P
Ponyguy
Guest
Freudian slip, BobObob?
(This thread might be about French beaches, but it is typed in Englishā¦ and since this forum doesnāt really require translation, I think you really meant āsubtle.ā)
- Status
(This thread might be about French beaches, but it is typed in Englishā¦ and since this forum doesnāt really require translation, I think you really meant āsubtle.ā)
B
BobObob
Guest
Actually, he was. Just look at the original text.
Looking at the original words from checking the lexicon at blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#top, it becomes clear he was naked. John 21:7 says, āĪ³Ī¬Ļ į¼¦Ī½ Ī³Ļ Ī¼Ī½ĻĻā, which transliterated to our alphabet is āgar Än gymnosā, which translated to English is āfor he was naked.ā The word āgymnosā, which is where the word āgymā came from, means ānakedā.
Itās also interesting to note that St. Francis stripped naked in public in front of his bishop. This was in front of a crowd that presumably had women in it. He did that to make the point that heās throwing off the riches of this word that he would inherit from his father (by throwing off the clothes that his father gave him). The bishop approved of his actions.
B
BobObob
Guest
I tend to make many silly mistakes like that when I write quickly. I tend to be the type of person who needs to carefully proofread every paper before handing it to the professor. If I do that, Iāll usually get a good grade. Iām a better researcher than writer.BobObob;6812576:
Freudian slip, BobObob?
B
Bookcat
Guest
He was stripped for work (see RSV CE) ā¦ such as the outer garments of the day that would get in the way in that kind of workā¦not stripped naked in the full sense used hereā¦
And Francis was stripping off the clothes his father had given himā¦
It need not have been everythingā¦(one source even mentions his hair shirt he was still wearingā¦so one would imagine he was not naked )
Neither Peter nor Francis would approve people running around naked at the beachā¦
B
BobObob
Guest
My point with all this is that nudity, even in public, isnāt always evil. It depends.
BTW, what about Jesus appearantly, for a moment, being naked while changing in front of the apostles before washing their feet (John 13:4)? Isiah was appearently asked by God to strip naked, taking his sockloth off of his lions (Isiah 20:2-4).
Hereās a very interesting article:
(short version) pastordavidrn.homestead.com/files/rebuilding-links.html
(long version) pastordavidrn.homestead.com/files/nakedness.html
The word āgymnosā typically refers to full nudity, althouh it may sometimes refer to partial nudity. Also, most fisherman at that time worked in the nude, although not always (historywiz.com/galleries/fisherman.htm). Thus, itās likely he was working in the nude in public when you look at the original text and consider historical context.
Itās generally held that he stripped off all of his clothes since all of his clothes belonged to his father. Itās what tour guides at the Vatican museum tell people, and itās what Iāve heard from professors at the Franciscan University of Steubenville say. Iād hope those Franciscans (TORs) teaching college classes would know their own history. Itās also generally held that the bishop put his cloak around him afterward to symbolize the acceptance of Christ of his giving up of earthy riches.
How do you know that? You might be right, but you might be wrong. Itās very easy for one to assume what opinions on various issues historical figures would have. Iām tempted to make such assumptions, but I try not to assume.
BTW, what about Jesus appearantly, for a moment, being naked while changing in front of the apostles before washing their feet (John 13:4)? Isiah was appearently asked by God to strip naked, taking his sockloth off of his lions (Isiah 20:2-4).
Hereās a very interesting article:
(short version) pastordavidrn.homestead.com/files/rebuilding-links.html
(long version) pastordavidrn.homestead.com/files/nakedness.html
B
BobObob
Guest
Note: when I said āIād hope those Franciscans (TORs) teaching college classes would know their own historyā, I wasnāt just referring to the history of the order itself from the orderās founding onward, which was founded well after St. Francis died, but also to the history of what led up to the founding of the TORs.
N
nablaise
Guest
It is good to have opinions but we should watch out against confusing them with dogmas and doctrine of the Church. Considering our western society, it is most likely that public nudity would have wicked motivations so for people to avoid clothing optional beaches and consider them sinful it is understandable. But it is an other matter to consider that public nudity is sinful.
