Since the majority in North america are christian, (can't speak for other locales) I'll just say this: Any statement that is regurgitated from the old testament, it was reported that Jesus said the old laws are no more. That would follow the regulations about washing your hands up to your elbows, wearing a blue thread in the bottom of your garments, covering your head before god and bludgeoning infidels of any kind with big heavy rocks. These are the old ways.
If you actually follow the new testament, there is NOTHING that says what you must cover your body with. There is nothing that says that a body is something to be ashamed of and kept covered.
A "TRUE CHRISTIAN" would find the work of the ''ONE TRUE GOD'' as they say, a beautiful thing, not a sin meant for hiding. It should be admired in it's entirety, not penalized for having been seen in it's natural state.
That's just my opinion, but meh.
Now, on the other hand, the Christian should also consider that the body, being a "gift to the person from god" should take care of it, not allowing it to freeze to death in the colder climates, and keep it well fed, healthy and clean. This should be more of a concern than whether seeing a naked body makes the pope or local padre blush.
So God gave us sex so that we could perpetuate our species like other animals, instead of being immortal? That fits in with the second of the two creation stories in Genesis ... the one that begins with Genesis 2. (In that story, God doesn't say "be fruitful and multiply. He only says that in the first story.)
The Genesis 2 story goes straight from Eve's creation to the temptation in the Garden. Eve tells the serpent that God told her "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die." So Adam and Eve were immortal up to that point. And even though they were naked all the time, it was only after they ate the fruit that they became aware of the fact, and embarrassed by it. Yeah, that's what puberty does for you.
And it's only after they ate the fruit that God starts talking about them having children and dying.
I like that theory.
We can still be people of faith and live our lives by a reasonable set of rules that keep us from hurting ourselves and others. There is no defense for the abuse that has taken place nor the coverups that have perpetuated the abuse. The abuse that has been publicized by members of the Catholic Church should not go unrecognized, but it should also be publicized that the crimes committed are not exclusive the the Church and have found their way into many other organizations and denominations.
Members of church hierarchy and their congregations have views on nudity. Many if not most are against having naked neighbors, and consider nudity as sinful. That is because of the almost standard conception that nudity equals sex. We know that not to be true, and whether or not we seek the approval of any organization , religious or secular. for public nudity, it is how we behave as individuals that matters the most. We can still be part of an organization that has done wrong, but if we remain a part of that group, we must be willing to work toward change for the better.
Remember when this thread was about nudity and religon? I do.
I'm not going to defend the Catholic Church, or any church, for the misdeeds that their elders have done. But it doesn't have much relevance to what this thread was about.
But I thought of something today. Every crucifix I've ever seen has Jesus in some sort of loincloth to hide his crotch. But we know from other sources that people who were crucified were usually stripped naked. In fact, there is a tale in the New Testament of how the soldiers stripped Jesus and cast lots for his clothes. So if the crucifixes were to be accurate, they'd have a naked Jesus. But they don't.
Obviously the traditional iconography was a sop to medieval mentalities regarding what was supposed to be seen in a church. And it goes right up to the present day. When Jeffrey Hunter played the role of Jesus in King of Kings, the producers thought his chest was too hairy in the crucifixion scenes. So they shaved his chest and re-shot the scenes. Evidently a hirsute Jesus was too authentic for them.
But it's all academic to me. My church is the woods, and the woods don't care if I'm as naked as every other creature there.
I have seen a crucifix of a naked Jesus and the Sistine Chapel ceiling does have nude figures painted on it. My memory suggests that John Paul II even wrote that nudity is acceptable, and I know of at least one priest who sleeps nude.
nudeyooper wrote:I have seen a crucifix of a naked Jesus and the Sistine Chapel ceiling does have nude figures painted on it. My memory suggests that John Paul II even wrote that nudity is acceptable, and I know of at least one priest who sleeps nude.
I wasn't thinking of Adam and Eve, but I'm sure there were a few other ones here and there. AFAIK, those were pictures of people being humiliated, in big panoramic scenes like Michelangelo's Last Judgment. And I've been reminded that there are gods and goddesses galore who are painted in the nude, and pictures of people bathing naked, although these aren't Church art. But are there any nude pictures in a church of ordinary people going about their business naked?
As for your priest friend, I'm glad he sleeps in the nude. And I'm sure he bathes in the nude. But does he do anything else nude, in the sight of other people? I'm guessing that the Church would frown on him, maybe to the point of unfrocking him for not having enough frocking on.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!