|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei -> RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches (4/18/2008 11:36:08 PM)
|
Wow! Thanks for taking the time to answer my rather lengthy post.
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
This post is getting way to long, so I'm not responding to everything.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Mr. Lewis wasn't a nudist.
No, he wasn't. he was a Christian apologist and a clear articulator of core Christian truth.
My point was that if such a man as this refused to declare all exposure of skin to be sinful, how is that so many others are so sure of things that would be in direct contradiction to such a highly regarded Christian spokesman?
I would add that simply declaring that he was not a nudist is not sufficient response to the clear statements that he made. I asked if he was wrong. I think it's a fair question and I'd like to hear why people would disagree with his statements.
I think you are not understanding Lewis or what folks are posting. You are using him to support your idea that we should all be running around nude. Where have I once stated that we SHOULD be all running around nude?
I simply disagree with those who declare that we may not, in any context. The Bible simply does not have such a command.
quote:
Lewis never even implied that nor was he talking about that. You are also assuming that we are disagreeing with Lewis' notion that what should be covered is influenced by culture. I have never denied that nor can I see anyone else here who has. In fact, we have asserted that very notion which you are rejecting. We have said that in our fallen world, in our culture, nakedness means something and because it means something, cover up or you are (1) causing others to struggle and (2) promoting something that Scripture doesn't promote. You are saying we should reject culture and change it and screw propiety. You're the one rejecting what Lewis is saying, not us. Again, where have I stated or even suggested that we "reject culture and screw propriety"?
I think you missed Lewis' point that the standard of "modesty" is a man-made convention. Isn't that what he said? Isn't that what he meant? Do you agree or disagree?
I fully agree that in our culture, nakedness means something bad. But I strongly disagree that the culture's take on nakedness is correct. Sure, I've got to figure out how to live in a fallen world where everybody seems to think "sex" instead of "baby's milk" when they see a woman's breast. Culture's attitude is wrong.
But I have to point out again, that you did not try and explain what Lewis meant, you only tried to tell me what I meant, but you have not represented my position back to me very well (in like manner, where I misrepresented your position back to you below, I apologize)
quote:
quote:
quote:
Scripture does not say we are to seek to return to pre-Adam times. In fact, God made sure when He kicked Adam & Eve out of Eden, that they would never return.
You are quite correct. And the good news is that God told us exactly why He forbade them to return. It was so they would not take from the Tree of Life and live forever. God's words. God's reasons. Should we read any more into the reason that precisely what God declared? I don't think so.
Since you ignored my previous point on this, I'll bring it up again:
When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge (it was not the Tree of Life - both trees were there, but God only commanded that they not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - reread the passage esp. Gen 2:9 and Gen 2:17), they received the knowledge of good and evil. When they received this knowledge (ie - knew right from wrong), the very first thing they saw, was that they were naked and they were ashamed of that and covered themselved. Yes, they knew "good and evil." And they chose the good, right?
Hiding from God must be good, because Adam and Eve knew good and evil and chose the good.
Deflecting the blame when confronted with sin must be good. Adam and Eve knew good and chose it.
Covering their nakedness must be a good thing. Adam and Eve were, by this time so experienced with fighting the lies of the Enemy and overcoming the negative effects of the Fall, that they instantly knew that nakedness was evil so they covered themselves. Shame and covering has to be good.
Please pardon my sarcasm, but I really don't see how any of us can conclude that simply because Adam and Eve now "knew" good and evil, that they automatically chose the good! I submit that they very well might have known what was good and what was evil, but their newly depraved minds chose the evil response instead of the good one!
It might be worth taking a look at that word "know" or "knew" in reference to their "knowing good and evil"... it's the same word that is later used when it says "Adam knew his wife and she conceived." It's about experiential knowledge, not content knowledge.
I believe that it really means that prior to the fall, they simply had not experienced evil. They "knew" nothing about it. On the other hand, they already "knew" the "good," did they not? It turns out that it was the "good" that they turned away from! Their experience of shame was a clear indicator to God that they had sinned. He wanted to point that out to Adam, so He asked him (if I may paraphrase), "who have you been listening to so that now think that nakedness is a problem for you? Have you eaten..."
