The topic of breasts and morality

[bar Jonah]

[As with many of my posts for some reason, I struggled with which forum in which to post this. So, mods, if you feel it belongs elsewhere, by all means move it straightaway with my happy blessing. I chose this forum as it is the best choice within Sociology, which I deemed most likely the best area.] :smile:


I've discussed this touchy topic with a small number of other TWebbers privately just by happenstance, recently. I guess I'm interested in what more people think, although I believe I can predict the general response. Nevertheless, who knows, we'll see! I, myself, believe me to be in the minority on this. By all means, be candid in your responses.


What do you believe are the aspects of objective or absolute morality in relation to the bare female breast(s) and the topless woman in art, in general society and especially in particular social contexts? Is this an issue of objective/absolute morality? Or is this instead a cultural value (which nevertheless would still be relevant in our culture, btw)?

For the moment, I'm going to leave it at that, and wait for a few responses before I express my own views.

[spl_cadet]

Cultural value. There are cultures that are completely fine with bare breasted women. Ours happens not to be.

What'd be interesting is the reasoning behind that. What caused our culture to not approve of bare breasted women?

[bar Jonah]

Btw, for anyone who wants to take a biblical approach (not absolutely necessary), I would be interested in scriptural backing for (for example) the stance on this being an objective/absolute moral value.

[Paul]

You should make a debate challenge :wink:

It would be an interesting debate :smile:

[bar Jonah]

I didn't even give a stance, Paul. :lol:

[Paul]

RightIdea:

I didn't even give a stance, Paul. :lol:

I was thinking about the "stance" you gave in the Amphitheater :wink::


RightIdea:

On top of everything else, I don't even personally find the female breast inherently erotic or sexual (as I have related to a number of fellow TWebbers). I can honestly say that even seeing a topless woman in real life (in person) isn't inherently sexual or erotic, as I don't believe the breasts are primarily for that function in the first place. This appears to be a purely cultural standard, not one of absolute morality. I would even go so far as to say I would not have a problem with such things as topless swimming at the beach, etc., IF it would not pose a problem to others. (However, it certainly does in our culture.)

[bar Jonah]

Now see, I said I would give my view in this thread when I'm ready, and here you are posting it willy-nilly. :noid:

[Patroclus]

RI, do us all a favor and post cogent arguments from the other thread. I think some backgroud may be in order, especially considerring that movies, art and other entertainment are family issues.

Plus, it might save some of us the time of having to re-state things.

I have already mentioned something about Beauty in the nude and pornos in the nude, and the ensuing dialog with the veiwer.

[bar Jonah]

Actually I was looking forward to an unspoiled thread with fresh views... I specifically did not want to simply carry that over to here, along with all the baggage that would come with that thread.

[Patroclus]

Okay, I am sorry. I'll refrain from clarification for a while too.

Talk amongst yourselves.

[Darwin]

I'll go along with those who trace much of our societies sexual mores to the Victorian era and Protestant tradition of viewing anything that had to do with sex, sexual expression, or sex parts as verboten subjects. Roman Catholics, particularly European Catholics, never seemed to develop this extreme attitude. Yet female breasts, considered a sexual body part, fell under the Protestant prohibition, which eventually became a universal in American society. The question is: is it a reasonable prohibition? Objectively, No. there is nothing inherently sexual about breasts. They having nothing to do with the necessary act of sex. And we know that in societies where bare breasts are the norm, they are not sexual objects. So there appeal as sexual objects must be a subjective one, which means that any moral attitude toward them can not be an absolute. If bare breasts are morally wrong, it is only because societal forces (I don't believe it is cultural) have decided it be so.
And, this arose because the Victorian/Protestant attitude of the time insisted on hiding them from men, turning breasts into mystery objects. The very act of hiding them only made them more attractive. And attractiveness goes hand in hand with sexual allure, a human condition the Protestants insisted should be curbed at all costs. So bare breasts in public came to be illegal. Not objectively bad, mind you, just so socially unacceptable they could not be tolerated. And *sigh* so they remain. Perhaps in time.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sorry guys I ain't buying it. And the last lines of Darwin's post proves why. RightIdea you may be a genuine exception, no doubt, but there is definitely something in the female breast that arouses sexual ideas and passion in the male. That is not cultural. Now in a society in which it is common to see, we may become desensitived, but that does not mean it is not real. We have become desensitived today to seeing mass muder on TV, doesn't mean it is not still horrible.

[Rubia Warren]

ditto what DDW said.

[Paul]

Ditto what Roll the R said :wink:

[Rahab]

The only way I could see a correlation between bare breasts and a sexual function would be to agree with Freud's analysis that the subconscious retains the memory of infanthood and the instinct of succion which he defined as part of the libido ( proposal which caused a scandal at the time).

I tend to believe that if any moral foundation to the issue of partial nudity or nudity, it stems from a judeo christian religious interpretation which assimilates nudity to the concept of sin. Possibly as we examine Genesis and discover that God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve after the fall of Creation using an animal skin.
The Germans were very aware that nudity was forbidden among the Jews. Behind the horrendous scenario of the "death showers", was an intent from the executors to terrorize those victims humiliating them by exposing their bodies naked. Entire families were led like cattle into the death chambers attempting to hide their private parts from one another.
As I grew up in Africa, I could observe the differences between the natives still living within their local culture and those influenced by European religious instruction. The localy cultured natives remained unaware of nudity or partial nudity being a moral issue. The religiously influenced natives would imitate the European clothing code.
I have come to the conclusion that in terms of nudity or partial nudity like beauty evil is often in the eye of the beholder.
Comes to mind also how breastfeeding in public has become an issue....... what is a natural and beautiful act has been protested against by those who dismiss the meaning of nursing an infant and focus on the sight of an uncovered breast.
As I frequented the topless beaches of the French Riviera, our local male gender did not stare at our breasts.... it was often the bewildered across the Atlantic tourist who would zoom lense on us. Especialy as the US navy VIth Fleet would pull into the french ports.......
So I would conclude that if any moral issue regarding partial nudity and specificaly bare breasts, the judeo christian interpretation of scriptures may have a lot to do with how society responds to nudity.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 09:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355122#post355122)
Rahab:

The only way I could see a correlation between bare breasts and a sexual function would be to agree with Freud's analysis that the subconscious retains the memory of infanthood and the instinct of succion which he defined as part of the libido ( proposal which caused a scandal at the time).

I have no issue with subconscious and all that stuff. I don't care why it is, the fact is that it is. And of course since reproduction and sexuality are tied, any part of the body which is part of such cycle, such as the breasts are overtly sexual. I find it actually humorous that this is denied.



I tend to believe that if any moral foundation to the issue of partial nudity or nudity, it stems from a judeo christian religious interpretation which assimilates nudity to the concept of sin. Possibly as we examine Genesis and discover that God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve after the fall of Creation using an animal skin.

No problem there but doesn't go far enough. Why does God associate nudity with sin? Because we lust in our heart, and we have the lust of the eyes.





As I grew up in Africa, I could observe the differences between the natives still living within their local culture and those influenced by European religious instruction. The localy cultured natives remained unaware of nudity or partial nudity being a moral issue. The religiously influenced natives would imitate the European clothing code.

So? Christian cultures bring Christian morals. Just because there were unaware of it being a moral issue, doesn't mean it isn't one. Do we base our morals or whether or not something is inherently immoral or not based upon primitive heathen tribes? I sure hope not. Some of htem see nothing immoral about cannibalization, it is as natural to them as not staring at a women's breasts.




I have come to the conclusion that in terms of nudity or partial nudity like beauty evil is often in the eye of the beholder.

I am sorry but on issue of sexuality, Biblical morals does not give us that "luxury." Relavtivism is not an option. The cannibals may say that our distaste for eating others is cultural.




As I frequented the topless beaches of the French Riviera, our local male gender did not stare at our breasts....

And as I watch others watch horribly violent movies, they don't wince. So what? They have become desensitized. That speaks nothing to morality or not. I can betcha that the naked breasts are very vivid parts of those men fantasy lives, stared at or not.

[Rahab]

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355106#post355106)
Dee Dee Warren:

Sorry guys I ain't buying it. And the last lines of Darwin's post proves why. RightIdea you may be a genuine exception, no doubt, but there is definitely something in the female breast that arouses sexual ideas and passion in the male. That is not cultural. Now in a society in which it is common to see, we may become desensitived, but that does not mean it is not real. We have become desensitived today to seeing mass muder on TV, doesn't mean it is not still horrible.

bonjour Dee Dee.... I hope you had a joyous Christmas with your family!
Every infant who was breastfed experienced the comforting pleasing sensorial aspect of being nursed at his or her mother's breast. That is where I believe there is a sensorial connection with breasts which triggers a libido response.
I must tell you though that Right Idea is no exception. It all depends on what notion a man will attribute to bare breasts. It stems from how the mind interprets the image reflected by bare breasts. Nudist communities do not dwell on their body parts.

I am uncomfortable with your comparison to mass murder..... you attribute a notion of evil to the commonness of bare breasts as you compare it to an actual crime against humanity. Which makes any culture which does not attribute or interpret the sight of bare breasts as a potential downfall to the human mind, a culture which promotes evil actions. I have to disagree.

If you are raised surrounded by partial nudity as I was in my childhood, you do not view partial nudity as a trigger of lust. For that matter, folks who are in the health care field do not view their patients' breasts as any object which "arouses sexual ideas and passions". On the contrary.

Puritanism (and I agree with Darwin on that) has contributed to "evilize" a natural human condition. By creating taboos, it has promoted a notion of "longing for what is forbidden to see".

I must assure you that in cultures where bare breasts are common and accepted as hairstyle is, folks do not engage in orgiac lifestyle at the sight of those bare breasts. Those who tend to respond sexualy to the sight of bare breasts are those who project their own interpretation of what that image means.

I think we need to give more credit to the male gender than picture them as lusting, drooling creatures who will engage in sexual thoughts and fantasy at the sight of bare breasts. Some do.. no doubt. But they are usualy those men who assume their sexuality based on the physical appearance of the female not on her overall qualities. Think about the males who yet love and delight in their sexual intimacy with a wife who lost her breasts to cancer.

I want to give credit to the male gender here as I have seen so many examples in my multi cultural background of males who did not exhibit a sexual response at the sight of bare breasts or even total nudity.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Quick comment as I am dong a side project today...


want to give credit to the male gender here as I have seen so many examples in my multi cultural background of males who did not exhibit a sexual response at the sight of bare breasts or even total nudity.

Come on!! If there is a male who did not have a sexual response at total nudity (and I am assuming that the female in question was attractive ) then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIM. He is not normal, and we don't make rules and judgments based upon exeptions to normalcy. Now if any guys here fall into that abnormal category and wish to admit it fine. I am not normal. I don't like many children in general, don't enjoy the company of children a lot of the time, (there are some notable exceptions) and don't have any desire to hold babies when I see them. I AM NOT NORMAL. It is not normal for a woman to feel that way. I don't expect rules and debates to center around my deviancy as if it were a standard.

[Rahab]

[QUOTE]Today @ 03:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355132#post355132)
Dee Dee Warren:



I have no issue with subconscious and all that stuff. I don't care why it is, the fact is that it is. And of course since reproduction and sexuality are tied, any part of the body which is part of such cycle, such as the breasts are overtly sexual. I find it actually humorous that this is denied.

MY ANSWER : I do not think anyone denies the fact that breasts symbolize a sensorial pleasure. I think what is debated here is if our response to the sight of bare breasts automaticaly engenders sexual thoughts. It appears it does not. It appears it has to do with what significance is given to nudity by the viewer. Again, a physician does not fantacize on his patient's breasts. In my job Dee Dee I handle naked bodies both males and females and I can assure you that my mind does not experience any lusting over their genitals! But I view the human body as a natural condition. The same way I would view the nakedness of an ape mooning his butt in a zoo! (sorry but it really is no different to me).



No problem there but doesn't go far enough. Why does God associate nudity with sin? Because we lust in our heart, and we have the lust of the eyes.

MY ANSWER : well see..... I made sure to use the term "interpretation" as I debated the influence of Genesis. Some could interpret the state of nakedness of Adam and Eve as them being totaly transparant to God prior to the fall. There was nothing for God to turn His Eyes away from them.... as sin tainted their persona, God had to cover them with the skin of the first sacrifice.... a symbol of the ultimate coverage of the nakedness of our sins by the sacrifice of the Lamb Jesus Christ. It may have nothing to do with actual physical nudity.



So? Christian cultures bring Christian morals. Just because there were unaware of it being a moral issue, doesn't mean it isn't one. Do we base our morals or whether or not something is inherently immoral or not based upon primitive heathen tribes? I sure hope not. Some of htem see nothing immoral about cannibalization, it is as natural to them as not staring at a women's breasts.

MY ANSWER : I am not a pro colonialist person since I saw the corruption first hand of what judeo christian colonialism brought into what you call "heathen tribes". I would be careful as portraying the intent of christian cultures to bring christian morals as an improvement to the morals of some of those pagan cultures. If you study the history of the ex Kingdom of Mali, you will discover with great disappointment how christian slaverists caused wars between pacifist tribes for the sole purpose of trading their mutual prisonners for cheap junk and alcohol in order to ship those human beings as slaves to the American continent.
You also will not find many Native Americans who consider that the judeo christian intervention in their ancestors lives contributed to the betterment of their condition in their own land.

To my knowledge, cannibalism results in harming another person. Bare breasts do not result in any crimes against humanity.



I am sorry but on issue of sexuality, Biblical morals does not give us that "luxury." Relavtivism is not an option. The cannibals may say that our distaste for eating others is cultural.

MY ANSWER : Biblical Morals are based on interpretation. They differ from one theological examination to another. One side claims to uphold God's Moral and the other claims the same. You claim that bare breasts are sinful. I claim that they are not. I cannot view bare breasts as a sin..... because my mind reasons on the fact that breasts are part of the human body like my hair, my ears, my neck etc and they are part of my morphology. I also do not consider nudity to be an essential element in my sexuality. And I am no exception. Nudity simply does not trigger in my mind a notion of evil. I regard evil as any act which results in harming another human being. And no.... Dee Dee.... sorry but nudity does not equate to lust for me personaly.




And as I watch others watch horribly violent movies, they don't wince. So what? They have become desensitized. That speaks nothing to morality or not. I can betcha that the naked breasts are very vivid parts of those men fantasy lives, stared at or not.

MY ANSWER : again you are comparing an harmful act against humanity with a natural condition of our morphology. I think I am more equipped than you are to evaluate how my male friends reacted to bare breasts on the beaches of the French Riviera. Have you ever spend any time with nudist communities? I have.... those folks have healthy minds. They do not dwell on lust. They accept their bodies as part of their natural condition.

[bar Jonah]

But what is true "nudity," objectively? A woman wearing shorts or a "skort?" Showing her thighs, which is a heck of a lot closer, "geographically," to the center of her sexuality than her bosom? Mere inches, even? :hrm:

I wouldn't deny thta breasts can objectively be sexual, but it depends on context.

Is it appropriate for a man to come to work at the office, shirtless? Heck no! But is it inherently sexual "nudity" for him to swim at the local pool or beach without a shirt? No. How can this be any different between a man and a woman? Obviously, I would agree it would be entirely inappropriate for a woman to be topless at work in the office, or in a service establishment. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Also, is there no scriptural basis for the "more conservative" stance on this?"

[$cirisme]

I went to my cousins(half-cousin? Second-cousin? Maybe a great uncle... I forget how I'm related I just am...) house and he had a ton of naked statues with breasts. The was even a piece of drift wood on the table that had one!

His 16 year old son's room had posters of breasts across the walls. Breast obsession is not healthy. :no:

[Rahab]

Today @ 04:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355184#post355184)
RightIdea:

But what is true "nudity," objectively? A woman wearing shorts or a "skort?" Showing her thighs, which is a heck of a lot closer, "geographically," to the center of her sexuality than her bosom? Mere inches, even? :hrm:

I wouldn't deny thta breasts can objectively be sexual, but it depends on context.

Is it appropriate for a man to come to work at the office, shirtless? Heck no! But is it inherently sexual "nudity" for him to swim at the local pool or beach without a shirt? No. How can this be any different between a man and a woman? Obviously, I would agree it would be entirely inappropriate for a woman to be topless at work in the office, or in a service establishment. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Also, is there no scriptural basis for the "more conservative" stance on this?"

Good observation Right Idea....it seems that the social context has a lot to do with acceptance of partial nudity. Which activities we partake into.
We have focused on female breasts but it is fact that you guys have breasts too. I wonder how many females view male breasts as a sexual stimulus !!!!!!!!
I have a funny anecdote about swim suits.....a Lady who was a member of our little church in Italy advertized a catalog for women's appearal based on Biblical conviction. I decided to honor her enthusiasm to share her biblical "treasure" and viewed her catalog..... mamamia! it was as if we were back in the 1900's..... the whole swim outfit would definitly keep you from even swimming a few decent laps. Even a bonnet came with it.....I had a long talk with her that to me swimming means swimming. Not wetting my footies and keeping my hair dry, but a few good miles of consistant strokes. So I showed her my Speedo...." Sister... that is my athletic outfit"......no argument on my part helped her understand that wearing something comfortable which does not hinder your movements is essential when involved in physical activities. No.... I was defined as a stumbling block object of male temptation because I could not get myself to drown with ten pounds of clothing dragging me to the bottom!

