Something to think about

[Nate Dekan]

I was thinking this morning about what Scripture says about darkness and light and had this thought I wanted to share...

"Perversion thrives and grows in dark hidden places, you wonder why are society has such perverse attitudes towards the human body? It is because we hide parts of it in shame. When all parts of the human body are openly accepted without shame there is less darkness for perversion to feed on."

Hmm, something to think about.

Nate

[Nate Dekan]

I was thinking this morning about what Scripture says about darkness and light and had this thought I wanted to share...

"Perversion thrives and grows in dark hidden places, you wonder why are society has such perverse attitudes towards the human body? It is because we hide parts of it in shame. When all parts of the human body are openly accepted without shame there is less darkness for perversion to feed on."

Hmm, something to think about.

Nate

Very true, Nate. Evil likes to hide in the darkness because their deeds are evil. John 3:19,20 says "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

Hiding the human body only feeds people's perversive desires and ideas about the body. It feeds their fatasies and causes the mind to go wild with ideas. The fantasies grow to epic proportions until they have to act on their fantasies through perversive acts.

[Jochanaan]

So that's why our movement hasn't broken into society's main stream! Hmmmm--secretiveness vs. openness. I know which I prefer!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
I was thinking this morning about what Scripture says about darkness and light and had this thought I wanted to share...

"Perversion thrives and grows in dark hidden places, you wonder why are society has such perverse attitudes towards the human body? It is because we hide parts of it in shame. When all parts of the human body are openly accepted without shame there is less darkness for perversion to feed on."

Hmm, something to think about.

Nate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Society has such views of nudity because most christian churches teach them to.

Cyndiann,
Even as a Christian I have to agree with that. Churches of all demoninations have taught that nudity is sinful and shameful, and the body must be kept covered. One pastor I had didn't like males and females swimming together even. Unfortunately, too many people have fallen into that belief and have been brainwashed.

Actually I should have taken it one step further because christian religions are not the only ones that teach people that nude is bad.

Who do you think you will find joining pornsites? It will be those who are taught that human bodies are something NOT to be seen.... and those are mostly people involved in organized religions. They want what is forbidden.

If we all were more open about nudity the porn industry would be lots smaller. I don't think it would ever be gone and it does have it's place. I like looking at what I call erotica myself. But I feel it would be done in a more healthy manner instead of being a substitution for open discussions and nudity around the family household.

Ah, yes, the forbidden fruit. When something is forbidden it's more tempting. If a father says to his teenage daughter, "I don't want you to see that boy again", she will sneak out at night to see him. If a child is told, "No, you can't have a cookie just before dinner", the child will sneak a cookie, and probably more than one. When anything is forbidden or made to seem mysterious, it becomes something people MUST have.

Making the human body seem something mysterious that must be kept hidden because it's "offensive" makes the porn business a multi-billion dollar business. Make nudity commonplace, and the mystery would be virtually removed. Porn is sex; it excites and arouses because the poses are not what not you see in a nudist environment--hopefully. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Nate Dekan]

I agree cyndiann, and that is why I'm trying to make the focus of my site, showing Christians how damaging body shame is. Unfortionatly most Christians seem to be uncomfortable with what God created and called very good, so instead of openly accepting the body as good in the light, they call it indecent, reject it and thus send it into darkness where perversion thrives.

We've had Promise Keepers in my town for big events at the staduim a few times, after one such event a local paper ran an article on how much business increased with local porn shops, porn channels at motels and with prostitutes while Promise Keepers was in town, I believe that's a direct result of Christians (and others) regulating the body and sexuality to darkness.

I know from my life and others that there is much good about Christianity, but like many other things I also know there is also much that isn't good in it. Christianity is kind of like sex, in itself it's very good, but it is also easily abused, perverted, and corrupted.

Nate

Well the problem as I see it is that you are only teaching half the message. I would have to know what you consider "perversions" before I could say for sure but many times not only is plain nudity healthy but many forms of sex are as well.

If you try and teach that nudity is ok but sex is not (and don't limit it so severely as many christians do) you aren't being honest. Many things that the religious call perversions are really not. Masturbation has been proven to be a good thing for the body, same sex relationships are good for the soul, sex outside of marriage is very normal and commonplace anymore and it is perfectly sane to admit you like being spanked or tied up during sex, or you like to roleplay, or you try some tantra positions.

