Naturist Christian Fellowships - could they work here?

Clarity said:

I took a look at themarriagebed.com site someone suggested earlier and found

"About 40% of nudists are swingers quoted on the site and i also noticed

Where single men are welcome they outnumber the women at least 3 to 1, often more (10 to 1)."


​

There seems to be a clear link between naturism and sex and i cannot accept that naturism leads to less lust. In fact what naturism does is desensitize people about nudity so the sexual organs of the body are no longer afforded any special respect and this in turn leads to a more permissive attitude towards sex as people no longer have any inhibitions about being naked contrast this where naturism is not practised and the sexual organs are treated with reverence in this case people will be less willing to take of their clothes and have sex as nudity is seen as not being acceptable.

Click to expand...

At first glance, this seems rational and it is this basis that has driven western societies to equate ALL nudity to sex. The fact is that this is counter to statistics and sudies of families raised under both situations.

Clarity said:

Naturism can easily lead to fornication and adultery What do you think will happen if an attractive male and a female naturist are left alone together? What if a boy and a girl naturist are dating each other and they start kissing, can you not see that if they are naked this could quickly turn into sex?

Click to expand...

Again, statistically speaking, discounting nudist clubs geared specifically for sexual activity, fornication and adultery occur in far greater frequency in other social environments. This is a fact.

Clarity said:

I think the sexual organs are to be treated with respect and we should not desensitize people to nudity as it will lead to a more permissive society in terms of sexual behaviour.

Click to expand...

The greatest sex organ we posess is our minds, then our eyes and our hearts. The whole personhood needs to be treated with respect, not just certain parts.

Clarity said:

In a perfect world such as the garden of eden nudity would be acceptable but we live in a fallen sinful world in which nudity is not acceptable and is not christian or biblical.

Click to expand...

This is the point that I differ with you the most. The human body has been made "unacceptable" by human society, not by God. To state otherwise is to add to scripture, which, in itself, is and clear abomination.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Natman said:

This is the point that I differ with you the most. The human body has been made "unacceptable" by human society, not by God. To state otherwise is to add to scripture, which, in itself, is and clear abomination.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Click to expand...

Part of the scriptures is that man covered them selves from nakedness when they realised they were naked.

They can't go back to being naked because we're already aware that if we were naked, we'd be naked. This is as much as sin cannot be unsinned. Sin has already contaminated our flesh, which is why we need to clothe ourselves(not physically...don't want to argue logistics here)

In anycase, we're all arguing on different points.

I think that the human body is a beauty of creation, as much as a flower or an insect and to every animal that walks on this earth.

However revealing this beauty in a sinful fallen world, is not beauty. Rather it's placing a flower in acid.

Wearing clothes is symbolic, and it's symbolism is something you'd need to realise when looking at the scriptures, rather than a low IQ approach of seeing the issue.

Natman said:

Actually, there was one other "person" in the garden who "walked" with them...

Gen 3:8 "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day"​

Click to expand...

Many theologeans believe this is actually the first mention of Jesus incarnate (a Christophany). He probably was not clothed as there would have been no reason for Him to be as it could have raised a since of shame even before the fall as Adam and Eve would question "Why is He clothed while we are not?".

Click to expand...

You are so literal. Most Theologians don't think that. It's said in the gospel of John, first sentence;



[Bible]John 1:1-10[/Bible]

Go figure!

I realize that this is only a point of ponderence and speculation, but so is the idea that "shame of nakedness" would have entered the garden whenever the population began to grow, assuming that there was no "fall" (in other words, when Adam and Eve were no longer the only two people in the garden).

The more logical answer is that God provided coverings for "protection" from the unfriendly elements that existed outside the garden.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Click to expand...

Your answer is not logical at all.

Adam and Eve are symbolism to represent the fall of man. They are indeed symbolic representations of humans now.

If you can't see that, obviously, you've been barking up the wrong tree!

Icystwolf said:

Part of the scriptures is that man covered them selves from nakedness when they realised they were naked.

