Why is nudity so offensive to the Religious Right? (Micah, tradition, dogma)

[Heartsong]

Originally Posted by IdahoRoamer

If you investigate what is considered erotic or arousing for different time frames or different parts of the world as you track changes in cultural norms. You will notice an underlying pattern, the more sexually repressed a society becomes(both visually and in their ability to act on it), the more perversions that come leaking out on the fringes.

However, the more interesting thing in our use here is how attire factors into it. As a society covers up increasing amounts of a womans body for example, the greater the sexual emphasis tends to become on the parts of the body that can remain seen by the naked eye. Which leaves the culmination as being the (loose fitting) burqua if you wanted to 'prevent lust through clothing."

Personally, I view that attitude(clothes prevent lust) as an arms race with no end game. It will always escalate to a higher level, and can travel well into the realm of becoming farcical. As you cover up what is currently a "lustful sight" only for something new to become the new "lustful sight" and so forth.

Of course, I also hold to individual accountability when it comes to sin. Yes, there are situations where you can lead another into sin, but for the 99.9% of those instances being alluded to in the scripture, that almost invariably involves a concerted, personal effort focused on that other person(or group).

Random sightings on the street, no matter how breath taking, do not fall under that purview. If the simple sight of a naked person, of either gender, is sufficient to send the viewer crashing down into the realm of sin and debauchery, then the fault doesn't lie with the naked person, it lies within the viewer. Which a certain poster in here doesn't want to acknowledge.

Very well said. I agree. Thank you.

[buzzpost]

I like naked people myself. I'm conservative politically, but I'd be involved in a nudism colony if I took the time to look into it, seriously.

[Hueffenhardt]

What I find so disturbing are people who get so up-in-arms over nudity, but aren't bothered by violent movies, games, or pics. Why are breasts or vaginas so much more appalling than depictions of violence in which human beings are nothing more than targets, and causing pain or taking a life is done so casually, and hating others as enemies is encouraged. How messed up and backwards is that?

Maybe, in the case of some porn and violence, one could make the argument that in both cases people are being objectified, in one case for sexual gratification and in the other case to make us desensitized to their pain and death. But, that should only encourage equal disdain for both. But, far too often, violence is seen as completely acceptable and mundane, even.

[IdahoRoamer]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

What I find so disturbing are people who get so up-in-arms over nudity, but aren't bothered by violent movies, games, or pics. Why are breasts or vaginas so much more appalling than depictions of violence in which human beings are nothing more than targets, and causing pain or taking a life is done so casually, and hating others as enemies is encouraged. How messed up and backwards is that?

You're no alone, a Justice on the Supreme Court of the US brought up a comparable point recently. Commenting about how strange and bizzare the first amendment must be, considering it now seems to find selling video games that portray chopping a proverbial "Lady Godiva" into tiny bits as protected speech... But harshly restricts any game that would dare to show her in the attire that made her a legend. It is basically saying "It's okay to shop people up(in effigy), just so long as you don't see any 'naughty bits' while doing so."

[Heartsong]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

What I find so disturbing are people who get so up-in-arms over nudity, but aren't bothered by violent movies, games, or pics. Why are breasts or vaginas so much more appalling than depictions of violence in which human beings are nothing more than targets, and causing pain or taking a life is done so casually, and hating others as enemies is encouraged. How messed up and backwards is that?

Maybe, in the case of some porn and violence, one could make the argument that in both cases people are being objectified, in one case for sexual gratification and in the other case to make us desensitized to their pain and death. But, that should only encourage equal disdain for both. But, far too often, violence is seen as completely acceptable and mundane, even.

I agree with you. It makes no sense. It is shocking how tolerant our "Christian" society is of violence. But you know, America was born in violence and has from the beginning been enslaving others -- the Native Americans were treated horribly and we imported slaves as well. There is a lot of blood in our nation's soil and a lot of blood on our nation's hands. That is just the way it is - and if we reap what we sow we are going to reap a harvest of blood and violence before all is said and done. For this I weep and I envy those who had the good sense not to bring children into this world.