They did not receive some great depth of wisdom and discernment from that tree. Instead, they were defiled by its fruit. There is no other reasonable position! We cannot presume that any of their actions thereafter are to be models for our behavior. They were at that moment, unrepentant sinners in rebellion against God. They were NOT examples of righteousness.
quote:
God, not satan, then covered them.
Also read Genesis 3:21-24 where God clothed them. What does He say as He does this? "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Do I need to explain that? That quote has to do with why He kicked them out of Eden. It has nothing to do with why He clothed them.
And exactly what does the Bible say about why He clothed them? I've looked. It says nothing. It is never even referenced again in all of Scripture. Not even to comment on the "sacrifice of an animal for Adam's sin." Was there a sacrifice? We are not told. Yes, it was "skins" (presumably -- but not stated -- from an animal). We can guess (but are not told) that the animals died at the hands of God as a sacrifice. We can see a "type" of "blood that covers" here, but nowhere in Scripture is that referenced, proclaimed, or taught. Only men teach that. It may be true... and there's some beauty to the concept, but we really can't know for sure.
But IF that was what happened, and that was what God wanted to emphasize to us, I find it rather incongruous that God would leave that fact undeclared in all of Scripture. It would be the very first sacrifice for sin. How could such a notable event (a sacrifice for sin) go undeclared?
God gave us more details as to why He kept them out of the Garden than He gave us about why He clothed them. Look at the context... they were no longer in the perfect Garden. Might they now need coverings for warmth? They were going to be facing thorns now... might they now need physical protection from them? No, these things are not told us either, but they are at least suggestions drawn from the immediate context.
You seem to believe that you know WHY God clothed them. The truth is that whatever you or I believe about that question, be both have to admit that God didn't actually tell us. Therefore, neither of us has any true biblical authority behind our belief.
quote:
quote:
Again, I reiterate, God never told us that any of the goodness of the Garden was to be rejected in our lives today. In fact, He wants us to live in relationship with Him. He wants us to pattern our marriages after the model set forth in the pre-fall Garden (see Gen. 2:24 and Matt 19:4-8 where Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24). Women will have pain in childbirth, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to alleviate that pain. Thorns and weeds will grow to inhibit the cultivation of good plants, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to eradicate them from our gardens.
You are assuming that nakedness is something God wants us to seek and that clothing is bad. I see no such Scripture. Have I ever said that clothing was bad? have I ever said that God wants us to seek nakedness? If I have please quote me!
In fact, if I have, I will contradict myself here and clearly declare that clothing in and of itself is NOT bad, and God has NEVER told us that we should seek nakedness!
On the other hand, can you show me where God explicitly told us that clothing is REQUIRED? Can you show me where God told us to reject nakedness?
What you don't seem to understand is that I have not promoted nakedness here in anything I have posted. (can you find one instance in which I have?). I am only promoting "the middle ground." I believe that God does not forbid nakedness, therefore neither should we. Period. (The converse is true, too, of course... God does not forbid clothing, and neither should we.)
quote:
In fact, I see that once the fall happened, things changed - man now saw the difference between good and evil and because of that running around the world naked for all the world to see became unacceptable. Man was not "cursed" to wear clothing. The only way it would be acceptable to run around showing everything to the world is if we could take back what happened and no longer know the difference between good and evil. THAT's why Adam and Eve were clothed by God. How can you be so sure about "the only way"? Has God so stated? if not, then why do you?
God seemed to be "ok" with nakedness before the Fall of man... and He already knew "good and evil." God did not change, man did. If God was fine with nakedness before the fall, when and how did His perspective change? (can God change His perspective??) No, it was only MAN'S perspective on nakedness that changed. Not God's. Before the fall, Man's perspective matched God's. After the fall, their perspectives no longer matched (God doesn't change). Man was wrong.
If we read the passage with the clear understanding of the immutability of God, then we must find another understanding of "God clothed them" than "because their nakedness now offended him."
Answer this... why IS it a sin before God to be unclothed? Is it just around other people? Or can we pray and approach him even if we are unclothed? Is there anything about our bodies that offends the holiness of God?
quote:
quote:
All of these things existed in perfection before the Fall. All of them, we still to this day fight hard to overcome. There is only one impact of the fall which the world seems to tell us is beyond redemption...
Before the fall, there was no shame about their bodies. At the first sin, they suddenly had shame. But rather than fight that shame, we have embraced it as if it were God's will. This in spite of the fact that God was not pleased that Adam was concerned about his nakedness (Gen. 3;11 is a rebuke, not an affirmation.)
