| Author | Post |
|---|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:18 pm |
|
When it comes to issues of pornography and other sexual addictions, much of what we are dealing with has to do with the human body, nudity, sexuality, and morality.
So, if we really want to know God's truth in order to defeat the lies, we have to begin with the Scriptures, since it is in them that we find truth that we really can trust.
At the same time, we must not ADD to the Scriptures any of man's teaching and presume that they carry the weight of Biblical mandate. We must always be careful to guard against that error.
Finally, it is VERY easy to read our own cultural mindset and life experience into our understanding of the Scriptures rather than seeking to understand exactly what they say and mean. God's truth transcends culture, so we must be careful to separate cultural bias from God's revealed truth. This is critically important especially with issues like I am raising here.
This discussion is vitally important because if we find ourselves in error about how we view our bodies, then our struggle to find victory over these sins that are related to the body will only be that much more difficult... even to the point where lasting victory is impossible.
Satan was absolutely defeated at the cross. His only weapon against us now is the lie. Believing and acting on lies leads directly to bondage. Believing and acting on truth leads directly to freedom.
Pastor Ed
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:29 pm |
|
Gen. 1:26-28, 31
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
... 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. What does it really mean to be created in God's image? Is it our bodies? our souls? our spirits? our emotions? our will? A combination of those? or even "all of the above"?
I suggest that it is "all of the above." (perhaps I post more on my thoughts about that some other time.)
The command to "Be fruitful and increase in number" is proof positive that the sexual act is not at all sinful, but rather part of God's plan from the first moment of creation. Sexual intercourse is clearly not the "forbidden fruit." It is part of the "very good" creation.
I also see that they were, just as he made them, and still quite naked, "very good."
This pronouncement of goodness by God over his creation and mankind (and their naked bodies) is never rescinded, and it is never cursed after the fall.
Any other perspectives?
Pastor Ed
|
Joel2:25
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 03:34 am |
|
Ed Neal wrote: This pronouncement of goodness by God over his creation and mankind (and their naked bodies) is never rescinded, and it is never cursed after the fall.
Any other perspectives?
Pastor Ed
Actually, I'm not sure about the nakedness part never being rescinded. Adam and Eve realized their nakedness and were ashamed. God didn't remove the shame from them, he made the first blood sacrifice and used the skins of the animals to make clothing for them. Now, I realize the blood sacrifice was for other sins .... but I'm starting to see from the beginning (at least from the moment of the fall .... sin) clothing was a necessity and God made the very first provision for clothing, man didn't.
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 05:33 am |
|
Joel2:25 wrote: Ed Neal wrote: This pronouncement of goodness by God over his creation and mankind (and their naked bodies) is never rescinded, and it is never cursed after the fall.
Any other perspectives?
Pastor Ed
Actually, I'm not sure about the nakedness part never being rescinded. Adam and Eve realized their nakedness and were ashamed. God didn't remove the shame from them, he made the first blood sacrifice and used the skins of the animals to make clothing for them. Now, I realize the blood sacrifice was for other sins .... but I'm starting to see from the beginning (at least from the moment of the fall .... sin) clothing was a necessity and God made the very first provision for clothing, man didn't.
Thanks for your response!
That is a very common perspective, of course, but I point out to you that it is not found in the text. I'll quote it here so we can see what I mean.
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
In the last verse of Gen 2, we are told that they were naked and unashamed. There was no sin, and we have to conclude that this was God's ideal. (related question: Was God's ideal ever modified by God?)
But then come the story of the fall and judgment.
After the fall, Adam and eve, now under the influence of Satan, do three things.
1. They hide. 2. They cover their nakedness. and 3. When confronted, they deflected the blame.
Did God approve of any of the three of those actions? Actually, it's #2 that's the only one really in question, right? Did God approve of their covering their nakedness?
I think it's clear from verse 11 that He did not!
Therefore, the idea of covering their bodies came either from their own sinful minds, or else by the direct influence of Satan. And God did not approve... at very least, He did not approve of their covering for the purpose of hiding their shame!
Fast forward to the casting out from the Garden:
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
24 After he drove the man out....
We have to ask the question now, "If God did not approve of their attempt to cover themselves, why did he cover them with garments of skin?"
