Talk:Nudity in religion

Sefer Digambara Pulkhanim ha'Yehudi
This may be a hoax. Or at the least not notable and advertising. Joe407 (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a hoax, but an actual book that has been published. The book, or "sefer" in Ivrit, provides a fresh look into Jewish ritual practices by introducing readers to aspects and behaviors of religious nudism with the Jewish tradition. The practice provides three things: 1, a focus on mysticism. 2, a fresh Eastern look on personal, family, and community rituals. And, 3, an introduction into the wholesome benefits, spiritually and physically, of incorporating religious nudism into one's life. This is eco-friendly Judaism meets Social Nudism. Before, judging it, might I suggest learning more about it first. Look the book up online - Sefer Digambara Pulkhanim ha'Yehudi, Book of Ascetic Nudity Rituals of the Jew, copyright 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.110.174 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful reference
Here's an article (available through JSTOR) about ritual nudity in early Chinese religion. Keahapana (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Schafer, Edward H. (1951), "Ritual Exposure in Ancient China", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 14:130-184.

Christianity
Maybe it would be good to mention that certain Christiens (New Born, Evangelical, Mormons...) have sometimes a rather bad impression of nuditity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.125.165 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup and merge of duplicate content
Since the article has one short section of Ancient Greece, it seems reasonable to focus on contemporary religions and link explicitly to the History of nudity article for everything else. I would like to summarize the content on religion in the main Nudity article by moving much of it here. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first item of cleanup is the removal of content without cited sources. This is particularly true for the new religions.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop reverting this edit
If you would have bother to read the material that is being cited, you would see that the article cited is actually stating the opposite opinion of what was written. I am removing what is a completely opinion based interpretation of the text which is NOT shared by the author of the article, nor by the article itself. For example, here is a direct quote from the article:

“Not Only does the text betray no hint that Bathsheba is to blame for being seen, as others have noted, it also gives no indication that she could have resisted David, given the power imbalance between them.” (Page 61.)

How about instead of smashing that revert button you actually check the source material. There is nothing in the text of the article, nor the scriptural text being referred to, to indicate that the text is meant to imply the actions of the men are the fault of the women. Heymisterscott (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)