Clothing code has a lot to do with our social environment. Look at the diversity of clothing form in various churches. It really has to do where folks place their focus as they attend church. In NY, I found myself banned from choir because I showed up wearing pants. Frankly had I known it was a forbidance, I would have worn a skirt.

Right Idea.... what is your reaction to a woman breastfeeding in public? do you look away..... do you stare at her half exposed breast.....do you reflect on how cute the little fellow looks and the tenderness of the whole gesture......?

[themuzicman]

The problem I see with increasing nudity is a decreasing exclusivity in the intimacy of sex between a man and a woman. If there is more that is special and exclusive to just those two, the stronger that physical bond will be.

If you look at the casual manner in which we treat the human body, and the frivilous manner in which we treat sex, and the frequency with which marriages fail, you can see a pattern forming.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

cirisme:
I went to my cousins(half-cousin? Second-cousin? Maybe a great uncle... I forget how I'm related I just am...) house and he had a ton of naked statues with breasts. The was even a piece of drift wood on the table that had one!

His 16 year old son's room had posters of breasts across the walls. Breast obsession is not healthy. :no:
That certainly appears to be a sexual fixation on breasts, which I wholeheartedly oppose. I'm with you on that one!


Rahab:
Good observation Right Idea....it seems that the social context has a lot to do with acceptance of partial nudity. Which activities we partake into.
We have focused on female breasts but it is fact that you guys have breasts too. I wonder how many females view male breasts as a sexual stimulus !!!!!!!!
I have a funny anecdote about swim suits.....a Lady who was a member of our little church in Italy advertized a catalog for women's appearal based on Biblical conviction. I decided to honor her enthusiasm to share her biblical "treasure" and viewed her catalog..... mamamia! it was as if we were back in the 1900's..... the whole swim outfit would definitly keep you from even swimming a few decent laps. Even a bonnet came with it.....I had a long talk with her that to me swimming means swimming. Not wetting my footies and keeping my hair dry, but a few good miles of consistant strokes. So I showed her my Speedo...." Sister... that is my athletic outfit"......no argument on my part helped her understand that wearing something comfortable which does not hinder your movements is essential when involved in physical activities. No.... I was defined as a stumbling block object of male temptation because I could not get myself to drown with ten pounds of clothing dragging me to the bottom!

Clothing code has a lot to do with our social environment. Look at the diversity of clothing form in various churches. It really has to do where folks place their focus as they attend church. In NY, I found myself banned from choir because I showed up wearing pants. Frankly had I known it was a forbidance, I would have worn a skirt.

Right Idea.... what is your reaction to a woman breastfeeding in public? do you look away..... do you stare at her half exposed breast.....do you reflect on how cute the little fellow looks and the tenderness of the whole gesture......?
The sight of a woman breastfeeding is one of the most perfect pictures of motherly love I can think of. I don't fixate on them, nor do I avert my eyes. I might smile in her direction, as I might if I see a mother kissing her child.

And of course a man's "breasts" can be a center of sexual stimulus! So can the thighs or ears or many other errogenous zones. And who is opposing those things being bare in certain social contexts? I certainly don't deny that a woman's breasts can be the focus of sexual stimulation.

But so can a man's.

[yxboom]

With the growing number of feet fetishes, I am grateful society insists I wear shoes else I would feel rather naked :wink:

[Rahab]

Today @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355235#post355235)
themuzicman:

The problem I see with increasing nudity is a decreasing exclusivity in the intimacy of sex between a man and a woman. If there is more that is special and exclusive to just those two, the stronger that physical bond will be.

If you look at the casual manner in which we treat the human body, and the frivilous manner in which we treat sex, and the frequency with which marriages fail, you can see a pattern forming.

Michael

That is valid only if you personaly consider nudity to be the predominant factor in what constitutes the desire to share sexual intimacy between men and women.
However.....some men and women are not necessarly motivated by the nudity of their potential mate to engage in sexual activity. What should be "special and exclusive to those just two" is the knowledge and delight they have in each others' personality, character, mind, heart qualities. Nudity becomes a necessity as it is part of the practical aspect of having sex. Though some folks will wear weird outfits.... anyhow!
If we standardize nudity as permissible only as exclusive to a man and woman sharing physical intimacy, we are sending a message that physical appearance plays the major role in what triggers that desire to share physical intimacy. And it should not be the major player........
In some cultures, family nudity such as bathing together, actualy creates a bond and acceptance of their identity within the family unit.

[mossrose]

Every infant who was breastfed experienced the comforting pleasing sensorial aspect of being nursed at his or her mother's breast. That is where I believe there is a sensorial connection with breasts which triggers a libido response.

Are you referring to every male infant? Most women, with the exception of those who claim to be lesbian, do not find the same "sensorial connection" to the memory of being breastfed.


Is it appropriate for a man to come to work at the office, shirtless? Heck no! But is it inherently sexual "nudity" for him to swim at the local pool or beach without a shirt? No. How can this be any different between a man and a woman? Obviously, I would agree it would be entirely inappropriate for a woman to be topless at work in the office, or in a service establishment. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."


As I am sure it has been mentioned numerous times in other threads, men are wired to be stimulated visually. In our culture, women who want the attention of men dress provocatively. They wear skimpy shirts, short skirts or shorts, wear high heels which cause their legs to appear longer, etc.

*Please do not think that I am saying that every woman who dresses in this way, or any other way is CONSCIOUSLY trying to attract men. I am not trying to paint every woman with the same brush

If I see a man with no shirt on, it does nothing for me sexually. If a woman came to work with no shirt on, assuming that was allowed, and she only worked with other women, there would likely be no stimulation on the part of the other women. It all has to do with the wiring of our brains.



Also, is there no scriptural basis for the "more conservative" stance on this?"

I Timothy 2:9 says,

"In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation....."

John MacArthur says about this:

"The Greek word for "propriety" refers to modesty mixed with humility, which carries the underlying idea of shame. It can also refer to a rejection of anything dishonourable to God, or refer to grief over sin. "Moderation" basically refers to self-control over sexual passions. Godly women hate sin and control their passions so as not to lead another into sin."

Whether this helps or not, RI, I don't know. I agree with DD, in that regardless of how the idea of bare breasts in our culture came to be "frowned upon", it IS that way. And, if women are behaving in a modest and God-honouring way, then they, at least, will not be going around without their shirts on. Because that might lead some men into sin.

[themuzicman]

You're inserting "predominantly" and "major" into what I said. Physical attraction is only a part of what intimacy is, however, it is still a part.

If certain areas of the body, even by sight, are not shared with others of the opposite sex, then that part of the body shares a higher exclusivity with one's mate than other parts.

Michael

[Stephen]

DD:don't enjoy the company of children

:eek:

[mossrose]

* You are likely the exception, Stephen! Besides, none of us would ever suspect that you are less than 20 by your wisdom and knowledge of God!! (If you hadn't told us somewhere how old you are......) :glomp:

[Rahab]

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355247#post355247)
RightIdea:


That certainly appears to be a sexual fixation on breasts, which I wholeheartedly oppose. I'm with you on that one!


The sight of a woman breastfeeding is one of the most perfect pictures of motherly love I can think of. I don't fixate on them, nor do I avert my eyes. I might smile in her direction, as I might if I see a mother kissing her child.

And of course a man's "breasts" can be a center of sexual stimulus! So can the thighs or ears or many other errogenous zones. And who is opposing those things being bare in certain social contexts? I certainly don't deny that a woman's breasts can be the focus of sexual stimulation.

But so can a man's.

You got it ! what you percieve is not the physical side of that image but what it symbolizes to you. And you value that motherly love gesture. You sort of made my point that we project in that image what our mind longs for or values. Your perception is therefor not tainted with a sense of " how my! a breast! gasp!". Your mind computes on the sentimental aspect of what this breast represents for any child and mother bonding with one another.

Actualy some folks do oppose to showing even a knee in some sectarian milieus......another church social experience where women had to wear knee length dresses or skirts but guys could wear shorts.
Hands can be extremely sexy. When I watch my hubby's agile fingers play on his guitar, I find him extremely appealing. All body parts can be percieved as a stimulus especialy if we have a sentimental attachment to the person.
Eyes can engender the desire to be held .. noone dissimulates their eyes for fear they may trigger some sinful notion. And eyes are probably one of the most expressive invitation to intimacy. The way someone smiles.... you are then exposed to their emotional nudity which is far more appealing than if he or she were to strip down their clothes in front of you!

I just really struggle with that notion that nudity automaticaly triggers some desire for sexual intimacy especialy with a stranger!
I remember being dragged in my first years as a Navy wife to a "Chip and Dale" ( I thought I was going to some type of Disney show) by other Navy wives while our hubbies were on deployment. Of course they all were thrilled to introduce the "Little Frenchie" to a male gogo show which I had no earthly idea what it consisted of. I sat thru the whole thing wondering what was so exciting about the whole venture. My only reaction was when one of those entertainers proceeded to try to kiss me after one of the wives whispered something in his ear sliding a few dollar bills in his underwear.... " yuck.... ze microbes.... ze microbes......". It sorts of give you an idea what my response was to the state of collective hysteria I was witnessing.

[Ded Turnip]

"MY ANSWER : I am not a pro colonialist person since I saw the corruption first hand of what judeo christian colonialism brought into what you call "heathen tribes". I would be careful as portraying the intent of christian cultures to bring christian morals as an improvement to the morals of some of those pagan cultures. If you study the history of the ex Kingdom of Mali, you will discover with great disappointment how christian slaverists caused wars between pacifist tribes for the sole purpose of trading their mutual prisonners for cheap junk and alcohol in order to ship those human beings as slaves to the American continent.
You also will not find many Native Americans who consider that the judeo christian intervention in their ancestors lives contributed to the betterment of their condition in their own land."

(I don't know how to make one of those nifty quote box things. . .)

Anyway . . . When it comes to Christianity, Men do not make the religion. If a group determines to destroy countless lives under the label of a Christian culture, it doesn't make it Christian. I don't remember Jesus teaching his followers to use deceit and murderous intentions to coerce others to follow him.

I don't believe your examples of the destruction of the ex Kingdom of Mali or the Native Americans as being true examples of Christians seeking to bring Christian morals. They were out for their own material gains.

Eh.

[Darwin]

Rahab, in post #15 gave a good example of how societal norms determine how breasts are viewed. Europeans, who comfortably breast feed in public and walk around with bare breasts at beaches don't elicit the attention from fellow Europeans as they do from Americans. So obviously this is a learned response. But Dee Dee seems to think, because the Bible condemns nudity, it is better that we retain a lustful response toward bare breasts rather than rise above it. Very odd indeed. In fact her obtuse take on nudity blinds her the the FACT that nudity and sexual attraction do not have to go hand in hand. The Karamojas of Africa spent their entire lives naked, as do many Amazonian tribes today. I remember reading in a cultural anthropology class how the karamojans used body adornments--paint, jewelry, etc.--to make themselves alluring, and that sexual expression was solely centered on the sex act itself. Bare breasts and exposed genitalia were NOT attractants. So, when Dee Dee writes: "Come on!! If there is a male who did not have a sexual response at total nudity (and I am assuming that the female in question was attractive ) then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIM," she may be speaking about western attitudes, but its certainly not a HUMAN ATTITUDE. All of which reminds me of the lyrics to the song in South Pacific: You've Got To Be Taught.

You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be carefully taught.


Oscar Hammerstein, II (1895-1960)
From the 1949 musical South Pacific
by Richard Rogers & Oscar Hammerstein II
Copyright © 1949, Renewed

Christians may believe that god deemed nudity to be sinful, and bareing one's breasts to a sin, but whole cultures have existed quite peacefully in various states of undress. Will this send them to hell? That's another issue, but if god is as just as Christians make him out to be, I wouldn't think that mere exposure would be a determinant.


cirisme
His 16 year old son's room had posters of breasts across the walls. Breast obsession is not healthy.

Very few obsessions ARE healthy.



themuzicman
The problem I see with increasing nudity is a decreasing exclusivity in the intimacy of sex between a man and a woman. If there is more that is special and exclusive to just those two, the stronger that physical bond will be.

The logical extension of this thought then is, more coverage should increase the intimacy of sex between a man and a woman. So the thing to do is outlaw shorts, skirts above the ankle, scoop neck blouses, bras that don't bind, bathing suits, and any clothing that reveals the form of the body. Hey, how about a cheer for old Victorian England.

My bottom point is that the body is not inherently bad, sinful or repulsive. And that its bare display is not inherently bad, sinful or repulsive. It is only because we have been taught to regard it in this manner that it has taken on these aspects, and in turn, generated the sexual allure everyone is so afraid of. If one truly cares about the "damage" a bare breast or scant attire supposedly provokes, I suggest that rather than addressing the fact, look at the cause: learned behavior. Take a clue from the Europeans who shed most of their hang ups about nudity, and adopt a tolerant and accepting attitude toward a condition that is not inherently bad. The Christian god may have introduced shame into the world, but that doesn't mean people can't rise above it.

[Rahab]

Today @ 06:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355318#post355318)
Ded Turnip:

"MY ANSWER : I am not a pro colonialist person since I saw the corruption first hand of what judeo christian colonialism brought into what you call "heathen tribes". I would be careful as portraying the intent of christian cultures to bring christian morals as an improvement to the morals of some of those pagan cultures. If you study the history of the ex Kingdom of Mali, you will discover with great disappointment how christian slaverists caused wars between pacifist tribes for the sole purpose of trading their mutual prisonners for cheap junk and alcohol in order to ship those human beings as slaves to the American continent.
You also will not find many Native Americans who consider that the judeo christian intervention in their ancestors lives contributed to the betterment of their condition in their own land."

(I don't know how to make one of those nifty quote box things. . .)

Anyway . . . When it comes to Christianity, Men do not make the religion. If a group determines to destroy countless lives under the label of a Christian culture, it doesn't make it Christian. I don't remember Jesus teaching his followers to use deceit and murderous intentions to coerce others to follow him.

I don't believe your examples of the destruction of the ex Kingdom of Mali or the Native Americans as being true examples of Christians seeking to bring Christian morals. They were out for their own material gains.

Eh.

I am having a hard time making those nifty boxes too.....cheer up!

Of course they are not representative of Christ's intent for His followers. Yet those folks believed that God was inspiring them to commit such deeds ( see how slavery has been defended as a godly concept ). They brought their religion along with their mercantilist drive. My comments were directed at Dee Dee's mention of "heathen tribes".. Mali is one example of disrupting values of "heathen tribes". I do not abide to the belief that before christianity, there was no moral value. The " little savages who need to be taught how to behave" does not settle with me. I am fully aware of how balanced and ethical some tribal systems were prior to their "christianization".

Actualy I think men make religion as they at times make God in their own image. They can shelter behind " God said so" to justify crimes against other human beings. Using the ultimate authority to project their own greed and hatred. So in terms of christian morals, they do not score as high as we wish they would. Christianity carries a nasty baggage of past hatred interventions. And it becomes even more nasty as some will defend it still today as God's Will.

If nudity is indeed a moral issue which is a downfall to society in general, then I do not think that the answer is in establishing christian or any other religious moral.
I think that teaching children how God made them and how to accept their morphology and consider themselves not as junk or objects of potential shame may make the difference. I know it did with me..... I am immune to have lusting, evil induced thoughts, sexual responses at the sight of any body parts. This is what I am trying to say. And why..... because since early childhood where I grew up noone planted in me the notion that those African folks around me were evil in their nudity. The concept of evil never entered my mind as a child.....and it certainly does not enter their minds either. It only affects the minds of people who project their own personal taboos and fear of what is natural.
I cherish the childlike mind........

You were born naked....so was I. A human being first wrapped you into a recieving blanket. Symbol of our society covering the natural condition of nakedness.

[Rahab]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355340#post355340)
Darwin:

Rahab, in post #15 gave a good example of how societal norms determine how breasts are viewed. Europeans, who comfortably breast feed in public and walk around with bare breasts at beaches don't elicit the attention from fellow Europeans as they do from Americans. So obviously this is a learned response. But Dee Dee seems to think, because the Bible condemns nudity, it is better that we retain a lustful response toward bare breasts rather than rise above it. Very odd indeed. In fact her obtuse take on nudity blinds her the the FACT that nudity and sexual attraction do not have to go hand in hand. The Karamojas of Africa spent their entire lives naked, as do many Amazonian tribes today. I remember reading in a cultural anthropology class how the karamojans used body adornments--paint, jewelry, etc.--to make themselves alluring, and that sexual expression was solely centered on the sex act itself. Bare breasts and exposed genitalia were NOT attractants. So, when Dee Dee writes: "Come on!! If there is a male who did not have a sexual response at total nudity (and I am assuming that the female in question was attractive ) then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIM," she may be speaking about western attitudes, but its certainly not a HUMAN ATTITUDE. All of which reminds me of the lyrics to the song in South Pacific: You've Got To Be Taught.

You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be carefully taught.


Oscar Hammerstein, II (1895-1960)
From the 1949 musical South Pacific
by Richard Rogers & Oscar Hammerstein II
Copyright © 1949, Renewed

Christians may believe that god deemed nudity to be sinful, and bareing one's breasts to a sin, but whole cultures have existed quite peacefully in various states of undress. Will this send them to hell? That's another issue, but if god is as just as Christians make him out to be, I wouldn't think that mere exposure would be a determinant.



Very few obsessions ARE healthy.




The logical extension of this thought then is, more coverage should increase the intimacy of sex between a man and a woman. So the thing to do is outlaw shorts, skirts above the ankle, scoop neck blouses, bras that don't bind, bathing suits, and any clothing that reveals the form of the body. Hey, how about a cheer for old Victorian England.