So just what is your personal definition of a sexual "perversion"?

Mine would be sex with children or animals.

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So just what is your personal definition of a sexual "perversion"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, NO, I do NOT want to teach that "nudity is ok but sex is not" and I do think many Christians limit sexuality to severely. A good book that address's this is "Sexual Shame, an Urgent Call for Healing" by Karen A. McClintock. Do Christians need to let go of many sexual hang-ups and judgmentalism? Yep. But sexuality (while related) is not nudity and I feel trying to tackle both body shame and sexual shame at the same time by those bound with both is too much. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. People do need to know that sex is a good gift from God and ok, but the specifics of sexual acts are between each individual and God, not me.

So I won't give a act by act list of what I think is ok or perverse apart from this, sex with children or animals is clearly perverse as well as anything that is abusive, forced and not mutually consensual. (And by abusive I include things even between husband and wife. Sadly, there is such a thing as spousal sexual abuse and rape!)

Nate

Here are a couple links about the Sexual Shame book
http://www.alban.org/Review2002MarApr-4.asp
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/bookreviews/Sexual%20Shame.htm

[Trailscout]

Nate,

I understand that you don't feel comfortable telling people your opinion about the parameters for sexual purity, as you said it is between the person and God.

However doesn't God make it plain enough in the Bible that he wants sex to be exclusively between a man and his wife?

I can't imagine that you advocate loveless sex. That seems antithetical to the Christian message.

I do believe that our western society makes it very difficult for young people to find a mate and stay married.

In other years, it was unheard of for huge numbers of people to live single sexless loveless lives well into their thirties and forties. That is an unnatural situation and I am not unsympathetic, but I don't believe that promiscuity and an endless series of affairs and meaningless loveless physical couplings is a welcome substitute.

[Suntied]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben_m:
I guess I took a "stand" on that one - fire away /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ben!!!

The bonds of Marriage?

In the old testimate, marriage was simply the claim of ownership/right two bear offspring from-by the man. I'm not even sure they called it marriage ???

Ben, you have always shown a remarkable intellect in the replies I've read... how did you become so set in the societal way all of a sudden?
The same people that invented the bonds of marriage are the same people who said we have to wear clothes?!?!

Cindiann is a bit exteam with the comments she made, but I beleive that if you find the right mate, companion, freind and they want you to be true, thus making it nessesary for the relationship to survive... you are true and honest, there shouldn't be any certificate or title put to that relationship. It is between the two of you and only that. If the trust is broken... so is the relationship.

If the MCF (mate,companion,freind) is the right one and your happy with each other, the fun is never lost! It is the people that stay married long after they havn't been an MCF to each other that lose the fun and excitement needed to hold the relationship together/survive.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
We need to look at the big picture as naturist. We can't be naked in public because of documentation exactly like a marriage licence!
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Back to the subject of this Post... (I think) the darkness has been concealing all of us and we need to join together to get out into the light; ie;social nudity accemptance and true freedom. Discusing sex with anyone or anything preverse is not a way to the light, but a simple argument about unlightened things in the DARK!!!

Sorry I think I got a bit carried away /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just a bit concearned with us keeping our "EYE ON THE BALL" (originally said by Frank R)

Ignore me and continue you argument /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Bart/Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[j4king]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
However doesn't God make it plain enough in the Bible that he wants sex to be exclusively between a man and his wife? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"And David took him more concubines and wives"
2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 14:3

David (a man after "God's own heart") had 10-15 wives/concubines if not more.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
[QB]Nate,

I understand that you don't feel comfortable telling people your opinion about the parameters for sexual purity, as you said it is between the person and God.

However doesn't God make it plain enough in the Bible that he wants sex to be exclusively between a man and his wife?

I can't imagine that you advocate loveless sex. That seems antithetical to the Christian message.[QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was wondering how my post would be responded too, actually not nearly like I thought it would be. <G> At least not yet! I hit some hot buttons, so I expected far harsher, more judgemental responses. Hopefully it gives me an opportunity to speak some of love anyway. <G>

Look at some of the stuff in the Old Testament. If you get legalistic and start dotting i's and crossing t's you can justify polygamy and a number of perverse sexual things including prostituting your daughters to violent men in order to save a couple male strangers from being raped.

