Fully Clothed Women

[Tarheel Baptist]

Yes...when someone asks me my own thoughts,  my answer is the only "cause I said so" that matters. And I fail to see why it would sound stupid if anyone else said it.  Their mind...their motivation.

So again,  where have I made an argument for public nudity?

You don't know what that's not an argument for public nudity per se means, do you? 
It means that I did not accuse you of making an argument for public nudity I just said that, IMO, that was a stupid statement.

Might want to brush up on your Latin.

You're  trying to do it again, oh shuck and jive one...

I did not say your stupid statement advocated public nudity in itself...and I did not say I interpreted it as such. Got that?

But, the stupid statement "that I did not interpret as advocating public nudity within itself" COULD HAVE been interpreted as such by others. IMO.

Now, do you u n d e r s t a n d ?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

That, or you could actually respond to what I said with your 'logic'.
But, suit yourself.

What did you say with my logic?  I must have missed that. 

Look.  There are perpetual liars on here.  IMO, ALAYMAN is the worst.  FSSL is a close second.  You have no problem with Christians who think nothing of lying, especially when one of the liars actually runs the forum? 

Ransom doesn't lie much, but I assume he leads a miserable life because, no matter what the subject, all he can ever muster up for a comment is impudent sarcasm and mockery.  That guy would suck the joy out of a room just by entering the same state.

Sorry.
What I meant was you could explain your logic of continually interacting...and complaining  ...about the liars and 'bad posters' instead of interacting with the very few good posters here...who are the reason you stay.

I stay here for the honest people.  I interact with whomever I wish.  What's wrong with that logic?

 

[FSSL]

I stay here for the honest people.  I interact with whomever I wish.  What's wrong with that logic?

Except... you continually interact with those whom you say you have on ignore. That is where the logic breaks down

 

[NorrinRadd]

ANYWAY...

I have a few questions:

-- What is the exegetical basis for claiming that "lust" only applies to sex, and that it is totally different from "greed," which allegedly is the proper term for material desires?

-- Stipulating that it is common to feel at least embarrassment if not "shame" when being seen with little or no clothing, what is the basis for claiming this is an inherent moral sense place there by God, rather than ingrained cultural conditioning?  After all, not all cultures share this taboo.

-- Scripturally speaking, what is the exegetical basis for linking nakedness and shame?  In explaining this, please address the following:

---- Adam and Eve were naked and NOT ashamed before the Fall.  After the Fall, they were naked and ashamed, even though their marital status was unchanged.  (So the idea that marriage erases the shame aspect must be addressed in light of this.)

---- Believers are "in Christ," who is the "last Adam," and are "new creations."  In light of this implication that we are in some sense restored to a pre-Fall state, how is nakedness still shameful?

 

[praise_yeshua]

ANYWAY...

I have a few questions:

-- What is the exegetical basis for claiming that "lust" only applies to sex, and that it is totally different from "greed," which allegedly is the proper term for material desires?

-- Stipulating that it is common to feel at least embarrassment if not "shame" when being seen with little or no clothing, what is the basis for claiming this is an inherent moral sense place there by God, rather than ingrained cultural conditioning?  After all, not all cultures share this taboo.

-- Scripturally speaking, what is the exegetical basis for linking nakedness and shame?  In explaining this, please address the following:

---- Adam and Eve were naked and NOT ashamed before the Fall.  After the Fall, they were naked and ashamed, even though their marital status was unchanged.  (So the idea that marriage erases the shame aspect must be addressed in light of this.)

---- Believers are "in Christ," who is the "last Adam," and are "new creations."  In light of this implication that we are in some sense restored to a pre-Fall state, how is nakedness still shameful?

Hi "Silver Surfer"....

-- What is the exegetical basis for claiming that "lust" only applies to sex, and that it is totally different from "greed," which allegedly is the proper term for material desires?

I don't think anyone made such a claim. Maybe  they did. I haven't read it. "Lust" can involve "sexual desire". Reference the words of the Master....

Mat_5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

-- Stipulating that it is common to feel at least embarrassment if not "shame" when being seen with little or no clothing, what is the basis for claiming this is an inherent moral sense place there by God, rather than ingrained cultural conditioning?  After all, not all cultures share this taboo.