They can't go back to being naked because we're already aware that if we were naked, we'd be naked. This is as much as sin cannot be unsinned. Sin has already contaminated our flesh, which is why we need to clothe ourselves(not physically...don't want to argue logistics here)

In anycase, we're all arguing on different points.

I think that the human body is a beauty of creation, as much as a flower or an insect and to every animal that walks on this earth.

However revealing this beauty in a sinful fallen world, is not beauty. Rather it's placing a flower in acid.

Wearing clothes is symbolic, and it's symbolism is something you'd need to realise when looking at the scriptures, rather than a low IQ approach of seeing the issue.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that "nakedness" wasn't a "sin" until Adam and Eve "realized" it was a "sin". This is highly illogical and un-scriptural. In my "low IQ" understanding of scripture, I have come to understand that "sin" is "sin". I have never found an example of the nature of "sin" changing from God's perspective. We do however see examples of where Satan calls "sin" "good", or "good" "sin" (which in itself is "sinful"). Also, just because we may not "realize" that what we might do is "sinful", we are not exhonerated from it's condemnation. If that were the case, the absolute BEST thing we could do to secure someone getting to Heaven would be to NEVER expose them to the Scriptures or the Gospel (the ultimate example of "ignorance is bliss"). Instead the Bible tells us that God has "written His laws on our hearts" and that we have no excuse for disobedience, and that we are to spread the Gospel "to the ends of the earth" so that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

I believe, as do many theologians, including Pope John Paul II in his book "Love and Responsibility" in which he writes about "innocent nudity", that the thing that has changed here are the hearts of Adam and Eve (and mankind), not the nature of "nakedness". Like children today, they tried to cover up their deeds by hiding and avoiding contact with authority, in this case God. God, being omniscient, saw through their ploy, and, acting as any good parent, was compelled to follow through the the prescribed "discipline"... expulsion from the Garden.

"Discipline" is supposed to be a tool to "rebuild" relationships, not destroy them, and so God, Jehova Jirah ("God of provision") lovingly provided them with coverings to protect them from the elements, not from His eyes, or even each other's eyes.

As far as "clothing" being "symbolic", I would agree with you up to the point of Jesus' death on the Cross. Many Biblical comentaries refer to God's provision of animal skins as coverings as the first example of His requirement of "periodic and repeated" ritual shedding of blood to "temporarily" cover man's sins. However, once we have accepted Jesus Christ's blood as the final, "once and for all" payment for the remission of our sins. As such, we are now "permanantly" covered by the Blood of Christ. Thus the "symbology" of alternate coverings should be cast aside. To cling to it is to cling to the Old Covenant ways, which is expressly denounced in the book of Hebrews as the "greatest heresy" and the denial of the sufficency of Christ's life, death and resurrection.

This is very serious stuff!

Son-cerely,
Nate

At first glance, this seems rational and it is this basis that has driven western societies to equate ALL nudity to sex. The fact is that this is counter to statistics and sudies of families raised under both situations.

Click to expand...

Lewis and Janda (1988) found a positive correlation between childhood exposure to nudity and adult sexual comfort. The authors point out, however, that some would see this as a reason to prevent childhood exposure to nudity, as their measures on comfort included acceptance of lifestyles that many would consider immoral or undesirable (such as premarital sex, or acceptance of homosexuality). The other factors (sleeping in the parental bed and parental comfort/acceptance of sexuality), while not germane to the narrow scope of this review, also demonstrate a positive correlation with childhood exposure and adult sexual adjustment and comfort.

I think you have to admit that the statistics do not disagree with my theory but yours and i would also like to point out this is taken from a site in favour of naturism.



1 Cor. 6:18: "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

2 Timothy 2:22
22Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

The biblical advice is to flee temptation and not to go to a nudist club to become desensitized as this is the opposite of what the bible advises.


A good site is at

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/1210

"Discipline" is supposed to be a tool to "rebuild" relationships, not destroy them, and so God, Jehova Jirah ("God of provision") lovingly provided them with coverings to protect them from the elements, not from His eyes, or even each other's eyes.