God asked Adam who told him he was naked because the only way Adam would have noticed that was that he had eaten what he wasn't supposed to. God was not upset by clothes. He was upset that Adam's shame meant he did what he wasn't supposed to do: eat of the fruit God told him not to. Your child takes a cookie from the jar right before dinner. You find him/her with the cookie in hand and you ask, "Who told you you could have a cookie?" Was that a statement of affirmation, or a rebuke?
Of course, you know the answer.
In like manner, God's question was a rebuke.
Adam sinned by eating. But his sin didn't stop there. Being ashamed of our bodies is sin. Covering our bodies is not sin. Covering them because of shame for our bodies IS sin... not because of the covering, but because of the shame.
quote:
quote:
God gave us very clear limits on the expression of our sexuality. He did not give us such limits on nudity. The only way you can reach that conclusion is if you presume that to be naked can only be considered a sexual expression. Yet that notion is not declared as absolute in the Scriptures (of course, sometimes it is, but also, sometimes it is not). A simple and honest survey of the Scriptures will reveal that.
I never said nakedness can only be considered a sexual expression. I used to be a CNA. I've seen more naked bodies than most nudists. Don't twist what I'm saying. Great. Then you should really know the truth of what I'm trying to say! There was no disgrace nor dishonor for you to see people's naked bodies. It is nothing more than a significant part of who they are! It's not all about sex. They were NOT in sin to allow you to see their bodies, and you were not in sin to see them. They did not disrespect you by being uncovered, nor did you disrespect them for having seen them. That is what is true and right.
That is my whole point!!
quote:
quote:
The unclothed human body bears the literal visual likeness of God. I don't know how that works, but that's exactly what God's Word says. "Image" in Scripture never means anything different.
The most notable and significant observation that can be made about a naked human body is that it is a self-portrait of God. Therefore, to consider it lewd, indecent, lustful, sexual (only), or immodest is actually an insult to God Himself. And that is exactly the perspective that Satan has carefully cultivated in our culture... and in our churches.
Wow. You think God is a physical man sitting up on a physical throne? Sorry, but you are wrong. God is not a physical being. Image is not referring to a physical image. That's another thread though. You have to think outside your box here. Read what I wrote very carefully... I never once even hinted that God was in any way physical. He's a Spirit. We know that.
But we are pretty clueless about the true nature of the spirit realm. Do we know that spirits have no shape? Of course we don't know that.
But what exactly is meant in Exo. 12:8... "With him [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds he form of the LORD."? What did Moses "behold"? It was God, no doubt, but He obviously had some "form" that could be seen. (The same word is used in the OT to describe the physical beauty of Rachel and Joseph).
If I made a clay model of a candle in flame, you would recognize it immediately, even though the substance of the clay is utterly different from the substance of a flame. Therefore, to say that Man bears God's "image" is not saying anything about the essence of God Himself... just His shape.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the Scripture right there in Gen. 3:8 where it clearly states "They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,..." God was walking. How can that be? The Scriptures clearly indicate that God was walking... that requires legs of some sort... even if they are non-corporeal spiritual "legs". They were evidently physical-like enough to make noise while He walked. I can't explain it. But I can't deny it, either.
You cannot simply dismiss "image" based upon the truth that "God is not a physical being."
And once again, I assert that the word here translated "image" is not used in Scripture EVER where it does not reference visible likeness. Do not dismiss that without proving it to be wrong.
quote:
And even if it were true, what God speaks when He clothed Adam would contradict your little image of God sitting up on His throne buck naked. (I have not spoken disparagingly towards our God. I would appreciate you not trying to put such disrespectful words in my mouth...)
What did God "speak" when He clothed them? I see no spoken Words of God... there is even no inspired commentary on the event. Nothing. Just a single 15 word sentence reporting a factual historical event. No command. No explanation. No comment.
God did not intend for there to be any comment on the event. He did not intend for us to presume a "command" to be covered at all times. Commands are spoken. Commands are given. There is nothing of the sort here.
quote:
quote:
And don't suggest that covering them is an act of honor... (If I draped a towel over the photograph of my wife when guests come over, it would NOT be considered an act of honor, particularly if it was a self-portrait!) That's what Adam and Eve did at the bidding of Satan. It's an insult to God... IF we do it out of shame, fear, or embarrassment over simply being seen naked.