My bottom point is that the body is not inherently bad, sinful or repulsive. And that its bare display is not inherently bad, sinful or repulsive. It is only because we have been taught to regard it in this manner that it has taken on these aspects, and in turn, generated the sexual allure everyone is so afraid of. If one truly cares about the "damage" a bare breast or scant attire supposedly provokes, I suggest that rather than addressing the fact, look at the cause: learned behavior. Take a clue from the Europeans who shed most of their hang ups about nudity, and adopt a tolerant and accepting attitude toward a condition that is not inherently bad. The Christian god may have introduced shame into the world, but that doesn't mean people can't rise above it.

I absolutly agree that it a learned behavior. Almost a conditionned response.
I will assume that God values my approach of not considering nudity as a source of evil thoughts and I am not so concerned about "going to hell for it".
You are absolutly correct about the tribal examples you gave. Genitalia are not considered appealing attributes to sexual intimacy. Interesting that clothing is often a form of dissimulating unattractive body fitness to render it more appealing. Push up bras, reinforced tummy underwear, etc..... we raise eyebrows over nudity among other cultures, but we choose deciet to make ourselves more appealing..... hmmmm.
At least with a nude culture....no deciet. There you have it....hanging breasts on a protuberant belly, cellulite circling around hips like bumpers, pear shaped bottoms, you name it! You can only accept and be accepted as whom you really are.

That is what I appreciated the most among nudist communities. The lack of being ashame of their body. Such confidence. There I am.... you can see all my wrinkles, my fat, my skinny legs, my lack of muscles even my scars..... the size of the male penis is even irrelevent. Nobody giggles.. nobody even forms any thoughts about how I or you look. That is healthy.

So frowning on cultures who practise nudity and declaring that they need to be rescued from that shame by christian ethics is like attempting to destroy a rose because we are afraid of its thorns. ( sorry I like metaphores).

I do not know why shame is such a driving factor into convincing folks that God loves them. There is nothing productive in raising children to believe that they ought to be ashame of how they were created. It is hard for me to conciliate the shame theology with the concept of a loving Father who embraces His prodigal children without requiring of them to be perfect in their humanity.

I will agree though that women need to consider that their bodies are often a target of "visual contemplation". If they wish to be honored and respected by the opposite gender, it makes sense to not dwell on how much "sex appeal" they can inspire to the male gender by their clothing and general body language. That also means withdraw from the " I got the best dress and best make up" competition. Just be natural. Just like as you come out of your shower.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have broken my own rule (which I always break) of continually getting involved in debates I have no time for. Boom threatened to IP ban me if I keep it up.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355171#post355171)
Dee Dee Warren:

Come on!! If there is a male who did not have a sexual response at total nudity (and I am assuming that the female in question was attractive ) then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIM. He is not normal, and we don't make rules and judgments based upon exeptions to normalcy. Now if any guys here fall into that abnormal category and wish to admit it fine.

I have to agree. And the Song of Solomon regards breasts as an attractive part of a woman's anatomy -- but only for the enjoyment of the betrothed or husband:
4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.

7:3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle. This is also an antidote for Victorian prudery, for the benefit of antitheists Christ-mythers like Darwin who want to portray the Bible itself as prudish.

[themuzicman]

Gee, right after Adam and Eve ate the apple, what was they first thing they realized and were ashamed of after they gained the knowledge of good and evil?

Michael

[Paul]

Socrates has provided the scripture you requested Jim :smile: :wink:

PS It seems that perhaps Socrates agrees with me wrt to my liberal attitude towards what is permitted for unmarried couples since he wrote:

"And the Song of Solomon regards breasts as an attractive part of a woman's anatomy -- but only for the enjoyment of the betrothed or husband"

A couple who are betrothed to each other would still be an unmarried couple. :smile:

[Darwin]

4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.

7:3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle.

Kinda interesting. I've never been fond of poetry or obtuse similes, so maybe someone would help explain in what manner are a pair of breasts like "twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies." I never considered breast to be any kind of animal, especially breasts that ate things.

Anyone? And I'm serious here. If there is an important significance to the simile, what is it?

[Paul]

It means they are beautiful Darwin :smile: and they warm a man's heart :wink:

I'll let those with more experience make more detailed comments :smile:

[TCapp]

"the touchy topic of breasts" . . . am I the only one noticing the juxtaposition of "touch[y]" and "breasts," here, hmmmmmmmm?

:huh: :hrm: :shifty:

[Rubia Warren]

It isn't all because of the big bad judeo christian values or bible that society feels that way about a woman covering her breasts..... just as there are other cultures whose women walk around bare-breasted, there are other cultures outside of ours where women are very covered- the Islamic nations are the first who come to mind.
And while there are many in Africa whose women wear no shirts, I would like to know in those societies, HOW are their women treated? Are these the same tribes who also mutilate girls genitalia- the horror stories I hear about occasionally? Do the men have multiple wives in these societies? Are women lower class citizens in these societies? I know that doesn't apply to beaches where people are almost nude and it's normal, but Africa doesn't seem like a place where I would want to be a woman living- at least, SOME parts of Africa. I am not saying that it is caused by women walking around all the time topless, but it seems like in some tribes in Africa view women as second-rate anyways.

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355565#post355565)
Paul:

Socrates has provided the scripture you requested Jim :smile: :wink:

PS It seems that perhaps Socrates agrees with me wrt to my liberal attitude towards what is permitted for unmarried couples since he wrote:


:soc: And the Song of Solomon regards breasts as an attractive part of a woman's anatomy -- but only for the enjoyment of the betrothed or husband

:soc: Yes, it seems that they are married towards the end of Ch. 4 and the beginning of Ch. 5. But the first reference to an attractive simile about the breasts comes before that.


A couple who are betrothed to each other would still be an unmarried couple. :smile:

:soc: Yes, but more committed than modern engaged couples. They were practically married, but without sexual intercourse, which in SoS is the metaphor of "coming into the garden". That was my basis for saying that before then, they were betrothed.

[flipper]

It seems completely reasonable to assume these things are cultural. Generally, however, early motherhood has been rather divorced from sexuality even in our permissive culture. Although it's impossible to prove casuality, I would speculate that a young mother generally perceived as "spoken for".

Yes, there may be those who sexualize breastfeeding. But I would suggest that a frustrated teenage boy (for example) might also have troubles with the marble breasts of a statue, or the swimming costumes and sports garb of women at an exercise center.

The muslims understand this, which is why such strict segregation is observed. However, the islamic approach to women is not one that is likely to be applauded of by most of the women and (I hope) most of the men who post on this site. A lot of it is a question of cultural attitudes and, in the US, your cultural attitude has been heavily informed by the puritan ethic.

Which is why I can watch "night of the living dead II" at 4pm in the afternoon on a basic cable network (when kids could easily be watching) and see an axe decapitate a zombie in fairly graphic detail, whereas the scene in which a young lady waves her bits about is cut. To my mind, that indicates a culture with strange priorities.

Incidentally, can I urge that, in the spirit of frank and mature discussion between adults, we cease using the unpleasantly clinical term "breasts" and instead refer to them as "kazongas"?

Thanks for your cooperation.

[Rubia Warren]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:lmbo:

[Dave G]

:lmbo:

[Darwin]

La R(roll the R)ubia

It isn't all because of the big bad judeo christian values or bible that society feels that way about a woman covering her breasts....

Maybe you would tell us what these other factors are.

[Rubia Warren]

Today @ 10:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355655#post355655)
Darwin:



Maybe you would tell us what these other factors are.
I did in the same paragraph that you partially quoted. In the paragraph, I am talking about all over the world- not just in the US.

[Darwin]

La R(roll the R)ubia,

When you say,

It isn't all because of the big bad judeo christian values or bible that society feels that way about a woman covering her breasts..... just as there are other cultures whose women walk around bare-breasted, there are other cultures outside of ours where women are very covered- the Islamic nations are the first who come to mind.

it implies that the "society" you referred to is, at most, western society--and most certainly just the Judeo-Christian one--because that's how you identify it. Then you go on to make the distinction between it and "other cultures," where the "big bad Judeo Christian values or bible" do not mold society So when I asked about the other factors, it was with the understanding of the distinction you made, one that pointedly excluded the whole world. So, again I ask: What are these other factors that you speak of within the society where "big bad Judeo Christian values or bible" rein supreme?

[Rubia Warren]

Today @ 12:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355770#post355770)
Darwin:

La R(roll the R)ubia,

When you say,

It isn't all because of the big bad judeo christian values or bible that society feels that way about a woman covering her breasts..... just as there are other cultures whose women walk around bare-breasted, there are other cultures outside of ours where women are very covered- the Islamic nations are the first who come to mind.

it implies that the "society" you referred to is, at most, western society--and most certainly just the Judeo-Christian one--because that's how you identify it. Then you go on to make the distinction between it and "other cultures," where the "big bad Judeo Christian values or bible" do not mold society So when I asked about the other factors, it was with the understanding of the distinction you made, one that pointedly excluded the whole world. So, again I ask: What are these other factors that you speak of within the society where "big bad Judeo Christian values or bible" rein supreme?

And as I just pointed out, I may not have been clear in my first post, which is why in my last post I clarified WHERE I was talking about. I haven't said anything about OTHER FACTORS in the US- YOU did. I am saying that societies/cultures influenced by Judaism and/or christianity are certainly not the only ones in the world whose women don't go around topless..... and in my original post, I would think you'd have gotten a clue that perhaps I was referring to the world in general, as I mentioned Islamic NATIONS..... NATIONS was a key word. That kinda opens it up there a little- like maybe I was referring to the whole globe in general? Yeah... and then in my second post where I specifically told you I was talking about the whole world........ do you get it now? I can't really get any more clear after telling you specifically that I was talking about the WORLD. The only person who brought up other factors within a judeo-christian society was you, so, I can't help you there.
So what do you think? What about where Islam reigns supreme?

[Patroclus]

Rahab!

Excellently constructed posts.

Socrates,

Those verses are hardly an injunction against nudity. As you noted, the marriage has already taken place. Next, consider the nature of the trope. The discussion of the bride's breasts is already sexual in nature. Now he sees them as Gazelles - he is paying special attention to them, whereas before he merely discussed her beauty. What the verses you have shown describe is an appropriate response to physical beauty (remember, he also make remarks about her nose, teeth, etc.) in the context of a healthy sexual relationship. The verses do not discuss nudity in general terms.

At this point, I think it might be important to define nudity.

Muz,

You have to remember that in the Genesis account, the response of Adam and Eve is the result of their corruption, hence their perceptions are corrupted. Nudity is not an an inherently bad thing - hence the created state - but the corrupted reaction is a bad thing. It is as bad as thinking they can hide from God. The response is a mistake based on their now fallen nature.

DD,

Your argumentation is, surprisingly, annecdotal: "Men I know have a sexual response to bare breasts. Therefore, the only normal reaction to bear breasts is a sexual reaction."

Where is the scriptural injunction against bare breasts? Where is the scriptural injunction against any form of nakedness? What is nudity? Is there a difference between nudity and pornos?

[Darwin]

La R(roll the R)ubia,


*sigh*

Patroclus,


use the word "pornos" one more time and I'll jerk that silly beard off.

[emulator]

I have no issue with subconscious and all that stuff. I don't care why it is, the fact is that it is. And of course since reproduction and sexuality are tied, any part of the body which is part of such cycle, such as the breasts are overtly sexual. I find it actually humorous that this is denied.
i disagree, because that means the entire body of the woman is sexual...so your telling me that my wife is entirely sexual in your eyes...the entire body of the woman is geared toward birthing,note:birth canal,breasts,nipples,...oh heck...mind and scruples...

No problem there but doesn't go far enough. Why does God associate nudity with sin? Because we lust in our heart, and we have the lust of the eyes.
sexual purity is indeed a must,but there was nothing wrong with nudity in the first place until sin and the law thereof, but we are no longer in bondage to sin...we no longer walk in sin, if Christ is in us we are made perfect from glory to glory etc. etc...if we dont grasp it then it is not ours...

Ro 5:14 - Nevertheless death REIGNED from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Ro 15:15 - Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

1Co 7:2 - Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1Co 7:28 - But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

1Co 7:37 -Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
[verse]O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
song of solomon must set precedent for cultural distinguishment...if it is so dirty then why on Gods earth did jews of all people admit this scripture (divinely inspired in a man of the utmost wisdom; and please dont try to judge him cause you gotta remember who he was and where and when and learn humility
{not to be confused with humbleness at this juncture.})
given our present culture i would say it would be moraly unstable to (as a christian knowing what temptation is) be an advocate of free sex, free nudity, and the idea that freedom comes from man and is within his childlike grasp...
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power F33 on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. F34 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

...custom being an operative word here my friends...BTW...
i have long hair so if you feel the need to pray for my circumcision as well then maybe you should pray for me...atleast pray for God to show mercy on my pride...for in that i may be particularly damned

[Rahab]

Today @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355606#post355606)
Socrates:



:soc: Yes, it seems that they are married towards the end of Ch. 4 and the beginning of Ch. 5. But the first reference to an attractive simile about the breasts comes before that.



:soc: Yes, but more committed than modern engaged couples. They were practically married, but without sexual intercourse, which in SoS is the metaphor of "coming into the garden". That was my basis for saying that before then, they were betrothed. [/QUOTE]

Bonjour Socrates.....your last statement is important because it shows that breasts are not necessarly part of the sexual relation."they were practical married but without sexual intercourse".
I guess it was part of my point that the revealing of breasts is not meant to imply a sexual connection.

DARWIN : poetry necessitates the use of metaphores. The poetical form reflects the similarity of two breasts whose sight is as delightful as fawns in a field of lilies. I can envision the field of lilies as a comparison to the delicate white and scented skin of his beloved.

[Paul]

Darwin:
Patroclus,


use the word "pornos" one more time and I'll jerk that silly beard off.

/ot Pat, I think your avatar looks great :smile: Keep it and the beard, silly or not :wink:

[yxboom]

Yes, there may be those who sexualize breastfeeding. But I would suggest that a frustrated teenage boy (for example) might also have troubles with the marble breasts of a statue, or the swimming costumes and sports garb of women at an exercise center.

As more men take up breastfeeding (http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/milkmen.htm), we may see a shift in society to women going topless while men having to "cover up". :noid:

[Rahab]

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355782#post355782)
Patroclus:
At this point, I think it might be important to define nudity.

Where is the scriptural injunction against bare breasts? Where is the scriptural injunction against any form of nakedness? What is nudity? Is there a difference between nudity and pornos?

Bonjour Patroclus....

Glad you brought up the importance of defining nudity and differenciating it from pornography.

There are vastly different. Pornography suggests an actual sexual interaction. Let me illustrate how they differ.... envision the picture you may find in a family album of a 5 year old playing in the bathtub....take the same 5 year old all dressed up photographed touching an adult genitalia. Right there the line has been crossed. The first picture ought to bring thoughts such as "how cute!". The second will either repulse the mind or in some cases trigger in some individuals a sexual stimulus.
Of course I chose the extreme case of children to emphasize the destructive effects of pornography.
Pornography has vulgarized nudity. It exploits a natural condition of our morphology and all of its attributes to project a sexual suggestion.

Nudity is common to all human beings. The moment we have seen our own naked bodies, we have basicaly viewed the rest of our gender's morphology. The moment we have viewed the naked body of our mate, we have viewed the rest of their gender's morphology. There is actualy no individuality in our morphologies, nothing to be revealed and offended about.

Nudity has been an inspiration for many painters and sculptors for they were able to extract the beauty of the human body in its most natural state. Even going as far as utilizing nudity to symbolize a particular theme as it is the case in the "Primavera" from Boticelli.

[FormerFundy]

Yesterday @ 10:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355132#post355132)
Dee Dee Warren:


Just because there were unaware of it being a moral issue, doesn't mean it isn't one. Do we base our morals or whether or not something is inherently immoral or not based upon primitive heathen tribes? I sure hope not.



JPH does when it comes to the doctrine of PST.

[Paul]

Socrates:

:soc: Yes, it seems that they are married towards the end of Ch. 4 and the beginning of Ch. 5. But the first reference to an attractive simile about the breasts comes before that.

:soc: Yes, but more committed than modern engaged couples. They were practically married, but without sexual intercourse, which in SoS is the metaphor of "coming into the garden". That was my basis for saying that before then, they were betrothed.

There are still some cultures where engagement or betrothal is about as strong as I imagine it to have been in the culture of that time. I agree that a complete act of sexual intercourse is reserved in God's law to married couples. Anything short of that such as experiencing one's beloved's breasts -- here in the scriptures with delight and prayerful affection --, while it may be prudent or imprudent based on circumstance or pure or impure based on desire, is not inherently sinful for unmarried couples such as the betrothed. I should have used this scripture in a recent discussion between myself and (RightIdea and Cadet) :wink:

Getting back to the main topic, a person may experience someone's breasts with a pure heart and mind and in a prayerful way as always should be the case for everything that we do or receive in whatever context; however, it does not follow from that one's breasts ought to be paraded around in public as happens in some movies. The virtue of modesty is annexed to the virtue of temperance. Temperance is a virtue which complements courage. Courage is the virtue of doing what is right in the face of hardship. Temperance is the virtue of abstaining or refraining from a good for the sake of a greater good. Breasts are indeed a good thing and it is a good thing for the glory and beauty of breasts to shine visibly, but there is a greater good to consider.

