusing on in regards to morals.

 

[Obadiah]

There's really nothing wrong with being a "Naturalist". We all start out as one. But within minutes of our entrance into the world, our nakedness is covered. God, before sending Adam and Eve out into the world, made sure they were covered.

I personally see nothing sinful in being a naturalist as long as it's kept within the confines of the naturalist's immediate surroundings. (ie. their home) However, when a naturalist goes out into the world, they need to be covered.


Here's something to ponder for all those brothers and sisters that feel it is their right to shed their coverings.


1 Corinthians 8
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.


Romans 14
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

.

So I wonder than, you mentioned confining their nudity to their immediate surroundings and gave an example of their home. I assume the idea is that they aren't in view of people who don't want to see them nude. (I resisted the urge to say in view of "normal" people!) So what about in a nudist camp or on a nude beach where the only people who see them are like minded nudists who are not shocked or morally offended, or by those who were well aware of what they were getting into when they went there, so they have no right to complain about what they saw?

As for the sumbling block catch-all scripture, I can see where that could apply to Christians who want to flaunt their nudity in front of people who don't necessarily see it the way they do (the verse doesn't apply to non-Christians at all), but in the confines of a nudist camp or something similar, anyone entering knows what they are getting into. If a Christian goes to a place like that and "stumbles", I think the responsibility is on the Christian who stumbled for going there in the first place, not on the nudists who are in an area that didn't force their nudity on the general public.

 

[Obadiah]

... Nudists can pretend they don't know they're naked, but they know. Denial is no substitute for true innocence...

But They aren't pretending they aren't naked any more than a person wearing a swimsuit on a beach is pretending they are wearing a suit and tie. They aren't denying anything, they just don't care that they are naked.

...As for the larger topic of naturalism- hemlock is natural. 100% natural. Anyone care for some?

I doubt you have any real evidence that "naturalists" advocate drinking poison or doing other things that harm their bodies. Their focus is very clearly on trying to live what they believe to be a healthier lifestyle. If anything, Christians are more reasonable accused of this, considering the whole "snake handling" thing.

 

[Gary]

As for the sumbling block catch-all scripture, I can see where that could apply to Christians who want to flaunt their nudity in front of people who don't necessarily see it the way they do (the verse doesn't apply to non-Christians at all), but in the confines of a nudist camp or something similar, anyone entering knows what they are getting into. If a Christian goes to a place like that and "stumbles", I think the responsibility is on the Christian who stumbled for going there in the first place, not on the nudists who are in an area that didn't force their nudity on the general public.

I agree.

Here's something to ponder for all those brothers and sisters that feel it is their right to shed their coverings.

 

[KevinK]

Actually, I do believe they're in denial, on some level. Not that they are naked, but that they feel they are naked. That it doesn't bother them. They are trying to regain an innocence we no longer have a right to, losing it to sin, the Original Sin.

I think you missed the point of the hemlock completely. The point I was trying to make, just because something is natural, doesn't necessarily mean it's good. You got "advocate drinking poison" out of that?

 

[Obadiah]

Of course, too, I'm now thinking about the whole concept of nudity in general and thinking a lot of what would be considered wrong, immoral, or sinful may have a lot more to do with people's perception than with actual commands from God.

I moved to a beach community in the Northwest U.S. and was shocked when a pastor I had become friends with told me when driving from his house to his church he had to take the long way around because he didn't want to have to look at all the naked people on the beach. I was shocked because all the beaches are in plain view of the town and I had no idea there were any nude beaches in the area. Well, turns out from his perspective, even wearing shorts and T-shirts (which seems to be the standard beach attire there) to him was the same as going nude. Yet years ago I was friends with another pastor who took his family on a European vacation and ended up somewhere where it was customary for women to go topless on the beach. So his wife and three daughters all went topless like everyone else. He said it only took a few minutes to realize there was nothing any more "sexual" or "sinful" about it than there was in wearing a "standard American style swimsuit" on an American beach. It was a matter of perspective of all the people around at the time. It was not a matter of having seared consciences or anything like that, they didn't return home and join a nudist colony or start running around naked in their house all the time. It was simply a different perspective and a different attitude of the people they were around.

Than on the other hand, down in Seattle they have an annual "naked bike ride" where a bunch of people take off all their clothes and ride bikes through Seattle for no other reason than to shove their nudity in the faces of many people who don't want to see it. That's a totally different thing altogether!

 

[Classik]

Your body is the holy temple of... :wink

 

[Obadiah]

Your body is the holy temple of... :wink

Ok, so scripture compares our bodies to the Temple... But they didn't cover the temple with sheets so it couldn't be seen. They weren't ashamed of it.

