Does The Bible Speak Against Nudity?

[Grailhunter]

Yep! Sex and nudity is dirty, nasty, and sinful, designed by the devil! It is better not to touch a woman! Early Christians use to live out in the desert and caves, towers, and trees to get away from them nasty women, that tempt good men!!! I think Christians should stop all sex and nudity....after a few decades that would eradicate all Christian sin. Problem solved.

 

[TLHKAJ]

The bible speaks a lot against nudity. Also, many societies associate nudity with sex, so some people might tend to act more sexual when looking at naked people. I personally don't feel comfortable around women who wear tight jeans or less clothing because of that.

There's really no practical purpose for a man OR woman to wear tight pants (or shirts) except to show off their body....and that's not practical. Lol

 

[TLHKAJ]

Because of sin donme by Adam and Eve and passed down to all of us- nudity ionfront of anyone but our spouse is forbidden. It leads to sexual sin or sinful thoughts as jesus said! God put clothes on them for they were ashamed of their nakedness. We corrupted Gods innocence.

I believe that we can verify Biblically that Adam and Eve had a covering of God's glory ....like when Moses had been with God on the mountain and when he came down, his face shined so brightly, they couldn't look upon him and he had to wear a veil. Adam and Eve were in God's presence daily. They lost that when sin entered.

 

[Grailhunter]

When a story is vague it is human nature to add a lot of speculation.
Adam and Eve sinned and the debate began.
That sin had nothing to do with sex.
God told one of the Old Testament's most influential prophets to walk around naked and preach.
In the Old Testament a man my go home to five wives and take them to bed...Who ra!
And God's Mosaic Law regulated it. But God gave no direction as to what position or orifice to use.
A father might sell his daughters as a sex slave....concubinage. And God's Mosaic Law regulated it.
God's Mosaic Law of war...Kill all that breaths except the virgins. Take them for yourselves to keep and have sex with......
LOL They put the non-virgins to the sword...pregnant or not. You know how they checked for virginity on the battlefield? They chest stripped them to check for signs of suckling. Not the most accurate way to check for virginity.
But at no time does the Old Testament say sex and nudity is a sin. Its regulation suggested respect within the boundaries of the Mosaic Law. God did not have a negative attitude towards sex and nudity. No scripture that said man corrupted sex and nudity.

It was Christianity that corrupted sex and nudity....to the point of insanity. Chopping up women in front of their children.
We are coming out of that insanity but it is a slow process. Christianity says that respect is a sin. Or does it? But that is the key to understanding how we handle sexual situations. But we are still a long ways from that.

We say Bob and Sally have been living in sin for ten years because they have been "shacking up." When there is no biblical requirement for a wedding ceremony or vows. When it comes to sex and relationships most Christians do not even understand their own religion.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

The record tells us they covered themselves.... who knows, their whole
person?

• Gen 3:7 . .They sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for
themselves.

The word "coverings" is translated from the Hebrew word chagowr (khag
ore') a.k.a. chagor (khag-ore') which basically pertains to something akin
to a belt, i.e. girdles (not to be confused with form-shaping appliances),
aprons, and/or loin cloths. Sometimes the word is used to indicate a type of
armor that soldiers strapped on to protect themselves below the waist.

The garment that God made for the couple is from the Hebrew word
kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) a.k.a. kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) which basically
means a shirt-- theirs probably with enough length to serve as a dress or
a robe.
_

 

[quietthinker]

.


• Gen 3:7 . .They sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for
themselves.

The word "coverings" is translated from the Hebrew word chagowr (khag
ore') a.k.a. chagor (khag-ore') which basically pertains to something akin
to a belt, i.e. girdles (not to be confused with form-shaping appliances),
aprons, and/or loin cloths. Sometimes the word is used to indicate a type of
armor that soldiers strapped on to protect themselves below the waist.

The garment that God made for the couple is from the Hebrew word
kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) a.k.a. kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) which basically
means a shirt-- theirs probably with enough length to serve as a dress or
a robe.
_

The point is about hiding. How is it we turn that into hiding genitals??