Being open with one's breasts (for women), may cause some men to stumble. Also, one's breasts are a special gift from God. When you receive a special gift from someone, you don't babble about it to everyone in the world. There is a proverb in some cultures that it is a fool who babbles about how great his wife is. :wink: A special gift is to be treasured and kept in the secret of one's heart and to be opened only for those who would understand and do it and the giver of the gift justice. And so we see Jesus Himself clothing Mary under a veil by not proclaiming her blessedness, a blessedness which is attested by the angel and Mary's own Magnificat and Elizabeth, but drawing attention away from her by saying: Rather, blessed are those who believe the word of God and keep it. As Mary was close to Jesus' heart, so one's own body ought to be close to one's own heart. A woman's body is the clothing with which God has wrapped her soul. If you have received a special piece of clothing for Christmas, you don't let it get stained by mud or by drops of spaghetti sauce. You protect it. And so also should a woman protect her body from the abuse it may suffer at the hands of sinful men. Abuse is just the mis-use of something. If a man looks lustfully at a woman, then he has by that very fact abused her whether he actually lays a hand on her or not.

[themuzicman]

You have to remember that in the Genesis account, the response of Adam and Eve is the result of their corruption, hence their perceptions are corrupted. Nudity is not an an inherently bad thing - hence the created state - but the corrupted reaction is a bad thing. It is as bad as thinking they can hide from God. The response is a mistake based on their now fallen nature.


If you bother to read the text, you see that their eyes were opened and they gained knowledge of good and evil, or the law, and knew that they could not be naked. Once the law came, the desire to obey the law, along with the inability to follow it, came, too. Adam and Eve, just as everyone today, knows enough of the law of their conscience to have some sense of what is right and wrong, and by that all men are condemned as guilty before the law, even if they don't have the law.

Thus, their realization that their nakedness was shameful, and their desire to fix that was in line with their conscience and the law.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

True. But this begs the question, as someone mentioned earlier, of the definition of "naked." What reason do you have that this state extended above the waist? This is an assumption on your part, and seems to be a case of eisogesis.

[themuzicman]

Well, assuming that the general direction of man is to move from the moral to the immoral, if the breasts were not covered to begin with, one wonders what would cause man to cover a woman's breasts at all.

Whereas, if they were covered to begin with, the movement of man to uncover them as a part of culture would be a more natural momentum of immorality.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

themuzicman:
Well, assuming that the general direction of man is to move from the moral to the immoral, if the breasts were not covered to begin with, one wonders what would cause man to cover a woman's breasts at all.

Whereas, if they were covered to begin with, the movement of man to uncover them as a part of culture would be a more natural momentum of immorality.

Michael
Except that we've stablished that some human beings and some cultures do the one, and others do the other. So that teaches us nothing.

[themuzicman]

Not really. I think we can all see that man's morality tends to degrade over time in various ways depending on the culture.

So, in what way would man's morality degrade in covering a woman's breasts when it previously did not? In fact, it cannot.

Thus, I think we can conclude that the logical direction of moral to immoral was for the breasts to be covered first, and then the slide to uncovering them.

You can see this trend in the US over the last 100 years.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

themuzicman:
Not really. I think we can all see that man's morality tends to degrade over time in various ways depending on the culture.

So, in what way would man's morality degrade in covering a woman's breasts when it previously did not? In fact, it cannot.

Thus, I think we can conclude that the logical direction of moral to immoral was for the breasts to be covered first, and then the slide to uncovering them.

You can see this trend in the US over the last 100 years.

Michael
Only because the subjective value of their needing to be covered was put in place, first.

But how do you explain more primative cultures that have them uncovered all the time? :hrm:

[themuzicman]

Today @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355982#post355982)
RightIdea:


Only because the subjective value of their needing to be covered was put in place, first.

But how do you explain more primative cultures that have them uncovered all the time? :hrm:

Degradation of morality previous to that time.

Again, I ask the question: How can man, whose morality tends to degrade over time create an immorality of covering the breasts from previously being uncovered?

Michael

[Rahab]

Today @ 05:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355982#post355982)
RightIdea:


Only because the subjective value of their needing to be covered was put in place, first.

But how do you explain more primative cultures that have them uncovered all the time? :hrm:
I think Darwin may have answered that question already as he explained (quoting two tribal examples) the differences in the perception of nudity with our culture.

[Rahab]

Today @ 05:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355996#post355996)
themuzicman:



Degradation of morality previous to that time.

Again, I ask the question: How can man, whose morality tends to degrade over time create an immorality of covering the breasts from previously being uncovered?

Michael
Are you assuming that all cultures which consider nudity as an acceptable natural state including cultures such as the ones I described in Africa were previously clothed head to toe and evolved thru a state of immorality to their present acceptance of nudity? I mean....Right Idea mentionned primitive tribes...... do you have any evidence that those folks were previously clothed hiding their breasts ?

[themuzicman]

At some point in their past, possibly before the establishment of that particular culture, yes.

Michael

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

At some point in their past, possibly before the establishment of that particular culture, yes.

Michael

yes you do have this evidence?

[themuzicman]

Only logical reasoning, which I stated above.

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

Only logical reasoning, which I stated above.

which is...correct me if I misunderstand, that since mankind's nature tends to moral degradation that the cultures that freely expose women's breast now had to once in their cultural past prohibited it.

[themuzicman]

Not specifically a given culture. Just previous to that time. One culture could inherit naked breasts from a previous culture through which that moral degraded.

If you look at US culture today, 100 years ago, exposing a woman's breast was clearly immoral. Today, you can take the material from an asprin bottle, make it into a string bikini, and it is acceptable. The morality of the female naked breast has degraded right along with all the other morals that we've shed in that time.

Europe is further along in this progression, with the sanctioning of nude beaches and even some places where women stripping down to the waist is acceptable anywyhere.

Michael

[yxboom]

Would you apply that same logical deduction to drinking alcohol? In less than 100 years we have seen prohibition where drinking alcohol was completely unacceptable to alcohol being available at any grocery store at present and does that logically follow that because we went from prohibiting alcohol to allowing it to be freely sold means drinking alcohol is inherently morally wrong?

[themuzicman]

Well, we went both ways, didn't we?

Drinking to prohibition to drinking again.

I don't think every cultural development is necessarily an immoral one, but only those that occur as a natural slide, rather than a fight against one. Slavery, for instance, was not a natural slide towards an end, but one that had to be faught against and overcome before it could be defeated.

One doesn't have to defeat morality. It just naturally slides away.

Michael

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

Well, we went both ways, didn't we?

Drinking to prohibition to drinking again.


Wouldnt that apply to public nudity as well, we are goin both ways? Historically we went from nudity to covering up and progressively going back to nudity (based on your previous post about bottles and swimsuits). As children we go from nudity at the beach to covering up now there is progression towards adult nudity at the beach.


One doesn't have to defeat morality. It just naturally slides away.

Legalism does a great job of this telling women they are immoral if they do not cover up and prohibit wearing pleated pants when they do.

[bloody stump]

Well, not a bilbical reference in the lot. Cultural smultural. All cultures are not created equal or enlightened equally either morally or spiritually. I question whether we want to hold either the almost entirely paganistic/animistic cultures (at least historically) of Africa or a tragically fallen western culture (the French Riviera) up as normative or determinitive when contemplating this question.

[Darwin]

Muzicman
I think we can all see that man's morality tends to degrade over time in various ways depending on the culture.

I can't see it at all. What you are implying is that the morals engendered in every culture always degrade. In as much as cultures don't spring from nowhere, they are always built upon a preceding culture, either morals have a rebirth of sorts as the new culture grows into being, or the culture simply starts with the depressed morals it came from. So considering the vast amount of time cultures have been evolving, what is your take on nature of moral development? Are present day cultures at the end of a continually worsening moral decline, or are we in the down side of a cyclic phases of moral change, one where morals are highest at the beginning of a new culture and lowest just before cultural rebirth?

Personally, I fail to see the inevitability of moral decline you assert.


ON ANOTHER NOTE, EVERYONE


It just occurred to me that our society has risen above its prudish view of bare breasts-- in fact, total nudity-- and even embraced its depiction in motion pictures. To our credit(?), we have found a context in which it is acceptable: suffering. As long as the person is suffering our society will turn a blind eye toward their nudity, which strikes me as quite odd. I'll leave it to others to make the psychological inferences from this behavior, because I'm at a loss to explain it. The movie is Shindler's List, which was aired uncut on broadcast TV by one of the networks. If you recall, it showed hundreds of people marching naked in the cold of winter, and in "shower" scenes. I realize that the overriding determinant in accepting the nudity was probably the historical nature of scenes, but other depictions of a historical nature in which nudity was involved have not been aired. Mutiny on the Bounty with Mel Gibson comes to mind. Here the nudity (bare breasts, at least) was quite natural and not gratuitous. Granted that on whole the breasts in Bounty were more attractive than those in List, but attractiveness is something we almost always favor over less-attractiveness--so go figure.

[themuzicman]

You're inserting inevitibility into what I've said, and that's not what I've said. I said that there is a natural slide of morals. I didn't say that the formation of a culture couldn't result in higher morals.

Think of it like entropy. Given no other work, things go from organized to disorganized. It requires work to make things more orderly.


Same thing with morality. Every increase in morality has resulted from some work brought about by men or God.

However, the natural slide is towards immorality. Now, if you can show how a moral slide would naturally bring about the covering of a woman's breast, I'm listening, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the moral slide would go the other way.

Michael

[emulator]

morality is an invention of man that supposes a mans conscience is equal to that of Gods conscience...the Holy Spirit...at one time every man did as he deemed right...then came the Spirit to give correction...then came satan and religion to pervert/counterfeit/ vilify the Spirit...thus the scripture :
Ro 8:14 -
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

morality is wont for the Spirit is come....shame and degedation are the tools of the enemy which inhibit the natural guilt reflex of the mind and distort it...that is why all the knowledge in the world wont save you:


Joh 3:3 -
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

mystery...babylon the great

[Darwin]

MuzicMan,


You're inserting inevitibility into what I've said, and that's not what I've said.

Well that's what you implied when you said, "I think we can all see that man's morality tends to degrade over time in various ways depending on the culture." I'll give you that the qualifier "tends" does ameliorate the degradation a bit, but the overall import is that the natural state of morals is one of decline, as you state in the sentence that followed:


I said that there is a natural slide of morals.


I didn't say that the formation of a culture couldn't result in higher morals

I realize that, which is why I asked the question about the formation and reformation of moral levels.

[bar Jonah]

One can also apply that "degredation of morals" to foot fetishes. But just because people continue to pervert sexuality by applying it to other areas of the body... doesn't mean it's immoral to show naked feet.

[Paul]

It would be immoral in situations where it would cause one's brother to stumble :wink:

All things may be lawful, but it would not be right to do something which is inherently lawful but which would cause a brother to stumble.

I'm sure you are familiar with this scripture. :smile:

[yxboom]

Paul:

It would be immoral in situations where it would cause one's brother to stumble :wink:

All things may be lawful, but it would not be right to do something which is inherently lawful but which would cause a brother to stumble.

I'm sure you are familiar with this scripture. :smile:

Than wouldn't going into nations where women walk around topless and insist they cover up counter this intent of Scripture for you are causing women to stumble over what they had originally thought innocent to be immoral, without a clear definite command of God stating it as such?

[themuzicman]

So considering the vast amount of time cultures have been evolving, what is your take on nature of moral development? Are present day cultures at the end of a continually worsening moral decline, or are we in the down side of a cyclic phases of moral change, one where morals are highest at the beginning of a new culture and lowest just before cultural rebirth?

I think that is probably frequently the case, but not always. It would depend on the nature of the cultural change. You'd have to make that assessment on a case by case basis.

Michael

[Rahab]

Today @ 07:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356074#post356074)
bloody stump:

Well, not a bilbical reference in the lot. Cultural smultural. All cultures are not created equal or enlightened equally either morally or spiritually. I question whether we want to hold either the almost entirely paganistic/animistic cultures (at least historically) of Africa or a tragically fallen western culture (the French Riviera) up as normative or determinitive when contemplating this question.
Dear.... the only thing which appears to have fallen on the French Riviera where my hometown happens to be is the level of respect tourists demonstrate to the "fallen western women" we are by staring at our breasts as if they had never seen breasts before and proceed to adjust their zoom lenses on the same breasts with the hope to bring back a "trophee" to giggle over with the beer buddies back home!
I have covered myself more than once on the beach to keep that voyeur from feasting on my morphology.
The fall is in the mind of the voyeur. The pipping Tom who delights in " oh I can see the forbidden".

As far as the paganistic/animistic cultures you refer to, Darwin has explained how their mind interprets nudity. I suggest you read or re read carefuly his comments on that topic so that you may understand better the importance of including such cultures in "contemplating that question".

[Paul]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356122#post356122)
yxboom:



Than wouldn't going into nations where women walk around topless and insist they cover up counter this intent of Scripture for you are causing women to stumble over what they had originally thought innocent to be immoral, without a clear definite command of God stating it as such?

LOL. What a tongue twister :wink:

If there is a nation where topless women don't cause the men in that nation to stumble then to condemn them for being topless would be wrong. I'm not sure whether such a nation exists though unless the women in the nation are all unattractive or something :wink: OTOH if there is a nation where topless women unbeknownst to them cause some men in that nation to stumble, then it would be OK to gently let them know of this and there would be no reason why letting them know of this would cause them to stumble.

And then apart from these considerations you just have the issue of good versus better. There may be a nation where women walking around topless is a good thing but it still may be better for them to cover up since it is more modest to do so. This then would not be an issue of sin -- just as whether to marry or not is not an issue of sin -- but an issue of good versus better.

I think in all European nations and nations that have Western civilization as their heritage, topless women would cause some men to stumble. But it is true that the more prevalent a good (such as breasts) is, the less strikingly attractive it tends to become. And the reverse is also true, the more isolated you are from a certain good (such as women), the more strikingly attractive they become when one is exposed to them. I remember once after having been away from women for a number of days that when I saw some women that they appeared more attractive then they would have had I had not been so away. So I suppose that in a nation where topless-ness is commonplace that it may not be as much of a temptation to men as it would be in the United States.

[bar Jonah]

Very true. Familiarity removes much (if not all) of the exotic value that has been assigned or added to it.

[Rahab]

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356119#post356119)
Paul:

It would be immoral in situations where it would cause one's brother to stumble :wink:

All things may be lawful, but it would not be right to do something which is inherently lawful but which would cause a brother to stumble.

I'm sure you are familiar with this scripture. :smile:

Bonjour Paul... however our thoughts are to be captive of Christ. If indeed captive of Christ, the sight of any nude body part whether it be feet, hands, ears, eyes, etc etc....is in no way shape or form ( unintended pun) a stumbling element to our mind.
Look how RigthIdea views the sight of a woman breastfeeding.....that is a thought centered on Christ. He views motherly love. Not a blob of flesh part of a female who causes him to stumble.

The stumbling effect IMO has to do with causing a brother to partake into a sinful action which overtakes his ability to resist temptation. Like asking a recovered alcoholic to escort you to a bar. Or offending a host and causing some grief to him by announcing loudly " I do not eat pork" while facing a sumptuous ham on the table when one can easily just burry the tiny piece of ham somewhere in the plate..... dismissing hospitality intent from a generous host by pushing forward our " I shall not eat that " is another example of causing a brother to stumble in his joy to have welcomed you in his home. Oh.... there are so many examples of us human beings making someone stumble. And far more grevious than the sight of bare anything!

[yxboom]

RightIdea:

Very true. Familiarity removes much (if not all) of the exotic value that has been assigned or added to it.

I have a lot of relatives in the medical field and a couple as gynecologists who are still very much in love and happily married.

[themuzicman]

However, that is trained detachment.

(Besides, haven't you ever heard the joke about the GYN who came home from work after a long day to find the kids gone, candles lit, and his wife in her birthday suit, and he said, "Hun, I don't want to talk shop tonite, OK?")

Michael

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

However, that is trained detachment.

(Besides, haven't you ever heard the joke about the GYN who came home from work after a long day to find the kids gone, candles lit, and his wife in her birthday suit, and he said, "Hun, I don't want to talk shop tonite, OK?")

Michael

Umm, it is called differentiating nudity from sex (love) which is a problem in America. I do not have to be in the medical field to realize this.

[Darwin]

RightIdea
Familiarity removes much (if not all) of the exotic value that has been assigned or added to it.

Do you then regard this "exotic value" as another good reason to keep breasts covered? Kind of an artificially constructed allure, like make-up perhaps? In other words, would you favor keeping breasts covered if there was absolutely no moral reason to do so?


yxboom,

hey, lighten up, it's only a joke.

[themuzicman]

I think people can understand the necessity of nudity in given situations for specific purposes without too much trouble (although Muslim OB/GYNs are not allowed to look directly at a woman's genitals, but must do his work in a mirror :ahem:)

However, even these incidents occur in situations that are as private as possible, and one's public nudity is protected as much as possible, relative to the severity of the situation.

You don't see many OB/GYNs operating in public parks, do you?

Michael

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

You don't see many OB/GYNs operating in public parks, do you?

Michael

It is not as sterile and what would the purpose of making a spectacle out of it achieve?

[themuzicman]

Exactly. Nudity is a spectacle of sexuality which is simply not moral.

Michael

[yxboom]

Someone having a bowel movement on the side of the road is a spectacle so would that qualify as sexual or immoral?

[themuzicman]

What does that have to do with nudity?

[yxboom]

The same as your argument about having gynocology exams in the park.