However if you look at sex from a Spiritual perspective, with the relationship of man and wife being an illustration of the relationship of Christ and the Church yes, I believe the highest, best, and holiest place for sex is between man and wife only. I do not in any way advocate loveless sex, unfortunately I know that loveless sex including spousal sexual abuse and assault happen between men and their wives. A wedding or marriage certificate is no guarantee of loving sex. And I will not judge people outside the Body of Christ who do not live up to that high standard of man and wife or those within the Body of Christ who are struggling because their spirit longs for such righteousness, they know it is right and desire to live that way, but their flesh is weak.

Jesus befriended and loved the even the dregs of society, yet too many Christians are like the Pharisee Jesus spoke of who looked down on a sinner in self-righteousness and contempt saying "Thank God I'M not like him". Yes, Jesus told those he loved not to sin anymore, but he compelled them with ONLY love, no self-righteousness, no condemnation, (he reserved that for the self-righteous) and no contempt. That can't be said of how many Christians treat those they see as "sinners", especially when it comes to sexuality. Jesus said He came not to condemn, but to save (John 3:17).

I recently read an updated version of the Good Samaritan in which those who passed by and left the beat up stranger for dead where leaders of today's fundamentalist Christian organizations and the Good Samaritan who had compassion and helped the stranger was a homosexual. I think it is a very powerful, hard-hitting update of the story. I'm not saying that homosexuality is what God wants or the standard of Christian righteousness, I'm saying that the way homosexuals and others are treated by many "Christians" in the name of God, isn't what God wants, such treatment is far from Christian righteousness! I say with Jesus "let him who is without any sin cast the first stone". No one except him has that right and even he doesn't do it. Many people have rejected Jesus not because of Jesus, but because of those who call themselves followers of Jesus, how are those "followers" going to answer for themselves before the father?

I'd say that those things that are sexual sins by Christian standards are natural by the standards of the world. The Christian standards are spiritual or "supernatural" if you will. How can we condemn people who are not in Christ for not living up to supernatural, spiritual, Christian standards? Further, how does condemning them bring them to Christ???

As far as judgment (I can hear it coming), if someone within the church is flagrantly sinning with no remorse, yes there is a place to judge and act on that. But for those outside the church (I believe even those "flagrant" sinners) and those struggling with sin within the Church we should have only, grace, compassion, forgiveness, understanding, and love, compelling them with God's love. Christian standards of righteousness are for Christians who can hope to live up to those standards ONLY by living in a dependent relationship in Jesus Christ. There should be no expectation that those who are not in Christ should live the way those in Christ do. Christian standards of morality/righteousness are NOT something to condemn and bash non-Christians over the head with!

OK I'll get off my soapbox.

For now anyway

Nate

[Nate Dekan]

As I said before, I feel that trying to tackle both body shame and sexual shame at the same time by those bound with both is too much. However you are absolutly right in saying regarding nudity and sex that...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben_m:
"the same people" who condemn one condemn the other - they believe them to be one in the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But I dont think you are right in saying (Emphasizing the words "GENERAL PUBLIC") <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think it's that much MORE imperative that as nudists/naturists we be committed to complete sexual fidelity if we are to gain more wide-spread acceptance by the general public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You may be right about that in order to gain more wide-spread acceptance for nudism by "Christians", but not the "general public".

However as you said above those "who condemn one condemn the other" I think it's far more imperative to address the condemning and judgemental attitudes by "Christians" toward those who are not in Christ. Many nudists are not Christians and thus do not live, and are not bound by Christian standards, thus you will never get all nudists to be committed to complete sexual fidelity. However you "should" be able to get Christians to love and not condemn those who are not in Christ in order to help bring them to Christ.

Nate

[Nate Dekan]

Thanks Ben, your post is excellent! I too believe that "only within a moral framework does much of the potential benefit of naturism become apparent. Otherwise it's just everybody out having a 'naked party'". The main problem I have with naturism today is it's become mostly just about the "party" rather than promoting healthy attitudes about the human body.

And I do believe that the "general public" does have a sense of "moral values" I see a lot of evidence of that in fact. But especially when it comes to sex that does NOT mean that those values are the same as Christians, as in "between man and wife only", face it sex is a very powerful drive and that is a very high, holy, and strict standard.