Chesterton was wise in his saying:
I am not advocating nudism. In fact, I think nudism as well as pure nudist beaches are of heretical fondementalism, there is a twisted sense of freedom and extremist attitute in imposing nudityā¦ Like Chesterton pointed out, I just believe that we need to find out what is really sinful and what is not. It has serious effects on our souls even when we consider good things bad. Ask people who thought the Catholic Church was the Whore/Beastā¦
God bless
Chesterton was wise in his saying:
As Jesus said we need to clean up the inside so that the outside also might get cleaned.
I am not advocating nudism. In fact, I think nudism as well as pure nudist beaches are of heretical fondementalism, there is a twisted sense of freedom and extremist attitute in imposing nudityā¦ Like Chesterton pointed out, I just believe that we need to find out what is really sinful and what is not. It has serious effects on our souls even when we consider good things bad. Ask people who thought the Catholic Church was the Whore/Beastā¦
God bless
J
JRKH
Guest
The fact that you took these things for granted may have lessened the ātemptation to sinā to some degree.Iām confused. Iāve lived in Europe for half of my adult life and weāve always just taken clothing-optional/topless beaches for granted.
Have I been sinning all this time?
While strictly speaking from a sin standpoint a clothing optional beach is fairly neutral, one must admit to there being plenty of opportunities for sin at the beach given the state of undress even of those who are ādressedā.
To determine this you would need to do an examination of conscience. For instance:
- Did you have lustful thoughts about anyone you saw? (this can apply regardless of dress)
- Did you think or make unkind remarks about someone?
- Did you personally participate in immodesty knowing that such immodesty could lead others to sin?
Peace
James
B
Bookcat
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
Letās not get too hung up on what might have been considered proper back in the day. Itās prettty obvious that things were different in biblical times.
After all circumcision, the āsignā of the Old covenent, was ādisplayedā on the most intimate part of the male form.
Peace
James
After all circumcision, the āsignā of the Old covenent, was ādisplayedā on the most intimate part of the male form.
Peace
James
B
BobObob
Guest
My point with all this is to show that nudity isnāt evil per se, and that it serves many different purposes, meanings, and effects in different contexts. Research has confirmed by research (versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf ). Even today, it seems that allowing nudity in various places in Europe hasnāt been a problem for them. Iām betting that if nudity was more accepted in the US, the largest consumer nation of porn in the world, mere nudity would be less sexualized (itās mostly the US that sexualizes nudity), and over time fewer people will have problems with porn and lust. It may sound like it contradicts common sense (saying that more acceptance of nudity would lead to less lust), but I heard things in the past that seem to support this, I did research, and I changed my opinion (from disagreeing to agreeing). It is for this reason that I think that having clothes-optional beaches is a good idea. If individuals would struggle with lust in going there, they can just stay home.
BTW, Iām a senior at FUS who is majoring in theology (accelerated) and mental health. Iām also minoring in history and philosophy. In some ways, this discussion touches on all of those. Perhaps the effects of nudity could make an interesting psychology thesis.
Even if the RVS CE was infallible, saying āhe was stripped for workā is NOT contradictory to āworking nudeā. Sometimes being stripped for work is the same as being nude, since certain things like fishing were often done in the nude (as far as Iām aware of the habits of that period).
This, plus the historical context, plus the fact that āgymnosā usually referred to full nudity, mean that it is reasonable to hold that he was fully naked, but not strictly provable.
But what about Isiah 20:2-4?
BTW, Iām a senior at FUS who is majoring in theology (accelerated) and mental health. Iām also minoring in history and philosophy. In some ways, this discussion touches on all of those. Perhaps the effects of nudity could make an interesting psychology thesis.
I read both the RSV CE and the original text. One must be careful to not treat a certain translation as infallible, but should, if doing a concentrated study of a particular passage, look at the original language. For this I recommend www.blueletterbible.org, because there you can see the original words, their general meaning, and other places in the Bible where those same words are used.
