God's take on nudity

[gilligan8914]

If one doesn't wear clothes, it doesn't necessarily mean they're naked.

What does naked mean if it is not without clothes?

 

[Pegg]

What do you make of practicing nudists and others who have experience of going nude in company, and who say they and others are less likely, rather than more likely, to sexually objectify a nude person than they are to sexually objectify a clothed person? Are they merely delusional, in your view? Or, do you think they might have some understanding of their own experiences?

not at all, I think they are fighting that wrong tendency to view nudity as bad. If their motive is because they really dont want to perpetuate the wrong attitude that the world in general displayes, then good on them.

I'm sure that in the future paradise we will all be able to walk around nude because mankind will not continue with the wrong views they have currently. And if some people are already rising above them, then good on them.

Is it your understanding, then, that human dignity depends on being clothed? Specifically, is it conceivable to you that a man or woman could remain dignified while nude in company?

human dignity depends on how others view your nakedness.

If you are in the company of 50 people who are do not hold to the worlds warped view of sexuality, then you are in good company and you will have no need of clothing.

But if you are in the company of 50 people who view your nudity as something sexual, then you have no dignity among them because they do not view your nakedness in a dignified way.

This is why Adam and Eve felt the need to cover up themsevles. And its why God gave them long garments. If your fellow man will not dignify you, then you will need to wear clothing.

 

[nazz]

Dude! You should have read the whole page on that site - it says enchanters and users of enchantment = Sorcerers.

Yes, and it is even clear from Strong's that is a very bad translation of the original. You basically pulled some words out of context.

LOL - I never said the majority of Gnostics believed that.

I said it was a well know belief - and I gave you a quote - and suggested books on the subject.

Well if you are simply contending that some Gnostics may have held that view then okay. But it is a very unusual viewpoint considering how the rest of the Gnostics viewed Eve and the Serpent.

 

[Skwim]

What does naked mean if it is not without clothes?

Without a towel wrapped around the body.

 

[Ingledsva]

Dude! You should have read the whole page on that site - it says enchanters and users of enchantment = Sorcerers.

Yes, and it is even clear from Strong's that is a very bad translation of the original. You basically pulled some words out of context.

LOL! You really will say anything to appear right.

May I suggest you go back to the top and read the conversation from the top down.

I am correct.

LOL - I never said the majority of Gnostics believed that.

I said it was a well know belief - and I gave you a quote - and suggested books on the subject.

Well if you are simply contending that some Gnostics may have held that view then okay. But it is a very unusual viewpoint considering how the rest of the Gnostics viewed Eve and the Serpent.

And as usual you are ignoring what has actually been said. Reread the thread to see where my replies to you come from.

Also, it is not unusual, it is very will known by anyone that studies the religions of Abraham.

*

 

[nazz]

Stamping your foot on the ground does not make you right (apparently something very important to you). I have been more than willing to change my views but you have done nothing to support your own.

BTW, I did check out Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. I found nothing that confirmed anything you stated. I couldn't even find a reference to the passage from the Gospel of Philip I quoted above. On the contrary everything in that book confirmed what I have been saying all along about Gnostic attitudes towards Eve and the Serpent.

Now you can have the last word which I rather expect will be "No, I'm RIGHT and you are WRONG" with as usual nothing given to back that up.

 

[Ingledsva]

Stamping your foot on the ground does not make you right (apparently something very important to you). I have been more than willing to change my views but you have done nothing to support your own.

BTW, I did check out Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. I found nothing that confirmed anything you stated. I couldn't even find a reference to the passage from the Gospel of Philip I quoted above. On the contrary everything in that book confirmed what I have been saying all along about Gnostic attitudes towards Eve and the Serpent.

Now you can have the last word which I rather expect will be "No, I'm RIGHT and you are WRONG" with as usual nothing given to back that up.

"No, I'm RIGHT and you are WRONG" LOL!

PS. I never said Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, or the other books had anything to do with Philip. You really do need to go to the top and re-read from the top down to see what is being said. I listed material having references to the ancient idea of Eve and Serpent sex.

And how did you get foot stomping out of a very laidback "Dude?" LOL!

*