Click to expand...

How do you know it was to protect them from the elements and not hide their nudity?

Genesis 2
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Genesis 3
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

The reason adam and eve made garments of fig leaves was not because of the elements at all but because they realised they were naked and were ashamed because as you said

Instead the Bible tells us that God has "written His laws on our hearts"

Click to expand...

and adam and eve didn't have a bible to tell them what was right and so god had written his law on their hearts and they realised that they shouldn't be naked and there is no suggestion that it is anything to do with the elements. I have already showed how nakedness is associated with shame in the bible and shame is the natural reaction to feel when you are naked in front of others.

This is my last post as i dont have anything else to say

Proverbs 1
20 Wisdom calls aloud in the street,
she raises her voice in the public squares;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out,
in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
23 If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you
and made my thoughts known to you.
24 But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
25 since you ignored all my advice
and would not accept my rebuke,
26 I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you-
27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.

28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.
29 Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD ,
30 since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."

Clarity said:

Lewis and Janda (1988) found a positive correlation between childhood exposure to nudity and adult sexual comfort. The authors point out, however, that some would see this as a reason to prevent childhood exposure to nudity, as their measures on comfort included acceptance of lifestyles that many would consider immoral or undesirable (such as premarital sex, or acceptance of homosexuality). The other factors (sleeping in the parental bed and parental comfort/acceptance of sexuality), while not germane to the narrow scope of this review, also demonstrate a positive correlation with childhood exposure and adult sexual adjustment and comfort.

I think you have to admit that the statistics do not disagree with my theory but yours and i would also like to point out this is taken from a site in favour of naturism.



1 Cor. 6:18: "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

2 Timothy 2:22
22Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

The biblical advice is to flee temptation and not to go to a nudist club to become desensitized as this is the opposite of what the bible advises.


A good site is at

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/1210

Click to expand...

Clarity,

There are many reports involving thousands of children raised in "nudist" environments that show the very positive affects on children and how they fit into society in general.

I would concur that children should not be exposed to sexuality, especially perverse uses of sexuality, but according to the statistics, this occurs even more frequently in the non-nudist housholds by people that have grown up with the notion that nudity=sex. The study that you cited focused specifically on children sleeping in the same bed as their "parents" during sexual activities. This is absolutely not the norm for the vast majority of nudist families, and I, myself would be concerned if this occured at all.

I would also agree that we should "flee sexual immorality and temptation". In our "sex" driven society, it is increasingly difficult to hide from what the world calls "good". Since this is not what God had in mind when He created us, wouldn't it be better to recondition our thinking, to return it to His original plan, that seeing a naked human body should not automatically trigger a desire for sex, to tell Satan, "I'm no longer buying into your lies! I'm free of your ability to tempt me by your garbage!"

By realizing what Jesus has done for me and realizing that we are as God made us, by realizing that people are not the air-brushed, perfect images produced by the media and the glamour and "gentleman's" magazines, many hundreds of thousands of people have come to the point that they know that "nudity" does not equal "sex". They have overcome the temptation and the immorality. For us, it is not about lusting, oogling, gawking, groping or drooling over someone of the opposit sex. It is simply about being comfortable the way God made us, without shame, without the affects of sinful thoughts and desires.

Contrary to what you have said, "shame" is not the "natural reaction" to nakedness. Instead, it is a conditioned reaction. Even young children in wester societies have no "shame" about running around naked. They learn how to deal with their nakedness from their parents or peers. Until only a few decades ago, people in remote tribes where nudity was the norm NEVER developed a sense of shame about their nakedness. Except in conditions where a person is forcibly stripped, in most cases, the self-shame associated with nakedness disapears quickly when in a non-sexual social environment such as a locker room, sauna or even a visit to a naturist club.

I didn't say that Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves to "protect themsleves from the environment". The didn't need that type of protection while in the Garden. They covered themselves in an attempt to "hide" from God because they were ashamed of the fact that they had sinned against Him. He (God) provided skins AFTER they were ejected from the Garden. God wasn't ashamed of their nakedness before the fall, He wasn't ashamed of their nakedness after the fall, and He is not ashamed of or nakedness today. If He is, we are all in a lot of trouble because as Job stated, "naked I came into this world and naked I shall depart."