The simple answer is, "God didn't say."
Was there a blood sacrafice for sin? Beautiful concept, but it doesn't say.
Was it for modesty? It doesn't say. But beyond that, where is there need for modesty when it's still just Adam and Eve? They are man and wife. There's no need for them to prevent the wrong person from viewing their bodies yet.
Was it an implied command the we all keep our bodies covered in public? It doesn't say. And narrative is not imperative. Narrative without imperative is not normative. There simply is no command anywhere here about wearing clothes.
Is there any possible explanation that can be gleaned from the context?
Yes. I can think of two.
1. As a result of the curse, A&E would be facing thorns and hard work.... outside the wonderful Garden. They would need greater protection for their skin now than was needed before. This suggests a gracious and very practical provision as the reason God clothed them.
2. There is no evidence of repentance from A&E anywhere in the passage. Therefore, it's possible that they did NOT return to the ideal of "naked and unashamed" and were instead still feeling the shame that came as a result of their sin. It's possible that God provided them with better coverings as an accomodation for their ongoing sense of shame. (Like he accomodated Israel with a King when they wanted one but He did not approve)
Are there other reasons that can be extracted from the text itself and not from any outside cultural bias?
Pastor Ed
|
gaylon
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 02:15 am |
|
Ed,
I'm not in to the semantics and legalistic views of the Bible. But I do know one thing at least, as an example that tells me I'm not ever going to be at a point where I will be invincible in the area of lust. David, "a man after my own heart" (God's words), saw a woman bathing, and fell to lust. David, at one time, was a pure man, like God, but still a man. If this man who was a paragon of virtue at one time could fall at the sight of a beautiful nude woman, then I know for myself that being very conservative about this issue for myself will always work best, regardless of lack or abundance of other scriptural evidence. Joseph, also a man of virtue, took the road less traveled, and got the heck out of Dodge when confronted with temptation. For myself, I don't have to ponder the issue too much to know what I should do. As a caveat, though, I think it's very possible that in Heaven, clothing may not be necessary, for reasons you've cited before. Then, purity will be the way of life for all, and temptation will not be an issue. Hopefully we'll all get to find out together, eh ;-)
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 07:17 am |
|
gaylon wrote: Ed,
I'm not in to the semantics and legalistic views of the Bible. But I do know one thing at least, as an example that tells me I'm not ever going to be at a point where I will be invincible in the area of lust.
Agreed. None of us will ever be "invincible" or completely incapable of falling in the area of lust-- or any other sin, for that matter.
But I have to say that it was precisely when I was researching the Biblical answers to the questions that I am raising here that I found an amazing freedom from the allure of pornography and the autopilot "lust" response to any view of female nudity.
I was shocked at the change that occurred in me. I had no idea there could have been a connection. I wasn't even researching it for my own sake, but rather to reexamine how I could give my son a truly biblical perspective about the nude body. I realized that many of the perspectives I had been raised with and never even questioned were actually NOT biblical! I changed my beliefs to align with the actual teaching of God's word and to my amazement, my desire for illicit images essentially vanished. Staying clean since that change hasn't been hard at all because I simply am not interested any more! Kinda like coffee... I don't even like the smell (let alone the taste) of coffee, so I have no temptation to ever stop at the donut shop and get a cup! I don't look at porn now because I have utterly lost my taste for it. No great work, renewed commitment, deeper sorrow, or souped up will power of my own were part of it. Just a change in a belief. How can I explain that any other way?
Like I've said before, when we know the truth, Jesus said clearly that the truth "will set you free." It's almost as if I couldn't avoid becoming free of the allure because I finally happened upon and rid myself of the lies that were binding me to the porn. It wasn't I that "did it" ... it was God's truth in me that set me free.
David, "a man after my own heart" (God's words), saw a woman bathing, and fell to lust. David, at one time, was a pure man, like God, but still a man. If this man who was a paragon of virtue at one time could fall at the sight of a beautiful nude woman,...
I believe that the context gives us clues that there were other issues that impacted David here... not simply the sight of a nude woman.
Here is the story in context (2 Sam 11:1-3):
1 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem. 2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful...