The "world's" good moral values when it comes to sexuality are more about what is mutually consensual and not being abusive, etc. and while these may not be as strict as Christian sexual standards they are still very good values. In fact many "Christians" within marriages need to uphold such high standards themselves, some feel very self-righteous about keeping sex in marriage but to be blunt, don't give a damn about there spouses consent or abusing their spouse. There is NO righteousness in only having sex with your wife if you're abusing her! But many who do that are quick to heap condemnation on anyone who has sex outside of marriage.

I also believe that naturism must be understood at a greater level before real progress could be made. But when it comes to sexuality (at least for the general public) I think that level is in sex being mutually consensual, respectful, not being abusive, (standards which again some "Christians" need to adopt) not being offensive to others (for example not in public). I do beleave we should speak up for sexual standards for all that are at least mutually consensual, non abusive, and respectful of privacy. So, can Christian naturists say that the best place and the Christian standard for sex is within marriage? Yes, I hope so, but I believe we need to do that in a way that clearly says it is the standard for those "in Christ" while not being condemning and judgmental of those who are not in Christ.

Nate

[Jochanaan]

Some theses, with which I'm sure most people here will agree (sorry, I've been reading a history of the Protestant Reformation):

1. The Bible does not teach that the spirit is good and the body evil; that is a Greek innovation. Rather it proclaims body and spirit good and sin evil.

2. The Bible also does not share many modern Christians' discomfort with sexual issues; it discusses the matter in the light.

3. God is not against sex, just its misuse as defined in Scripture.

4. All manner of sins (except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) may be forgiven, including sexual sins.

5. Nudity does not equal sex and therefore does not fall under any of the sexual prohibitions, including those in Leviticus 18 in which the text says literally, "see the nakedness of" near kin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Some theses, with which I'm sure most people here will agree (sorry, I've been reading a history of the Protestant Reformation):

1. The Bible does not teach that the spirit is good and the body evil; that is a Greek innovation. Rather it proclaims body and spirit good and sin evil.

2. The Bible also does not share many modern Christians' discomfort with sexual issues; it discusses the matter in the light.

3. God is not against sex, just its misuse as defined in Scripture.

4. All manner of sins (except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) may be forgiven, including sexual sins.

5. Nudity does not equal sex and therefore does not fall under any of the sexual prohibitions, including those in Leviticus 18 in which the text says literally, "see the nakedness of" near kin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The bible also talks about slavery and concubines, and sleeping with your daughters, and has stories about their god telling people to rape women after beating a city in war.... and Leviticus says not to eat shellfish and wear clothes of mixed fibers and tells people to shun women who just had a baby, longer if that baby is female.

Why do those who say the bible is their guide only follow the parts they want to?

[Trailscout]

Nate,

First of all I apologize for misunderstanding your position on sexual fidelity. I think we both agree that the church should unabiguously teach its parishoners that the standard is what it always has been: one man married to one woman in a monogamous loving relationship that seeks to emulate the selfless love of Christ for the church. Sex outside of that context is sinful.

I hope you did not assume that I think an abusive but monogamous husband can escape the wrath of God. Of course, he is at least as cursed as an adulterer, maybe more.

We may disagree somewhat if you meant to imply that all non-Christians are guaranteed to live lives of fornication. (How would you explain Buddhist monks for instance?)

I have long believed that a recognition of one's sinfulness is a necessary precursor to perceiving the need of a savior, Jesus Christ. The book of Genesis describes Noah as "a preacher of righteousness". You might try to twist to say that he was a preacher who happened to be a righteous man, but I think a more accurate rendering of the passage would say that (with God's implied blessing) he was a preacher who exhorted people to live righteous lives.

Nate, I don't see any way you can avoid some mention of sin and condemnation of specific sins if you are to be effective in leading people to the conclusion that they need to be saved from something. Granted there is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner, but I still can find no way for you to keep silent about God's laws of behavior even when addressing a non-Christian audience.

The Bible teaches that the impact of sexual sin is greater than most other sins because it is to the detriment of one's own body. I wonder if you may have forgotten that. Keep in mind that a level of impact is not the same as a level of guilt. Oh sure, try to avoid all sin with God to help you! However, we should expend greater effort to avoid sins that have greater negative impact on our lives and that of others.