You answered your own question later but I'll review it for you...

Adam and Eve felt ashamed after the fall. They weren't "culturally" conditioned. We do not find anything from God to dissuade them of their shame. It is common considered that God, Himself, fashioned clothes for them to wear.

Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

---- Adam and Eve were naked and NOT ashamed before the Fall.  After the Fall, they were naked and ashamed, even though their marital status was unchanged.  (So the idea that marriage erases the shame aspect must be addressed in light of this.)

I never said it erased the shame of this. It might "dull" it to some degree but its not erased. I don't think you understand the entirely of what it means to be naked. Its just not about someone seeing our gentiles. Its also about how we "look" to our spouse. I can tell you, as I age.... no one wants to see what I got to offer anymore.... The same is true for spouses. Even when I was younger, I didn't go around naked in front of wife all the time. There are only so many hours in the day...

---- Believers are "in Christ," who is the "last Adam," and are "new creations."  In light of this implication that we are in some sense restored to a pre-Fall state, how is nakedness still shameful?

Why do we still die? Why do we still sin? Why do thorns still come "out of the ground"? Why do we still plant seeds in hope of a harvest?

The "last Adam" has conquered all things for us.... Yet, He's not finished with humanity... You have to realize its not all about us.

Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Its about ALL THE SAINTS of ALL AGES..... When that is complete, EVERYTHING will be complete in Him..

 

[subllibrm]

Until you start walking down the streets of Nashville in your underwear (not even totally naked) your post above was dishonest.***

See also: moving the goalposts. The question was whether I would feel shame in doing so, not whether I would or not for other practical reasons. But go ahead and call me a liar because you don't recognize the difference.

Did you go to law school with Bill Clinton?

 

[subllibrm]

Since Bob H isn't around, or just doesn't want to answer, anyone else who is against nakedness in movies want to tackle this? 

When you see a big satchel of money laying around ripe for the taking in a movie, do you lust for it?  If not, why not?

No matter who answers this, I'm expecting you to say, no, you wouldn't lust for it.

I'm really interested in the reason why you wouldn't.  No matter how you answer that part, you will make my point for me.

When I watch a movie and there is a satchel of money I do not lust after it. I see it as an item displayed to make a plot point. When I leave the theater, I do not store the vision of a bag of money away for future consumption fantasies, so to speak. You see, I can't go on a virtual spending spree with a celluloid image of money. On the other hand, if there is an actress who's breasts are displayed to make a plot point, I am quite capable and prone to storing that image away for future (ab)use.

I suppose you can make a thin argument appealing to "all things are lawful" but you would need to to make a heroic leap to suggest that a nudie scene is edifying.

And if you can ignore boring sex scenes and read Playboy for the articles then I will just have to conceded that you are a far stronger man than I.

 

[subllibrm]

Yes. Why avoid the example of a husband and wife?

Because it doesn't apply? The marriage bed being undefiled, is removed from the subject of shame and/or sin.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Yes. Why avoid the example of a husband and wife?

Because it doesn't apply? The marriage bed being undefiled, is removed from the subject of shame and/or sin.

This explanation is inadequate.  Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were "married" (to the extent that such a concept applies in a world predating record of such formal rituals), and were naked and not ashamed.  After the Fall, their marital status had not changed, but they were naked AND ashamed.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
Hi "Silver Surfer"....

-- What is the exegetical basis for claiming that "lust" only applies to sex, and that it is totally different from "greed," which allegedly is the proper term for material desires?

I don't think anyone made such a claim. Maybe  they did. I haven't read it. "Lust" can involve "sexual desire". Reference the words of the Master....

Mat_5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

I read pretty much the whole thread, which can be a good or bad idea.  I'm not going to try to track down the exact posts, but there was a part of the discussion that went roughly like this:

---

Person A:  One objection to nudity in movies is that it incites "lust" for sex on the part of the viewers.  Is this necessarily so?  Why doesn't the sight of a big bag of money on the screen also incite "lust" for money?

Person B:  You are confusing "lust" with "greed."

