In connection with my other post, I also want to reaffirm that this is a thread about the effects of nudity in the home on society. Many here have written in about nudity in public which is not what this thread addresses, as I have mentioned earlier. Basically, this country is not ready to accept nudity in public because of its lack of maturity to respond to it as a serious topic of conversation.
Also, many here have failed to notice that when this thread refers to nudity in “the home,” “the home” is a reference that pertains to the immediate family. Not relatives, not friends, only the parents and children. If a child’s parents chooses to allow their parents or friends into this circle then an exception is made for they deemed their friends trustworthy enough to be around their family in that state. In the case of 3blessings, one must ask whether the parents go nude when a non-family member is around because then it is still a case of the child following the parents’ example. I know that this is a rather personal question, but it is very pertinent to this topic and needs to be asked because there is no mention of the conditions surrounding the child’s shyness (not modesty) other than a non-family member is there.
As concerns Rach620’s post:
Yes, nakedness is appropriate sometimes, but for most of the rest of our lives we recognize the dignity of the human person by covering ourselves. It’s not so much a matter of the different values which ‘culture’ attaches to the human body.
Dignity is not a function of whether we wear clothing or not. Dignity is a bearing of one’s attitude, personality, and how they treat or mistreat their fellow man. In our culture, there is alot of mistreatment occuring which is resulting in the disrespecting of others and their persons. Why else would a person destroy the life of an infant through abortion unless they disrespected the dignity and value of that human? Why else would a person become a prostitute or hire a prostitute or watch pornography unless they were disrespecting someone, not giving them their due dignity and value? What I am trying to do is point out to parents that they need to show to their children that a person without clothing is just as deserving of respect and dignity as their clothed peer.
This can be problematic, but we need to remember that we are not in Eden.
Pardon my saying so, but I never mentioned that we were in Eden or that we were trying to reclaim what was lost in paradise. I am trying to point out that in today’s American culture, we need to return dignity to the wholesome nude as opposed to the over-glorified sexual nude which is bombarding our senses.
Because of original sin, we must clothe ourselves; we have a tendency to sin that we cannot ignore. It is the duty, especially of women, to dress as so their appearance will not incite lust in others. It’s not puritanical to tell someone that they have to wear a decent amount of clothing.
No, because of original sin, we need to resist temptation. That is our duty if we are to love God with our whole hearts. This can be done whether one is clothed or nude. What you said about how women should not dress to insight lust, I agree with. However, to “tell someone that they have to wear a decent amount of clothing” is a contradiction to your earlier statement that to create a “list of enumerated boundaries” is puritanical, because somebody has to determine what is decent and the only way to do that is to create a list and then reveal it to others. If that list includes what one must wear to be modest then it must also include when and where one can be nude. Otherwise, without said list, these weighty decisions would be left up to one’s better judgement . . . a different opinion for each person resulting in a disunified Church, a very weak opponent against the lust inducing evil of the sexual nude.
Peace in Christ, gw