I'm not advocating we all run around without clothes, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how little scripture specifically addresses this without having to read something into it that it really isn't saying. Considering how so many Christians condemn each other to hell for the clothes they wear (or the lack of clothes) it's rather interesting how little scripture specifically talks about it. You would think if this was as big of a deal to God as so many Christians make it out to be, that God would have been more clear and more adamant about it.

 

[Gary]

Ok, so scripture compares our bodies to the Temple... But they didn't cover the temple with sheets so it couldn't be seen. They weren't ashamed of it.

I'm not advocating we all run around without clothes, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how little scripture specifically addresses this without having to read something into it that it really isn't saying. Considering how so many Christians condemn each other to hell for the clothes they wear (or the lack of clothes) it's rather interesting how little scripture specifically talks about it. You would think if this was as big of a deal to God as so many Christians make it out to be, that God would have been more clear and more adamant about it.

I don't believe it's the nudity per se, but the lusts of the flesh that seem to follow it.

Matthew 26
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
.

 

[Obadiah]

I don't believe it's the nudity per se, but the lusts of the flesh that seem to follow it.

Matthew 26
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
.

That's very true, but we need to understand what lust is and condemn that. Why do some condemn nudity so strongly (or even just another person's wearing of clothing that is more revealing than they personally think is right) while it's been proven that lust can be triggered just as much by looking at a fully clothed person. Personally I think we need to confront our own sin and our own weakness when it comes to things like lust and take responsibility for it, rather than blame it on the other person.

 

[Gary]

That's very true, but we need to understand what lust is and condemn that. Why do some condemn nudity so strongly (or even just another person's wearing of clothing that is more revealing than they personally think is right) while it's been proven that lust can be triggered just as much by looking at a fully clothed person. Personally I think we need to confront our own sin and our own weakness when it comes to things like lust and take responsibility for it, rather than blame it on the other person.

I agree.

Galatians 6
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
.

 

[Kathi]

That is true that Adam and Eve were nude and did not think anything of it at first.But it does not work for today.Genesis 9:21;Isaiah 47:3;Ezekiel 16;35-36 and Luke 8:27 say that nakedness is degrading.A Christian should not be a nudist or a naturalist or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Obadiah]

Actually the main subject of all those scriptures isn't nudity at all, not only in their context but also according to several respected commentators.

I still think the best one is the story of Adam and Eve becoming ashamed of their nakedness. But even in this example, was it actually their bodies they were ashamed of or is the nakedness of their bodies a symbol of their sin being exposed? Why would shame of their physical bodies suddenly be such an issue for people who were never taught that any part of their bodies was something to be ashamed of? Most places where scripture talks about nakedness it's symbolically referring to exposure of sin, not of a physical human body. And Adam and Eve had just committed sin for the first time.

So perhaps even with Adam and Eve, the point was their becoming ashamed of their sin immediately after the first sin. Making that story about how much clothing we are supposed to wear takes it out of context of the sin they just committed and also avoids the subject of exactly how much clothing they were supposed to wear, a subject of so much infighting and controversy among Christians of modern times. The Sunday School story of them covering a few little "private parts" with fig leaves is just a made up story that has no basis in scripture. If God was really intending for them to hide their bodies, why wouldn't He have them cover their entire bodies, such as Muslims force their women to do with burkas? Or perhaps IS that what He did? But I don't think that was His purpose.

I'm certainly not against clothing and I'm certainly no "naturalist", but was just surprised when I realize how little scripture actually directly speaks to this in context for a subject that Christians fight over so much! It just seems if this was such a big deal to God, He would have made a bigger deal about it in scripture. I think it's good for Christians to have rational discussions of these things to know why we believe what we believe.

 

[Classik]

Ok, so scripture compares our bodies to the Temple... But they didn't cover the temple with sheets so it couldn't be seen. They weren't ashamed of it.

I'm not advocating we all run around without clothes, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how little scripture specifically addresses this without having to read something into it that it really isn't saying. Considering how so many Christians condemn each other to hell for the clothes they wear (or the lack of clothes) it's rather interesting how little scripture specifically talks about it. You would think if this was as big of a deal to God as so many Christians make it out to be, that God would have been more clear and more adamant about it.

Wasnt that a lighthearted remark? Why pursue it with such whole-hearted earnestness and writting this infinitely long termpaper?

Im shocked

 

[Classik]

Nakedness, sin symbol in the OT? No idea why it used it