Even if the RVS CE was infallible, saying āhe was stripped for workā is NOT contradictory to āworking nudeā. Sometimes being stripped for work is the same as being nude, since certain things like fishing were often done in the nude (as far as Iām aware of the habits of that period).
This, plus the historical context, plus the fact that āgymnosā usually referred to full nudity, mean that it is reasonable to hold that he was fully naked, but not strictly provable.
John 13:4 said that he took off his garments, then girded a towel around his waist. I donāt think he would have used a towel to replace the outer garment. If he was putting a towel around his waist, then he was probably briefly uncovered in that area. I could be wrong, but itās a reasonable interpretation.
But what about Isiah 20:2-4?
B
Bookcat
Guest
My point with all this is to show that nudity isnāt evil per se, and that it serves many different purposes, meanings, and effects in different contexts.
Of courseā¦but these contexts are restricted by the virtue of modesty etc
BTW, Iām a senior at FUS who is majoring in theology (accelerated) and mental health. Iām also minoring in history and philosophy. In some ways, this discussion touches on all of those. Perhaps the effects of nudity could make an interesting psychology thesis.
My degree from FUS is in Theologyā¦I also majored for some time in Psychology but dropped it for more Theology and Philosophy
I read both the RSV CE and the original text. One must be careful to not treat a certain translation as infallible
of course notā¦but it is very goodā¦and more literal for Englishā¦
, but should, if doing a concentrated study of a particular passage, look at the original language. For this I recommend www.blueletterbible.org, because there you can see the original words, their general meaning, and other places in the Bible where those same words are used.
one must also understand it in contextā¦and how the Church has understood itā¦Peter was not nakedā¦he was stripped for workā¦he put on his outer garments and jumped in
Even if the RVS CE was infallible, saying āhe was stripped for workā is NOT contradictory to āworking nudeā. Sometimes being stripped for work is the same as being nude, since certain things like fishing were often done in the nude (as far as Iām aware of the habits of that period).
I doubt thatā¦the understanding has been he was stripped of his outer garmentsā¦
This, plus the historical context, plus the fact that āgymnosā usually referred to full nudity, mean that it is reasonable to hold that he was fully naked, but not strictly provable.
he was stripped for workā¦not totally nakedā¦lots of greek words can be understood in differing sensesā¦
John 13:4 said that he took off his garments, then girded a towel around his waist. I donāt think he would have used a towel to replace the outer garment. If he was putting a towel around his waist, then he was probably briefly uncovered in that area. I could be wrong, but itās a reasonable interpretation.
I would think He removed his outer garmentsā¦like a slave or servantā¦and washed their feetā¦not naked ā¦the towel was a āfunctionalā item that was wrapped around what he was wearing under the garments that he removedā¦it was functional for the purpose was then about
But what about Isiah 20:2-4?
you may be correct on this last oneā¦but again this was a culture far far awayā¦which differed greatly than oursā¦God met them where they were atā¦(just as he did in a lot of things that are different now) and later moved them upwardā¦things normal at that time would not be permitted after the fullness of revelation ā¦etc
In any case any examples from Scripture (really the OT) are not then making it ok to have such beachesā¦
And you think that Europeans are not tempted to lustā¦or do not lust on such beaches???
The Church is very clear on the need for the virtue of Modestyā¦do you think that she would go to such efforts as she does to promote it ā¦and talk about the importance of the choice of clothing! and protecting the intimate aspects of personsā¦and then say āohā¦well at the beach you can just bare it allā¦cause it is the beach!ā ???
Europe has a good deal of secularism that has taken grip (and I imagine paganism and hedonism like the rest of the west) and there is a great need of the New Evangelizationā¦the Church wants us to evangelize problematic culture ā¦not join it. (Now I know you are well intentionedā¦and your thinking these things outā¦and yes the human body is goodā¦and there is a place even in some art for its form to be displayedā¦but not persons on beaches etcā¦you really need to think again about these ideas)
Of courseā¦but these contexts are restricted by the virtue of modesty etc
BTW, Iām a senior at FUS who is majoring in theology (accelerated) and mental health. Iām also minoring in history and philosophy. In some ways, this discussion touches on all of those. Perhaps the effects of nudity could make an interesting psychology thesis.