I have had to care for several elderly parents and grandparents, all of which ended up incapable of doing even the simplest hygene function. If there were any shame involved in their nakedness, they would have had to wallow in their own garbage for months or years until they passed away. I am greatful I was not ashamed of God's creations shuch that I could not take care of them, and I pray the same is true when it comes my time... and yours.

Son-cerely,
Nate

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!! See what you have done Dario? You have caused one of the biggest debates on the Aussie forum I have ever seen! And all because you won't wear your clothes. And...you can get that muslim thing off your posts too. You're not a muslim Dario.

Natman said:

I would concur that children should not be exposed to sexuality, especially perverse uses of sexuality, but according to the statistics, this occurs even more frequently in the non-nudist housholds by people that have grown up with the notion that nudity=sex. The study that you cited focused specifically on children sleeping in the same bed as their "parents" during sexual activities. This is absolutely not the norm for the vast majority of nudist families, and I, myself would be concerned if this occured at all.

Click to expand...

It depends on the culture. In some societies, such as Aboriginal and Polynesian ones, lovemaking was done quite openly, sometimes in front of the children. Did they grow up to be deranged, anti-social characters? No.

I do agree though that such openness is not recommended in our culture right now, due to our obsession with war, religious fanaticism, perverted sexual practises, and the shocking treatment of our natural environment and children.

"I would also agree that we should "flee sexual immorality and temptation". In our "sex" driven society, it is increasingly difficult to hide from what the world calls "good". Since this is not what God had in mind when He created us, wouldn't it be better to recondition our thinking, to return it to His original plan, that seeing a naked human body should not automatically trigger a desire for sex, to tell Satan, "I'm no longer buying into your lies! I'm free of your ability to tempt me by your garbage!"

Sex is the primal drive of all creatures, and yes it has been true for sapient beings ever since the caveman era.

And if seeing a naked human body did not trigger off ANY desire for sex in any human being, then how would we propagate our species?
Would our future people be artificially grown in incubators like Aldous Huxley speculated in 'Brave New World'?

"Contrary to what you have said, "shame" is not the "natural reaction" to nakedness. Instead, it is a conditioned reaction. Even young children in wester societies have no "shame" about running around naked. They learn how to deal with their nakedness from their parents or peers. Until only a few decades ago, people in remote tribes where nudity was the norm NEVER developed a sense of shame about their nakedness. Except in conditions where a person is forcibly stripped, in most cases, the self-shame associated with nakedness disapears quickly when in a non-sexual social environment such as a locker room, sauna or even a visit to a naturist club."

I agree with you.

God does not make cookie cutter Christians, and such attitudes can vary from disgust, 'if they can do it, why not me?', to amusement. I have reached a point where my reaction to nakedness is 'no big deal', but my reaction to religion is one of either disgust or amusement. Since seeing the film the Passion, my reaction to unnatural sexual practises is one of disgust.

"I didn't say that Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves to "protect themsleves from the environment". The didn't need that type of protection while in the Garden. They covered themselves in an attempt to "hide" from God because they were ashamed of the fact that they had sinned against Him. He (God) provided skins AFTER they were ejected from the Garden. God wasn't ashamed of their nakedness before the fall, He wasn't ashamed of their nakedness after the fall, and He is not ashamed of or nakedness today. If He is, we are all in a lot of trouble because as Job stated, "naked I came into this world and naked I shall depart."

Hey, you've given me a great idea for my last rites! I'd state in it that I want to be buried naked, cos that's the way I'm gonna face God when I turn up my tootsies. None of this buried in a 3-piece suit with my prized posessions in a coffin. I'd just have a Chinese rice bowl and a pair of Doc Marten boots.