---

Now, one can make a lexical case that "love of money" is a distinct thing, and in Scripture almost always carries negative connotations; but the word translated "lust" is much more broad, and can be either positive or negative.  So to reply so tersely that "lust" and "greed" are completely separate categories doesn't do justice to either the topic or the language.

Now, apart from the lexical argument, I've seen some respond, based on personal experience, that there is a qualitative difference between "money" and "nakedness":  The stored-in-the-mind image of a naked woman can be recalled later for questionable purposes, but the same is less likely to be true of the comparable image of a "bag of money."  Fair enough, but what about general images of material opulence and lavish lifestyle?  Can't they easily breed envy and dissatisfaction?  In my own case, the one thing that really triggers the "Boy, I wish I had some of that" sensation is the mythical "NZT" in the movie version of "Limitless."  Ok, sure, I'd love to wield the Power Cosmic, or the hammer Mjolnir, or the abilities of a Kryptonian, but those are clearly fanciful; NZT is, barely, within the realm of the conceivable.

-- Stipulating that it is common to feel at least embarrassment if not "shame" when being seen with little or no clothing, what is the basis for claiming this is an inherent moral sense place there by God, rather than ingrained cultural conditioning?  After all, not all cultures share this taboo.

You answered your own question later but I'll review it for you...

Adam and Eve felt ashamed after the fall. They weren't "culturally" conditioned. We do not find anything from God to dissuade them of their shame. It is common considered that God, Himself, fashioned clothes for them to wear.

Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

---- Adam and Eve were naked and NOT ashamed before the Fall.  After the Fall, they were naked and ashamed, even though their marital status was unchanged.  (So the idea that marriage erases the shame aspect must be addressed in light of this.)

I never said it erased the shame of this. It might "dull" it to some degree but its not erased. I don't think you understand the entirely of what it means to be naked. Its just not about someone seeing our gentiles.

Interjection:  "Gentiles," "genitals" -- Not the same. 

Its also about how we "look" to our spouse. I can tell you, as I age.... no one wants to see what I got to offer anymore.... The same is true for spouses. Even when I was younger, I didn't go around naked in front of wife all the time. There are only so many hours in the day...

---- Believers are "in Christ," who is the "last Adam," and are "new creations."  In light of this implication that we are in some sense restored to a pre-Fall state, how is nakedness still shameful?

Why do we still die? Why do we still sin? Why do thorns still come "out of the ground"? Why do we still plant seeds in hope of a harvest?

The "last Adam" has conquered all things for us.... Yet, He's not finished with humanity... You have to realize its not all about us.

Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Its about ALL THE SAINTS of ALL AGES..... When that is complete, EVERYTHING will be complete in Him..

There's a lot to unpack here, and the narrow and invariable width of the composition boxes provided by this software is an unwelcome constraint.

I realize some of this may seem tedious and Clintonesque.  Sorry, but tough dookie.  Any time we move beyond the basic and ultimate moral principle of "Treat others as you wish others to treat you," details of word-meanings and cultural norms become important.

What is "shame"?  Are all forms of "shame" equivalent?  I would feel shame if I caught myself "eyeballing" another man's wife.  I would feel shame if I got home and realized I'd been walking around all day with a big glob of bird poop on my shoulder.  I feel... some kind of not-good feeling that may be "shame" when I see my current Jabba the Hutt physique, and remember the fit frame I had in younger days.  I don't think all those forms of "shame" are equivalent.  I'd prefer "embarrassment" to describe the second, but I'm not sure the dictionary supports that distinction.  And I'm not sure how to categorize the third.

It looks as though it could take quite a bit of digging to sort out the "shame" issue in Scripture.  In the NT alone, several different words are translated "shame."  It seems as though one pertinent sample might be "aischros," which occurs in 1 Cor. 11:6 and 14:35.  If it is "shameful" for women to have improper hairstyles or head-coverings, or to even so much as *speak* in the assembly, then we really need to consider how to determine when "shame" is related to a universal moral principle, and when it is related to a transient cultural taboo.