My degree from FUS is in Theologyā¦I also majored for some time in Psychology but dropped it for more Theology and Philosophy
I read both the RSV CE and the original text. One must be careful to not treat a certain translation as infallible
of course notā¦but it is very goodā¦and more literal for Englishā¦
, but should, if doing a concentrated study of a particular passage, look at the original language. For this I recommend www.blueletterbible.org, because there you can see the original words, their general meaning, and other places in the Bible where those same words are used.
one must also understand it in contextā¦and how the Church has understood itā¦Peter was not nakedā¦he was stripped for workā¦he put on his outer garments and jumped in
Even if the RVS CE was infallible, saying āhe was stripped for workā is NOT contradictory to āworking nudeā. Sometimes being stripped for work is the same as being nude, since certain things like fishing were often done in the nude (as far as Iām aware of the habits of that period).
I doubt thatā¦the understanding has been he was stripped of his outer garmentsā¦
This, plus the historical context, plus the fact that āgymnosā usually referred to full nudity, mean that it is reasonable to hold that he was fully naked, but not strictly provable.
he was stripped for workā¦not totally nakedā¦lots of greek words can be understood in differing sensesā¦
John 13:4 said that he took off his garments, then girded a towel around his waist. I donāt think he would have used a towel to replace the outer garment. If he was putting a towel around his waist, then he was probably briefly uncovered in that area. I could be wrong, but itās a reasonable interpretation.
I would think He removed his outer garmentsā¦like a slave or servantā¦and washed their feetā¦not naked ā¦the towel was a āfunctionalā item that was wrapped around what he was wearing under the garments that he removedā¦it was functional for the purpose was then about
But what about Isiah 20:2-4?
you may be correct on this last oneā¦but again this was a culture far far awayā¦which differed greatly than oursā¦God met them where they were atā¦(just as he did in a lot of things that are different now) and later moved them upwardā¦things normal at that time would not be permitted after the fullness of revelation ā¦etc
In any case any examples from Scripture (really the OT) are not then making it ok to have such beachesā¦
And you think that Europeans are not tempted to lustā¦or do not lust on such beaches???
The Church is very clear on the need for the virtue of Modestyā¦do you think that she would go to such efforts as she does to promote it ā¦and talk about the importance of the choice of clothing! and protecting the intimate aspects of personsā¦and then say āohā¦well at the beach you can just bare it allā¦cause it is the beach!ā ???
Europe has a good deal of secularism that has taken grip (and I imagine paganism and hedonism like the rest of the west) and there is a great need of the New Evangelizationā¦the Church wants us to evangelize problematic culture ā¦not join it. (Now I know you are well intentionedā¦and your thinking these things outā¦and yes the human body is goodā¦and there is a place even in some art for its form to be displayedā¦but not persons on beaches etcā¦you really need to think again about these ideas)
B
Bookcat
Guest
521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means **refusing to unveil **what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires oneās choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.
2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.
2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.
2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.
2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.
2527 "The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ."315
2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires oneās choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.
2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.
2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.
2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.
2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.