[Rahab]

Today @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356146#post356146)
themuzicman:

Exactly. Nudity is a spectacle of sexuality which is simply not moral.

Michael

ah.... and my OB GYN percieves my nudity where the most intimate parts of my anatomy are revealed to him as a "spectacle of sexuality"?
Now explain to me why folks like myself who deal day in and out with nudity and not just view it but also dispense necessary personal care to those bodies do not view those as a "spectacle of sexuality?".
How come nurses and doctors become immune to that immoral aspect of nudity?
Could it be because we do not dwell on connecting their nudity to sex?
Is that perception of nudity becoming more and more a subjective interpretation of nudity?
Please try to focus on the term " subjective".... that is a self induced thought process.

You connect nudity to sex. I do not. Am I immoral?

[themuzicman]

First, I was referring to public nudity being a spectical, so I would appreciate you not putting words my mouth.

Second, I consider public exposure of the breasts to be sexually provocative to those who have not otherwise been conditioned to ignore it, whether through constant exposure, or through being in specific, otherwise private situations.

Third, Your belief that nudity isn't sexual isn't immoral.. It's just incorrect.

Michael

[Rahab]

Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356321#post356321)
themuzicman:

First, I was referring to public nudity being a spectical, so I would appreciate you not putting words my mouth.

Second, I consider public exposure of the breasts to be sexually provocative to those who have not otherwise been conditioned to ignore it, whether through constant exposure, or through being in specific, otherwise private situations.

Third, Your belief that nudity isn't sexual isn't immoral.. It's just incorrect.

Michael

"conditionned to ignore it" are you suggesting that the mind can be restored to considering nudity without any sexual implication? So are we leaning more and more to the perception of nudity as a subjective matter?

[themuzicman]

No. We can be conditioned to view almost anything as a normal, everyday occurance, including murder. That doesn't make it any less immoral.

Obviously, just as killing is permissible in certain circumstances (self-defense, for instance), nudity is moral in medical situations, in the context of marital sex, and in a single gender setting such as a locker room. None of these three would fall into the general public nudity that is the topic of this thread.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

And just because someone makes a sexual object out of (or assigns a sexual value to) something (like feet or the female breast) doesn't make it inherently sexual to begin with.

So you need something other than that bit of foundationless logic, to discern the truth in this matter.

[themuzicman]

OK, then tell me: Do you disagree that morality tends to slide to immorality over time, or do you disagree that as morality slides, the covering of breasts becomes more and more important?

Michael

[bar Jonah]

themuzicman:
OK, then tell me: Do you disagree that morality tends to slide to immorality over time, or do you disagree that as morality slides, the covering of breasts becomes less and less important?

Michael
I agree with the former, and disagree with the latter. I believe we've shown quite conclusively that there are examples of cultures both primitive and advanced that prove the latter claim false.

[themuzicman]

That they went from bare breasts to covered breasts through a slipping morality?

[yxboom]

back to the questions intent for the tenth time it seems... define nudity

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

That they went from bare breasts to covered breasts through a slipping morality?

Is men not wearing pleated pants a move towards increase morality?

[themuzicman]

Nudity - the state of being nude.

[Rahab]

Today @ 12:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356331#post356331)
themuzicman:

No. We can be conditioned to view almost anything as a normal, everyday occurance, including murder. That doesn't make it any less immoral.

Obviously, just as killing is permissible in certain circumstances (self-defense, for instance), nudity is moral in medical situations, in the context of marital sex, and in a single gender setting such as a locker room. None of these three would fall into the general public nudity that is the topic of this thread.

Michael

I am uncomfortable with your comparison of the acceptance of nudity as not being connected with sexual notions to the acceptance of murder.
Murder is a defined crime against another person which results in the elimination of a human life. Being conditionned to accept that notion and view it as normal implies the detachment from the value of human life and our responsibility to protect human life.
Viewing nudity as normal does not imply harming another individual. In fact the nudist who is conditionned to accept nudity as normal is not the person who will peek thru a hole to watch a woman undress..... and he probably will not be the man who struggles with sexual thoughts to the point of stalking a woman, follow her home and watch her every move thru a window. (pretty spooky).
Actualy the topic of the thread is general public partial nudity. And we are still trying to define why so much taboo on breasts but not on other parts of our anatomy. Obviously the fetiche phenomenon shows that any part of the human anatomy can be connected to a sexual notion and be used as a stimulus.

Which again reinforces the belief that it is a subjective interpretation of any part of the exposed human anatomy. For that matter, I recall some male friends discussing how some were "boobs or butts" guys. So a woman who is not exposing her butt and in no way nude, can still be interpreted as a sexual connection as she wears jeans or is an iceskater in her cute skin fitting little skirt......

If we give in to considering nudity of any kind as immoral, we might as well support a talibanist code of dressing for females. Because at this point even the shape of a female anatomy under clothing may be in question if it all depends on how the mind is conditionned to respond to any viewing of the human body in general.

[Rahab]

Today @ 02:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356404#post356404)
themuzicman:

Nudity - the state of being nude.
Nudity... the state of a human body without any clothing or ornament dissimulating its anatomy.
Michael.... as nudity has been an inspiration to painters and sculptors and is considered in the domain of Art as an extraction and expression of beauty.... do you view that expression as immoral? I mean the David is exposed to the public eye of all ages.....

[Patroclus]

Muz is working from the premise that nudity is depicted as sinful in the Genesis account. My argument still stands:

Until God pronounced their curses, every action that Adam and Eve made, once the fruit was eaten, was an incorrect response to their circumstance.

1) Their are ashamed of their nakedness - we'll leave this to the last
2) They clothed themselves with plants - Only blood covers sin
3) They hid from God - they should have confessed, and God knew where they were anyway.
4) They blame each other.

If all their responses are incorrect, why isn't their response to their nakedness incorrect? Furthermore, the knowledge that they received was corrupted knowledge. How can they look at themselves properly just after their first sin? Moreover, God created them naked, and they were a married couple. So, if nudity in their context was sinful, then nudity in marriage is sinful. Furthermore, Muz, what makes you think that God did not simply make "His" and "Hers" loin cloths?

About the definition of nudity - if we can say "partial nudity," and nudity is simply "the state of being nude," then showing any skin (even that nose that Solomon likes to talk about) is to be partially nude. This may be, but I don't think a nose offends anybody on this board. Rather, I think it is the exposure of certain body parts that some people cannot tolerate. So, when we say "nudity," we are implying that somebody is not only nude, but is also exposing otherwise private parts of one's anatomy. If we say that one is partially nude, we mean that one is exposing only certain private parts of one's anatomy.

If this is so, then if in certain countries breasts are public (just as a nose is public), is a bare-breasted woman "partially nude?"

btw, Muz, of course I have read the Genesis account.

[Patroclus]

C'mon folks, I don't want to be the one to end this thread. We have not even come to an agreement about the definition of nudity.

[Rahab]

Today @ 09:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357963#post357963)
Patroclus:

C'mon folks, I don't want to be the one to end this thread. We have not even come to an agreement about the definition of nudity.

Probably because there is a subjective interpretation of what the definition of nudity is.

[themuzicman]

Pat,

I'll go back to my question:

If morality tends to slide over time (given that with work, morality can get better not worse, but that isn't the general direction), then is the slide in morality going to towards more nudity or less?

If we say that we slide towards more nudity, then where would the desire to cover the breasts come from, and why has our culture slid away from it?

Michael

[spl_cadet]

That's operating under the assumption that morality slides over time. However, within the historic lands of Christendom (including the US) it has only slidden within the last 50 or so years. Prior to that it was relatively stable.

[Faramir]

I think the late Lewis Grizzard summed it up best:


Naked is when you don't have any cloths on.


Nekkid is when you don't have any cloths on.....and you're up to something

The question then is:

Is nudity always a sin, or only when it is "nekkidness"?

[bar Jonah]

spl_cadet:
That's operating under the assumption that morality slides over time. However, within the historic lands of Christendom (including the US) it has only slidden within the last 50 or so years. Prior to that it was relatively stable.
You mean roughly since Vatican II, give or take?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 11:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358287#post358287)
RightIdea:


You mean roughly since Vatican II, give or take?

No.
Within the US it started in the fifties, thanks to that quake "Dr." Kinsey and his book that claimed to show how we were really promiscous and such (it was a bunch of bs, but changed the American culture).
Within the Church the elements of corruption started getting in around that time, but went full force after Vatican II, using it as an excuse. However, that is being curbed apparently, and the corrupt elements should be mostly gone within a decade.

[bar Jonah]

Agreed on Kinsey. The man did incredible harm to western culture in general.

[Patroclus]

themuzicman:

Pat,

I'll go back to my question:

But your question has no relevance until you can define what nudity is, or even that bare breasts are necessarily sexual.


If morality tends to slide over time (given that with work, morality can get better not worse, but that isn't the general direction), then is the slide in morality going to towards more nudity or less?

You are assuming that "nudity" is immoral. Look at art, for your counter-example. Through much of western art (and athletics), a primary topic was "the nude." Dramas were often performed while the actors were naked. Athletic events were performed while naked. Now, we are clothed for most of these things. a few seconds of "nudity" hardly suggests against the greater trend.

Again, why is "nudity" immoral? What is "nudity?" Why do bare-breasts consititute "partial nudity" when the nearly bare legs of a person wearing shorts does not (especially considerring, if we want to talk about innate sexuality, legs are much closer to genitalia than are breasts). Why isn't doesn't a nose, according to Socrates' exegesis, constitute partial nudity?


If we say that we slide towards more nudity, then where would the desire to cover the breasts come from, and why has our culture slid away from it?

Michael

Perhaps it comes from an ancestry in Great Brittain where it is too cold most of the year to walk around without covering your chest.

:pat:

[themuzicman]

Today @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358241#post358241)
spl_cadet:

That's operating under the assumption that morality slides over time. However, within the historic lands of Christendom (including the US) it has only slidden within the last 50 or so years. Prior to that it was relatively stable.

I think you can study any culture and find that there was significant morality slide.

However, if we observe the last 50 years, do we see a slide towards more public breast exposure or less?

Michael

[spl_cadet]

themuzicman:

I think you can study any culture and find that there was significant morality slide.

However, if we observe the last 50 years, do we see a slide towards more breast exposure or less?

Michael

The question is a fallacy. It firstly assumes that the fact that it is immoral in this culture means it is immoral regardless and that any trend towards revealing the breasts is tied to general immorality.
The 1920's were a time of great immorality. Would you then declare that the raising of the hemlines above the ankle was immoral?

[Darwin]

Among other things, the slide to more exposer of skin is a sign that prudery could be safely dispensed with, without harming anyones psyche or upsetting the nation's moral apple cart. That people could actually feel comfortable unbound by the strictures imposed by a contrived shamefulness.

[themuzicman]

No. I don't make general conclusions from a single instance.

However, if you look at cultural slide in history, you find that cultures that changed from covered breast to naked breast progressed in their moral slide from covered to naked, and never in the other direction, without some moral stand, revolution or other work to raise morals in general.

So, which happens on the more moral end of the scale? Covered breasts or naked ones?

Michael

[yxboom]

themuzicman:

So, which happens on the more moral end of the scale? Covered breasts or naked ones?


Well if we apply Adam and Eve's example the naked ones would be the moral one (as this is how God intended them to be when they were created). Now if you want to argue that Adam and Eve found out it was immoral to be naked when they ate of the tree than as Pat noted you will have to consistently apply that nudity is immoral even within marriages which unless you are Amish I imagine you would disagree.

Now being moral or immoral the fact remains if it is snowing it isn't wise to bare all.

[Patroclus]

Hey Muz,

Some evidence of this "moral slide" in various cultures would be great.

[yxboom]

Patroclus:

Hey Muz,

Some evidence of this "moral slide" in various cultures would be great.

This has already been asked and answered here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=356044#post356044).

[Patroclus]

yxboom:

This has already been asked and answered here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=356044#post356044).

Thanks, Boom. In that case...

[yxboom]

...exactly

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 10:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358635#post358635)
yxboom:
Well if we apply Adam and Eve's example the naked ones would be the moral one (as this is how God intended them to be when they were created). Now if you want to argue that Adam and Eve found out it was immoral to be naked when they ate of the tree than as Pat noted you will have to consistently apply that nudity is immoral even within marriages which unless you are Amish I imagine you would disagree.

Now being moral or immoral the fact remains if it is snowing it isn't wise to bare all.

Adam and Eve were without any law beyond "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", so they could have been doing any number of bad things, but because they didn't have the law, they could not be judged under the law.

If you read the passage, you see that as a result of their eyes being opened (presumably to the knowledge of good and evil), they recognized that their nakedness fell under evil, and they were ashamed.

Michael

[Rahab]

Today @ 02:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358950#post358950)
themuzicman:



Adam and Eve were without any law beyond "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", so they could have been doing any number of bad things, but because they didn't have the law, they could not be judged under the law.

If you read the passage, you see that as a result of their eyes being opened (presumably to the knowledge of good and evil), they recognized that their nakedness fell under evil, and they were ashamed.

Michael

Bonjour Michael.....

But..... the present covenant with God is not related anylonger with "judgement or no judgement under the law". Even as you consider nakedness or nudity to be a sin, the covenant of Grace is what should prevail especialy in the eyes of a christian. The law is not God's Standards to judge.
Is not that some type of bondage to the law to consider nudity as a sin?

[Paul]

themuzicman:

Adam and Eve were without any law beyond "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", so they could have been doing any number of bad things, but because they didn't have the law, they could not be judged under the law.

If you read the passage, you see that as a result of their eyes being opened (presumably to the knowledge of good and evil), they recognized that their nakedness fell under evil, and they were ashamed.

Michael

So you mean that Adam could have sinned before the Fall? Or do you mean that one can "do any number of bad things" without sinning? Or both? :huh: :smile:

[themuzicman]

What does Paul say about those who do not have the law?

[mossrose]

But..... the present covenant with God is not related anylonger with "judgement or no judgement under the law". Even as you consider nakedness or nudity to be a sin, the covenant of Grace is what should prevail especialy in the eyes of a christian. The law is not God's Standards to judge.
Is not that some type of bondage to the law to consider nudity as a sin?

But, Paul says this in I Cor. 10:23 --


All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.


You are right to an extent, Rahab. As ones who are washed, set apart and justified eternally by God's grace, the believer is set free. But, we are NOT to use that freedom as an opportunity for the flesh (Gal. 5:13), as Paul had seen the Corinthians doing. Paul was pointing out the error that the Corinthians Christians had made -- that they were free to sin because it was covered by God's grace.

If what we think is alright for us to do could possibly be a stumbling block for other believers, or even unbelievers, who set a high standard for Christians, then the Scripture is clear that we should NOT do that thing.

[bar Jonah]

Actually, Rahab, I must disagree with you this time, because that could also be used in regards to murder. Sin is still sin.

However... while I agree that nudity was a sin... he still hasn't shown a shred of evidence that the sinful nudity extended above the waist.

[Esther]

I've been reading this thread for a few days now and wondering how it's going to end up. I have not had time to read the whole thing but bits and pieces throughout. It looks like some are still sticking to a position of modesty which is refreshing. I don't have the time or energy to repeat myself 5,000 times so I'm not going to. It's not my hill to die on.

You can do what you want with the following thoughts, if you are inclined to do anything at all.

Patroclus: you have said that Adam and Eve's responses were incorrect from the start so why wasn't the shame they felt incorrect?

My thought on that is that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so they knew things God hadn't deemed necessary for them to know - EVIL, for one. (And I catch flack for trying not to overload my kids to it!) It was not inappropriate for them to have covered themselves once they knew the difference between right and wrong; God wouldn't have fostered wrong behavior by covering them more effectively. When did God ever allow someone to continue in a substandard way back then without telling them it was substandard? That's inconsistent with His character.

"There's nothing wrong with public nudity except the prudes who don't like it" Proponents: Throughout scripture modest coverings of one sort or another are acceptable and encouraged. If nudity is God's plan for His people, why didn't God instruct Moses (at the burning bush) to take off not just his shoes but his clothing as well when Moses was standing on holy ground. Wasn't he in God's holy presence? Why, when instructing Moses on the plans for the tabernacle, did God not command that the priests do their priestly thing in His presence naked (not to be confused with "nekkid")? God has never referred to wearing clothing as a negative thing. The idea of that is unscriptural. God actually enabled the Israelites to wear the same clothing for 40 years:
Deuteronomy 8:4 - "Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years." So what if their clothes wore out?

Seeing to it that someone less fortunate was covered up was considered a good thing:
Deuteronomy 10:18 - "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing."

Matt 6:28-33 "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear for clothing?" For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "

Why would God foster such ideas of "needing" clothing if being uncovered is okay, or even preferred? That sure seems wishy-washy to me.

I Timothy 2:9,10 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

Being naked is considered to be a bad thing in general. Please spare me the unnecessary "what about babies" and "what about bathtime" hooey. The fact is that nakedness is referred to in scripture as shameful. ("Oh no! Not that antiquated old book!") What would be the point of modesty and discretion if it wasn't?

II Cor 5:2,3 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.

Why use the word "naked" here?

Revelation 3:17 - `Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Hmmm ... "Naked" is used in the same sentence as "wretched", "miserable", "poor", and "blind".

Revelation 16:15 - ("Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.")

Yet another use of "naked" in a negative sense. In fact, the only positive implication I can think of at the moment is in the context of a married relationship between one man and one woman in Song of Solomon.

I Corinthians 12:23, 24a And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need

Notice it doesn't say "our shameful parts", it says "our unpresentable parts have greater modesty", which makes a big difference in discussing why nudity is not okay. Some of our parts are not meant to be "presented" freely but protected.