Why is verse 1 even there? I believe it sets the stage for why David was where he was when this all happened, and why he was susceptible to lust.
It was the time for kings to be at war. Where was David? Staying home with the "good life" it seems to me. Already acting selfishly... self-indulgently.
Further indication that that is so is found in Uriah's responses later when even at David's suggestion, he would not dishonor the other men who were on the battle lines by taking the opportunity to enjoy legitimate sex with his wife! It seems that culturally, when it was time for battle, no self-respecting man would opt for comfort and pleasure instead of standing with his fellows in arms. But that seems to be exactly what David was already doing.
So, if my interpretation of 2 Sam. 11:1 is correct, David was already acting selfishly and self-indulgently when he looked over the wall and saw something else he thought he might enjoy. Perhaps the lesson to learn here is not "don't ever let yourself see nudity" as a precaution against lust, but rather, "don't ever choose a life of self-centered indulgence." That counsel will protect us from far more than lust!
...then I know for myself that being very conservative about this issue for myself will always work best, regardless of lack or abundance of other scriptural evidence.
How can you really be sure of what will "always work best" if there's only one solution that you try?
In my life, I would NEVER have even suspected that "what works best" turned out to be this change in understanding about the human body as God created it. I never would have examined it because I never even questioned my beliefs about the body, and therefore did not know they were not true-- and I had no idea that my bondage to pornography was empowered by those lies.
A better strategy, I believe, is to examine every belief that we hold that has anything to do with the area of bondage to see if they are truly Biblical or not. Surely the thing that will actually "always work best" is that which is void of any lies relevant to the area in which we find ourselves in bondage.
Joseph, also a man of virtue, took the road less traveled, and got the heck out of Dodge when confronted with temptation. For myself, I don't have to ponder the issue too much to know what I should do.
In Joseph's case, the woman was actually pulling his clothes off his body demanding an adulterous relationship with him. He did not flee at the first temptation. She had been hounding him about having sex with her for a while already. Only when she grabbed him did he have to leave his coat behind and flee.
Not that he wasn't a good example here, but he was NOT an example of "getting out of Dodge" at the first hint of anything that resembled a temptation. That would be overstating the lesson of the narrative.
As a caveat, though, I think it's very possible that in Heaven, clothing may not be necessary, for reasons you've cited before. Then, purity will be the way of life for all, and temptation will not be an issue. Hopefully we'll all get to find out together, eh ;-)
I suspect you might be right. Like I have suggested before, I don't see anywhere in Scripture that God reversed or rescinded that ideal for humanity.
Pastor Ed
Last edited on Sun Dec 10th, 2006 07:20 am by Ed Neal
|
Joel2:25
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 04:48 pm |
|
I'd rather see where you're going with this, but I'll just restate/rebutt a few points in my own little nutshell.
1. God is God. All-knowing, all-there, all-sufficient. Knew before we were born, knew before the foundations of the earth were laid precisely what we would do every day of our lives. Therefore, with the belief I hold ... God knew Adam and Eve would sin, God knew the Fall would happen. The redemption story was in place before all that.
2. As far as your opinion of that verse 11 ... here's what I believe in context of the entire story. Adam said "I was naked and hid". God answered back to Adam ... who told you that? How did you know? What happened to make that knowledge appear in your self? God never says, "But you're supposed to be that way!" God asks a question of Adam that HE knows perfectly well the answer to. God is giving Adam a chance to take responsibililty for his sin, God is giving Adam a chance to be accountable for his actions. It's all downhill from there.
3. The bloodshed/clothing issue: Adam and Eve were clothed in leaves (vegetation) they had attempted to fashion themselves. God sheds blood. God clothes them in something far more lasting than vegetation that will wither oh, pretty much in a day or so. After that example ... what was called for in the process of atonement? Vegetation or blood shed? Hm.
Anyway, that's it for this issue since I could go on and on for days ... paragraphs and pages.
I'd rather see the next installment. Blessings.
|
gaylon
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 06:52 pm |
|
Pastor Ed, you're a wise man... Thx for your patience with me. I expected to get blasted, after my last post. I admit my scriptural understanding is incomplete, at best...
