Why is public nudity condemned by the Christian Church

[1couple]

Hi everyone and fellow Christians
Given the title of this thread, I will get right to it.
My husband and myself have been born again Christians for 25 years and very active nudists for about the same time.
We have often wondered and discussed why if the Bible and /or Jesus never directly condemned public nudity, then why do Christians?
Let me know if there is anyone out there that has a good answer to that.

[Miles]

Hi everyone and fellow Christians
Given the title of this thread, I will get right to it.
My husband and myself have been born again Christians for 25 years and very active nudists for about the same time.
We have often wondered and discussed why if the Bible and /or Jesus never directly condemned public nudity, then why do Christians?
Let me know if there is anyone out there that has a good answer to that.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with nudity, but my great guess is that it incites lust in weak Christians. So in order to protect some Christians from committing such a sin Christianity has decided that nudity be put on the church's "Verboten" list so everyone will be stopped from potentially arousing their weak brethren. Fair? No, but then who says Christianity has to be fair? Certainly not Christians.

.

[1couple]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

thanks for the post Miles.
In my experience people (especially men) are aroused by almost anything.
My boobs are so big, they aroused most men whether i am wearing clothes or a sweater.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

thanks for the post Miles.
In my experience people (especially men) are aroused by almost anything.
My boobs are so big, they aroused most men whether i am wearing clothes or a sweater.

Just to check, but aren't sweaters considered to be clothing?

.

[1couple]

[Replying to Miles in post #4]
yes, my point is people don't have to be naked to arouse other people.
My husband has a friend who is aroused by women's bare feet, so should every woman be forced to wear boots?
I am actually aroused by a man wearing a very nice suit, so should men now have to wear baggy jeans to Church?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #4]
yes, my point is people don't have to be naked to arouse other people.
My husband has a friend who is aroused by women's bare feet, so should every woman be forced to wear boots?
I am actually aroused by a man wearing a very nice suit, so should men now have to wear baggy jeans to Church?

My guess is that if your arousal turns to lust and your church finds out about it that might be a possibility; although, in isolated cases like yours your fellow Christians might simply have you struck blind.

.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to 1couple in post #1]

Is seduction a sin?

Personally I believe I am free in Christ

David wrote "I will fear no evil", I think a lot of people fear their own bodies, and fear the world, and place judgement on others for their own insecurities.

[WebersHome]

.
In the beginning, humans were totally bare naked and felt no shame about it. And it wasn't till their perception of propriety underwent a change due to the forbidden fruit incident that they began feeling indecent in the buff. And then God made them some clothing.

Now the thing is: God made them no clothing prior to the fruit thingy, nor did He criticize their scanty fig leaves afterwards; in point of fact, the clothing he made them was unaccompanied by comment. So I'm thinking that He made them that clothing so they'd stop hiding from Him when He came calling.

Now, seeing as how full frontal (and rear) nudity is neither prohibited nor condemned in the Bible, then this is one of those gray issues wherein everybody is supposed to decide for their own selves in compliance with the principles discussed in the 14th chapter of Romans.

* According to Rom 14:1, Christians are not allowed to debate gray issues.
_

[Difflugia]

* According to Rom 14:1, Christians are not allowed to debate gray issues.

That's an "interesting" reading of that verse.

Romans 14:1-4 (ESV):

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

That doesn't say not to debate such issues, but not to fight with, judge, or condemn those with different opinions. If one's goal is to help those "weak in faith" to strengthen their faith, then the debate is "in honor of the Lord." If one chastises, ridicules, or excludes a weak brother for being a vegetarian, inerrantist, or creationist, for example, then and only then is one contravening Romans 14:1. A debate isn't (or doesn't have to be, anyway) a quarrel, but a fight is.

[WebersHome]

.
For some folks, Rom 14:1 itself is a gray issue; and a venue of opportunity for a perpetual bull session that never gets to the bottom of anything
_