Well that's all I have to say. I hope I haven't duplicated what someone else has already said.

[bar Jonah]

Pearls to Esther! :thumb:

Though I disagree with your conclusions, sister, that is truly an awesome post using a SCRIPTURAL argument! A very well-thought and clear case. Thank you!

[Esther]

mossrose:

If what we think is alright for us to do could possibly be a stumbling block for other believers, or even unbelievers, who set a high standard for Christians, then the Scripture is clear that we should NOT do that thing.

Thank you for saying that, Patricia! :thumb:

I pity men getting beaten up for being men. Men are created visual. For that reason, it is much harder for them to remain pure. Many of them have to struggle daily to keep their eyes off women who are inconsiderate of their wiring. The sexuality flaunting is everywhere in our society and yet people, men and women, have this idea that it's all the guy's fault. That's so ignorant.

[bar Jonah]

Harder for men to remain pure, than for women? :hrm:

[Esther]

Mentally, yes, because men are more visually stimulated than women. While looks aren't without value, women don't usually tend to get on a mental loop over them. Probably because women are made to mentally switch gears constantly.

Let's see. I need to make a left up at the next light ... "Todd stop kicking your brother." ... The light's flashing red ... if I hurry I can make it for the green arrow ... we should be able to get out of the grocery store before rush hour ... I'll need to turn the oven on when I get home ... I forget to stop the dryer. I hope the house doesn't burn down ... "Boys, quiet down. I'm trying to concentrate on my driving" ... what an obnoxious billboard. No guy who drinks much of that stuff looks like ~that~ ... "Todd, hold your brother's hand when we get out of the car." I don't want him running in front of a car. That would be inconvenient right now, what with the dryer still running at home and all. The house would probably be burning down as we were riding by in the ambulance on the way to the hospital ... I hope I don't scrape the side of that car ... they should make these parking spaces wider ... with lights ... Darn that Socrates! ... "We're here kids!"

[bar Jonah]

Still, none of this proves anything regarding the topic of this thread, which is above the waist. I agree about the shameful nudity below the waist.

[Esther]

The point was only that men are visual and tend to have a one track mind. In most of the things they do, they concentrate on one thing at a time (unless they are easily distracted). Women don't do that [so seeing an arousing image wouldn't have the magnitude of an impact as it would on a male - not necessarily the same image]. But hold that thought. I have another idea to look up which may help.

[bar Jonah]

Esther:
The point was only that men are visual and tend to have a one track mind. In most of the things they do, they concentrate on one thing at a time (unless they are easily distracted). Women don't do that [so seeing an arousing image wouldn't have the magnitude of an impact as it would on a male - not necessarily the same image]. But hold that thought. I have another idea to look up which may help.
Yes. And I struggle the same way.

But not as a result of simply seeing a woman's breasts. So, your intuition tells you one thing, and mine tells me another... both of which are wholly subjective and worthless for discerning the truth in this matter.

[Esther]

Actually it's not based on my intuition but on reading lots and lots of marriage books. I'll see if I can dig up specifics though.

[bar Jonah]

Ah, those divinely inspired marriage books. Of course. (Many of which, even you'd agree, are totally off the mark, and many of which are on target. But all fallible in regards to discerning absolute truth.)

[Patroclus]

Now that we have somebody bring up possible scriptural support for an argument, allow me to do something with it.


Esther:

Patroclus: you have said that Adam and Eve's responses were incorrect from the start so why wasn't the shame they felt incorrect?

My thought on that is that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so they knew things God hadn't deemed necessary for them to know - EVIL, for one.

They may have known evil, but they responded to it in an incorrect manner. Hence, they continued to sin. Your argument is based on the assumption that once they knew what sin was, they tried to correct the situation, and furtheremore, that they would be able to do it correctly. However, rather than try to repent of their evil (the remedy for sin), they continue to sin. Furthermore, each action they take is an action that tries to cover themselves. They improperly cover themselves with leaves (remember that God changes their garments, and that they are married), they hide, and they blame. But then, why does God clothe them? Because in a now hostile world (the fallen world outside the garden) they must contend with the elements. Clothing is an appropriate protection against the elements. Hence, nakedness is a symbol of vulnerability. None of this means that nudity is sinful, even if you want to talk about context. Like I said, if nudity is sinful, it is sinful even in the context of a marriage relationship because, according to the arguments of Muz and Esther, Adam and Eve (a married couple) recognized their nakedness.

Their clothing is ultimately not because of an innate sinfulness in nudity, but because, due to their sin, Adam and Eve were forced to live in a hostile world that necessitates a covering for survival. This covering, of course, becomes a key metaphor in Christianity when discussing the sacrifice of Christ.


It was not inappropriate for them to have covered themselves once they knew the difference between right and wrong; God wouldn't have fostered wrong behavior by covering them more effectively.

I never said that it was innapropriate for God to cover them. However, it is innapropriate for them to cover themselves. Remember, they are doing so to hide the shame of their sin. It is as bad as a child lying to cover the fact that he broke a lamp. The only covering for sin can come from God. Rather than internalize the sin they committed, they projected their sin outword -first towards their physical bodies (by clothing themselves), then towards their environment (by hiding), then towards each other (by casting blame).


When did God ever allow someone to continue in a substandard way back then without telling them it was substandard? That's inconsistent with His character.

Which is why I find Muzicman's latest argument rather problematic.


"There's nothing wrong with public nudity except the prudes who don't like it" Proponents:

Of course there are problems with public nudity: safety, cleanliness and common sense.


Throughout scripture modest coverings of one sort or another are acceptable and encouraged. If nudity is God's plan for His people, why didn't God instruct Moses (at the burning bush) to take off not just his shoes but his clothing as well when Moses was standing on holy ground.

The operative noun being "Holy ground." First of all, lets look at what God did command Moses. Shoes are dirty, and carry all sorts of crud with them. I have many friends that ask that you leave your shoes at the front door when entering. They do not want filth in their houses. Secondly, by removing the medium of the shoe, Moses is "closer" to God in that he is touching holiness.

Logically, it is fallacious to assume an absense is evidence enough for a proof. However, if you want to make it really simple, the air was not called Holy.

By this logic, did the Holy men of God commit sin by tearing their clothes in a time of mourning?


[snip] Why, when instructing Moses on the plans for the tabernacle, did God not command that the priests do their priestly thing in His presence naked (not to be confused with "nekkid")?

Well, in keeping with the symbol of the sacrifice that covers, as well as the rest of the elaborate symbolism in their clerical vestments, I doubt it would have been too painful to do the tatoos.


God has never referred to wearing clothing as a negative thing. The idea of that is unscriptural. God actually enabled the Israelites to wear the same clothing for 40 years:
Deuteronomy 8:4 - "Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years." So what if their clothes wore out?

Of course! Walking in the desert is treacherous work on the body. I doubt that God would make his people walk naked through a desert. Then again, if we had not sinned in the garden...

[qupte]Seeing to it that someone less fortunate was covered up was considered a good thing:
Deuteronomy 10:18 - "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing."

Matt 6:28-33 "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear for clothing?" For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "

Why would God foster such ideas of "needing" clothing if being uncovered is okay, or even preferred? That sure seems wishy-washy to me.[/quote]

Not at all! In a hostile world, it is very impractical to walk around naked.


I Timothy 2:9,10 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

Being naked is considered to be a bad thing in general. Please spare me the unnecessary "what about babies" and "what about bathtime" hooey. The fact is that nakedness is referred to in scripture as shameful. ("Oh no! Not that antiquated old book!") What would be the point of modesty and discretion if it wasn't?

You are making the common mistake with this sripture of attributing the English word "modesty" to "appropriate covering a skin." Read the verse in context. Paul wanted to make sure that people were not showing off their earthly wealth. In other words, he is criticising the "sunday best" look that people put on in order show how wealthy he or she is. Modesty and discretion are based on humility. This verse is not preacing against nudity, by any means. Rather, it is discussing the importance of humility in the body of Christ.


II Cor 5:2,3 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.

Why use the word "naked" here?

Because our bodies, as they are always naked (evenunder our clothes) represent vulnerability because they have been corrupted by sin. However, clothing ourselves with glorified bodies that are invulnerable to sin, decay and death is a great alternative to our hostile world. Do you think it will be bad to run around "naked" in heaven?


Revelation 3:17 - `Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Hmmm ... "Naked" is used in the same sentence as "wretched", "miserable", "poor", and "blind".

No kidding! Try sitting naked on the street corner for a few years, and be sure to tell me what happens to you. Again, cloting is practical in a world made hostile by sin.


Revelation 16:15 - ("Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.")

Yet another use of "naked" in a negative sense.

Again, nakedness is a metaphor for vulnerability. If one sins, one is vulnerable to God's judgment. If one maintains the clothing of righteousness, he is invulnerable.


In fact, the only positive implication I can think of at the moment is in the context of a married relationship between one man and one woman in Song of Solomon.

Unless you want to go back to that pesky interpretation that you and Muzicman like concerning Adam and Eve's response to their nakedness, despite the fact that they were married and the only human beings on earth (who is going to lust after Eve if she walks around naked?)


I Corinthians 12:23, 24a And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need

Notice it doesn't say "our shameful parts", it says "our unpresentable parts have greater modesty", which makes a big difference in discussing why nudity is not okay. Some of our parts are not meant to be "presented" freely but protected.

Whoa! Lets stick to the context! Paul is speaking about the egalitarianism inherent in the body of Christ. This is not a discussion of modesty, but a metaphor that incorporates common practices to illustrate the equality in Christ. These "unpresentable" parts may just as well be a scarred upper-arm that we want to cover because it is unsightly. The point is that you have taken the verse way out of context.


Well that's all I have to say. I hope I haven't duplicated what someone else has already said.

No, you have not. However, we are right back where we started. Why do we call bare breasts "partial nudity?" What is "nudity?" Can we make an definite moral judgements about "nudity."

Maybe we want to start with that "his and her" loincloths question. How do you know that God didn't give Adam a turtle-neck fur jacket?

[mossrose]

Yes. And I struggle the same way.

But not as a result of simply seeing a woman's breasts. So, your intuition tells you one thing, and mine tells me another... both of which are wholly subjective and worthless for discerning the truth in this matter.

YOU might not have this struggle by simply seeing a woman's breasts, but another man might. And how are we, as women, to know which male is going to be aroused by our "partial nudity"? I, for one, am not going to be checking out all the males in my immediate vicinity to see if they might be aroused if I take my top off -- that's just silly.

As a woman who desires to live a life pleasing to God, and as a wife who desires only to please her husband and no other man, why should I think it is fine for me to uncover myself in any place where any other man might see me?


I Timothy 2:9,10 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

Being naked is considered to be a bad thing in general. Please spare me the unnecessary "what about babies" and "what about bathtime" hooey. The fact is that nakedness is referred to in scripture as shameful. ("Oh no! Not that antiquated old book!") What would be the point of modesty and discretion if it wasn't? ”

You are making the common mistake with this sripture of attributing the English word "modesty" to "appropriate covering a skin." Read the verse in context. Paul wanted to make sure that people were not showing off their earthly wealth. In other words, he is criticising the "sunday best" look that people put on in order show how wealthy he or she is. Modesty and discretion are based on humility. This verse is not preacing against nudity, by any means. Rather, it is discussing the importance of humility in the body of Christ.

I said this in post #27 in this thread:


John MacArthur says about this:

"The Greek word for "propriety" refers to modesty mixed with humility, which carries the underlying idea of shame. It can also refer to a rejection of anything dishonourable to God, or refer to grief over sin. "Moderation" basically refers to self-control over sexual passions. Godly women hate sin and control their passions so as not to lead another into sin."

I know that was many pages ago and you all forgot what it said, but there it is again -- "moderation refers to self-control over sexual passions."

The whole key, I still believe, is whether or not we are possibly causing someone else to trip and fall.

Here is another thought. Maybe none of you have daughters old enough to be concerned yet, but imagine how you would feel, especialy you men, if your teen daughter decided that it was fine for her to go around with her breasts naked. I would like to know what your response would be.

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

/ot I am requesting that the title of this thread be changed,siriously I think it's a bit suggestive.

[Paul]

RightIdea:

Ah, those divinely inspired marriage books. Of course. (Many of which, even you'd agree, are totally off the mark, and many of which are on target. But all fallible in regards to discerning absolute truth.)

You mean like Proverbs? :huh: :smile: ... isn't there something in Proverbs about all this? :huh: :smile:

[mossrose]

What do you suggest, Ivo?

[Paul]

Ivo Shandor:

/ot I am requesting that the title of this thread be changed,siriously I think it's a bit suggestive.

/ot I would join in your request. While it is perhaps a little humorous due to the potential pun involved, I think given your request here and the number of views it has it is reasonable to believe that it is a stumbling block for some persons.

[mossrose]

What do you suggest, Paul?

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

Today @ 02:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359615#post359615)
mossrose:

What do you suggest, Ivo?

I would suggest simply "sensitive subject"

[Paul]

I would concur with that suggestion.

[mossrose]

Anyone object to a topic name-change? Right Idea? How do you feel about it?

[Darwin]

Topic: Title Name Change.

My opinion, for what it's worth.

I've gotta say this is almost the epitome of let's-assume-offense-because-we-can issues

The touchy topic of breasts

First of all, what is so inherently wrong IF the title is suggestive, particularly when no one up to now has expressed offense or has said it was, in fact, a stumbling block? Why the concern with the title when the text in the posts is far more expressive in its sexual connotations? This smacks of an exercise in control rather than true concern. As to the title itself, I have to wonder just what Ivo finds so suggestive........ the mere mention of the word, "breasts?" If so, I suggest therapy, because if a medical term for a common body part is sexually suggestive, the problem does not lie in the title. How about "touchy" and "topic?" Anybody find these sexually suggestive? If so, same advice. Well, let's string them together "Touchy topic of breasts." Gee guys, snicker, snicker, did you see that? The word "touchy" is almost right next to "breasts?" He, he, almost sounds like "touch breasts," hoo! hoo! hoo! Just think!! "touch a breast," touch a couple of breasts," No, No....."poke a breast." Or how about, "pat a breast." Ya, "pat a breast,"............. god, what a great forum!

Unsolicited advice to Ivo: GROW UP.

[spl_cadet]

mossrose:

Anyone object to a topic name-change? Right Idea? How do you feel about it?

I do. It's completely pointless.

[Esther]

RightIdea:

Ah, those divinely inspired marriage books. Of course. (Many of which, even you'd agree, are totally off the mark, and many of which are on target. But all fallible in regards to discerning absolute truth.)

Yes, but there are elements of truth in all of them and most of them contain some of those same elements.

Add my vote for the name change. Simply "***sensitive material***" would suffice. Some of us have young children who like to read everything they see.

[Darwin]

"***sensitive material***"

Talk about a teaser. A cryptic title that hints at possibilities far more "suggestive" than a simple "The touchy topic of breasts." Think the kiddies will simply figure the discussion is about CIA codes, or State secrets, or perhaps Scotch tape? If they are old enough to be enticed by either title they probably know far more about sexual subjects than you imagine, mom. How many times have naive parents stood in stunned silence after finding out that their little dears actually know that a penis and vagina share a common destiny? (I know this was off topic, but IMO the ostrich syndrome needs addressing.)

[Esther]

Patroclus:

They may have known evil, but they responded to it in an incorrect manner. Hence, they continued to sin. Your argument is based on the assumption that once they knew what sin was, they tried to correct the situation, and furtheremore, that they would be able to do it correctly. However, rather than try to repent of their evil (the remedy for sin), they continue to sin. Furthermore, each action they take is an action that tries to cover themselves. They improperly cover themselves with leaves (remember that God changes their garments, and that they are married), they hide, and they blame. But then, why does God clothe them? Because in a now hostile world (the fallen world outside the garden) they must contend with the elements. Clothing is an appropriate protection against the elements. Hence, nakedness is a symbol of vulnerability. None of this means that nudity is sinful, even if you want to talk about context. Like I said, if nudity is sinful, it is sinful even in the context of a marriage relationship because, according to the arguments of Muz and Esther, Adam and Eve (a married couple) recognized their nakedness.

Their clothing is ultimately not because of an innate sinfulness in nudity, but because, due to their sin, Adam and Eve were forced to live in a hostile world that necessitates a covering for survival. This covering, of course, becomes a key metaphor in Christianity when discussing the sacrifice of Christ.

Okay, you've mentioned physical elements throughout this post. Try to remember that everything was under the curse, not just the physical. Their ability to maintain pure thoughts was also under the curse.



I never said that it was innapropriate for God to cover them. However, it is innapropriate for them to cover themselves. Remember, they are doing so to hide the shame of their sin. It is as bad as a child lying to cover the fact that he broke a lamp. The only covering for sin can come from God. Rather than internalize the sin they committed, they projected their sin outward -first towards their physical bodies (by clothing themselves), then towards their environment (by hiding), then towards each other (by casting blame).

No, they were covering themselves because they knew they were naked. Read the context of their creation and then their response after the fall. Gen 2:25, "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." and then Gen 3:7, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings."

It seems to me that the first verse doesn't say they "knew" they were "naked", it says they were both naked and were not ashamed. Moving right along, after they sinned, their eyes were opened "and they knew that they were naked". It's highly unlikely that they thought they should be covered to keep from being exposed to the elements. Not the elements you're talking about.