What about "in real life"?  As we know, in some cultures, it is "shameful" for women to expose their faces.  In others, both men and women wear nothing more than loincloths.  In still others, it is a "shame" for women to wear pants instead of dresses or skirts, or for the hem of the dress or skirt to not reach the knees.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Now, apart from the lexical argument, I've seen some respond, based on personal experience, that there is a qualitative difference between "money" and "nakedness":  The stored-in-the-mind image of a naked woman can be recalled later for questionable purposes, but the same is less likely to be true of the comparable image of a "bag of money."  Fair enough, but what about general images of material opulence and lavish lifestyle?  Can't they easily breed envy and dissatisfaction?  In my own case, the one thing that really triggers the "Boy, I wish I had some of that" sensation is the mythical "NZT" in the movie version of "Limitless."  Ok, sure, I'd love to wield the Power Cosmic, or the hammer Mjolnir, or the abilities of a Kryptonian, but those are clearly fanciful; NZT is, barely, within the realm of the conceivable.

That certainly was a "mouthful". Don't hold me accountable for what someone else says. I'm not comparing money and nakedness....

I will say that you should be focusing upon wealth and not necessarily.... "money". I mean you've been splitting hairs rather often in this conversation.

Interjection:  "Gentiles," "genitals" -- Not the same. 

I've done that before. I can't get type the word close enough for spell checker to auto correct it. My fault. I didn't notice it.

There's a lot to unpack here, and the narrow and invariable width of the composition boxes provided by this software is an unwelcome constraint.

LOL. You're either messing with us or love to hear yourself talk....

I realize some of this may seem tedious and Clintonesque.  Sorry, but tough dookie.  Any time we move beyond the basic and ultimate moral principle of "Treat others as you wish others to treat you," details of word-meanings and cultural norms become important.

More of the same...

It looks as though it could take quite a bit of digging to sort out the "shame" issue in Scripture.  In the NT alone, several different words are translated "shame."  It seems as though one pertinent sample might be "aischros," which occurs in 1 Cor. 11:6 and 14:35.  If it is "shameful" for women to have improper hairstyles or head-coverings, or to even so much as *speak* in the assembly, then we really need to consider how to determine when "shame" is related to a universal moral principle, and when it is related to a transient cultural taboo.

I have an idea. Maybe you should focus on the verses I've posted? Seems reasonable to me. Don't wonder off into the weeds.... Maybe

What about "in real life"?  As we know, in some cultures, it is "shameful" for women to expose their faces.  In others, both men and women wear nothing more than loincloths.  In still others, it is a "shame" for women to wear pants instead of dresses or skirts, or for the hem of the dress or skirt to not reach the knees.

Just so you know.... I agree that culture influences lifestyle and everything associated with it. In this we agree.

However, complete nakedness is another story. If you prefer to be like the "animals" of the earth. So be it. Just don't present your belief as being reasonable for humanity.

Maybe you should focus on the Old Greek word...????????????

Its only found 5 times in the NT and around 82 times in the Old Greek OT. One of the 5 times listed in the NT is found in....

1Pe 4:16  Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

 

[FSSL]

Person A:  One objection to nudity in movies is that it incites "lust" for sex on the part of the viewers.  Is this necessarily so?  Why doesn't the sight of a big bag of money on the screen also incite "lust" for money?

Person B:  You are confusing "lust" with "greed."

---

Now, one can make a lexical case that "love of money" is a distinct thing, and in Scripture almost always carries negative connotations; but the word translated "lust" is much more broad, and can be either positive or negative.  So to reply so tersely that "lust" and "greed" are completely separate categories doesn't do justice to either the topic or the language.

Well that was helpful.

I have yet to hear anyone say that a naked woman caused a person to be greedy. So, while discussing lust for women, the greed analogy became absurd.

The term "lust" can have many objects. The term "greed" is not really that broad.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

While I did not and still would not allow my teen daughters to go on 'dates' wearing daisy duke shorts and halter tops, I absolutely would/did allow my teen daughters to go on 'dates' while fully clothed.

 

[Izdaari]

It isn't the amount of clothing that makes someone attractive or not. Ms. Liu Wan, in the original post, is a good-looking lady regardless. The pic shows her outside in apparently cold weather, for which she is dressed appropriately.