"I have had to care for several elderly parents and grandparents, all of which ended up incapable of doing even the simplest hygene function. If there were any shame involved in their nakedness, they would have had to wallow in their own garbage for months or years until they passed away. I am greatful I was not ashamed of God's creations shuch that I could not take care of them, and I pray the same is true when it comes my time... and yours."

That's wonderful! I hope that I will be competant enough to look after my parents in this way if/when they become infirm. They lead such busy and actoive lives that I'd probably end up being put in an old people's home before they do!


Crashedman

Natman said:

So what you are saying is that "nakedness" wasn't a "sin" until Adam and Eve "realized" it was a "sin". This is highly illogical and un-scriptural. In my "low IQ" understanding of scripture, I have come to understand that "sin" is "sin". I have never found an example of the nature of "sin" changing from God's perspective. We do however see examples of where Satan calls "sin" "good", or "good" "sin" (which in itself is "sinful"). Also, just because we may not "realize" that what we might do is "sinful", we are not exhonerated from it's condemnation. If that were the case, the absolute BEST thing we could do to secure someone getting to Heaven would be to NEVER expose them to the Scriptures or the Gospel (the ultimate example of "ignorance is bliss"). Instead the Bible tells us that God has "written His laws on our hearts" and that we have no excuse for disobedience, and that we are to spread the Gospel "to the ends of the earth" so that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

Click to expand...

You have said "sin is sin" several times.

Yet you haven't said what sin is!

Which makes me wonder whether you actually know what sin is.

Not only that but your understanding of "written his laws in our hearts" from Isiah is out of context.

Basically, God doesn't change, hence sin may change but since God isn't changing, thus sin doesn't change either.

I'm not convinced that you actually know the scriptures properley.

I believe, as do many theologians, including Pope John Paul II in his book "Love and Responsibility" in which he writes about "innocent nudity", that the thing that has changed here are the hearts of Adam and Eve (and mankind), not the nature of "nakedness". Like children today, they tried to cover up their deeds by hiding and avoiding contact with authority, in this case God. God, being omniscient, saw through their ploy, and, acting as any good parent, was compelled to follow through the the prescribed "discipline"... expulsion from the Garden.

Click to expand...

Catholic theologians ideas are granted in the currency of popularity.

"Discipline" is supposed to be a tool to "rebuild" relationships, not destroy them, and so God, Jehova Jirah ("God of provision") lovingly provided them with coverings to protect them from the elements, not from His eyes, or even each other's eyes.

As far as "clothing" being "symbolic", I would agree with you up to the point of Jesus' death on the Cross. Many Biblical comentaries refer to God's provision of animal skins as coverings as the first example of His requirement of "periodic and repeated" ritual shedding of blood to "temporarily" cover man's sins. However, once we have accepted Jesus Christ's blood as the final, "once and for all" payment for the remission of our sins. As such, we are now "permanantly" covered by the Blood of Christ. Thus the "symbology" of alternate coverings should be cast aside. To cling to it is to cling to the Old Covenant ways, which is expressly denounced in the book of Hebrews as the "greatest heresy" and the denial of the sufficency of Christ's life, death and resurrection.

This is very serious stuff!

Son-cerely,
Nate

Click to expand...

So for starters you took the Bible out of context, now what I said you've taken out of context and made into heresy.

I suspected that you read the "Davinci Code"
and the influence of that seems so evident in what you've typed.

Theres no such thing as symbology. Symbology's assumption, is like evolution. All symbols all origniated from one symbol which expanded into many symbols. Hence this comes down to one meaning, that is the meaning of life....absolute rubbish.

God is the author of life,

by the way, you can stop going over the repeated boring parts for children, and get to the actual problem.


I'll explain more and give more proof when I have time to argue with you.

uhoh

Hi,

I was at this naturist swimming party on Sunday afternoon and had a talk to a young lady who is a regular attendee as well as being an active AOG member about her thoughts on social nakedness being a sin.

She said that if it really is a sin, then we are essentially calling God a sinner for causing humans to be born that way in the first place.

She disbelieves evolution, and said that if such a concept existed in the human race, then surely God would have changed human genetics for us to be born with clothes when we exit the womb.