So, I have been trying to "reframe" the way I think about the human body (esp the female body), and it is making a difference. I will go back and check your posts for references. However, for me, the "pull" toward pornography and lust still is there, but thankfully less. And, with the help of a counselor, I'm dealing with reframing sexual abuse I had as a child, to feel deep inside that I was not the one at fault, and forgiving the man who did it, and this is also helping to lessen the strength of that pull that we've all felt. I'm trying to bring together the things that "work" for everyone, and use them in my life. I believe Mike is right, that the chief thing, still, is yielding to God, and I think that in this attempt my eyes are being opened, at least partly in the way that God often works -- through his children (meaning the guys who are posting here, among others). And, the Holy Spirit is, bit by bit, becoming more a part of my life.
Thanks and blessing to all...
--- Gaylon V.
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 07:13 pm |
|
Joel2:25 wrote: 1. God is God. All-knowing, all-there, all-sufficient. Knew before we were born, knew before the foundations of the earth were laid precisely what we would do every day of our lives. Therefore, with the belief I hold ... God knew Adam and Eve would sin, God knew the Fall would happen. The redemption story was in place before all that.
Absolutely correct. Jesus was crucified before the foundation of the world, as we are clearly told in 1 Peter 1:18-20.
2. As far as your opinion of that verse 11 ... here's what I believe in context of the entire story. Adam said "I was naked and hid". God answered back to Adam ... who told you that? How did you know? What happened to make that knowledge appear in your self? God never says, "But you're supposed to be that way!" God asks a question of Adam that HE knows perfectly well the answer to. God is giving Adam a chance to take responsibililty for his sin, God is giving Adam a chance to be accountable for his actions. It's all downhill from there.
You say, God never says, 'But you're supposed to be that way!' But there was no need to say that! God had just made him that way. It was just recorded a few verses earlier that they were naked and unashamed... just as God intended.
I believe your response to this illustrates how our cultural and experiential mindset makes us perceive things inaccurately. Let me explain.
We tend to read the passage and see the "odd" thing as "They were naked!" So, we see Adam's efforts to cover himself as quite sensible and even normal... He wasn't told "You're supposed to be naked" so we presume that he had that part right. But in the context, nobody had EVER worn anything or covered their bodies. The odd thing was that he was covering himself at all! It was brand new, never been done before, and as such, was a strong indication that he had actually sinned against God!! In our world where everyone is clothed, being naked seems odd and ridiculous. In Adams world, where he and Eve were never anything but naked, trying to cover up was odd and ridiculous. There was nobody there that he would even need to cover up in front of... even by today's standards!!!
In your account, as in the original account, there are NO affirmation of Adam's efforts to cover himself and no affirmation of Adam's reason for doing so!
That begs the question... why do we think that adam's desire and efforts to cover himself were any less foolish than hiding from God or deflecting the blame for his sin?
3. The bloodshed/clothing issue: Adam and Eve were clothed in leaves (vegetation) they had attempted to fashion themselves. God sheds blood. God clothes them in something far more lasting than vegetation that will wither oh, pretty much in a day or so. After that example ... what was called for in the process of atonement? Vegetation or blood shed? Hm.
Again, even here, my point was not that this there was NOT a blood sacrifice here. Quite frankly, it's a beautiful foreshadowing of what was to come. However, that is external to the text! It may indeed be true! But that truth is NOT found in the narrative! It is a concept that is external to this passage! THAT'S my point! This passage does NOT teach a blood sacrifice for sin. It MAY illustrate it, but that's external interpretation, not exegesis from this actual text.
And this is important for us to acknowledge as per the original purpose of this thread... to distinguish what is actually taught in this passage from what is external to the passage, yet still often believed about it.
And in this case, we are not told that it was a blood sacrifice! Is there anything in the text that indicates that the skins did not come from animals that had died naturally? We simply are not told how the skins were acquired.
I love that picture, just as you described it. I would hold that that is actually what happened. But the text itself does not so state.
Every reason for God clothing Adam and Eve is really only conjecture. Even the explanations that I offered. My ideas for them are drawn from the context, but they still amount to conjecture.
Is it safe to build our understanding of the body, nudity, modesty, and clothing on conjecture?