God covered them. You say nudity isn't innately sinful, which is obviously true in the pre-fall world. But nudity outside the context of a married relationship between a man and a woman or for medical or bathing purposes, which you like to throw up in our faces, is sinful because of the effect it has on others. Mossrose has already pointed out that that could cause a man to stumble.


Of course there are problems with public nudity: safety, cleanliness and common sense.

God didn't know that when He clothed Adam and Eve?


The operative noun being "Holy ground." First of all, lets look at what God did command Moses. Shoes are dirty, and carry all sorts of crud with them. I have many friends that ask that you leave your shoes at the front door when entering. They do not want filth in their houses. Secondly, by removing the medium of the shoe, Moses is "closer" to God in that he is touching holiness.

Logically, it is fallacious to assume an absense is evidence enough for a proof. However, if you want to make it really simple, the air was not called Holy.

Alrighty.


By this logic, did the Holy men of God commit sin by tearing their clothes in a time of mourning?

Were they exposing their nakedness?


Well, in keeping with the symbol of the sacrifice that covers, as well as the rest of the elaborate symbolism in their clerical vestments, I doubt it would have been too painful to do the tatoos.

Okay.


Of course! Walking in the desert is treacherous work on the body. I doubt that God would make his people walk naked through a desert. Then again, if we had not sinned in the garden...

I didn't say He made them do it ...



Seeing to it that someone less fortunate was covered up was considered a good thing:
Deuteronomy 10:18 - "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing."
Matt 6:28-33 "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear for clothing?" For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "

Why would God foster such ideas of "needing" clothing if being uncovered is okay, or even preferred? That sure seems wishy-washy to me.

Not at all! In a hostile world, it is very impractical to walk around naked.

Thanks for that. It is very impractical to walk around naked in a spiritually hostile world!! You make an excellent point. Why didn't anyone else think of that?


You are making the common mistake with this sripture of attributing the English word "modesty" to "appropriate covering a skin." Read the verse in context. Paul wanted to make sure that people were not showing off their earthly wealth. In other words, he is criticising the "sunday best" look that people put on in order show how wealthy he or she is. Modesty and discretion are based on humility. This verse is not preacing against nudity, by any means. Rather, it is discussing the importance of humility in the body of Christ.

I was hoping someone would suggest looking at the context! Modesty and discretion are based on more than simply humility. I know this passage well and, you're right, it is talking about humility but it is also talking about dressing and behaving in such a way as to glorify God. It is hardly God-honoring to provoke gawkers! We know they're out there. Why give them the opportunity to think, "She's no different than any other girl. I'd sure like to her!"


Because our bodies, as they are always naked (evenunder our clothes) represent vulnerability because they have been corrupted by sin. However, clothing ourselves with glorified bodies that are invulnerable to sin, decay and death is a great alternative to our hostile world. Do you think it will be bad to run around "naked" in heaven?

Do you think it will be bad to run around in heaven in robes whiter than snow?


No kidding! Try sitting naked on the street corner for a few years, and be sure to tell me what happens to you. Again, cloting is practical in a world made hostile by sin.

Nooooooo kidding! Try sitting nude on a tourist attracting nude beach, and be sure to tell me what happens to you. You are so right that clothing is practical in a world made hostile by sin!


Again, nakedness is a metaphor for vulnerability. If one sins, one is vulnerable to God's judgment. If one maintains the clothing of righteousness, he is invulnerable.

I realize it is used metaphorically, but if one maintains clothing out of a sense of righteousness, she protects those who are vulnerable, who may not even realize they are.


Unless you want to go back to that pesky interpretation that you and Muzicman like concerning Adam and Eve's response to their nakedness, despite the fact that they were married and the only human beings on earth (who is going to lust after Eve if she walks around naked?)

You are assuming Adam and Eve were the only people on earth at that time. We aren't told how much time passed between week of creation and the fall.

I'm not sure which "pesky interpretation" you're referring to; there are so many.


Whoa! Lets stick to the context! Paul is speaking about the egalitarianism inherent in the body of Christ. This is not a discussion of modesty, but a metaphor that incorporates common practices to illustrate the equality in Christ. These "unpresentable" parts may just as well be a scarred upper-arm that we want to cover because it is unsightly. The point is that you have taken the verse way out of context.

The passage of the verse is referring to the body of Christ and it's various parts and using actual body parts to get his point across, and not in the sense that he was saying "Okay, here's the left eye. Bill, you're going to be the lookout on the east side of the building, just like the left eye". He was likening them to the status of certain body parts. These "unpresentable" parts could have been breasts.


No, you have not [duplicated what someone else has already said]. However, we are right back where we started. Why do we call bare breasts "partial nudity?" What is "nudity?" Can we make an definite moral judgements about "nudity."

Maybe we want to start with that "his and her" loincloths question. How do you know that God didn't give Adam a turtle-neck fur jacket?

You know, let's get to the real issue here. Are you willing to give up an area of liberty to keep someone else from stumbling? Regardless of "cultural" psychobabble, the way we dress has an impact on those around us. There are families being destroyed because Dad is a sex addict (in one of it's various forms). Instead of going home in the evenings, they're spending their time and hard earned money at strip clubs or adult "boutiques". :puke: They would much rather pay to watch someone strip than to spend some time and effort on their own marriage.

Let's forget "what's nudity?" The fact of the matter is that we live in a culture where sex sells and it sells with a capital "T & A", if I may be so bold(mods?), and is at the expense of our purity. Like it or not, most men and some women cannot look at a provocatively dressed woman without having impure thoughts. They may not [i]nurture those thoughts and allow them to take root but they're there. (NO I AM NOT SPEAKING OF A MEDICAL SETTING OR PERSONAL GROOMING, FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!) Isn't it obvious that this is an issue of personal liberty vs. personal responsibility. THAT is the POINT. Not where it all came from or why it is this way. If I remember correctly, Mossrose just posted the same sentiment in her last post.

[Esther]

Darwin:

Talk about a teaser. A cryptic title that hints at possibilities far more "suggestive" than a simple "The touchy topic of breasts." Think the kiddies will simply figure the discussion is about CIA codes, or State secrets, or perhaps Scotch tape? If they are old enough to be enticed by either title they probably know far more about sexual subjects than you imagine, mom. How many times have naive parents stood in stunned silence after finding out that their little dears actually know that a penis and vagina share a common destiny? (I know this was off topic, but IMO the ostrich syndrome needs addressing.)


THIS is an issue of letting the parent, not the internet, pick the battlefield. I wonder how many ignorant internet personalities have stood in stunned silence.

Am I just really tired or does anyone else have the urge to smack Darwin [who obviously doesn't have any obsessive compulsive type kids who pick up on certain phrases they deem humorous and repeat them over and over for days, nay, weeks on end] up side the head just for the pure enjoyment of it?

[Darwin]

Take your first swing, sunshine. Nothing like a peace lovin, do-unto-others, love they neighbor Christian to set an example for the kiddies. The irony is just too beautiful. "Kids you will never experince the full joy of the Lord until you really smack someone up the side of the head for the pure enjoyment of it." Thanks Esther, let's hope you're one of a kind.

[bar Jonah]

I'm amazed that we can have a "Best Boobs Contest" here at TW and pick a winner... but people are sensitive to the word "touchy?"

Change the topic title if you like... but I can't fathom how anyone would think it's anywhere near as suggestive as a Best Boobs Contest, for goodness' sake. :ahem:

[spl_cadet]

Link please? :innocent:

[bar Jonah]

:bonk:

[Bill the Cat]

Folks,

Please take personal gripes to the Locker room. Thank You.

[Rahab]

Today @ 08:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359812#post359812)
RightIdea:

I'm amazed that we can have a "Best Boobs Contest" here at TW and pick a winner... but people are sensitive to the word "touchy?"

Change the topic title if you like... but I can't fathom how anyone would think it's anywhere near as suggestive as a Best Boobs Contest, for goodness' sake. :ahem:

Bonjour Right Idea.....see how one can be attributed an ill intent depending on how the human mind wills to interpret your expression?
Needless to say also that the "young children" who would read your expression would suddenly have to feel shameful for having once not only pushed on those nurishing breasts with their tiny hands but also having had a tight lip lock on them! and the technician who manipulates breasts during a mammogram falls under the same shameful image I guess.
I really do not have any trouble with your title.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hold on a second:


I'm amazed that we can have a "Best Boobs Contest" here at TW and pick a winner... but people are sensitive to the word "touchy?"

IIRC that thread was closed by me. It was not appropriate. I do not wish this comment to remain as if this was something that was just done and remained.

However, I do not have an issue with the title of this thread oddly enough and I am the most prudish person in leadership. I think the title discussion is sidetracking the conversation, perhaps a locker room thread would be more appropriate for that.

[Dee Dee Warren]

ADDENDUM: While I do not have an issue with the title of this thread, and am not condemning it, I have become aware that some brethren do, and I am sure that we do not wish our liberty to be a thorn. I have weighed this, and have decided that so that we do not have needless controversy (and this thread title will end up on our mailer as a popular thread) to change the title. I have not yet decided to what yet. But again, I say, I personally do not have an issue with it, but am doing it as an accomodation to some concerns expressed by the brethren and it is my prayer that I am not offending those who have no issue with it, as I am not making a moral judgment on anyone.

[Xmansmommy]

RightIdea:

I'm amazed that we can have a "Best Boobs Contest" here at TW and pick a winner... but people are sensitive to the word "touchy?"

Change the topic title if you like... but I can't fathom how anyone would think it's anywhere near as suggestive as a Best Boobs Contest, for goodness' sake. :ahem:

It's not like the title of the thread was "Best Boobs Contest" either Jim. Many here aren't even aware of the comments that were made there. :nsm:

[NeilUnreal]

Hmmmm...

I set out to be an art major (Lo! theses many years ago) before switching to science. I've recently returned to art as a serious amateur art student learning figure and portrait painting. As such, I see and draw a lot of breasts and other generally hidden body parts.

When looking at and producing art, I find the human body to be very beautiful in a way that is at once sexual and non-sexual. That is, I find it attractive in a way that is different from either the feelings of clinical detachment or of possessive lust. I'm a straight male, and I can look at a painting or a bronze statue of a nude woman and feel the sexual power it represents, without becoming so aroused that I feel the need to go out and gratify my lustful desires in a way that disregards the other things that go along with sex in humans (e.g. love, tenderness, commitment to the whole person).

And it's totally different from becoming jaded by overexposure to pornography, or culturally accustomed to public nudity. In fact, it has made me more sensitive to the natural beauty of all women, and frankly disgusted with the "plastic doll-toy" image presented by Hollywood (et al.).

I didn't set out to feel this way, I discovered it as a result of the normal exposure an art student has to nudity when learning figure drawing, art history, etc. I assume something similar occurs with doctors. The only way I can describe it is as a "professional" reaction to nudity vs. a "naive" reaction. It's why artists and doctors can be totally comfortable and unembarrassed in the presence of the nude body.

Of course, for the Christian who's an artist, this presents a problem. Even though I don't feel lust or embarrassment when looking at a nude drawing I've done, I realize that there may be those who do. I have to say I don't have an easy answer to this problem. My solution so far is to: 1) make sure all my depictions of nudity are tasteful and non-degrading, and 2) choose venues for display where the work will be seen mostly by serious art students.

-Neil

p.s. The bans on public nudity exist primarily to prevent the public horror and outrage that would be caused by my walking down the street nude. When I pass on, the laws may be safely lifted. Until then, remember: the laws are there for your protection! :lol:

[Paul]

I'd just like to thank Dee Dee as well as xmansmommy for clearing that up.

[Rahab]

I can relate to your analysis NeilUnreal. You mentionned nudity being a potential problem for christian artists.....in Europe Michel Angelo was described as a christian. Yet the man seemed to have extracted beauty from nudity without exhorting the sexual aspect of nudity. Considering how spiritual his work was, possibly christian faith is to result in keeping thoughts captive of Christ when nudity is associated with art.
I believe that anyone can project whichever notion in the presence of bare breasts. But it remains a subjective projection of what the mind wills to deal on. The artist focused on extracting beauty will dwell on beauty.
One can argue though that some artists exhibited a libertine sexual lifestyle as they used nude models as inspiration for their works.... such as Rodin.
When it comes to art, Paul Valery has defined its subjectivity as he applies it to the inspiration sources for the poet.....
"there is poetry even in an old pair of shoes".
The eye of an artist is trained to consider form, shapes, smoothness, roughness, light, coloring, geometry... (I am sure you can add more). It is drawn to evaluate the esthetical potential and to use it to project what he considers symbolic.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I changed the thread title. Again, I am trying to do the best to please everyone, when that is not possible. If the thread starter does not like the title I chose and would like to suggest something different, please PM me. I ask that my intentions be noted before anyone passes judgment on my decision.

[themuzicman]

Isn't the very idea of a "best boobs contest" suggestive of the fact that breasts are, in fact, visually sexual in nature, and that their public exposure is, in fact, immoral?

Think about it. Why have a "best boobs contest"? What defines "best"? This is certainly not a "functional" contest.

And what other part of the body do we specifically have such contests over? Isn't that a bit like a wet t-shirt contest, which has the same function?

Michael

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359801#post359801)
Esther:

You are assuming Adam and Eve were the only people on earth at that time.

And it is indeed a correct assumption. Paul called Adam "the first man" (1 Cor. 15:45) and Adam named his wife Eve (Hebrew chava) because she would be mother of all the living (Hebrew chayyim). Jesus saves us because He is our kinsman-redeemer, being also a descendant of Adam (Luke 3). This is explained carefully in the AiG article Cain’s wife—who was she? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)


We aren't told how much time passed between week of creation and the fall.

We don't need to be told explicitly because we are told implicitly that there can't have been too much time. I explained this in detail at [url=http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=56280#post56280]When did Satan Fall?[url]


I'm not sure which "pesky interpretation" you're referring to; there are so many.

But God wrote the Bible in propositional form to teach us (2 Tim. 3:16), so He meant us to be able to understand it.

[bar Jonah]

themuzicman:
Isn't the very idea of a "best boobs contest" suggestive of the fact that breasts are, in fact, visually sexual in nature, and that their public exposure is, in fact, immoral?

Think about it. Why have a "best boobs contest"? What defines "best"? This is certainly not a "functional" contest.

And what other part of the body do we specifically have such contests over? Isn't that a bit like a wet t-shirt contest, which has the same function?

Michael
And if we have a "prettiest face contest," this would prove that faces are inherently sexual? We have beauty contests for the whole body. You're giving mere human wisdom as evidence to "prove" a matter of absolute truth. You are beginnngwith the assumption that they are inherently sexual, and then seeing that contest and automatically interpreting it so.

Do you really think we would have had a sexually-charged and lascivious parade of breasts for the purposes of sexual gratification, here at TW? Are you accusing them of that, now?

[Rahab]

Today @ 08:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360022#post360022)
themuzicman:

Isn't the very idea of a "best boobs contest" suggestive of the fact that breasts are, in fact, visually sexual in nature, and that their public exposure is, in fact, immoral?

Think about it. Why have a "best boobs contest"? What defines "best"? This is certainly not a "functional" contest.

And what other part of the body do we specifically have such contests over? Isn't that a bit like a wet t-shirt contest, which has the same function?

Michael not to split hair.... but we do have a "best nose contest" in Grasse, France, world capital of perfume factories. The contestants have to exercise the best scent discernment abilities.
We also have the "best tongue" contest for wine tasters. Those are functional contests of course yet pointing to a body part.
It would be interesting to have the best nursing breast contest....
I can see your point Michael.... but again, in a culture such as the tribal examples Darwin presented, noone would ever think of having a "best boobs contest".

[Paul]

RightIdea:

And if we have a "prettiest face contest," this would prove that faces are inherently sexual? We have beauty contests for the whole body. You're giving mere human wisdom as evidence to "prove" a matter of absolute truth. You are beginnngwith the assumption that they are inherently sexual, and then seeing that contest and automatically interpreting it so.

Do you really think we would have had a sexually-charged and lascivious parade of breasts for the purposes of sexual gratification, here at TW? Are you accusing them of that, now?

"prettiest face" versus "best boobs" :huh: something tells me that is not exactly the best analogy :huh:

Especially since scripture says we will see God face to face

[Patroclus]

First of all, I am not here to say that women in America should run around topless. I KNOW that, because of the culture in which we live, most men are aroused by bare breasts. My only purpose for participating in this dialog is to discuss why BARE BREASTS are considerred sexual. I am not trying to affect a change in action; I am not promoting pornography or public nudity; I am not advocating nudism; I am trying to make us all question where we stand on an issue that has its relevancy rooted in art and entertainment. If we cannot, or choose not to answer this question, we will be impaired when we try to teach our kids how to respond to 1) art or 2) entertainment media that would attempt to corrupt our children.

DO NOT, for a minute, think that I would ever try to change a person's convictions concerning modesty. DO think that I want us to engage in a healthy dialog that can look at scripture and society, critically.


Esther:

Okay, you've mentioned physical elements throughout this post. Try to remember that everything was under the curse, not just the physical. Their ability to maintain pure thoughts was also under the curse.

I agree. My point is that, as Socrates so aptly confirmed, nudity itself could not have been sinful for Eve, if lust is the issue, because Adam and Eve were a married couple. There must have been some other reasons for God to clothe them. The obvious reason is that they now lived in a hostile world. The second is that, symbolically, their sin (their vulnerability to the righteousness of God, symbolized by their nakedness) must be covered - a covering that they improperly parodied in the garden.


No, they were covering themselves because they knew they were naked. Read the context of their creation and then their response after the fall. Gen 2:25, "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." and then Gen 3:7, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings."