I also believe that nudist resorts are under great obligation to set high standards of public behavior for their visitors and members. I recently read of one resort that had a lingerie dance for Valentine's Day. Their Web site said it would be a "Sexy Event". Why would a nudist resort have an event where they ask participants to wear clothes of any kind, especially "sexy" clothes?? Now I happen to know that this resort overall tries to promote a family atmosphere, but the "sexy" event may lead outsiders to the conclusion that this is just the tip of the iceberg and nudists are having sex with each other and children and dogs behind those high fences.

Some nudist resorts forbid same-sex couples from visiting, ban body piercings and maybe a few other things. I think each resort has a right use such rules to project a "squeaky clean" image to the textile world, who is having a hard enough time trying to accept the idea of social nudity much less all the S&M, bondage and alternate lifestyles. I can even understand gender balance policies although they at times pose a challenge to me as a single guy.

"I also believe that nudist resorts are under great obligation to set high standards of public behavior for their visitors and members. I recently read of one resort that had a lingerie dance for Valentine's Day. Their Web site said it would be a "Sexy Event". Why would a nudist resort have an event where they ask participants to wear clothes of any kind, especially "sexy" clothes?? Now I happen to know that this resort overall tries to promote a family atmosphere, but the "sexy" event may lead outsiders to the conclusion that this is just the tip of the iceberg and nudists are having sex with each other and children and dogs behind those high fences."

Why should we NOT have a dance where we can wear something sexy just because we are in a nudist venue? Why should be become eunichs once through the gates? You obviously don't understand women. We like to wear sexy things sometimes and we like to flirt sometimes.... we like being female!

Would you assume that at a dance outside the nudist venues the participants would be having sex with children and dogs because the promotions said to wear something sexy? Of course not!

I say we should not be held to different standards just because we are nudists. Those days are over when nudist clubs don't allow couples to hold hands or give a friend a hug.

[Trailscout]

Cyndian,

I contend that outsiders perceptions of nudists haven't changed that much in 40 or 50 years, so our behavior in public events at nudist resorts should not change either.

A lot of resorts do not regard underwear or "Fredericks of Hollywood" negligees as being appropriate for a public event. Perhaps it is wrong to use one word, "Sexy" to cover an entire range of attire from say a cocktail dress to nighties that society in general regards as appropriate for the bedroom only just prior to sexual intercourse. It's not me, babe. These rules were in place long before I was born and are still in effect in mainstream society.

Cyndian, you have been pragmatic enough on other threads to recognize that we will lose the right to be nude anywhere if we don't maintain some level of decorum at nudist venues. It ain't fair, but you have been one of the first to admit that we have to play the game to keep our little bits of heaven nude and free.

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Nate,

First of all I apologize for misunderstanding your position on sexual fidelity. I think we both agree that the church should unambiguously teach its parishioners that the standard is what it always has been: one man married to one woman in a monogamous loving relationship that seeks to emulate the selfless love of Christ for the church. Sex outside of that context is sinful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You didn't misunderstand; I left my position vague initially to see what the response would be! But the Biblical standard was not always one man and one wife, one man and many wives plus concubines was very common in Old Testament times, even for very Godly people. It's not so black and white. While I think sex in marriage is the highest and best standard, I don't think everything outside of that is absolutely sin. Cyndiann had a good question:

"The Bible also talks about slavery and concubines, and sleeping with your daughters, and has stories about their god telling people to rape women after beating a city in war.... and Leviticus says not to eat shellfish and wear clothes of mixed fibers and tells people to shun women who just had a baby, longer if that baby is female.

Why do those who say the Bible is their guide only follow the parts they want to?"

Those who are legalists are most especially guilty of this. I'll use divorce as an example. Jesus was clearly opposed to divorce; yet there is as much divorce accepted in churches today as outside them. Although marriage has a long history (and was very different in Biblical times, which I'll get inti in a bit), marriage by the church and marriage licenses by the state are far more recent. Both beginning well this side of Bible times, yet I know of divorced people who scorn faithful couples who aren't "married" as being sinful. I ask if sin can be measured, who is more sinful? I say it's the divorced person!