 

[Webers_Home]

.

The point is about hiding. How is it we turn that into hiding genitals?

The specific areas on their bodies that they clothed and/or didn't clothe are
important to understanding the nature of Adam's newly acquired guilt
complex.

For example; Eve apparently remained topless at first and made no attempt
to conceal her bosom, which tells me that it's very likely she felt no shame
with that part of her body exposed. And no surprise there because even
today, primitive societies typically leave their women's bosoms exposed and
nobody thinks anything of it because their dress codes are normal in those
cultures.

Now, the question often comes around as to why God made them clothing if
He is not offended by frontal nudity.

For starters, leather is a much better choice for clothing than fig leaves due
to its resistance to wear and tear, and the protection it offers from adverse
weather conditions, from burns, and from scrapes and scratches.

But I suspect it was mostly for their spiritual benefit. Seeing as how Adam
felt utterly immodest while scantily clad, a full suit of clothes no doubt made
him a lot more comfortable in God's presence so Adam wouldn't go running
off for a place to hide when his maker came calling. (I bet there is at least
one, or more, Christians out there that instantly see a parallel to this in the
righteousness of Christ as a garment.)
_

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I believe that we can verify Biblically that Adam and Eve had a covering of God's glory ....like when Moses had been with God on the mountain and when he came down, his face shined so brightly, they couldn't look upon him and he had to wear a veil. Adam and Eve were in God's presence daily. They lost that when sin entered.

'Well that is a supposition you rporopse that is unprovable by Scriptures.

 

[quietthinker]

.


The specific areas on their bodies that they clothed and/or didn't clothe are
important to understanding the nature of Adam's newly acquired guilt
complex.

For example; Eve apparently remained topless at first and made no attempt
to conceal her bosom, which tells me that it's very likely she felt no shame
with that part of her body exposed. And no surprise there because even
today, primitive societies typically leave their women's bosoms exposed and
nobody thinks anything of it because their dress codes are normal in those
cultures.

Now, the question often comes around as to why God made them clothing if
He is not offended by frontal nudity.

For starters, leather is a much better choice for clothing than fig leaves due
to its resistance to wear and tear, and the protection it offers from adverse
weather conditions, from burns, and from scrapes and scratches.

But I suspect it was mostly for their spiritual benefit. Seeing as how Adam
felt utterly immodest while scantily clad, a full suit of clothes no doubt made
him a lot more comfortable in God's presence so Adam wouldn't go running
off for a place to hide when his maker came calling. (I bet there is at least
one, or more, Christians out there that instantly see a parallel to this in the
righteousness of Christ as a garment.)
_

So you're saying God made us and then is offended by what he made??......the projection stands out a mile!

You're focusing on the genitals aspect and trying to make a case for it but ignoring the guilt and shame resulting from their disobedience.
Guilt and shame is the human problem; issues of low self worth and the voices of self accusation.

 

[michaelvpardo]

In scripture and after the fall of man, nakedness is always an expression associated with shame, and can be thought of literally as a lack of a covering. The Hebrew word for atonement in the old testament refers to a covering or the process of covering ones nakedness as in Genesis when God makes a covering for Adam and Eve out of animal skins, requiring the shedding of blood.
The ritual sacrifices of "the law" also required the spilling of blood in atonement and a literal sprinkling of that blood on the "mercy seat", that part of the Ark of the covenant where "the glory" (the shekina) of God appeared, once a year, on the day of atonement (the covering of sin).
When God created us, He looked upon all things and called them good. That includes Adam and Eve, naked in their innocence. However, since the fall, everyone is born into this world naked in their innocence, but becomes corrupted over time through that fallen nature.
We all need a covering and the Lord provides that in Christ.
He gives His saints a white robe to hide their nakedness. A robe of righteousness, His righteousness, to cover the stain of our sin. You see, it's not the nudity that's the problem. We were created that way.
Sin is the problem, and certainly sexual immorality tends to be the most problematic because we were created to join as husbands and wives, and to take pleasure in each other under the covenant of marriage. I don't believe that nudity stimulates lust, but comliness or physical attractiveness certainly can.
Most worldly men and my experiences before salvation suggest that the imagination is what promotes lust, and that scant clothing on an attractive woman is more arousing than seeing the same nude. Our imagination is only evil from our youth, and imagination takes what God intended for good and extends it, profanes it, perverts it into all manner of evil.

