Interesting site. Most people today have almost no sense of history, and that includes the history of nude art in religious use, skinnydipping, and lots of other stuff. You're right that you wouldn't be likely to find a Bible today with those particular pictures in it, but they accurately depict the history of Bible times.
I'm not a fan of Bible reading in the schools, if by that is meant (as is so often the case) reading it for religious purposes. I do think it's outrageous that materials from any religion other than Christianity can be studied as literature. There's no way to understand US history without knowing something of the Biblical literature on which much of it was based.
I am not all that comfortable with religious reading
in public schools either, but I bet they still have
tales from Greek and Roman Mythology in the
classroom and those are religious, or at least they
once were. Fact is I think public schools are a waste
of money in any case, and that education belongs
at home.
My main point is that groups like the ACLU
and the American Family Association should just back
off and relax about everything. I really get tired of living
in an up-tight society filled with so much in-fighting.
This "infighting" is what is causing our youth to believe that Christianity is not what it's cut out to be. There are people that are on the spiritual bandwagon screaming at everyone about everything. Sometimes they just need to kick back and let their hair down.
Those same people read certain passages and then forget the rest.
I just hope, as naturists, that we don't do the same thing. We can just as easily pull scripture out of place, and justify our lifestyle without proof. I have heard some Christian Naturists (extremely few) say that we MUST go before God naked. Well....I don't want to go to that extreme either.
I hope we do find a balance here and in other sites like this one.
I think you are right, and I have been guilty
of pulling scripture out of place myself from
time to time. I guess nearly everyone has.
I think the important thing is to get the big
picture. To look beyond the trees and see the forest.
BTW,
On more worldly related matters:
I wish all the ACLUs and James Dobsons would just
cool it. I would like to put them both in a chamber
together and lock the door.
It seems like they are always out to stir up a fight,
and the United States Constitution always comes out
of it eroded a bit more.
I think I know the link you are talking about,
and I removed it. Thanks for pointing that out.
The page is a work in progress, and I
have more to say about the historic rise in
political correctness in America, if I can
just find the time to write it all down.
Interesting site, but a bit extreme for my tastes. While I'm not an advocate for censorship, and collect nude art myself, I do believe that allowing free access to anything by anyone is not a wise choice. 1928 is mentioned several times, and what was allowed then that isn't now. Well, times are differant, and most people are now so wrapped up in improper sexual attitudes that we do have to be carefull what we expose them to. Yes, Mary was a young girl, probably 12 to 14. Back then that was normal, and the children were prepared by that age to act as adults. Boys could get married and own property at 13. Nowadays, we coddle children and limit that process so that they don't have to be responsible for themselves until they're 18, if ever.
I've seen the Abercrombie and Fitch photos that caused such a stir. They were aimed at teens, and were blatently sexual, not just nude. They did not show nudity for it's own sake, which I promote, but showed it as a vehicle solely for sexuality. They exemplified all the messages about nudity that most of the people who post on this site fight against.
As I stated above, I am against general censorship, but I do think we need to be careful enough that we don't expose someone to something they aren't mature enough to handle. That's just good stewardship. Some people can't handle nudity. And while people should be mature enough to limit themselves in what they view, the popularity of explicit pornography, which there is no cause for, shows that most cannot. And if they can't even control their own urges, how will they ever guide their children to proper attitudes about these things?
I am fairly open-minded about alot of things, and I believe more people should be more open-minded than they are. But let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out and we allow anyone to see anything they want. I wouldn't want my eight year old grandson to see those Abercrombie and Fitch photos, because he hasn't been taught to view nudity as nonsexual. He isn't prepared to handle that right now, so when he stays with us we do censor what he is exposed to. That type of concern is what should drive any attempt to limit access, not the over-bearing self-righteous pseudomorality that is so popular today.
That's just my opinion, and if anyone has read far enough to see this: Hi! How are you?
God Bless
Kevin P
It has been a tough year but I'm hanging in there.
Thank you for asking.
I think you are right about "coddled" children today.
I see maturity as a muscle, if you don't exercise it,
it can never grow. Maybe that is why I see so many
"adults" who act like preschool children.
In fact I know teenagers who act like four year olds,
and ten year olds who act like they are twenty five.
Maybe some of it is in the genes but from what I
have witnessed the difference is in how overprotected
they are. The children who have been "neglected" are
always more mature than those who have been
overprotected. I am certain it has something to do
with the "neglected" youth being more free to explore
their world unimpeded.