If it's an insult to God, why did God clothe Adam and Eve? Was He insulting Himself?
What were God's reasons for clothing them? Did their genitals or breasts now offend Him? I don't think so. And God certainly didn't say so. In fact, He's been in the business of making naked babies who were delivered through naked women's genitals and feeding them at naked breasts billions of times ever since. No, God has no problem with the naked human form... remember, He was the designer of it. The reason for His clothing them must be elsewhere.
If God was now embarrassed of their nakedness, or offended by it, then yes, He was insulting Himself. Such a suggestion by itself should tell us how absurd it is to believe that He covered them because His image on their bodies was now sinful.
quote:
quote:
Satan wants us to be ashamed of our bodies. It started with Adam and Even and it continues to this day.
Where does Scripture make that assertion?
I conclude that from the clear implication that it was Satan that told Adam and Eve that they were naked. I conclude that because the very next thing God tells us after he declares Adam and Eve to be "naked and unashamed" was that Satan showed up and started telling his lies. Next thing you know, Adam and Eve are ashamed of their naked bodies.
No, it's not stated straight up, but that's why I conclude it.
Tell me this... I have yet to hear ANYBODY give me even a remotely plausible answer to this question...
Being in God's "image" and "likeness" are about much more than our physical form. But if we reject the physical aspect of image-bearing, in what way are we in God's image any more than the angels?
I submit to you that if you take away the physical aspect, there is NOTHING that makes us more in God's image than the angels. Every God-like characteristic that we have, they also have.
Therefore, I suggest that it was the motivation of jealousy in Satan's heart that prompted him to urge shame in the heart of Adam over the one thing that Adam had which Satan did not have... a body literally in God's image.
We know that if you give Satan an inch, he'll take a mile. It is utterly illogical to assume that Satan's stopped talking to Adam and Eve the moment that his recorded words are concluded. We don't know what else he said, but we can be quite confident that he did not stop lying to them. Just as we can be quite confident that Scripture does not record every word that Eve said to Adam in the narrative.
quote:
quote:
quote:
(1) kosmeo: to put in order, arrange, make ready, prepare
to ornament, adorn
The root word means "order." ornament and adorn do not support that root word meaning and are associated in English with decorating something to make it more visually appealing. yet it's clear from Paul's instructions that the "decorating" is not what he is commanding. For this reason, I don't believe that the word "adorn" is a good translation of the Greek word. "order," "arrange," and "prepare" seem to capture the concept of "order" in the Greek word much better. And they do not contradict the context.
I listed the meanings of the "root word" from the Greek. You have chosen to reject the ones that don't fit your agenda. Poor exegesis sir. Check it again.
You will find that root word "kosmos" is always translated "world" in the NT... except where it is describing a woman's presentation of herself. (1 Peter 3:3) Therefore, to conclude that it has some meaning of "adornment" or "decoration" when it references a woman is not credible. We must seek to understand the word as having the closest possible meaning to its consistent usage elsewhere in the Bible. I fail to see how "adorn" does that better than "arrange." And like I said, "adorn" has ENGLISH connotations which were NOT part of the Greek, and which border on being in conflict with Paul's instructions in the rest of the verse. (in other words, "adorn" is contrary to the immediate context, the most important consideration in regards to a word's meaning)
quote:
quote:
quote:
(2) kosmioß: well arranged, seemly, modest "well arranged" seems to me to capture the meaning of the word's root meaning of "order" here.
The word "modest" has little or nothing to do with "order." In my opinion, "modest" only fits with describing the rejection of ostentatious attire. That is one of the meanings of the English word "modest"
And your false assumption in the first definition, leads you to a false conclusion here. How can a word that means "order" possibly mean "adequately covered"??
The root meaning ("order") has nothing to do even with avoiding dressing ostentatiously! In fact, it has nothing to do with dressing at all! That's a completely different Greek word. It is only the context which demonstrates that Paul was using the word to tell women to not overdress. But I submit that the essence of what Paul was trying to say is carried by 'katastole," not by "kosmios." That's the adjective. His point was in the noun.
quote:
quote:
quote:
(3) katastole: a lowering, letting down
a garment let down, dress, attire Yes, that is the definition found in our reference materials, like Strong's and Vine's.
However, there are several observations worth making about this word.