Many Christian's say the Bible is very black and white about nudity being sinful, we see it differently. Some think the Bible is very black and white about sex, others see it differently and probably have more scriptures to support their position than nudists do! (I still want to be clear and say that I believe sex is best reserved for between one man and one wife, I'm just not so quick to condemn everything outside of that)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We may disagree somewhat if you meant to imply that all non-Christians are guaranteed to live lives of fornication. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all, many non-Christians have moral sex lives that put many Christians to shame.

(snip for brevity)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Granted there is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner, but I still can find no way for you to keep silent about God's laws of behavior even when addressing a non-Christian audience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Before Christ yes, but Christ was the completion and fulfillment of the law. But I'm not really up to doing a treatise on law vs. grace right now. That's an even bigger issue than this. Can the law still be used to bring those who don't know Christ to Him? Perhaps, but how and why the law is applied is very important, it should be used to draw people to Christ, not club them over the head and turn them away, but too often it's the later. Consistency is important too as Cyndiann said "Why do those who say the Bible is their guide only follow the parts they want to?" Many Christians rail about sexual immorality but totally ignore things like greed, materialism, gluttony, gossip, and more. Many non-Christians are very aware of that and see the hypocrisy. (Especially with greed and materialism, modern western Christians are EXTREAMLY materialistic while much of the population of this planet live in very squalor conditions. I'd love to see preachers preach against materialism and ignoring those living in poverty, the way they do sex! But many who scream about sexual immorality drive luxury cars and live in mansions.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Bible teaches that the impact of sexual sin is greater than most other sins because it is to the detriment of one's own body. I wonder if you may have forgotten that. Keep in mind that a level of impact is not the same as a level of guilt. Oh sure, try to avoid all sin with God to help you! However, we should expend greater effort to avoid sins that have greater negative impact on our lives and that of others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with diseases and all, that the impact of sexual sin is great, I also know that science has confirmed what the Bible says regarding two becoming one in that there are chemical reactions that take place during sex that emotionally bind two people together. But while many non-Christians treat sex too lightly, I think many Christians go overboard the other way and treat ANY sex outside of "marriage" as more grave than it is. I think that sex between husband and wife only is the ultimate of sexual responsibility, but if many Christians weren't so dogmatic and judgmental of anything apart from that, perhaps more people would make more responsible sexual decisions.

Let me say clearly that I am not trying to justify my own sinful sexual behavior. I'm over 30, single and apart from childhood sexual abuse a virgin. I desire for sex to be a special gift that I share with my wife that I have never shared with any other person. In matters of sexual infidelity I could likely throw the first stone, yet I also understand the temptations of youth, and the differences in cultures now and in Biblical times. What do I mean? I said above that marriage was different in Biblical times. Well in Biblical times marriages where typically arranged by families, often (but not always) had nothing to do with love, and happened at a young age, 16 year old unmarried girls would be OLD maids in that culture. Today in our culture families don't arrange marriages and it isn't set up for people being married in their early teens. Most people today are getting married in their mid twenty's or later. Yet sexual hormones are still raging in the teens. I hope teens will make sexually responsible choices, but I understand the frustration of wanting sex when the sexual drive is at it's very height but not having an approved outlet for it. Most people can't resist the sexual drive, so I think it's better to show understanding rather than just saying it's in "marriage" or nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I also believe that nudist resorts are under great obligation to set high standards of public behavior for their visitors and members. I recently read of one resort that had a lingerie dance for Valentine's Day. Their Web site said it would be a "Sexy Event". Why would a nudist resort have an event where they ask participants to wear clothes of any kind, especially "sexy" clothes?? Now I happen to know that this resort overall tries to promote a family atmosphere, but the "sexy" event may lead outsiders to the conclusion that this is just the tip of the iceberg and nudists are having sex with each other and children and dogs behind those high fences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I COMPLETLY agree with you there, I'm no longer a member of a nudist club in my area because of that sort of thing. But the key to what you said there is "public behavior". What people do in public is one thing and many nudist clubs need to set a much higher standard for that. But what people do in private is another and I don't believe any nudist resort has any place regulating that. BTW, propositioning someone by the pool, etc. is PUBLIC behavior. IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Some nudist resorts forbid same-sex couples from visiting, ban body piercings and maybe a few other things. I think each resort has a right use such rules to project a "squeaky clean" image to the textile world, who is having a hard enough time trying to accept the idea of social nudity much less all the S&M, bondage and alternate lifestyles. I can even understand gender balance policies although they at times pose a challenge to me as a single guy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The worst club I ever visited as far open displays of sexuality, obvious swinging, etc. had a very strict NO singles policy (I was only allowed in with friends since I was single). The official line was "to maintain a family atmosphere", but that was no atmosphere I'd want to take a family to!!! The truth was more like the men didn't want any competition! So whenever I see a club say they don't allow singles in order to maintain a "family atmosphere" I admit to being rather skeptical! I've been in several clubs that allowed singles and had a wonderful, wholesome family atmosphere. Unfortunately the best one of those I knew of was closed many years ago due to the owners death, but it was a great little club in PA.