2527 "The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ."315
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
Orchardās commentaryā¦'A Catholic Commmentary on Holy Scripture" the one Jimmy Akin likesā¦ (Dom Bernard Orchard) notes regarding Peter: āHis undress meant that he was clothed only in a sort of overall (without tunic)ā¦ā (a kind of working garment)
Lagrange (pg 299) notes that Peter merely clothed in a kind of shirt for fishingā¦that he tied his on his gridle so the fishing garment would not float on the waterā¦
Regarding Jesusā¦Lagrange (the Gospel of Jesus Christ pg 200) notes: he āput off his upper garmentsā
I imagine one can find all sorts of other sourcesā¦both on the context and on the Greek that will show that they were not ānakedā in any complete senseā¦but were clothed in some sort of garmentā¦without the upper garments that were worn in day to day lifeā¦(hence Peter could be said to be ānakedā in this restricted sense and in context but not ānakedā as in running around nakedā¦he still had a form of clothing on but was freer to work)
they did this for workā¦etc but not to work naked but without the burdensome garments of day to day life that would be an interference with the workā¦(but one could say that Peter was naked in that he had stripped off his outer garmentsā¦)
Lagrange (pg 299) notes that Peter merely clothed in a kind of shirt for fishingā¦that he tied his on his gridle so the fishing garment would not float on the waterā¦
Regarding Jesusā¦Lagrange (the Gospel of Jesus Christ pg 200) notes: he āput off his upper garmentsā
I imagine one can find all sorts of other sourcesā¦both on the context and on the Greek that will show that they were not ānakedā in any complete senseā¦but were clothed in some sort of garmentā¦without the upper garments that were worn in day to day lifeā¦(hence Peter could be said to be ānakedā in this restricted sense and in context but not ānakedā as in running around nakedā¦he still had a form of clothing on but was freer to work)
they did this for workā¦etc but not to work naked but without the burdensome garments of day to day life that would be an interference with the workā¦(but one could say that Peter was naked in that he had stripped off his outer garmentsā¦)
B
BobObob
Guest
Part 1/2
I think JPII said it well regarding the virtue of modesty when he said:
"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beautyā¦Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessnessā¦Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the personā¦The human body is not in itself shameful ā¦Shamelessness [just like shame and modesty] is a function of the interior of a person.ā (emphasis added)
I think this quote by JPII is solid because he concisely laid down principles regarding dress, while viewing nudity as such as not violating these principles (although it may be depending on intent).
Actually, itās (somewhat) the other way around IMHO. There are moral principles one must abide by regarding dress, such as donāt dress in a way that stimulates lust or degrades the body, but the applications of these principles depend on the context. Contexts determine the morality of dress, and the virtue of modesty is the virtue by which one dresses appropriately and respects the body. It entails hiding what should remain hidden (CCC 2521) and inspires oneās choice of clothing (CCC 2522). Note: the Catholic Church has never officially said that any particular parts of the body should always and everywhere remain hidden. It takes prudence to discern what should not be revealed in a given situation.
I think JPII said it well regarding the virtue of modesty when he said:
"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beautyā¦Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessnessā¦Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the personā¦The human body is not in itself shameful ā¦Shamelessness [just like shame and modesty] is a function of the interior of a person.ā (emphasis added)
I think this quote by JPII is solid because he concisely laid down principles regarding dress, while viewing nudity as such as not violating these principles (although it may be depending on intent).
B
BobObob
Guest
Part 2/2
I think Americans have a LOT more problems with lust than most of the world does. Sexual sins are committed in every culture on planet Earth, but the US is hand-down the largest consumer of porn in the world (crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf), and also the culture that probably has the least exposure to the human body.
The applications of the official Catholic Churchās teaching on modesty isnāt something straighforward and uniform across the board.
Can you cite any CC doctrine which indicates that one may never be naked at a public beach? I know youāve cited CCC 2521-2527, but this doesnāt indicate that it is always immoral to be naked at a public beach. You seem to think it does though.
Also, the fact that women in the Middle East, where women must cover all of their body, from what Iāve heard, canāt be left unattended without being raped, seems to be evidence of this. Note: I do understand that that may have a lot to do with their culture and their laws, which makes it virtually impossible for a rapist to be convicted (if the rapist is convicted, the women is executed for being āimpureā).
Keep in mind that a few years ago I had more or less the same view on this subject that you do now. After seeing that things such as clothes-optional beach are not necessarily contrary to what the CC teaches (although they may be, depending on situation and intent), and seeing that greater acceptance of clothes-optional beaches would likely lowed problems with lust in future generations, that I changed my position.