Esther, I know this very well. What I am suggesting to you is the symbolic relationship of their nakedness to their vulnerability to God's righteousness.


It seems to me that the first verse doesn't say they "knew" they were "naked", it says they were both naked and were not ashamed. Moving right along, after they sinned, their eyes were opened "and they knew that they were naked". It's highly unlikely that they thought they should be covered to keep from being exposed to the elements. Not the elements you're talking about.

The reason why I mentioned the elements is because you questioned why God would clothe them (as if I thought clothing was wrong). Again, if they were righteouss in the garden, an absense of shame is the correct response to their nakedness.


God covered them. You say nudity isn't innately sinful,
which is obviously true in the pre-fall world.

Of course.


But nudity outside the context of a married relationship between a man and a woman or for medical or bathing purposes,

I think we are all agreed that such nudity in the proper context is not sinful. However, it is the concession of this point that makes it impossible for nudity to be "innately" sinful, by definition of the word "innate."


which you like to throw up in our faces,

I really do not know what you mean. Until this post, I have not mentioned (that I can recall) nudity in the context of medicine. As far as the marriage thing, I do not know how I can be throwing it in your faces when most of you out there are married. If I have offended anybody by mentioning marriage, I apologize. I thought that it was relevant to the discussion based on the agreement that God ordained sex to remain in the marriage context, and that we are discussing an issue that deals with sexuality.


is sinful because of the effect it has on others. Mossrose has already pointed out that that could cause a man to stumble.

Dropping my pants in front of a woman would be sinful. However, it is not the nudity that is sinful, it is the context. It is like eating meat sacrificed to idols. You just don't participate in that around people who will stumble. I don't have naked parties at my apartment. It is not that being naked in my apartment is sinful, but parading myself naked in my apartment would almost certainly be sinful.


God didn't know that when He clothed Adam and Eve?

Of course He knew that. Again, I am not advocating public nudity. I am simply trying to participate in a sociological discussion.


Alrighty.

:smile:


Were they exposing their nakedness?

Good question. What constitutes "naked?" Why are bare female breasts considerred, in this culture, "partially nude?" My point is that, without definition, nakedness can be any revelation of the skin.


Okay.

:smile:


I didn't say He made them do it ...

You are missing the point. Of course, God does not want his chosen people to die in the wilderness. One needs clothes to survive in the wilderness. Ergo, it makes sense that God would preserve their clothes. It has nothing to do with God making anybody do anything.


Thanks for that. It is very impractical to walk around naked in a spiritually hostile world!! You make an excellent point. Why didn't anyone else think of that?

What do you think I am trying to do here? Again, I am not asking us to strip to our skin. I am just asking us to consider why we think the way we do.


I was hoping someone would suggest looking at the context!

The context being a church with very wealthy people who liked to show off their wealth by dressing to the nines.

quote]Modesty and discretion are based on more than simply humility. I know this passage well and, you're right, it is talking about humility but it is also talking about dressing and behaving in such a way as to glorify God. It is hardly God-honoring to provoke gawkers! We know they're out there. Why give them the opportunity to think, "She's no different than any other girl. I'd sure like to her!"[/quote]

I am not saying that we need to dress provocatively. I am not saying that it is a good idea for girls to go to church in halter tops. I am saying that we need to take a look at the root of our current perceptions concerning the nakedness of the female breast. Of course, people in this culture interpret breasts as sexual. But it is quite clear that not everybody does. So, why?


Do you think it will be bad to run around in heaven in robes whiter than snow?

No, don't be ridiculous.


Nooooooo kidding! Try sitting nude on a tourist attracting nude beach, and be sure to tell me what happens to you. You are so right that clothing is practical in a world made hostile by sin!

Not to mention sand and strong winds.


I realize it is used metaphorically, but if one maintains clothing out of a sense of righteousness, she protects those who are vulnerable, who may not even realize they are.

And that is fine, but please keep in mind the spirit in which I participate.


You are assuming Adam and Eve were the only people on earth at that time. We aren't told how much time passed between week of creation and the fall.

Already answered


I'm not sure which "pesky interpretation" you're referring to; there are so many.

That nakedness, even in their isolated marriage, was sinful for them.


The passage of the verse is referring to the body of Christ and it's various parts and using actual body parts to get his point across, and not in the sense that he was saying "Okay, here's the left eye. Bill, you're going to be the lookout on the east side of the building, just like the left eye". He was likening them to the status of certain body parts. These "unpresentable" parts could have been breasts.

Sure, they could have been breasts, but as long as you aren't going to prove that he was actually talking about breasts, it is hard to say that this verse proves the sinfulness of bare breasts.


You know, let's get to the real issue here. Are you willing to give up an area of liberty to keep someone else from stumbling? Regardless of "cultural" psychobabble, the way we dress has an impact on those around us. There are families being destroyed because Dad is a sex addict (in one of it's various forms). Instead of going home in the evenings, they're spending their time and hard earned money at strip clubs or adult "boutiques". :puke: They would much rather pay to watch someone strip than to spend some time and effort on their own marriage.

Esther, please don't patronize me. Of course I know that nudity affects people, and that immodest clothing affects people. Of course I know that sexual addiction is real, and is a very major concern in the church. All I want to do is question why we assign a sexual value to the female breasts.


Let's forget "what's nudity?"

Why? This is a discussion of definitions, not a malediction against modesty, nor is it a call to nakedness. It is simply trying to answer a sociological question.


The fact of the matter is that we live in a culture where sex sells and it sells with a capital "T & A", if I may be so bold(mods?), and is at the expense of our purity. Like it or not, most men and some women cannot look at a provocatively dressed woman without having impure thoughts. They may not [i]nurture those thoughts and allow them to take root but they're there.

Sure they are, and when it comes to breasts, all RightIdea and I are asking is whether the sexual association is put there by God, or if it is put there by a lifetime of living in a given culture.


(NO I AM NOT SPEAKING OF A MEDICAL SETTING OR PERSONAL GROOMING, FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!)

I know that, and I am not advocating public nudity, for Pete's sake.


Isn't it obvious that this is an issue of personal liberty vs. personal responsibility. THAT is the POINT. Not where it all came from or why it is this way.


No, it is not about that, except that you have made it that way. It seems that you have assumed that people like Rahab, RightIdea, myself and whoever else is asking this question have a one-track mind bent on getting people out of their clothes. We are asking "where it all came from," because we are curious.


If I remember correctly, Mossrose just posted the same sentiment in her last post.

Okay

-Patroclus
:pat:

[bar Jonah]

I agree with every word, Pat. :thumb:

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 04:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360061#post360061)
RightIdea:


And if we have a "prettiest face contest," this would prove that faces are inherently sexual? We have beauty contests for the whole body. You're giving mere human wisdom as evidence to "prove" a matter of absolute truth. You are beginnngwith the assumption that they are inherently sexual, and then seeing that contest and automatically interpreting it so.

Do you really think we would have had a sexually-charged and lascivious parade of breasts for the purposes of sexual gratification, here at TW? Are you accusing them of that, now?

Except that people don't have "prettiest face" contests.

Which makes my questions (and point) even more evident.

And I never made any specific accusations with regard to the local contest. If you or others feel convicted, maybe you should contact the one who convicts of sin and ask Him.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Nobody ever has prettiest face contests? :lmbo:

:ahem:

[spl_cadet]

themuzicman:

Except that people don't have "prettiest face" contests.

Are you completely unaware of all the picture rating sites out there? :hrm:

[Rahab]

01-02-2004 @ 02:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360581#post360581)
themuzicman:



Except that people don't have "prettiest face" contests.

Which makes my questions (and point) even more evident.

And I never made any specific accusations with regard to the local contest. If you or others feel convicted, maybe you should contact the one who convicts of sin and ask Him.

Michael
I beg to differ.... in the world of modeling, pretty faces compete all the time.
Michael.... I must tell you that your response earlier when you were asked to present evidence that early cultures did have covered breasts .....does not inspire me to take your arguments seriously. Saying that your argument is evidence because it is logical challenges the very meaning of any evidence. I think some of us were expecting you to present some type of documentation (which Darwin did to support his own arguments).
Can you please try to provide some historical or anthropological documentation as to early cultures having breasts covered and then under the influence of moral degradation uncovered them?

[Amazing Rando]

Oh wow, I just discovered this interesting topic- sorry for jumping in so late, but I'd like to respond to the OP myself.


12-26-2003 @ 03:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354923#post354923)
RightIdea:

What do you believe are the aspects of objective or absolute morality in relation to the bare female breast(s) and the topless woman in art, in general society and especially in particular social contexts? Is this an issue of objective/absolute morality? Or is this instead a cultural value (which nevertheless would still be relevant in our culture, btw)?

I'd say that this falls in the same category as any question of sexuality- it's a beautiful thing designed by God to be shared by a loving husband and wife- within a marriage. I believe that as long as the husband and wife both consent to it, and it doesn't physically or mentally harm either partner, anything goes in the bedroom! Anybody disagree?

Here's RightIdea's stance posted a few posts later:


On top of everything else, I don't even personally find the female breast inherently erotic or sexual (as I have related to a number of fellow TWebbers). I can honestly say that even seeing a topless woman in real life (in person) isn't inherently sexual or erotic, as I don't believe the breasts are primarily for that function in the first place.

Wow... I'm like the complete opposite. I'm very attracted to female breasts. In fact, that attraction was one of the first things that made me notice my (now) fiance when we met in high school about five years ago (this was before I was saved, of course). God somehow used my sinful, sexual instincts to pair me up with the loving fiance I have now, but by his grace, we're saving the sex for after we're married. I have no idea how, but he really helped me through that one.

In any case, I don't think that attraction to breasts is a matter of cultural mores. I think it's more a matter of individual orientation. I have no idea how this works, not being a psyologist or biologist or anything, but it's pretty clear to me, after talking with many people, that no two people's sexual attractions, fantasies, or fetishes are exactly alike. Cultural exposure may influence them to a degree, but the diversity in sexual attractions is quite amazing. I believe, based upon my own experiences, that God programs us to be attracted to certain physical features, intellectual attributes, or character traits- that's his way of playing "matchmaker" for each one of us.

[Queen]

breasts (and how men call them so kindly: boobs or tits or hooters :doh: ) are for two reasons in this world. To attract a male partner and to feed your new born children. These are the reasons...

And all those sillicone valley babes with there 'perfect' breasts look nice, but unnatural. And those have boob contests...... :eww: (and I am not talking about any medical or psychological reason to make them smaller or enlarge them)

I love breasts. They are soft, and they are love-able. :me:
They are available in all kinds of shapes and forms and they all look so sweet soft and gentle...........but that is just a Bi opinion... :wink:

I really don't care why they are there, how they got there and so on....who created them or how they evolved. They are a part of my body. I think they are the most normal things in the world. 50% of the human race has them..........

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen
:Q:

Painting of Picasso.....nursing a baby

[AtheistArchon]

- Meh. Boobs. Who's offended here by boobs? :huh:

- I'm biased of course, but this thread seems once again to highlight the overall sexual repression of (some) Christians. The general tone seems to be: "I'm excited by the sight of breasts, so IT'S BAAAD! EWW!! SINFUL!! TIME TO FLOG MYSELF!! SOMEONE COVER THEM UP BEFORE I RAPE SOMEONE!!"

- And that's far from healthy.

- Women, IMHO, are the only works of art. All other art is, in one way or another, usually tied to the immitation or representation of the female form. Look at the '85 Corvette. :wink: I love women, they're nice to look at. This doesn't mean a topless chick makes me suddenly a rapist or something. (If you get SO sweaty by the sight of a bare breast that you can't help yourself, then you need psychological help.)

- Now, I'm talking about adults here of course. A mature adult male should be able to walk though a gauntlet of topless women without grunting and mauling one. It's only the most repressed cultures that sponsor this kind of mentality... look at the whole burqa thing. Males are never responsible for rapes in those cultures, and from everything I've heard, rape happens often.

- Anyhow, I vote for more breasts. :thumb: Boobs never hurt anyone! Someone think of the boobs! Women are forms of art, that doesn't mean they're automatically bits of meat good for nothing but a sexual outlet.

[themuzicman]

No. Going topless just makes her a sexual billboard.

[mossrose]

Meh. Boobs. Who's offended here by boobs?

I am offended by people who CALL them boobs.

:noid:

[themuzicman]

People who call them boobs are boobs! :egad:

[AtheistArchon]

I am offended by people who CALL them boobs.

- Ermm. What's a better word? Just "breasts"?

- (I'm presuming that "bazoombas" wouldn't be appropriate either?) :teeth:

[themuzicman]

Mammaries. Hooters. Headlights. Juggies. :nc:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=363819#post363819)
themuzicman:

Mammaries. Hooters. Headlights. Juggies. :nc:

Reminds me of that great scene from "Liar Liar" where Jim Carey is in the elevator with the girl with the acres of cleavage.

[AtheistArchon]

No. Going topless just makes her a sexual billboard.

- Just because you can't get past your sexual urges doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

[themuzicman]

Who said I can't get past them?

[yxboom]

I believe the topic was whether exposing women's breasts are inherently wicked.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=363831#post363831)
yxboom:

I believe the topic was whether exposing women's breasts are inherently wicked.

Maybe we should make a poll. My vote: No.

[mossrose]

Ermm. What's a better word? Just "breasts"?


Perfect!! :smile:

[NeilUnreal]

Speaking as both a straight male and an artist, exposure of the female breast is not inherently wicked. However, I enjoy the mystery that's generated by keeping them covered most of the time. :yes:

-Neil

p.s. I do think laws which prohibit women from being topless in a location or situation where males would be allowed to go topless are discriminatory and should be repealed.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 05:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=363920#post363920)
NeilUnreal:

Speaking as both a straight male and an artist, exposure of the female breast is not inherently wicked. However, I enjoy the mystery that's generated by keeping them covered most of the time. :yes:

-Neil


You bet, Neil! What's your art, by the way?

I agree with you- reminds me of the time John Ashcroft ordered a statue of Lady Justice be covered up for bearing one of her breasts. Take a look here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm).

My favorite quote from the article:


The drapes are reported to have been hanging since Monday, drawing to a close the sport of photographers who infamously sprawled on the floor to snap the former Attorney General Edwin Meese holding aloft his report on pornography in front of the female statue.

As a photographer myself, I can identify with what fun that must have been.

[NeilUnreal]

Amazing Rando: What’s your art?

My parents are serious amateur photographers. They bought me a nice darkroom setup when I was about 13, so I guess my first art was photography. I studied photography a long time ago under a man who was a fan of the “old masters” of B&W photography, such as Weston, Adams, and Man Ray. My own efforts are probably most similar to the work of Man Ray, though not out of deliberate imitation. Our B&W work shares a kind of “fecund emptiness” that I didn’t recognize until later.

When I went to college, I intended to major in 3 dimensional art, but got side-tracked into science and engineering, which eventually became my career.

A few years ago, I decided to return to potrait and figure sculpture as a hobby. I quickly realized that my knowledge of artistic anatomy was below par, so I started learning portrait and figure drawing and painting as a way of learning anatomy. Eventually drawing and painting became ends in themselves, though I still have a long way to go, and I suspect I’ll always be better at 3D art than 2D.

It was probably the work of Edward Weston that first opened my eyes to the possibilities of the human body as as a subject for art. In retrospect, I feel that the human face and figure are the most beautiful things available to our material experience, and hence are the most important subjects in all visual art forms.

My favorite form of art photography remains Weston-style nudes and still lifes. In sculpture, I like the deco masters Erte and Chiparus, but especially the modern master Bruno Lucchesi. My favorite painters are J.W. Waterhouse and Maxfield Parrish, but I also like the modern masters D. Jeffrey Mims and Nelson Shanks. IMHO Mims is the best living painter of the portrait and figure.


-Neil

[Esther]

Socrates:

We don't need to be told explicitly because we are told implicitly that there can't have been too much time. I explained this in detail at When did Satan Fall? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=56280#post56280)

Interesting points you make in the post you referenced! I'll have to go back and read the first few chapters of Genesis again.



Esther:
I'm not sure which "pesky interpretation" you're referring to; there are so many.

But God wrote the Bible in propositional form to teach us (2 Tim. 3:16), so He meant us to be able to understand it.

Right. When I said that, I wasn't sure if he was referring to something Muz or I had said, rather sarcastically, as a "pesky interpretation".

[Amazing Rando]

01-05-2004 @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=364408#post364408)
NeilUnreal:

My parents are serious amateur photographers. They bought me a nice darkroom setup when I was about 13, so I guess my first art was photography. I studied photography a long time ago under a man who was a fan of the “old masters” of B&W photography, such as Weston, Adams, and Man Ray. My own efforts are probably most similar to the work of Man Ray, though not out of deliberate imitation. Our B&W work shares a kind of “fecund emptiness” that I didn’t recognize until later.


That's cool Neil! I'm purely a photographer at this point- other than photography and perhaps writing, I don't have an artistic bone in my body! When I try to draw, it looks awful!

[mariamommy]

Hello!

You are carrying on a long conversation on this topic... I just had to register just to throw in my two cents... Please visit
http://www.007b.com/

...and discussion can go on from there...

Maria

[Jade]

Hello!

You are carrying on a long conversation on this topic... I just had to register just to throw in my two cents... * edited by a moderator *

Maria Feel free to add to the discussion but do not advertise other websites. Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum)

[Taffsadar]

Who said I can't get past them?
Why would you have a problem with them if you could?