 

[farouk]

There's really no practical purpose for a man OR woman to wear tight pants (or shirts) except to show off their body....and that's not practical. Lol

Well, sometimes all the young women in church probably are wearing ubiquitous skinny jeans, but I really wouldn't classify them as nudity: a big leap of logic, I reckon, imho....

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, sometimes all the young women in church probably are wearing ubiquitous skinny jeans, but I really wouldn't classify them as nudity: a big leap of logic, I reckon, imho....

They are provocative clothes and should not have a place in a wardrobe, like a string bikini to top that show slots of cleavage! Modesty does not mean a burka or unfashionable clothes, but just teh recognition that if you dress sexily- you will arouse sexual desire in men just like when you flip the switch a light turns on!

 

[farouk]

They are provocative clothes and should not have a place in a wardrobe, like a string bikini to top that show slots of cleavage! Modesty does not mean a burka or unfashionable clothes, but just teh recognition that if you dress sexily- you will arouse sexual desire in men just like when you flip the switch a light turns on!

Well, I don't think it would be profitable for some guy in church to start rating my wife's pairs of jeans as to 1) whether they are skinny or not; 2) whether she should wear them in some places but not others; 3) whether she should take some or all of them to the Salvation Army....

(I was just commenting on the jeans part in my last post...)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, I don't think it would be profitable for some guy in church to start rating my wife's pairs of jeans as to 1) whether they are skinny or not; 2) whether she should wear them in some places but not others; 3) whether she should take some or all of them to the Salvation Army....

(I was just commenting on the jeans part in my last post...)

Well we cannot cover every instance of what is provocative- then burkas would be necessary. And even trying to measure how tight a pair of jeans are to make them provocative is highly subjective, but as a former SCOTUS said about pornography, I can't give a hard definition for it, but I know it when I see it.

 

[farouk]

Well we cannot cover every instance of what is provocative- then burkas would be necessary. And even trying to measure how tight a pair of jeans are to make them provocative is highly subjective, but as a former SCOTUS said about pornography, I can't give a hard definition for it, but I know it when I see it.

Well, the last thing you just mentioned is apples and oranges as far as my wife and her jeans are concerned, anyway.

You're right; sometimes there is a massively subjective element that gets infused into discussions sometimes....

 

[Pearl]

What is wrong with nudity? Nothing in my book, as long as you are alone or with the right person in the right circumstances.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What is wrong with nudity? Nothing in my book, as long as you are alone or with the right person in the right circumstances.

that is where it is fully acceptable and blessed by God, between a husband and wife.

 

[farouk]

What is wrong with nudity? Nothing in my book, as long as you are alone or with the right person in the right circumstances.

@Pearl Some ppl do seem to take to extremes and want to police bikinis, etc. (even when some one piece swimwear is more minimal than some two piece suits), skinny jeans (it would be a hard job to ban them in a lot of churches), etc...

 

[Pearl]

that is where it is fully acceptable and blessed by God, between a husband and wife.

Or between doctor/nurse/midwife and patient. Or even in families who are open with their children.

 

[Pearl]

@Pearl Some ppl do seem to take to extremes and want to police bikinis, etc. (even when some one piece swimwear is more minimal than some two piece suits), skinny jeans (it would be a hard job to ban them in a lot of churches), etc...

What people choose to wear to the beach or church or shopping or nights out is really only up to them. It is nobody else's business. We do not want or need policing on these matters. Personally I do not like men in suits unless for formal occasions - and that doesn't mean church.