Ethics of Christian Nudism

Sonclad · Post by **Sonclad** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:09 pm

When questioned about the morality of social nudism*, I've noticed many Christian brothers/sisters hold to a belief that could be summed up as follows:
- God created mankind nude and everything was considered good;
- Mankind sinned and then became aware of nakedness;
- God provided clothes because He considered it immoral to be nude in a social setting after that;

The above reasoning is perplexing to me - specifically, the transition from point 2 to point 3 and the implications of point 3 in regard to other portions of Scripture as well as God's nature.

If you agree with the above line of reasoning...
Q: Why is social nudity now immoral - specifically?
Q: What biblical (as opposed to social) reasons support such a view?

* PLEASE NOTE, in talking about nudism, I am NOT speaking of licentious, promiscuous or behavior that is in any way sexual - obviously, this would be sinful. I am speaking of practicing social nudity while maintaining ideals of traditional Christian marriage (i.e., lifetime comittment of one woman & one man) and traditional Christian sexual morality (that is, sex only between husband and wife within the privacy of marriage and that excludes homosexual, premarital or extramarital sexual relationships). This also implies opposition to pornography and other sexualized nakedness in the media.

Partialartist · Post by **Partialartist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:10 pm

Flawed associations. Correlation over causation.

To me, the story of Adam and Eve is an example of the inherent ignorance of man, and the tendency to misplace blame. Their sin was disobeying god, yet they somehow got the idea that the error lay in their "sinful" bodies, and thought that covering them up was the answer (although there is an interpretation that suggests they weren't covering their bodies, but merely trying to hide from god among the fig leaves).

It's the same type of flawed logic that lead to fear of curse words. Anyone thinking rationally knows that words are only as powerful as the meaning you put into them, and that they in no way cause terrible things to happen.

In the same fashion, human(animal) nature is the source of the "error", the "sin", not the body. If anything, covering up the body is what increases the desire (lust) to see it. Having certain parts of the body only be exposed during sex further sexualizes them. Men used to get turned on by a woman's ankles, for goodness sake.

My take is, if you don't see your body as sinful, it isn't. There's no real reason to cover yourself if you don't have to (it gets pretty cold in parts of the world). It's immoral, because we've made the association of nudity with sex, and with sex being wrong.

It really emphasizes the notion that it's "knowledge" that has caused us so many problems, which I feel is the point of that story.

Sonclad · Post by **Sonclad** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:41 pm

To me, the story of Adam and Eve is an example of the inherent ignorance of man, and the tendency to misplace blame. Their sin was disobeying god, yet they somehow got the idea that the error lay in their "sinful" bodies, and thought that covering them up was the answer (although there is an interpretation that suggests they weren't covering their bodies, but merely trying to hide from god among the fig leaves).

I would agree in part - that their sin was disobedience to God and their blame was misplaced (which was a subsequent sin itself as was their attempt to hide from God). I would question the claim to an "inherent ignorance" on their part, however. I believe they were fully aware of what was off-limits (the tree that God command them not to eat of) and found themselves exposed spiritually as enemies of God; unable to rectify the situation, yet they attempted to hide what they could - their bodies (to no avail).

In the same fashion, human(animal) nature is the source of the "error", the "sin", not the body. If anything, covering up the body is what increases the desire (lust) to see it. Having certain parts of the body only be exposed during sex further sexualizes them. Men used to get turned on by a woman's ankles, for goodness sake.

I would agree that covering the body increases the desire.

My take is, if you don't see your body as sinful, it isn't. There's no real reason to cover yourself if you don't have to (it gets pretty cold in parts of the world). It's immoral, because we've made the association of nudity with sex, and with sex being wrong.

I would agree with this.

The Persnickety Platypus · Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:03 pm

Nudism- it's only a sin if you are ugly.

Greatest I Am · Post by **Greatest I Am** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:21 pm

The ethics involved can only be decided by the participant.

If he or she can be in this circumstance without what they consider immoral thoughts or actions then no ethical boundary is crossed.

If on the other hand he or she can recognize evil thoughts within themselves then obviously the boundary has been crossed.

Many issues have good and bad side.
God placed us here to learn where the boundaries are.

Regards
DL

beyondredemption · Post by **beyondredemption** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:56 pm

i thought the whole garden of eden / nudism bit was about sex.

No, really.

They were innocent (virgins) symbolized by nudity. The ate from the tree of knowledge (had sex) and got so hung up they had to cover up their genitals. God was not happy, threw them out of paradise, and made women have labour pains to teach them a lesson. Oh and a snake was involved.

Stop sniggering at the back.

Either that or a snake spoke and an apple was eaten. And God got upset. Seems a bit harsh to me.

Social nudity has only been frowned upon fairly recently - before the industrial revolution dramatically increased populations the done thing was to bathe nude in the local river.

I personally think that it's more likely rising populations caused the change in social attitudes. This is now being reversed - until suntans became fashionable in the 1930s it was unacceptable for men to bare their chests whereas now in the correct social setting (i.e. a beach) it is often acceptable for a woman to go topless.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun May 06, 2007 12:53 pm

Did Jesus encourage nudism?

According to the Gospel of Thomas (which is probably as valid as any of the canonal gospels) JC is supposed to have said: Thom 37:1/ His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?" /2/Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, /3/then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
Did Jesus really tell his followers that when they "strip without being ashamed," then they will be ready for the kingdom of God? Perhaps some of the scholarly members here can assist.

If a real or mythical JC said that, what was its meaning? Are modern nudists actually more nearly “ready for the kingdom of God” than “properly attired” preachers and church-goers who would be greatly ashamed to be seen without clothes?

Nudism does seem to “cast off the trappings of society” and to eliminate “hiding behind clothes” or announcing status by clothing.

Can you, personally, “strip without being ashamed” (assuming being in an environment where that is not uncommon)? Can you be comfortable in a setting where a number of people are unclothed? If not, why not? Vanity? Poor self-image? Shame? Religious training?

Perhaps there is something of value in that statement attributed to Jesus; an element of equality in nudity. Clothing is used to identify “rank and privilege”. The RC church provides an excellent example; police and military uniforms provide another. “Formal wear” denotes certain things that are not necessarily beneficial or benevolent.

Modern warfare and personal conflict seem less likely without protective clothing.

Might the world be a better place if clothing were not “required” but worn when required by weather or environment?

What percentage of Christians qualifies as being ready for the kingdom of heaven by the criteria of “stripping unashamed”? Are the ashamed destined for “eternal damnation”?

crystalmage · Post by **crystalmage** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:04 pm

I think you only need clothes if you are a sinner.

fatpizzaman · Post by **fatpizzaman** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:43 pm

Sonclad wrote:
If you agree with the above line of reasoning...
Q: Why is social nudity now immoral - specifically?
Q: What biblical (as opposed to social) reasons support such a view?

Social nudity is considered immoral mainly because of the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. These days, clothes are an affordable thing by everyone - in the days of the Bible, nudity was often a sign of poverty or something practiced by the lower classes.

Also, it comes down to sexual repression. The more the body and sexuality is kept hidden, the more it becomes a temptation for us. It's no wonder that so many Christians don't have happy sex lives or marriages anymore - clothes put up a barrier between people and they are forced by society (and also by Christian churches) to be something or someone they are not.

I think if Christians were not so legalistic about sexual practices and nudity, we would definitely have a more balanced and happier world.

Debating Christianity and Religion