[kingchef]

from the time adam and eve knew of their nakedness, they realized that they needed to practice modesty, for as they heard the lord walking in the garden, they had covered themselves w/ leaves before God asked them the question...who told thee that thou wast naked? this indicated that they were already conscious of the fact that they needed to be covered before encountering God.

again, jewish law forbade and directed the issues surrounding nakedness under the patriarchial law of moses and abraham. remember the issues concerning the sons seeing their father's nakedness and the displeasure of the Lord God that they laughed and were disrepectful concerning looking upon their father. another incident involved the daughters going in to their father, while he was drunk w/ wine. ultimately, the jewish laws were written down and became much stricter re: looking upon brother, sister, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, etc. the Old Testament constantly warned about the knowing of "thy fathers" nakedness. it was seen as disrespectful under jewish law.

in the New Testament, we were warned to flee any appearance of evil...to flee youthful lust...for women to dress modestly w/ proper modesty. as it is sinful to even look upon a man or woman and lust after them, clothed or unclothed, one certainly is expected to be modest, when appearing in public or dressing in front of others, males in front of males, and females in front of females. it has nothing to do w/ right wing or liberal. Christianity has never been concerned w/ this wordly concept.

there are new testament churches in many parts of the country, particularly in tennessee, alabama, georgia, texas, mississippi, and kentucky that remind the men, who are participating in the worship services on a particular sunday, to make sure they wear modest clothing, in order to stand before the congregation to offer public prayers, to wait on the Lord's table and serve communion, lead the hymns, or teach in sunday school. it is a very common subject for those Christians.

[IdahoRoamer]

Originally Posted by kingchef

from the time adam and eve knew of their nakedness, they realized that they needed to practice modesty, for as they heard the lord walking in the garden, they had covered themselves w/ leaves before God asked them the question...who told thee that thou wast naked? this indicated that they were already conscious of the fact that they needed to be covered before encountering God.

again, jewish law forbade and directed the issues surrounding nakedness under the patriarchial law of moses and abraham. remember the issues concerning the sons seeing their father's nakedness and the displeasure of the Lord God that they laughed and were disrepectful concerning looking upon their father. another incident involved the daughters going in to their father, while he was drunk w/ wine. ultimately, the jewish laws were written down and became much stricter re: looking upon brother, sister, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, etc. the Old Testament constantly warned about the knowing of "thy fathers" nakedness. it was seen as disrespectful under jewish law.

And I guess someone failed their lessons in the "Jewish Language" ie: Hebrew. There are at least five different words in Hebrew that loosely translate as "naked" in English. And the context in which one of those 5 specific words gets used has significant import.

Compare(with working hyperlinks this time, as I believe I've now posted enough) two of them with largely positive(arowm) or neutral at worst(eyrom) connotations in regards to the naked/being naked:

Genesis 2:25
naked(arowm), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked(eyrom); and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked(eyrom); and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked(eyrom)? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

1Sa 19:24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked(arowm) all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, [Is] Saul also among the prophets?

Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked(arowm) and barefoot.
20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked(arowm) and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked(arowm) and barefoot, even with [their] buttocks uncovered, to the shame(ervah) of Egypt.

Job 24:7 They cause the naked(arowm) to lodge without clothing, that they have no covering in the cold. 8 They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rock for want of a shelter.
9 They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor.
10 They cause him to go naked(arowm) without clothing, and they take away the sheaf from the hungry;
11 Which make oil within their walls, and tread their winepresses, and suffer thirst.

Now compare this against the third one that you are alluding to, which you are correct in it being roundly condemned. Which was actually generally translated as "nakedness" rather than "naked" and as I already mentioned earlier, translators and biblical scholars are widely agreed that when the translation that loosely comes out as "uncover nakedness(ervah)" is an oblique reference to sex. And really, any honest reading of Leviticus 18 is pretty clear that they ARE talking about sexual intercourse for most of the chapter.

Specifically "ervah" could be translated as the following among some other things:
1) nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda
a) pudenda (implying shameful exposure)
b) nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour
c) exposed, undefended (fig.)

Which gives us the following that you obliquely mentioned yourself.

Lev 18:6-19
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness(ervah): I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness(ervah) of thy father, or the nakedness(ervah) of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness(ervah).
8 The nakedness(ervah) of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness(ervah).
9 The nakedness(ervah) of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness(ervah) thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness(ervah) of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness(ervah) thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness(ervah).
11 The nakedness(ervah) of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness(ervah).
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness(ervah) of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness(ervah) of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness(ervah) of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness(ervah) of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness(ervah).
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness(ervah) of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness(ervah).
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness(ervah) of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness(ervah); for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness(ervah), beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness(ervah), as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

In the above, Lev 18:8, 10 and 16 in particular should be problematic for anyone trying to read it literally. Which should be helping to further point out the little matter that they're not actually talking about nudity, they're discussing something that (typically) involves involves it(sex).