I think that both sides of the human evolution debate are true: politically, scientifically, socially and spiritually our world and of things has changed quite dramatically since Biblical times.

As moral and emotional beings, many of us have sadly not grown out of the barbarian times with our love of violence in sports and movies that we classify as entertainment, and how some of us draw inspiration from animals in the way that we conduct ourselves in business and romance.


Crashedman

crashedman said:

Hi,

I was at this naturist swimming party on Sunday afternoon and had a talk to a young lady who is a regular attendee as well as being an active AOG member about her thoughts on social nakedness being a sin.

Click to expand...

Oh dear...there's one AOG girl who doesn't study her Bible.

[/QUOTE=crashedman]She said that if it really is a sin, then we are essentially calling God a sinner for causing humans to be born that way in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Well...there's one bonza girl. Quite an intelligent thinker too.

[/QUOTE=crashedman]She disbelieves evolution, and said that if such a concept existed in the human race, then surely God would have changed human genetics for us to be born with clothes when we exit the womb.[/QUOTE]
Well...there's something for Gynecologists and midwives to chew over. Babies being born with nappies on.

crashedman said:

And if seeing a naked human body did not trigger off ANY desire for sex in any human being, then how would we propagate our species?
Would our future people be artificially grown in incubators like Aldous Huxley speculated in 'Brave New World'?

Click to expand...

That is a surprising comment comming from you Crash. Once we no longer equate "nudity" to "sex", and place sexual intimacy in it's proper perspective, within the bounds of holy marriage, then you know as well as I, (at least I hope you do), that it is driven by love, honor and respect instead of merely "animal instincts". There is no fear or reason to believe that the human race will die off or have to rely on "incubators".

Even in the animal kingdom, the mere site of another "naked" animal does not automatically, in and of itself, trigger the desire to mate. It is far more complex than that.


What is this "muslim" thing Belvina is referring to?

Icystwolf said:

You have said "sin is sin" several times.

Yet you haven't said what sin is!

Which makes me wonder whether you actually know what sin is.
...

Not only that but your understanding of "written his laws in our hearts" from Isiah is out of context.

Basically, God doesn't change, hence sin may change but since God isn't changing, thus sin doesn't change either.

Click to expand...

"Sin" is doing anything that displeases God. Some of this we know at birth ("written on our hearts"), the rest He has given us in the Laws of His Word, summarized by Jesus Himself in two statements. "Love the Lor your God with all of your heart, with all of your mind and with all of your strength." And, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Your last sentence in the quote above basically makes the point I was trying to get across... that God is the One who defines what "sin" is and isn't. Throughout scripture, we are reminded that God never changes, which means that the things that displease Him (sin) never change and the things that please Him never change. In reading scripture through and through, we see this to be true, and, if that is the case, then why would the "nakedness" in the Garden, which pleased God enough to proclaim it to be "very good" suddenly be displeasing to Him (sin).

Instead, we see that it is Satan that constantly trys to change our understanding of what God says. He tries to convince us that the things God says are "good" are actually "bad" or, at a minimum, second rate, compared to what Satan or the world can offer, and visa-versa.

We see that it is not "nakedness" that displeases God, but misuse of "nakedness" (taking advantage of others weaknesses, sexual perversion and permissiveness). We see that it is not the "drinking of wine" that displeases God, but abuse of wine (drunkeness). We see it is not enjoying food that is graciously provided by God that displeases Him, but the abuse of such food (gluteny). We see that it is not owning property that displeases God, for He blesses us beyond our understanding, but the abuse of property ownership (poor stewardship, covetousness). We see that it is not "praising" that displeases Him, but the abuse of "praise" (giving to get, lacking humility, self-rightiousness, praising the wrong "god").

Icystwolf said:

I'm not convinced that you actually know the scriptures properley.

Click to expand...

This is why I spend so much time studying scripture as we all should... so that we will hopefully know how to respond to the hope that lies within us and to issues like this.

