Is it supportable exegesis

[Bare_Truth]

One of the things one hears from "Textile Advocating Christians", et al., is the Non-Biblical assertion that men are so visually oriented that it is virtually impossible for a man to look upon a naked woman without lusting.

One of the observable things arising out of the flux of Muslim migrants is that it is "learned lust and attitude" rather than nude women that are root of such problem when it occurs. "Observent" Muslim men, seeing the exposed face, hair, mouth (especially while eating) or the ankles, have been recordied shouting "WHORE" at western women and then going on to knock them down and rape or gang rape them.

However, as in the case of the legs or even so little as the ankles, those muslim men are only reacting, ("in a perverted extreme way" !!!), as western men did less than a hundred years ago in England and the sophisticated cities of North America.

I would like to ask then if it is a "reach too far" OR is it proper exegesis to suggest that the first clause of Proverbes 23:7

7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

6 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:
7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

The broader quote shows that this is not speaking wisdom in the context of lust alone, but the point I am trying to make is that the essential truth lies in that first underlined clause. That the nature of the man be it greed (as can be seen taking even more context (clearly seen if one takes context even a few more verses earlier than I have shown here) is that it is the corrupt heart on any of many issues of sin that causes the perverse and negative action in the man, and logically if the corruption of the heart is absent, so will be the sin.

Therefore when someone accuses of a male naturist/nudist of being unable to avoid the sin of lust upon seeing naked human beings, the accuser is imputing that the corruption of lustful intent is already in the heart. Therefore, the accuser is guilty of imputing motive. For any human to impute anything to the heart of anyone with out knowing or having evidence of what is in the heart of the accused, is to bring a false or railing accusation and that is at least folly if not outright sin on the part of the accuser.

I believe that the first clause of Prov. 23:7 expresses a principle that can stand on its own even though it is presented in a context of greed, and therefore points to the real issue about whether lust is or is not inherently present in Mixed Gender Social Nudism, (or sadly may be today in the unmixed case as it was in Sodom).

[naturaldon]

Therefore when someone accuses of a male naturist/nudist of being unable to avoid the sin of lust upon seeing naked human beings, the accuser is imputing that the corruption of lustful intent is already in the heart. Therefore, the accuser is guilty of imputing motive. For any human to impute anything to the heart of anyone with out knowing or having evidence of what is in the heart of the accused, is to bring a false or railing accusation and that is at least folly if not outright sin on the part of the accuser.

On first reading, I think this is a fair conclusion. We really do not know what is in a man's heart. Sometimes a man doesn't know what's in his own heart at times. Only God knows fully, of course. I don't think it's a matter of an accuser imputing motive as much as it is a matter of an accuser assuming (accusing?) that said naturist is guilty (and has motive) of lusting. In one heart is an accusing spirit; in the other heart is the desire to innocently and righteously enjoy being as God made him/her. I don't know if that makes sense now that I reread it. But it's just my two unexegetical cents.

[jasenj1]

I think your point is supportable exegesis.

Matt 12:34-35
34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure.

Matt 15:18-20
18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

The textiles' position is that men looking & lusting is hard-wired into our sinful nature/biology. That simply shows what they believe - whether from training or social conditioning does not matter; it is in their heart. The simple response is "what about doctors, nurses, paramedics, morticians, and others who deal with nude people/bodies"? The response will likely be, "well, those are special exceptions". Ah. But if there are some exceptions, why can there not be others? Who determines who gets to be an exception and who does not? If not looking & lusting is possible, why would we not want to pursue that at a wide scale? Why should only those professions get the benefit of being freed from the scourge of visual lust?

And then their heads explode and they tell you not to be argumentative, and you can twist the Bible to say anything you want. See Scott Adam's many blog posts on cognitive dissonance.

[Petros]

I may need to put an oar in here, but I would need to do my homework, not just cannonball into the pool.

[bn2bnude]

One of the things one hears from "Textile Advocating Christians", et al., is the Non-Biblical assertion that men are so visually oriented that it is virtually impossible for a man to look upon a naked woman without lusting.

I've not been able to substantiate it but I have heard that during the Victorian era, it was the opposite. The men were controlled, women were lustful and couldn't control themselves.

[natman]

...

7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

....
I believe that the first clause of Prov. 23:7 expresses a principle that can stand on its own even though it is presented in a context of greed, and therefore points to the real issue about whether lust is or is not inherently present in Mixed Gender Social Nudism, (or sadly may be today in the unmixed case as it was in Sodom).