Nate

[Suntied]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben_m:
Sorry Suntied, Embracing naturism certainly gives us an opportunity to reconsider previous opinions and beliefs, but that doesn't mean they're all wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Ben,
I admitted my error in my comments before you enlightened me even further. I've told you before "You have the right idea on life" /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So every one else knows... I replied on Ben_m's veiw on marriage... reconsidered... and deleted the reply. He knows what I said and stood strong to his way of life and beliefs earning my respect for what it's worth. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry for the intusion Nate Dekan, Trailscout and Cydiann... continue. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote by Nate:

"I know of divorced people who scorn faithful couples who aren't "married" as being sinful. I ask if sin can be measured, who is more sinful? I say it's the divorced person."

Are you saying that I as a man who divorced my adulterous wife am more sinful because of being divorced than an unmarried couple living together is? I do know that I was shunned by my fellow "Christians" when I divorced her after she told me to my face, "I WON'T change."

I agree that there are many people who don't even claim to be Christians who live far better lives than many Christians. That's unfortunate but true. However, I don't think that I'm more sinful than an unmarried couple living together just because I'm divorced. I've never had sex with anyone I wasn't married to because I don't believe
in it. Sex was never all THAT important to me, but trying to live a godly life is. Satisfying God is far more important to me than satisfying myself.

[gamblefish]

Jon-Marc,

Matt.19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (emphasis added)

BTW, I don't think Nate was speaking of a case like your's.

Nate, as for your original post...very good observation. Satan uses fear to keep people in bondage. When we bring things into the light of understanding, then we break the power that fear has over us.

In the "naked" link on the clothesfree homepage, someone says something like "being nude with others is very empowering...". At first, I did not understand this. After experiencing my first social nude event, I understood. The fear of being naked in front of others was instilled in most of us from the beginning of our lives. When we shed our clothes with others around, we are breaking the power that this fear has over us. We learn that being nude in front of others is not something to fear, but something that frees us from bondage.

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Are you saying that I as a man who divorced my adulterous wife am more sinful because of being divorced than an unmarried couple living together is? I do know that I was shunned by my fellow "Christians" when I divorced her after she told me to my face, "I WON'T change." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm very sorry to hear about your divorce, I always hate to hear about that, I'm also sorry to hear that you where shunned by fellow Christians, but that is the type of attitude (shunning and self-righteousness) that I'm trying to address here. And gamblefish is right about the nature of your divorce.

But if your divorce was for another reason I wouldn't be saying that you are more sinful than an unmarried couple living together, I'm also wouldn't be saying they are "more" sinful. I AM saying that it's not always so black and white. That none of us is perfect, no not one, and it's not good to rush to judgement or shun someone because their sins are different than ours.

Nate

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben_m:
I, for one, do not believe there is any law/rule in this life that can be considered "absolute", whether we're talking from a religious, or a secular viewpoint. It is the principles behind the rules/laws that can be "absolute", but that doesn't mean they're always easy for us to understand. In fact, they're usually not (at least that's my observation - it takes some real work). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You get five gold stars! The Spirit is far more important than the letter of the "Law".

Nate

[Trailscout]

Nate,

It is not codified, but the Biblical precedent for marriage for the lineage of Adam clearly seems to be monogamy, at least up to the time of Noah and his sons.