I don't believe so!
So, again, I would assert that the idea of "naked and unashamed" was never rescinded by God.
Are there any place in this passage or elsewhere in the Bible that might be understood to contradict that assertion? I myself know of none.
I will reaffirm here that the Bible is my authority, and it is to be understood according to clear exegesis, nothing else. What the Bible teaches is true, no matter what I or anybody else thinks about it!
Pastor Ed
Last edited on Mon Dec 11th, 2006 02:02 am by Ed Neal
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:47 am |
|
gaylon wrote: Pastor Ed, you're a wise man... Thx for your patience with me. I expected to get blasted, after my last post. I admit my scriptural understanding is incomplete, at best...
Thank you for your kind words... I hope you are saying that you expected to get blasted, but didn't... (or did you mean you expected it and DID??) I hope it's the former... I certainly don't want to be "blasting" you or anyone else!
So, I have been trying to "reframe" the way I think about the human body (esp the female body), and it is making a difference. I will go back and check your posts for references. However, for me, the "pull" toward pornography and lust still is there, but thankfully less.
That's great news! It didn't all go away for me instantaneously, but the allure began to fade and it continued pretty quickly until it was gone. But to be fair, I was studying the entire matter "fast and furious" once I started, so it wasn't more than about a month before I had pretty radically changed my beliefs... and once they were fully changed, the pull had essentially vanished.
So... keep at it!
And, with the help of a counselor, I'm dealing with reframing sexual abuse I had as a child, to feel deep inside that I was not the one at fault, and forgiving the man who did it, and this is also helping to lessen the strength of that pull that we've all felt.
I have to admit that I really have no idea how the change that has had such a profound impact on my own heart would work in a situation where there are also childhood abuses and/or blame and forgiveness issues involved. If those issues are factoring into the bondage somehow, then certainly those areas would need to be addressed also.
I'm trying to bring together the things that "work" for everyone, and use them in my life. I believe Mike is right, that the chief thing, still, is yielding to God, and I think that in this attempt my eyes are being opened, at least partly in the way that God often works -- through his children (meaning the guys who are posting here, among others). And, the Holy Spirit is, bit by bit, becoming more a part of my life.
Mike is right about yielding to God. It has to start there.
Be careful, however, in simply trusting "what worked for other people" because "programs" are not what change us. God changes us by the renewing of our hearts and minds. He changes us from within by the power of the new birth. Then he changes us and our outward lives by providing us with truth whereby we can "renew" our minds.
And to be honest, every different approach to such a bondage emphasizes different areas of truth... sometimes even having conflicting understandings of what the truth really is!... therefore, it could be confusing and counterproductive to try and "bring together" all the things that work for others.
Look, listen, learn, examine(!), and then "hold fast to the truth." That's where freedom is found!
Pastor Ed
Last edited on Mon Dec 11th, 2006 02:00 am by Ed Neal
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 796 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 05:54 pm |
|
Hi Ed,
So are you suggesting that mature believers could, perhaps should, be nudists without reservation?
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 07:48 pm |
|
truthseeker wrote: Hi Ed,
So are you suggesting that mature believers could, perhaps should, be nudists without reservation?
Very interesting question, TS.
At this point, I'm not suggesting anything except that we have had a faulty view of the human body that is not found in Scripture. For me, personally, it was the discovery of those faulty views in my own beliefs that led directly to my experiencing complete freedom from the allure of pornography.
But since you raised the issue, do you believe there is any prohibition in the Scriptures regarding allowing our nudity to be seen by someone besides our spouses?
Or another way of saying it, does the Bible forbid nudity in social situations?
Since our convictions should be based solely upon Scripture, then that is the question that must be answered first.
Pastor Ed
|
Joel2:25
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 08:38 pm |
|
Ed Neal wrote: For me, personally, it was the discovery of those faulty views in my own beliefs that led directly to my experiencing complete freedom from the allure of pornography.
Or another way of saying it, does the Bible forbid nudity in social situations?
Yes, it does. Leviticus (I think) spells out the fabric contents of clothing. It also flat out mentions "men's clothing" and "women's clothing".
Even the New Testament speaks of modesty in attire.