Icystwolf said:

Catholic theologians ideas are granted in the currency of popularity.

Click to expand...

I believe this statement to be least true for the Catholic Church than for any other church. That is especially true today, when so many "Christian" denominations have either toyed with or grasped the "liberal" theology of the day. The Catholic Church has clung strongly to it's most basic precepts. I am not a Catholic, but I admire their steadfastness, even in light of their current problems.

Icystwolf said:

So for starters you took the Bible out of context, now what I said you've taken out of context and made into heresy.

I suspected that you read the "Davinci Code"
and the influence of that seems so evident in what you've typed.

Click to expand...

No. I do not endorse the sensationalist teachings of such garbage as the "Davinci Codes", the reading of esoteric meaning from secret passages of scripture, or gnosticism. I believe the scripture is complete and obvious to those that have been indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

Icystwolf said:

Theres no such thing as symbology. Symbology's assumption, is like evolution. All symbols all origniated from one symbol which expanded into many symbols. Hence this comes down to one meaning, that is the meaning of life....absolute rubbish.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are saying that the Bible does not use "symbolism" to get it's points across, then I wonder just which of us is taking scripture "out of context". There is plenty of "symbolic" (non-wooden-literal) language throughout scripture, most of it pointing to the comming Messiah, and the vast majority well explained in associated commentaries. Spend a little time in Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, the major prophets and especially Revelations and one quickly sees that "symbolism" is evident and plentiful. I'm not talking about "hidden" symbolism as you point out in "Davinci Codes" but "obvious" symbolism... symbolism that even a "child in Christ" can see.


Son-cerely,
Nate

Very interesting posts nat. The muslim thing I am referring to is that Dario is now sporting the muslim faith icon instead if the Christian. C'mon Dario..pretty please? pop up the christan icon again mate...we know you aren't a muslim.

Sorry Dario!! You did it!! Goodonya mate!!

Natman said:

"Sin" is doing anything that displeases God. Some of this we know at birth ("written on our hearts"), the rest He has given us in the Laws of His Word, summarized by Jesus Himself in two statements. "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your mind and with all of your strength." And, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Click to expand...

I can't quarrel with that.

Your last sentence in the quote above basically makes the point I was trying to get across... that God is the One who defines what "sin" is and isn't. Throughout scripture, we are reminded that God never changes, which means that the things that displease Him (sin) never change and the things that please Him never change. In reading scripture through and through, we see this to be true, and, if that is the case, then why would the "nakedness" in the Garden, which pleased God enough to proclaim it to be "very good" suddenly be displeasing to Him (sin).

Click to expand...

God is not displeased with their nakedness, as much as he is displeased with their disobedience to him.

Instead, we see that it is Satan that constantly trys to change our understanding of what God says. He tries to convince us that the things God says are "good" are actually "bad" or, at a minimum, second rate, compared to what Satan or the world can offer, and visa-versa.

Click to expand...

I agree. Does it not state in Leviticus 'Woe to those who call evil things good, and good things evil'? This is why I think that some naturists are somewhat ahead of other people - by helping create sustainable living and drawing people's attention to the use of natural energies such as wind, water, and the sun to provide us with power and the use of natural herbs and therapies for healing rather than medication that has unp

We see that it is not "nakedness" that displeases God, but misuse of "nakedness" (taking advantage of others weaknesses, sexual perversion and permissiveness). We see that it is not the "drinking of wine" that displeases God, but abuse of wine (drunkeness). We see it is not enjoying food that is graciously provided by God that displeases Him, but the abuse of such food (gluteny). We see that it is not owning property that displeases God, for He blesses us beyond our understanding, but the abuse of property ownership (poor stewardship, covetousness). We see that it is not "praising" that displeases Him, but the abuse of "praise" (giving to get, lacking humility, self-rightiousness, praising the wrong "god").

Click to expand...

Yes, I know what it's like to have my kindness and trust in other people abused (especially with share-mates). As for perversion, what might be considered normal in one culture might be considered perverted in another. For instance, anal sex for a woman might be considered perverted in America, whilst in Greece it is the preferred style for a woman until she is married.