When I say "neglected", I do not mean kids who have
been thrown out on the street, I mean kids who have
parents who do not always watch them like a vulture
and give them room to breathe. How else can kids
exercise the maturity muscle so that it grows as
they do ?
Now when I was eight I could have handled the
Abercrombie catalog easy enough, but my parents
would have thought otherwise.
Fortunately we had the National Geographic in
our school library, and I had a friend with a Playboy
collection. So I learned to view nude humans as both
sexual and non sexual.
How you choose to view an image is totally up to you.
I have learned that even hard-core erotica can be
viewed from a purely artist non-sexual point of view,
and I in fact prefer it that way. Actually I do not prefer
it at all. But I can tolerate it long enough to make a point.
However even when I was ten I found the images in
Playboy to be more artistic than erotic, and pornography
to be more humorous than obscene.
I can not fault you for not giving your eight year
old the keys to the porn store, or a charge account
at the bank; but when I was ten years old I learned
about gun safety and I never accidentally shot anyone.
That was the same year I learned to use condoms,
and I never got an STD from one.
Now if I have not completely lost you, my point is
I would not "freak-out" if my kid brought home an
Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue, instead I would
welcome the opportunity to make sure they understood
that the clothing company was trying to use sex to sell
its products.
Kids do not need to be protected from such images,
they need to be educated, to learn to see them for
what they are. That is an important step to becoming
mature, and they should learn it before they become
teens, because then they will be better prepared to
resist all advertising tricks.
Speaking of advertising tricks, maybe parents should
be more concerned about the commercials kids see
which repeatedly tell them, that if they are bored,
or not having any fun, or if they have no energy,
all they need to do is to eat a certain breakfast food,
or a particular brand of candy. Because what is that
doing to kids except setting them up to be drug users.
Advertising is a selling-confidence game, I do not
think you are ever to young to learn that. Of course
James Dobson would argue that allowing kids to view
erotic images is going to "sexualize" them, which is
impossible.
Looking at nude humans in the National Geographic
and Playboy magazines never sexualized me, I was born
that way. Being sexual is not something that happens to you,
it is something that God has wired into you. Why fight it ?
I only check this site weekly so I hope I got here soon enough to be read.
I checked the full biblical illustrations on the website that you referred to and notice in both cases they were of the pagan society enslaving the Israelite community.
I agree that the human body is the most unique creaton of God, actually made rather than created. I should never be a source of shame.
I do believe that what we use use bodies for is often shameful, but, this is the action not the instrument.
In the A&F debate the body is being used for strictly commercial purposes. Several of the illustrations were more suggestive of sexual activity than complimentory of their product. I do not see this as glorifying to God or acknowleging of the beauty of His creation.
I also believe that as we progress from open acceptance of our bodies in the natural state to illustrations of sexual activity, we move from the natural to the erotic, which sole purpose is to generate lust and motivate emotional response. As with most emotional and some physical exteriences a little is seldom enough.
While I am comfortable with nudity both in person and in art I sometimes wonder where the line is.
I think Ron is touching in an area that is important for Christians (and others) to understand, but it's a difficult and sensitive topic.
Ron wrote: "I also believe that as we progress from open acceptance of our bodies in the natural state to illustrations of sexual activity, we move from the natural to the erotic, which sole purpose is to generate lust and motivate emotional response. As with most emotional and some physical exteriences a little is seldom enough.
"While I am comfortable with nudity both in person and in art I sometimes wonder where the line is."
I don't agree that we move from the "natural" to the "erotic." Eroticism is also a natural part of our lives, part of the creation that God called "good."
I do agree with Ron that there is a line between non-sexual affirmation of the human body as a beautiful gift from God and the erotic view of the body as an object of sexual desire—and that line is a moving target. It is drawn in one place for this person and a different person for that place. And, given the complexity of human beings, the line may be drawn differently at different times for by the same person.
What we are trying to do in naturism is to increase the healthy acceptance of the body in a non-sexual way. Most of us would also affirm the beauty and blessing of erotic attraction between lovers. The first is best done in a more or less public way, while the second is best fulfilled in private moments.
Neither of these positive objectives is likely to be furthered when they are hijacked for commercial purposes. But the day to day truth is that the erotic is such a powerful force within each of us that it can be easily twisted to sell merchandise.
I haven't seen the A&F pictures, but if they are as described parents should take note and think about how to withhold their family's clothing dollars from a firm that deliberately exploits the hormone-laden nature of young people.