It's a no-brainer.
|
gaylon
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 08:41 pm |
|
Joel2:25 wrote: Ed Neal wrote: For me, personally, it was the discovery of those faulty views in my own beliefs that led directly to my experiencing complete freedom from the allure of pornography.
Or another way of saying it, does the Bible forbid nudity in social situations?
Yes, it does. Leviticus (I think) spells out the fabric contents of clothing. It also flat out mentions "men's clothing" and "women's clothing".
Even the New Testament speaks of modesty in attire.
It's a no-brainer.
Also, Noah cursed Ham, because he uncovered his nudity...
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 09:08 pm |
|
Joel2:25 wrote: Ed Neal wrote: For me, personally, it was the discovery of those faulty views in my own beliefs that led directly to my experiencing complete freedom from the allure of pornography.
Or another way of saying it, does the Bible forbid nudity in social situations?
Yes, it does. Leviticus (I think) spells out the fabric contents of clothing. It also flat out mentions "men's clothing" and "women's clothing".
A simple mention of the kinds of thread used for clothing or the fact that there are clothing styles associated with one gender or the other do not constitute a command to never allow our unclothed bodies to be seen.
Even the New Testament speaks of modesty in attire.
The NT uses a word translated "modest" or "modestly" only one time. The greek word from which it is translated is only used that one time.
The English word "modest" is used two different ways in the English language. 1. I live in a modest house living on a modest income. 2. A skimpy bikini is never modest.
Can we be sure that the way you are using it (#2) is really the way Paul was using the word? If you examine the context, what would you conclude?
It's a no-brainer.
Yes, so it would seem. But believe me, this "no-brainer" issue is not as "no-brainer" as you might think. I assure you, I used to think just as you do. But I have reexamined everything I always thought and I was shocked at what I found.
Are you really willing to examine the passages that we have always assumed teach the prohibition of nudity?
Go ahead and post any Scriptures you like and we can look at them honestly together. This entire thread is about separating "Biblical truth from the traditions of men." The Bible and the Bible alone is the standard here.
Again, I attest to the fact that these kinds of questions were at the core of how I found an utter freedom from the allure of pornography. That's why I'm raising the issues. Such freedom is worth some uncomfortable Biblical questions and research!
Pastor Ed
Last edited on Mon Dec 11th, 2006 09:26 pm by Ed Neal
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 09:24 pm |
|
I used to live in fear of ever seeing my father's nude body because of this story...
gaylon wrote: Also, Noah cursed Ham, because he uncovered his nudity...
Read it again, my friend. There is absolutely no commentary from God about nudity anywhere in the story. God doesn't even speak at all (aside from inspiring the narrative).
Some observable details:- Ham didn't uncover Noah's nudity, Noah did.
- Ham wasn't cursed, Ham's son Canaan was. (Does that make sense to us? Not really, right? Maybe we don't understand some things that we are NOT told in the story.)
- Noah was the one who was nude, but he was not rebuked at all.
- Noah cursed his grandson, and God honored that curse. But God did not issue the curse (except through the mouth of one who could be considered a prophet. But even so, was Noah claiming prophetic utterance at that moment? We are not told!)
- It is a story... there are no commands anywhere in the account.
Narrative is not imperative. Narrative without imperative is not normative.
Why are we given this story? Hard to tell. I believe we are given the story to tell us why and when Canaan (the man, but ultimately, the nation) was cursed.
Does it illustrate something we have been told elsewhere about nudity? I don't think so. Does it illustrate something we have been told elsewhere about honoring our parents. Yes, it does. So it might be useful for such an illustration.
This passage does not condemn nudity. It really doesn't even speak to the issue.
Reexamine everything. Separate what we have always been told from what the Bible actually says. That's what this thread is really about.
Pastor Ed
Last edited on Mon Dec 11th, 2006 09:25 pm by Ed Neal
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 09:43 pm |
|
Hey, everyone,
I know that I am questioning things that you have probably never even considered questioning before. That's exactly what I went through 5 months ago!
Please understand the reason I am so quick to respond to your statements and Scriptural references is because I have most likely already examined those references in detail. I'm not trying to squelch anyone else's views or opinions!
