The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim

Tim

Member
Elect
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
563
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Age
45
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-rebellion-of-nudity-and-the-meaning-of-clothing

"One practical implication of this is that public nudity today is not a return to innocence but rebellion against moral reality. God ordains clothes to witness to the glory we have lost, and it is added rebellion to throw them off. "

Wow. I couldn't have said it any better John.
 
Um. no, I don't agree with Piper on this one. I'm not going to attach much theological significance to the experiences of Adam and Eve, whom I'm not even sure were actual people, and not simply characters in an elaborate parable. Nor am I very much impressed with the opinions of the unknown author of I Timothy, who may or may not have been inspired, but I certainly believe his culture preferred conservative dress. I still say propriety or modesty in clothing is entirely culturally relative. My shorts. t-shirt and running shoes were totally proper in Seattle today, but would be shocking in Saudi Arabia.  OTOH, if I wore a Saudi burkha in Seattle, I would attract a lot of attention, not all of it good. However, the burkha would allow much better concealment of weapons, so it has that advantage, something I think oppressed Saudi women could take better advantage of.
 
Trollin' trollin' trollin'  --- keep them doggies trollin'. 
 
aleshanee said:
FSSL said:
Are you for public nudity?
Click to expand...

[size=12pt]no......
Click to expand...


Then how can you disagree with that quote or even the article? It was about public nudity.

Now... I will say, you and I live in island communities where dress has cultural implications... Where I am sure both you and I will disagree with Piper (in his other articles, I suppose). But the quote in question (and the article) was clearly about "public nudity."

Lighten up, people. I can ask a question without being considered a "troll." Tim can post this thread as it is pertinent. The FFF has and will continue to be a place where threads like these are repeated and looked at from an excessive amount of angles. This is not "trolling."
 
aleshanee said:
[size=12pt]pipers definition of public nudity... and how much clothing is required to avoid being guilty of it....  is what makes the quote taken from his article disagreeable.......  ......
Click to expand...


That is the thing... Piper didn't mention any particular style of clothing.  The article was all about public nudity.

i am not sure about the manner of dress common or acceptable to your island community
Click to expand...

We are in a top destination for Spring Break. We have plenty of popular venues where the slightest of clothing is worn. You cannot walk into WalMart without seeing people trying to tan 99% of their bodies under the flourescents :D
 
Initially, I was surprised about the bikinis in Walmart. I still notice them, but the shock factor has waned.
 
Izdaari said:
FSSL said:
Are you for public nudity?
Click to expand...

Only when in a socially appropriate venue. Which would not be a city street anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention where it would be appropriate. There\s a town on the French Riviera, I forget the name of it, that has a nudist quarter. Also on the designated nude beach nearby, and on other such beaches, wherever they may be.
 
Izdaari said:
Izdaari said:
FSSL said:
Are you for public nudity?
Click to expand...

Only when in a socially appropriate venue. Which would not be a city street anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention where it would be appropriate. There\s a town on the French Riviera, I forget the name of it, that has a nudist quarter. Also on the designated nude beach nearby, and on other such beaches, wherever they may be.
Click to expand...

So this is about public nudity?  You mean walking down the street without any clothes on?  Wow, Peter Piper sure addresses the pressing spiritual issues of the day, doesn't he?  I mean, there's an epidemic of Christians promenading around in public stark naked, so I'm sure glad he's calling attention to this travesty. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
So this is about public nudity...
Click to expand...

No. It is about baking chocolate chip cookies. Didn't you read the OP?
 
I just checked, and Peter Piper's essay was published on April 24, 2008.  At first, the fact that he was talking about public nudity eluded me, since as far as I know, there's no indication that public nudity among Christians is a "thing".  So I thought maybe it was an April Fools article, and checked the date.

Maybe this year he'll preach that having a second head surgically attached to your shoulder is rebellion against God, because it changes the way God designed us.  We need someone to speak up about that, since you never know when Christians will start getting second heads attached once it's scientifically feasible. 

 
You didn't read the OP either. The whole discussion eludes you.

Public nudity is a real problem. In our age of easily and privately accesses Internet porn, relaxed Hollywood movie ratings and there are real fools who think posting nudes on Christian forums is everyone else's problem.

There is a real problem. The problem is that many Christians do not take the issue seriously.
 
aleshanee said:
...well.... personally..... i would never eat chocolate chip cookies baked by someone who went around their kitchen in a state of nudity...
Click to expand...

Lol
 
aleshanee said:
FSSL said:
You didn't read the OP either. The whole discussion eludes you.

Public nudity is a real problem. In our age of easily and privately accesses Internet porn, relaxed Hollywood movie ratings and there are real fools who think posting nudes on Christian forums is everyone else's problem.

There is a real problem.
Click to expand...

who are you addressing this to?.......  ???
Click to expand...

Himself.  To paraphrase Ransom, he's changing the subject from public nudity to nudity on the Internet and movies.  Worse, he's conflating nudity with pornography.  While they may overlap, they are not the same thing, as I demonstrated with pictures of the statue of David, the Sistine Chapel, and a picture of fine art photography. 

Some mentally ill people consider eating in public the same as having sex in public.  I forget the psychiatric term for it, but it's an actual problem. In fact, the article I read years ago cited someone who equated playing the violin with sex, so she could never play in public. 

FSSL has that inability to separate his own perversion from reality when it comes to nudity.  To him, any mention of nudity means pornography.  He really should see a shrink about it. 

 
There is a limit noted in Scripture. That limit involves clothing to one degree or another. On this forum, the argument of modest coverings is not even on the table anymore.

We are at an absurd level on this forum where full, photographic and videographic nudity is defended and attempted to be justified as a Christian option (right). One poster claimed he would not be ashamed to walk naked down the streets of Nashville.

Thanks to Rogue, the topic cannot even be discussed as subjective. It is totally objective. We have moved from discussing whether skirts to the ankles, bikinis or loin cloths are acceptable. We are witnessing a defense of full frontal nudity. Rogue gave an honest appraisal of his rebel heart.

The idea of "subjectivity" can no longer be defended.
 
Tim said:
1 Timothy 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
Click to expand...
This is ,of course, talking about church Elders....you know that, right?

earnestly contend

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top