1. This is the only place it appears in all of Scripture. Therefore, we cannot look to other passages to help us discern it's true meaning. We have to rely upon context, etymology, and extrabiblical sources.
Context is always the way to determine a word's meaning. Looking at other verses out of the context to determine a words meaning is poor translation. Here you are simply mistaken. Context is the key. But context comes in many forms, and all of them are important... but in descending priority:
1. immediate context (the words right around it).
2. Author's context (same author, same book).
3. Scriptural context (the rest of the testament and the rest of the entire Bible)
4. Linguistic context (the language that is used)
5. Historical/Cultural context (when and to whom it was written)
So we must consider how the word is used elsewhere. And we find that the word kosmios, for example, is also found in 1 Tim 3:2 where it is translated "respectable" That's not the same as "modest" at all... especially the kind of "cover my body so no one can lust after me" modesty.
The suggestion that "katastole" means a garment fails the first test of context above, because whatever it is, it must encompass both overdressing (the negative) and doing good works (the positive). So even from the most important contextual consideration, "clothing" (or "apparel") is questionable as a valid translation! We have nothing on it from #2 or #3 because it simply is nowhere else used in the Bible. We can mix #3 and #4 by considering Scriptural use of etymologically related words (just like you invoked with kosmos, kosmios, and kosmeo above), and from that sort of contextual analysis, we can find NO basis for thinking that katastole is a garment.
quote:
quote:
2. Strong's will also tell you that katastole (a noun) is related to the verb "katastello" which does appear twice in the NT. Both are in Acts 19:35-36 and it is translated "After quieting the crowd" and "you ought to keep calm"
I ask you: How can a word that means "keep calm" in the verb form mean "attire" in the noun form?
By your logic here, I suppose attire, whose root word is "tire" means that my attire (clothing) has something to do with feeling worn out and exhausted. The words in your example are not etymologically related, so your example of comparison is nonsense.
But your deflection with a spurious example enabled you to avoid the direct question that I asked.
"How can a word that means "keep calm" in the verb form mean "attire" in the noun form?
Would you please address that question, or else demonstrate that my research is invalid?
Bear in mind that it is a linguistic fact that etymologically related words which are rarely used in common speech will always be more similar in meaning than etymologically related words which are used everyday. In this case, the two words that I compared were used a collective total of 3 times in all the NT. Their meaning must be related.
quote:
quote:
quote:
...It is not a license to be a nudist. It's not about nudity and the very verse implies that women should be covered. Actually, it does not imply that. It very accurately implies that women are prone to use clothing to gain attention. And that is precisely what Paul is instructing against. To say that this is an emphasis on making sure that a woman is clothed is to miss Paul's point.
I never said that the emphasis was on a woman being clothed. That does not negate that Paul is not saying a woman should just strip naked because clothing doesn't matter. My entire point on this passage is that it is not a command to stay dressed at all times. Yet that is the principle application that I have heard about it all my life. I dare say the same has been true for most all of us. It is not license to be a nudist, but neither does it forbid it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
How much? That does depend a lot on culture. Exactly. And that was Mr. Lewis' point as well. The "how much" that is appropriate could vary tremendously from culture to culture.
Take note that you have just acknowledged that the Bible doesn't tell a woman how much of her body to keep covered. Not here, nor anywhere else in Scripture.
I've never denied that. There is a vast difference however between the Bible telling us cover "x" and being a nudist. I'm sorry you can't see that difference. It's huge.
And there is a huge difference between what God says in His word about forbidding nakedness (He doesn't) and what our culture and the church tells us.
If God really wanted us to stay covered all the time, then He would have said so directly. What I hear instead is the promotion of a man-made rule to be on level with God's Word. And that is sin. None of us are under ANY obligation to accept and live by any man made rule as if it were God's absolute law. Period. Even the one about nakedness. If God didn't say it, then it isn't His rule.
[qutoe]quote:
quote:
quote:
For instance, in other Scriptures, Paul exhorts women that IF it is a disgrace to have their hair short, they shouldn't have their hair short. Why? In many cultures at that time, short hair was a way of advertising that you were a temple prostitute. I've heard things like that before. Do you have historical documentation of that assertion? I truly do not know if it's true or not. But, I fully concur with your implication that understanding a passage within its historical context is crucial to understanding the original author's actual intent.
