Is There A Difference In?

[votivesoul]

Additionally, just because you can watch a National Geographic special and see people of the Amazon basin or in Sub-sahara Africa not wear much or next to nothing and not think of them as naked, the fact is, you and I are not dealing with such people in our churches and neighborhoods, nor yet in the media.

When a buttock, a female breast, or external genitalia is viewable to the public, we say they are naked, end of story. Even if the context isn't sexual. My not even two year old son, innocent as Adam before the Fall, when he's in the tub, is naked.

There are not sinful attachments as of yet. But there will come a day when he will become shy and embarrassed and not want anyone to see him in such a condition. It will come about as his conscience develops under his parent's holy tutelage.

When a people have no such tutelage, is it any wonder that in time, perhaps a few generations, they lose the ability to develop their conscience in such an area?

It's what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. And we all know how that ended, so just because a modern "jungle person", as you are calling them, Sasha, doesn't think of themselves as naked and doesn't think such appearance is sinful, it's not necessarily on account of innocence.

It could just as easily be after so many generations, their collective consciences have been seared with a hot iron, and such iniquity is so embedded into their mindset that they have lost the ability to tell right from wrong, in this area, at least, if in no other area.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Additionally, just because you can watch a National Geographic special and see people of the Amazon basin or in Sub-sahara Africa not wear much or next to nothing and not think of them as naked, the fact is, you and I are not dealing with such people in our churches and neighborhoods, nor yet in the media.

When a buttock, a female breast, or external genitalia is viewable to the public, we say they are naked, end of story. Even if the context isn't sexual. My not even two year old son, innocent as Adam before the Fall, when he's in the tub, is naked.

There are not sinful attachments as of yet. But there will come a day when he will become shy and embarrassed and not want anyone to see him in such a condition. It will come about as his conscience develops under his parent's holy tutelage.

When a people have no such tutelage, is it any wonder that in time, perhaps a few generations, they lose the ability to develop their conscience in such an area?

It's what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. And we all know how that ended, so just because a modern "jungle person", as you are calling them, Sasha, doesn't think of themselves as naked and doesn't think such appearance is sinful, it's not necessarily on account of innocence.

It could just as easily be after so many generations, their collective consciences have been seared with a hot iron, and such iniquity is so embedded into their mindset that they have lost the ability to tell right from wrong, in this area, at least, if in no other area.

Great post.

[Pressing-On]

Hippy Hollow - Austin, Texas.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I have a second cousin who is a retired teacher, who worked in Arizona (or New Mexico, I can't recall) who used to deal with Native American children stealing from the classroom and their classmates (from tables and desks and etc.).

When caught, the Native American students would say "It's not stealing. They left it behind so they obviously didn't want it, which means it's now mine".

My cousin came to understand that the tribe in question had a culturally different view and definition of stealing. He tried to accommodate the difference in his classroom, but could only do so much.

So I ask you, if someone went through your personal belongings, removed an item and refused to return it, then claimed, it's not stealing, would you say "You're right, according to your cultural view of things, it's not stealing and therefore, I won't seek my personal item from you."? Would you consider what they did a sin before God, seeing how no thief will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)?

Cultural norms, no matter how normal they seem to the people who participate in the culture, are not how God defines morality. His definitions and His alone, are acceptable to Him. All else misses the mark.

The chief, primary feature of God's morality is this: do unto others as you would have done unto you. It branches off from there.

If you would like to be free from having to view, in your eyes, an excessive amount of human skin and body parts, because it causes you some level of lust or other temptation, then you yield and do not do the same. You cover yourself up. Not because anyone is commanding it of you, but so you don't become a hypocritical do as I say, but not as I do believer in Jesus.

You realize your standard (there's the word again!) of dress and appearance isn't based on your culture. It's based on the morality instituted by God for all humankind, no matter where they live, jungle or not.

None of this answers the questions I've asked. Immodesty isn't mentioned as a sin in the Bible and in many areas, people were told or allowed to be 'immodest' by God or Jesus. God nor Jesus ever told someone to steal, commit adultery or fornicate, yet some of you keep comparing nakedness to actual sin.

Who says nakedness is a sin, who gives the definition of such, and if it is a sin, when did it become sin?

