A bit of exegesis please.....

[Petros]

As individuals, we may be aware of it all. And speak out against much of it. And then get rejected as overly critical hypocrites nt friends and relatives who talk freely about our own shortcomings.

We are in an age - one of those ages - where many could benefit from constructive criticism but the fashion is for free and frequent destructive comment. Meanwhile, as always, businesses and institutions and those who speak for them focus on what it is safe and popular to criticize - and on the individuals it is safe, in their circles, to criticize.

[natman]

Not to diminish any other sin, but Paul indicated that "sexual sin" is different, maybe even worse that some of the other sins.

1 Cor 6:8
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body."

Also, I think that "sexual sin" encompasses many of the other sins, such as covetousness (wanting something that you do not have), theft (adultery is having sex with someone else's spouse) etc., which all boils down to not loving your neighbor.

[Ramblinman]

I was enjoying the latest issue of The Naked Truth Newdsletter (Vol 19 issue 2) when I came across a link to an anti-nudity article by a Mr. Caiden Cowger, a syndicated radio talk show host.
The article claims that the Bible forbids exposure of genitals (apparently in any context).
He objected to a Wesleyan college's use of nude models for its art classes.
The verses Cowger sited were as follows (with his commentary included):
Not to mention, the scriptures are clear: this type of behavior is unacceptable.
1 Corinthians 12:23 states, “And the parts we regard as less honorable (genitals) are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect those parts that should not be seen.”
In Genesis 3:21, God calls for man and woman to be clothed, expressing, “And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.”

To be fair to Mr. Cowger, I do not believe that he has had any training in hermeneutics (in theology, the principles of interpretation of the Bible).
I would welcome comment on his interpretation of these verses.
I think we can agree that these two verses do not represent the sum total of what the Bible has to say about nudity, which isn't much, but certainly more than two verses.
In I Corinthians, it would seem that Paul is simply speaking about the cultural norm of covering genitals in public settings (other than nudity of public baths or peasants engaged in fishing or farm work). But a cultural norm, particularly that of pagan Rome, is not always a clear indication of God's viewpoint, note the qualifying phrase "the parts we regard".

The more familiar passage from Genesis chapter 3 is one we have tousled with extensively on this forum.
It is clear that God made clothing, but we see no commandment that Adam and Eve must always wear clothes, no "thou shalt not be naked" in the Torah.

But surely others will want to make their own observations.

http://mountaineerjournal.com/2018/01/1 ... de-for-20/

[Petros]

Oh, pooh. If that is the best he can do - and likely it is - he needs help.

In Corinthians, Paul the Adaptable - all things to all men - is writing to Jews and Greeks in a Greek milieu. We know a good deal about Greek attitudes toward nudity. We know that Paul takes references to the culture of the place he is writing to and uses them as rhetorical tools. 1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? The Greeks were into rather short hair on the man - the Jews weren't so much, did no one in the church ever look at a picture of Jesus?

He does not issue a dress code - he uses local styles to advance an argument.

As for Genesis - God implicitly says, after what your dumb disobedience has done to the world you'll need these. He does not issue a commandment.

If he had - shouldn't we be dressed in skins and not cotton and nylon and all? He did not give them linen shirts and trousers.

The devil can quote scripture - and anyone can find a verse and hang a baseless rule on it.

[RMOlson]

Oh, pooh. If that is the best he can do - and likely it is - he needs help.

[Englishman]

Hmmm... Not the best arguement I've ever heard. I don't know my way round Biblical Greek, or any other sort, actually, but is CC's assumption that Paul is referring to genitals in that passage accurate?

[Maverick]

Hmmm... Not the best arguement I've ever heard. I don't know my way round Biblical Greek, or any other sort, actually, but is CC's assumption that Paul is referring to genitals in that passage accurate?

It's Greek to me too, but I'll submit this analysis that I found interesting: http://thebiblicalnaturist.blogspot.com/2012/01/squeamish-translating-part-5-speaking.html

[Ramblinman]

Hmmm... Not the best arguement I've ever heard. I don't know my way round Biblical Greek, or any other sort, actually, but is CC's assumption that Paul is referring to genitals in that passage accurate?

It's Greek to me too, but I'll submit this analysis that I found interesting: http://thebiblicalnaturist.blogspot.com/2012/01/squeamish-translating-part-5-speaking.html

The entire article is a great read, but I want to call everyone's attention to this particularly poignant paragraph by Matthew Neal:

The Price of Protecting the Bias…

One of the tragic consequences of the NASB and NIV rendering of this passage is the implication that there are some people in the church that are best hidden. The squeamishness about the human body has resulted in a translation that introduces a foreign concept into the Scriptures, leading to a false application of that Scripture.

In truth, I have never heard anyone expound the application that I suggested above… that some people should be “hidden” in the church. But how else can we make application of this passage to the Body of Christ when we say that certain physical body parts are “unpresentable” and must be hidden?

It is as if they sacrificed the meaning that Paul intended in order to insert an antagonism towards human genitals… making the passage teach something that is actually foreign to Greek text.

[nakedpreacher]

I actually used the information gained from this Biblical Naturist post in a discussion with a pastor friend of mine (no I didn't refer directly to it, he would not have approved (I did refer him to "mychainsaregone.org")). We were talking about pornography use among Christian men, and I told him that I thought that it was directly related to the church's view of sexuality. You are right Ramblinman, the inference is that there are some of our members of which we are ashamed and we should hide them from the public. The alternate interpretation that I gave him (I had actually studied it in Greek after reading the article because it piqued my curiosity) and what I believe to be closer to the true meaning was that, while Penises are not particularly attractive, to my wife my penis has a special attractiveness based not on our relationship. I believe Matthew Neal translates it as, "those parts with less honor we treat with more abundant honor" or something to that effect. I told him that it was our squeamishness about anything sexual that has caused us to twist scripture in translation to the point that the original meaning is not even discernible from the translation. The conversation lasted about two hours and I think that he probably went and checked it out for himself afterward.
As for the OP, I believe what he is saying is, "Conduct yourselves so that no one would ever even accuse you of such things", though I can not prove it from my study. My guess is that it is probably an idiom in Greek
Naked Preacher

[Englishman]

Thanks for the responses, folks. The article cited was indeed a fascinating & enlightening read; much food for thought.