I invite you to examine everything I say in light of the Words of Scripture! And be brutal about it! I am not interested in pursuing my own opinions nor the opinions of anyone else in opposition to the instruction we find in God's Word.
If God says it, that settles it.
I cotinue to welcome your interaction. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Pastor Ed
|
Joel2:25
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 10:04 pm |
|
Exodus 28 even describes the undergarments the priests are to wear under their robes.
Leviticus 18 - that's a loaded chapter.
Ed, please ... what is your point? One week ago you were posting you are struggling, now it's all behind you and I'm struggling (and I admit extremely suspicious) to understand what exactly it is you are trying to say about this subject. This board is full of hurting people that don't need to be led down another path that could lead to their continuing downfall. I'm concerned to be brutally honest.
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 10:53 pm |
|
Joel2:25 wrote: Exodus 28 even describes the undergarments the priests are to wear under their robes.
Leviticus 18 - that's a loaded chapter.
We are not under priestly law anymore. There are other commands in that immediate context which we do not follow. Even in Israel at the time, that command was only for the priests, not for the general populous... and it was just one of many such priestly commands that were not for the people at large.
Lev. 18 (and other similar passages) do not make any sense if you take "uncovering the nakedness of" to mean anything other than sexual intercourse. consequently, the NIV translates it that way exclusively! The passage prohibits incest and gives a long list of relationships which God would consider incestual. It is not a prohibition on allowing our bodies to be seen or of seeing others' bodies.
Ed, please ... what is your point? One week ago you were posting you are struggling, now it's all behind you
As TimM has gently pointed out to me, I was not as up front with everyone here on this forum as I should have been, and for that I sincerely apologize. But when I first came to this forum, I did not want to come with a bulhorn distinguishing myself from everyone because now I no longer struggle with pornography. Rather, I wanted you all to know that I had been there and I understood the "lifelong" struggle.
In point of fact, I never said that I still struggled. I said that I had lived with the struggle for 30+ years. My error was that I let people believe at first that I was still struggling when I no longer was struggling. Again, I'm sorry for that deception. Please forgive me. I was trying to connect and understand and listen, not just shoot off my mouth.
and I'm struggling (and I admit extremely suspicious) to understand what exactly it is you are trying to say about this subject.
I am saying exactly what I've been trying to say all along. If we have incorrect and unbiblical views about the body, how can we hope to be free of a sin bondage that has specifically to do with viewing the body?
Therefore, a Biblical reexamination of our understanding of the body is absolutely critical in the pursuit of freedom.
This board is full of hurting people that don't need to be led down another path that could lead to their continuing downfall.
I understand that, Brother. I am here sharing my life with you all precisely because I know that people are hurting and struggling with the same thing I struggled with for 30 years. I now have a freedom that 5 months ago I would not have dreamed possible. Most of the people here have also given up on the dream of experiencing the freedom even from the temptation of pornography that I am now living.
How can I sit here and quietly enjoy my freedom while others are continuing to hurt and struggle every day? I've been thinking a LOT about how and why I got here. It was not any spiritual victory or commitment that I could claim as my own. It was only the examination of the issues that I'm raising here, coming to a new understanding, and then living as if what IS truth were actually true instead of living by the lies. When I did that, without even pursuing freedom, I was free. I want to be simply one beggar telling other beggars where to find bread.
I'm concerned to be brutally honest.
I would be surprised if you were not, Brother. The questions that I'm raising are extremely uncomfortable and maybe even downright scary. But the stakes are way too high to dismiss them on an emotional basis alone.
Please confront me with any and every Scripture passage that you know of regarding the topic at hand. Challenge my exegesis and every claim I make. I welcome that.
At the same time, I humbly ask you to reexamine your own thinking to confirm that it really is biblical!
As I said at the forum description of this thread, Let's separate Biblical truth from the traditions of men.
Pastor Ed
Last edited on Mon Dec 11th, 2006 10:59 pm by Ed Neal
|
Joel2:25
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 10:59 pm |
|
Ed, I am simply asking once again, what is your *point*?
P.S. I'm not your brother ... think outside the box. 
|
Current time is 02:48 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
RSS