[Sasha]

Does anyone have a Biblical answer? If not, just say so.

[votivesoul]

Being naked is not a sin, per se.

That little "per se", matters however. It means: in itself.

But since nakedness CAN BE/OFTEN IS a stumblingblock which causes lust, vain imaginations, or etc., anyone choosing to be naked in a public way is sinning, not because they aren't dressed, but because of how their lack of apparel negatively affects those who might view or even catch a glimpse.

Take a look at the common word for reproach in Hebrew sometime. Psalm 69:20, for example, which is a prophetic insight into what the Lord was feeling and experiencing on the Cross. Also look into the Hebrew for ashamed in Genesis 2:25.

These are the inspired words of God. They should tell you, me, and everyone who professes to believe and uphold His Word how God views nakedness.

Adam and Eve knew no shame in their nakedness because their eyes had not yet been opened by their disobedience to God when they ate the fruit.

Plus they were husband and wife, and so being naked in front of each other (since there weren't any other people in the world to see them) meant it was no big thing, either.

But once Adam, by disobedience, introduced sin into the world, and once more people, through Adam and Eve's procreation, came into the world, clothing was a given, i.e. it was expected.

So we can't use Adam and Eve's pre-fall state as some kind of litmus test to tell whether or not nakedness was inherently sinful.

[Praxeas]

loopholes? Let's cover again modesty and God's covering Adam and Eve. Whether it's a sin or not is irrelevant. Being a believer implies being obedient. Nakedness in the bible is a sign of shame.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Being naked is not a sin, per se.

That little "per se", matters however. It means: in itself.

But since nakedness CAN BE/OFTEN IS a stumblingblock which causes lust, vain imaginations, or etc., anyone choosing to be naked in a public way is sinning, not because they aren't dressed, but because of how their lack of apparel negatively affects those who might view or even catch a glimpse.

Take a look at the common word for reproach in Hebrew sometime. Psalm 69:20, for example, which is a prophetic insight into what the Lord was feeling and experiencing on the Cross. Also look into the Hebrew for ashamed in Genesis 2:25.

These are the inspired words of God. They should tell you, me, and everyone who professes to believe and uphold His Word how God views nakedness.

Adam and Eve knew no shame in their nakedness because their eyes had not yet been opened by their disobedience to God when they ate the fruit.

Plus they were husband and wife, and so being naked in front of each other (since there weren't any other people in the world to see them) meant it was no big thing, either.

But once Adam, by disobedience, introduced sin into the world, and once more people, through Adam and Eve's procreation, came into the world, clothing was a given, i.e. it was expected.

So we can't use Adam and Eve's pre-fall state as some kind of litmus test to tell whether or not nakedness was inherently sinful.

Ok, this post I can agree with. I agree we should dress (or NOT dress) in a way that would cause someone to stumble, although Jesus never faulted the woman when he mentioned lust in the heart of a man.

Back to modesty. I have yet to see it defined as an absolute. I have seen posts where people use the American and 'holiness' dress code to define it, but I haven't seen an absolute definition. So I asked dictionary.com.


mod·es·ty
[mod-uh-stee]
noun, plural mod·es·ties.
1.
the quality of being modest; freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.
2.
regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc.
3.
simplicity; moderation.

Nothing there about how to dress. To me, the regard for decency of dress refers to an accordance with ones culture or situation.

So, how does this relate to holiness, if it does? Is our holiness really supposed to show in our clothing? If so, what cultures dress code to we choose, and how is that taught to all cultures?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

loopholes? Let's cover again modesty and God's covering Adam and Eve. Whether it's a sin or not is irrelevant. Being a believer implies being obedient. Nakedness in the bible is a sign of shame.

So is a woman praying uncovered. But is it sin? Remember, this started with someone asking if there is a difference in inward holiness compared to outward. We know what the outward refers to.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Ok, this post I can agree with. I agree we should dress (or NOT dress) in a way that would cause someone to stumble, although Jesus never faulted the woman when he mentioned lust in the heart of a man.

?

Mind you...Jesus was surrounded by women who dressed like this


Jesus also did not fault those eating food offered to idols for putting a stumbling block before Jews