I think it is actually "perfect" exegesis.

If you consider what "lust" really is, "the unquenchable desire to possess something (or someone) which is not your own" (this can be bad, as in the desire for others belongings or spouse, or good, as in an unquenchable desire to know God through the study of His Word), then, in general, "lust" equates to or is derived from "greed". "Greed" is what makes us want something that someone else possesses or to prevent someone else from possessing.

As such, I feel that a man's reaction to the sight of a nude woman, a partially nude woman, a woman in a tiny bikini, a woman in revealing clothing, a woman in ankle length dress with arms exposed, a woman in a full length, full sleeve dress, or a woman in a hajib with only her eyes exposed are all a matter of cultural training or upbringing. However, considering that, statistically, rape occurs far more in cultures were women are more covered (primarily Muslim), the amount of clothing appears to be and is adversely proportional to the levels of lust or greed. That said, then it would appear that LESS is better.

I go back to my primary assertion as a Christian-naturist, that we need to train other Christians to view ALL THINGS, but especially the human body in its natural state, through the eyes of God, with the focus being that ALL THINGS, even our OWN bodies, belong to God FIRST and FOREMOST, for His good will, glory and honor. As such, to lust or greed after them and take them against His will is to steal from God Himself and then from the person whom God has blessed with them.

I have learned to be exceeding joyful in the things that God has given me, and also exceedingly joyful in the things He has NOT (like the Garth Brooks song, "Unanswered Prayers"). It sure makes life much less stressful, not chasing after the latest fad, the latest technology, the biggest house, snazziest car, the next big paycheck or score, the "hottest wife" (not that I do not consider my wife "HOT"... for me, she SIZZLES!). Our kids tell us all the time, "You are both so SMART, why aren't you RICH???". I tell them, "'Been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt and the hat. 'Burnt them both. It's not what it's cracked up to be."

Love God.
Love your spouse.
Love you family.
Love your neighbor.
I think that sums it up.

[jasenj1]

If you consider what "lust" really is, "the unquenchable desire to possess something (or someone) which is not your own" (this can be bad, as in the desire for others belongings or spouse, or good, as in an unquenchable desire to know God through the study of His Word), then, in general, "lust" equates to or is derived from "greed". "Greed" is what makes us want something that someone else possesses or to prevent someone else from possessing.

Many Christians - especially those on the "conservative" end of the spectrum - also have a warped definition of lust. They call it lust if looking at a woman stirs any sort of sexual tingle. And then they blame the woman for tempting the men. Here's my go to screed against this "modesty culture.

[Englishman]

We, men, have been taught that lust, in all its awfullness, is inevitable; that we have no choice but to be swept along by a tidal surge of hormones over which we have no control. There was a time, probably in the 1970's, when this vile concoction was touted as normal.

As a practising Christian I believe there is always hope for forgiveness, redemption & '... being changed from one degree of glory to the next.' We are told we have been given '... a spirit of power, love & self control.' Surely, no matter what our backgrounds, we have the hope of being changed, of not being ruled by those things that once dominated our lives? The anger I knew as a young man, my inability to form meaningful relationships & a willingness to use food as a source of comfort; none of these are present in my life now. Nor, I should say, is their abscence due simply to getting older. No, they are no longer problems because, I believe, God has been at work in me; ironing out the dents & kinks that life, & the devil, had put into me. Most importantly it is also because not only has the bad stuff (mostly) sorted but He has also been encouraging me to allow the Fruit of the Holy Spirit to grow in my life & how I express myself into the lives of others.

Does my sexuality turn me into a raging monster every time I encounter a naked woman on a beach? No, of course not. As my wife says, she can admire how someone looks but that doesn't mean she is desperate to have sex with them. There is only one person in the world I lust after & I am multitudinously blessed to be married to her. It's OK to lust after your wife, gents!

Going back to the OP, sort of, there is the naturist's reasonable arguement that more common nudity would flush some of the sexualising rubbish from our society. But given that most of humanity is fallen or in the process of sanctification it's unlikely to be the panacea we hope for.

Reading some of jasenj1's blogs on Modesty Culture was something of an eyeopener to me; I had not come across it at all. Christians, textile & naturist, have a part to play in showing that our Faith should be a place of growth, health & wholeness.