It's hard to find a source that isn't some kind of sex site, but here you go... Thank you! I'll check it out!
quote:
quote:
The writer of Hebrews referenced the running of the race, too... and actually invoked the mental image of the runners casting "aside every encumbrance... which so easily entangles us" -- an obvious reference to their casting off their clothing to run unencumbered -- as an example to us that we cast off our sin so as not to be encumbered in running the race of service for Christ. Would he invoke such a mental picture if the activity was actually a sin to participate in or observe?
Nudity in sport was not common back then, so I seriously doubt that Paul was trying to get folks to imagination nude folks running down a race track there. In fact, even where it occurred, women & children were often banned from participating or spectating. Please do some honest research on this. Google "ancient Greece" "olympics" and see what you come up with. There is no credible dispute of any sort that they did not compete in the games naked. It's even captured in their artwork. They were naked. Everyone in ancient times knew it. The writer of Hebrews used it as an illustration to teach spiritual truth.
And while I don't know if women were in attendance, would you by virtue of that fact concede that the NT authors had no problem with same-gender nudity? If so, where do we ever see God specifying the mixed-gender prohibition?
quote:
quote:
The truest and most significant meaning of nakedness is to be found in Gen. 1:26-27.
quote:
"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;' ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (NASB)
And when God got done with that job, and he stepped back to inspect His work, the man and the woman were fully nude.
Then Scripture records these remarkable words: "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Gen. 1:31)
This is the truth about our bodies...unclothed. This is God's Word. It is true.
Yet that truth is abandoned, ignored, redefined, spurned, argued against, and explained away.
I addressed this earlier, but God never said it was good for man to be naked. Don't confuse the natural state of things with what God wants for everyone at all times and in all circumstances. God is not a man sitting up on His thrown naked. I know this argument is a favorite of nudists, but the only way to buy it, is to ignore the passages I spoke of earlier when I addressed this. God DID say that His creation was "very good" while the man and woman were naked. Every last detail of God's creation was very good. Even His highest creation... maybe especially His highest creation... and they were nude when He said it!!!
I'm sorry -- you might not find that fact significant, but I do. To me it is MUCH more powerful than the suggestion that God later (somehow) had a distaste for their nakedness and covered it as a result. Notice that God actually offered divine commentary about them when they were nude. He offered no such commentary when He gave them clothes.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Christianity is not about our freedom. Gal. 5:1 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."
It's not?
Context.[;)] It's not talking about freedom to do what we want, when we want. It's freedom from the bondage of sin and the wages of sin. We are no longer slaves to sin.
I agree. But it's a tactical mistake to say something so dogmatically without giving the context when there is a verse in Scripture that so directly contradicts your declaration.
But beyond that, it is important to note that the context into which Paul wrote those words was to tell the Galatians to NOT submit to man-made rules about circumcision being required for salvation! It is also interesting to note that the "man-made" rule that Paul was talking about was a rule that God had genuinely established for the nation of Israel! So, in a sense, it was really a God-made rule that Paul still considered a man-made rule because they were trying to apply the rule in the wrong context!!! How much more should we reject man-made rules which are never declared by God to be His rule!
quote:
quote:
quote:
It's about following Christ. It's not about doing what we want and what we like. It's about loving our neighbor and reaching the lost. I would agree. And since Christ never commanded us to always keep our bodies covered, then it must be concluded that one's choice to be unclothed a cannot be considered, by itself, an act of disobedience to Christ.
Christ never commanded us not to dump toxic chemicals in our neighbors backyards. What's your point? That doing so is not an act of disobedience to Christ?
And that illustration takes us again all the way back to Gen. 1 where God assigned to mankind the job of being caretakers of this beautiful planet... a charge that still stands... and one that your illustration clearly would be in contempt of.
I'm tempted to use sarcasm again and suggest that since that charge was delivered in the Garden -- and since we cannot go back to the Garden -- we no longer are under that charge. But I won't.
However, you can see how it amounts to "pick and choose" when we look into Eden and say that some of it still applies to us today, and some of it (actually only one thing that I can think of) must simply remain beyond our pursuit. God's Word is not a "pick and choose" book. Nor is it a book that we can add to except at our peril.
God's word doesn't declare that we must not ever be publicly unclothed. Neither should we.
That statement, and that statement alone is my primary point.
AID
|
|
|
|