They do show that God did not indicate that nudity was sinful, especially since He commanded Isiah to strip (presumably in public). Iāve seen places in the Bible where nudity was shameful in some contexts, but Iāve never seen anything from scripture which indicates that public nudity itself is sinful. Iāve never actually seen any authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church which indicate that public nudity is itself sinful.
I think that people in all cultures are tempted to lust, but some more than others. I also think that in other cultures, nudity itself isnāt viewed as such a sexual thing as it is here in the US, and that this makes the exposure to the human body in those places a lot less likely to incite lust.
I think Americans have a LOT more problems with lust than most of the world does. Sexual sins are committed in every culture on planet Earth, but the US is hand-down the largest consumer of porn in the world (crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf), and also the culture that probably has the least exposure to the human body.
The Church teaches principles regarding modesty, but does not say, āIn situation āAā, you have to have āXā and āYā covered, but in situation āBā, you may reveal āXā but not āYāā¦ā
The applications of the official Catholic Churchās teaching on modesty isnāt something straighforward and uniform across the board.
Can you cite any CC doctrine which indicates that one may never be naked at a public beach? I know youāve cited CCC 2521-2527, but this doesnāt indicate that it is always immoral to be naked at a public beach. You seem to think it does though.
This may be true, but other very Catholic cultures have been accepting of nudity in the past. The professor for my āhuman and spiritual integrationā class indicated that a few centuries ago in strong, Catholic, areas of the world, it wasnāt all that uncommon for people to be naked in public squares to make a point about something.
The Catholic Church has in the past tried to integrate with the good aspects and traditions of cultures it evangelizes, and only throw out the bad stuff. It seems like St. Paul did this (āTo the Jews I became a Jew, to win the Jews.ā 1 Cor 9:20). Pagan traditions have influenced Christmas and Easter. Although some may think this was the wrong thing for the CC to do in the past, it seemed to have worked.
From what Iāve studied of social sciences by doing my own research, I came to the opinion that more exposure of the human body in society, even on public beaches, will lead to less problems with porn and lust, while never showing the human body may have the opposite effect (as America seems to show). How do you think nurses and doctors, who often have to see bodies of people of the opposite sex, remain professional as opposed to filled with lust? From what my fatherās childhood best friend, who is now an MD, said, heās seen so many bodies that itās just a casual everyday thing that doesnāt effect him much.
Also, the fact that women in the Middle East, where women must cover all of their body, from what Iāve heard, canāt be left unattended without being raped, seems to be evidence of this. Note: I do understand that that may have a lot to do with their culture and their laws, which makes it virtually impossible for a rapist to be convicted (if the rapist is convicted, the women is executed for being āimpureā).
Keep in mind that a few years ago I had more or less the same view on this subject that you do now. After seeing that things such as clothes-optional beach are not necessarily contrary to what the CC teaches (although they may be, depending on situation and intent), and seeing that greater acceptance of clothes-optional beaches would likely lowed problems with lust in future generations, that I changed my position.
S
sk98
Guest
John 21:7 said Peter had taken off his outer garment and plunged into the sea, he could of been wearing an inner garment. Also, it said he covered himself with his outer garment when he saw Jesus.
B
BobObob
Guest
You were probably looking at a translation of the Bible that is slightly less literal. The exact meaning of the words in John 21:7 is debatable.
John 21:7, with the original words, approximate meaning of those words, and the other places in the Bible where those same words appear, can be seen at blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#top. Click on āCā for the original words. The exact meaning is debatable.
The word which indicates that Peter was naked (my interpretation) or that he was only wearing inner garments, is āgymnosā. This word appears in Matt 25:36-44 (āyou found me naked and you clothed meā¦ā), Mark 14:51-52 (man fleeing naked from Gethsemane, which it uses āgymnosā to describe his body before and after he lost the only cloth he was wearing (see various translations of this passage to see what I mean)), Acts 19:16 (possessed man), 1 Cor 15:37, 2 Cor 5:3, Hebrews 4:13, James 2:15, Rev 3:17, Rev 16:15, and Rev 17:16.
I recommend looking at these for context and forming your own opinion.
B
BobObob
Guest
- Status