I have been fighting gluttony over the last few years, and since reading what the Bible has to say about glutony, it has caused me to cut down on poor eating habits. I simply go for a jug of water or orange juice now if I ever get the temptation to stuff my face.

I've found that "praise" has been terribly abused with some of the churches - such as those who pray for a parking space near the church, or a new pair of leather boots for their 3-year-old daughter as if God is some kund of Santa Claus figure. Then if something doesn't go right, they then say 'It must have been Satan'.

I can fully understand what you mean because I have lost a lot of things in my life-time - jobs, cars, personal property, money, and people whom I thought were friends. In a rather sad way, I don't really miss it now.

This is why I spend so much time studying scripture as we all should... so that we will hopefully know how to respond to the hope that lies within us and to issues like this.

Click to expand...

For sure.

No. I do not endorse the sensationalist teachings of such garbage as the "Davinci Codes", the reading of esoteric meaning from secret passages of scripture, or gnosticism. I believe the scripture is complete and obvious to those that have been indwelled with the Holy Spirit.[/quoite]

Natman, the Da Vinci Code is entirely a work of fiction and is not meant to be applied to the Christian way of life. I'm surprised that there are even some people who have taken it seriously.


As far as God prohibiting nakedness, there are only two instances in Exodus where clothes were required as a part of worship.

Crashedman

crashedman said:

Yes, I know what it's like to have my kindness and trust in other people abused (especially with share-mates). As for perversion, what might be considered normal in one culture might be considered perverted in another. For instance, anal sex for a woman might be considered perverted in America, whilst in Greece it is the preferred style for a woman until she is married.

Click to expand...

I don't care what the world, be it America, Europe or even Greece consider "perversion". I only care about what God considers "perversion". Male or female, the rectum was not designed for acceptance of the male sex organ and is far more susceptible to damage and disease than the appropriate hardware. Also, any type of extra-marital sexual activity is fornication. Nuff said there.

crashedman said:

Natman, the Da Vinci Code is entirely a work of fiction and is not meant to be applied to the Christian way of life. I'm surprised that there are even some people who have taken it seriously.

Click to expand...

I know that, and a lot of Christians know that, but there are millions of Christians and non-Chriatians that don't. They have bought into this demented version of liberal theology and escatology. Unfortunately, that in itself is a partial fullfillment of prophecy.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Hi Nat,

Natman said:

I don't care what the world, be it America, Europe or even Greece consider "perversion". I only care about what God considers "perversion". Male or female, the rectum was not designed for acceptance of the male sex organ and is far more susceptible to damage and disease than the appropriate hardware. Also, any type of extra-marital sexual activity is fornication. Nuff said there.

Click to expand...

The Bible actually does not condemn anal sex between people in a romantic relationship, even though it might not be considered anatomically correct by some people. I'm personally not interested in it myself, but if that's what floats the boat of some people in a loving relationship - who am I to pass judgement on them?

Secondly, the Bible doesn't exclusively condemn extra or pre-marital sexual activity.

I discussed this on another forum about the origins of the word 'fornication' that many religious ministers seem to yell and smash the pulpit over. The word is actually 'inappropriate contenteia' and the Bible lists these activities as being unacceptable:

1) Having sex with a woman during her period
2) Sex with worshippers of pagan sex goddesses in the Corinthian temples.
3) Adultery. This was actually understood by the Hebrews to be wrong for a married woman to have sex with another man, because this was a violation of her husbands property rights. A married man (such as Solomon and David) could have as many wives and concubines as he wanted, just as long as they were not married.
4) Pederasty. This was quite possibly the worst of the sexual sins to be committed. It invariably refers to relationships between older men and young boys, the procuring of young boys as slave prostitutes, and forced anal sex of heterosexual men who were captured in battle. Regrettably, the former is still propagated and rationalised by the notorious NAMBLA group which has even had social and moral support by some Catholic priests throughout its history. Makes you want to be sick when you think about it.


Crashedman