[natman]

Many Christians - especially those on the "conservative" end of the spectrum - also have a warped definition of lust. They call it lust if looking at a woman stirs any sort of sexual tingle. And then they blame the woman for tempting the men. Here's my go to screed against this "modesty culture.

Thanks for the link.

I have had acquaintance with a young woman through Matthew Neal who had been severely affected by the "modesty culture". (She had been a member of either this site or NC, I can't remember which or both). I think that at some point, I hurt her feelings during a discussion about the issue, primarily because I had never really heard the term or understood what it meant. Perhaps this will help me better understand so that I do not make a similar mistake in the future.

However, I have ALWAYS felt that it is not clothes that make the man (or woman in this case) and that what a person wears may or may not be a matter of choice. At the same time, I have encountered women who PURPOSELY dress provocatively. However, it is not so much the clothing as the actions or posturing that is presented.

Regardless, I feel that a man displays extreme immaturity and lack of self-control when he says he "CANNOT" control his own lust and places any or all blame on a woman if he acts or speaks inappropriately in ANY situation. This is PARTICULARLY true for "Christian" men because we know that the Fruits of the Spirit are:
Love
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Faithfulness
Gentleness, and
Self-control

[New_Adventurer]

There are two things I do not understand about the mindset of the Muslim male. Why does the sight of a woman, clothed in anything less than fully coverage, incite him to do violence to her? Is he unable to control himself? Is he expected to live up to a certain persona or be rejected by his friends and family? Is it a knee-jerk reaction? I just do not understand.

The other is why a female is not allowed to be unaccompanied in public? Why does she need a male escort (chaperone or guardian)? Is she untrustworthy or is she really that vulnerable? Along that line, I would need to take pity on anyone who threatens my wife, she would pound him into the ground by herself, maybe even force others to rescue him.

[Maverick]

If you consider what "lust" really is, "the unquenchable desire to possess something (or someone) which is not your own" (this can be bad, as in the desire for others belongings or spouse, or good, as in an unquenchable desire to know God through the study of His Word), then, in general, "lust" equates to or is derived from "greed". "Greed" is what makes us want something that someone else possesses or to prevent someone else from possessing.

Does my sexuality turn me into a raging monster every time I encounter a naked woman on a beach? No, of course not. As my wife says, she can admire how someone looks but that doesn't mean she is desperate to have sex with them.

These two statements pretty much sum up the station that my train of thought regarding lust has pulled into for a while. By Natman's statement, which is also echoed on the similar strip about the Christian erotica site, I'm not sure I've ever lusted. I've done plenty of admiring, for sure, and not always with the best mindset, but never felt an unquenchable desire to have sex with someone like Shechem must have had for Dinah, or David for Bathsheba, or Amnon for Tamar, or...

[natman]

I'm not sure I've ever lusted. I've done plenty of admiring, for sure, and not always with the best mindset, but never felt an unquenchable desire to have sex with someone like Shechem must have had for Dinah, or David for Bathsheba, or Amnon for Tamar, or...

I am not sure that even Shechem, David or Amnon level of desire amounted to "lust". That is, that their desire was not "unquenchable". I think that in each case, there transgression occurred because they were "opportunistic". It wasn't that the COULD NOT control their desire, but that they WOULD NOT control it. The result is sin either way.

[naturaldon]

It wasn't that they COULD NOT control their desire, but that they WOULD NOT control it.

I wish I would have said that (first).

[naturaldon]

It occurs to me that if we take out references to naturism, this strip would be a good thread for every Christian man and boy to read, although with the naturist references included, it's quite educational for that topic, too.

[Maverick]

I'm not sure I've ever lusted. I've done plenty of admiring, for sure, and not always with the best mindset, but never felt an unquenchable desire to have sex with someone like Shechem must have had for Dinah, or David for Bathsheba, or Amnon for Tamar, or...

I am not sure that even Shechem, David or Amnon level of desire amounted to "lust". That is, that their desire was not "unquenchable". I think that in each case, there transgression occurred because they were "opportunistic". It wasn't that the COULD NOT control their desire, but that they WOULD NOT control it. The result is sin either way.

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate again... forgive me...

27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

By Jesus' definition, I think all three probably looked at those women "with lustful intent," particularly Amnon, whose desire was apparently so strong that he made himself sick over Tamar. To me, that begs the question, what qualifies as lustful intent?

Not trying to be argumentative here, just very interested in this discussion and trying to view it from all perspectives with the goal of getting at the truth.