As further bolster to my assertion that "uncovering nakedness(ervah)" is a reference for sex, I'd like to see someone explain how this passage is NOT talking about something other than actual nudity.

Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness(ervah): both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Since taking the above literally, a man having sex with his (step-)mother is literally making his father go naked? Uh, what? How does that work?


Verse 20 and 21 a little further down in chapter 20 likewise have the same problem, only in regards to Uncles and Aunts, and sisters-in-law:

Lev 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness(ervah): they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness(ervah); they shall be childless.

Just going through sequential uses of ervah, where it also turns up with a slightly different translation should give a strong indicator that this particular word is not viewed highly.

Deu 23:14 For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean(ervah) thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness(ervah) in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

But of course, there are always these:

Isa 47:3 Thy nakedness(ervah) shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness(ervah): yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

------------------

in the New Testament, we were warned to flee any appearance of evil...to flee youthful lust...for women to dress modestly w/ proper modesty. as it is sinful to even look upon a man or woman and lust after them, clothed or unclothed, one certainly is expected to be modest, when appearing in public or dressing in front of others, males in front of males, and females in front of females. it has nothing to do w/ right wing or liberal. Christianity has never been concerned w/ this wordly concept.

Obviously you have not read the scriptures that actually discuss modesty. It says nothing about hemlines, body coverage or anything else. It basically gives strong guidance for people to be humble in how they dress, and to not be overly vain in the amount of time and effort they put into their appearance. If you want, I can cite the relevant scriptures that explicitly mention modesty for you if you're unable to find them.

Basically, if you are humble in how you attire yourself, you are modest. Now the real mind bender for you on that one is that the "humble attire" criteria means that "modest" dress in one situation can be woefully immodest in another. My general rule of thumb would be if what you're (not) wearing is being (not) worn for the purpose of attracting attention, you are being immodest, as you are not being humble.

Which means there are plenty of women who dress in a "modest manner" to show how "virtuous" they are, and of course knowingly drawing attention to themselves in the process, are actually being quite immodest by doing so.

[kingchef]

i didn't have the time to take hebrew, but i made an A in greek, and i received a hard earned A in hermeneutics, looks as if you got an A in sarcasm. i'm quite aware of the problems w/ translations, but since i assumed the question was posed, by inference, that it would be read in english, i chose to disucss the subject in english. to split hairs, we could go into issues of sects of jews, too.

[Huckleberry3911948]

its hard for me to answer your question bek i dont know where u r coming from. why the advocacy for nudity?

[IdahoRoamer]

Originally Posted by kingchef

i didn't have the time to take hebrew, but i made an A in greek, and i received a hard earned A in hermeneutics, looks as if you got an A in sarcasm. i'm quite aware of the problems w/ translations, but since i assumed the question was posed, by inference, that it would be read in english, i chose to disucss the subject in english. to split hairs, we could go into issues of sects of jews, too.

When the source material being discussed did not originate in the language the discussion is being held in, then the nature of the translation process does come into play, and getting "closer to the source" as it is, would be the most effective route to better determine what the writer actually meant when writing it. Concepts DO frequently get "lost in translation" as it is. So while it is convenient for you to keep the discussion restricted to "english only" doing so mean you have no interest in trying to understand what the writers intended, you have your view, and you simply don't want to have your position challenged.

Also the other thing to bear in mind is that in the case of much of this material, you are at least 2,600 years removed from its context. Cultures change over time, as amazing as that may be for some to grasp. Further complicating things for you(and me) is the matter is that different cultures have different expectations as to what is "normal" and with that difference, comes a lot of material that will be left to inference by the writer. You loose the basis and context from which the author is writing in(or from), and you can come up with very different outcomes from what the writer intended.

Also for your reference, that site I'm linking to(the blue letter bible) is a cross-linked database that contains the entirety of Strong's Concordance, which is a very powerful reference tool when trying to cross-reference words(like "naked" or "nakedness" in this case) to what the Hebrew word was in a particular passage, and determine where else those words were used at(and in turn their respective contexts). That concordance is over 100 years old, and is held in very high regard even to this day, and is still being mainted and revised. And considering you report being familiar with hermeneutics, I'd be surprised if you are oblivious to the existence of Strong Codes, since that was primarily what I making use of in the previous posting, only using the transliteration instead of the code directly(although the codes are linked to).