I would say that God's attitude toward post-diluvian polygamy was one of grudging toleration of a deeply-rooted custom. I would even go so far as to say that in the case of Jacob, God allowed this less than ideal situation perhaps to quickly build the population of the new nation the Lord was creating. Jacob would have been the first to admit that his wives were in constant contention with one another.

I am particularly troubled by your comment, "While I think sex in marriage is the highest and best standard, I don't think everything outside of that is absolutely sin".

Let's look at the alternatives to conventional monogamous marriage:

1. Polygamy - Not God's ideal, but each woman was a wife with all the rights that went with it.

2. Concubinage - Not God's ideal, either. As I understand it, a concubine is a servant, perhaps even a slave, BUT the woman is still regarded as a wife (with servant duties) AND the children from that union are legal heirs of their father's estate.

3. Fornication - Forbidden in Old Testament and New. I can understand why it is easier to commit in our day and age, but it is still sin. The common wisdom says, "Have sex to see if your bodies are compatible". Wisdom from above says, "One size fits all! Instead, get to know your friend to see if your hearts are of one accord".

4. Adultery - Forbidden in Old Testament and New. Some cases of adultery are so lust-driven and destructive that they are clearly wrong.
I can understand that some marriages are so bad that people can easily be tempted to it. I am not prepared to say that God would ever permit a woman or man to take a secret lover. I once had to choose between secret love and no love. I walked away before it began because an affair wasn't enough. I wanted my potential lover to be my wife whom I could love openly and raise a family with. I would advise anyone else to do the same. Don't settle for secret love, go for the whole shooting match.

5. "Living in Sin" Human nature being what it is, it is easier for people to share sex than it is for them to make a marriage commitment. In biblical times, a marriage consisted of one's elders arranging such unions. In a simple pastoral society with great cultural homogeneity, you were likely to get a very compatible mate out of such a union. Many parents did give the right of refusal to either child. Instead of a marriage ceremony, one had a wedding feast, but it accomplished the same purpose. It was a public recognition of the man and woman's mutual obligation to each other. A marriage covenant protects the children and teaches the ethic of fidelity even when one spouse is having a bad day. You are not a doormat, but you learn to have a little forgiveness and tolerance.
Shacking up or living in sin may initiate in lust but the sin is compounded when the couple is too cowardly to make a commitment. If you love someone, they have the right to marriage. If you don't love someone and are shacked up, you are stealing your mutual futures.

Let me go on to some of what Cyndian asked about.

"The Bible also talks about slavery and concubines, and sleeping with your daughters,..."

Well the Bible mentions a lot of people who did a lot of immoral things, but that doesn't mean that he fully approved or even partially approved.

" and has stories about their god telling people to rape women after beating a city in war...."

God did not ever command someone to commit rape. If a city was sacked and the men were killed, the most compassionate thing to do would be to make servants and sometimes concubines out of the female survivors. Under Jewish law, most slaves could gain freedom eventually. After a few generations, the descendants of these captives could join the congregation as Jews with no distinction made.

Shellfish and other animals that are not Kosher were generally not wise to eat in those days. More importantly, these dietary laws re-enforced Jewish identity and the notion of moral purity.
You have to use a little wisdom here. The spirit of the law remains. I do eat some non-Kosher foods, but I still think it that one should be careful about shellfish and pork. I am also grateful for the teaching that we should seek to honor God, even in the things we eat and in the clothes we wear (or in how we go nude!).

It is inacccurate to say that the Bible commands people to shun women who just had a baby, longer if that baby is female.

It merely said that the woman's husband should avoid having sexual intercourse with her for 7 days or 14 days depending on gender of the child. Of course it would be wrong to totally shun the woman and that was never commanded. The temporary abstinence from intercourse goes back to observance of laws of ceremonial purity. Regulations of this kind in no wise negate any moral principles taught in the Old Testament.

To the question, "Why do those who say the Bible is their guide only follow the parts they want to?" Such a question begs the question, "Why is any person inclined to do good things as long as it is easy to do them and not do the good things that are harder to do?
Human laziness does not invalidate the rightness of doing the harder good deeds.

Why have a church and state marriage? It provides your mate and your children the legal protection that anyone would want to give his or her lover.

Nate, I am not sure that you answered the question: How would someone perceive the need for a savior from sin if someone does not articulate the specifics of what sin is?

I agree that every culture has its blind spots to certain sins. It takes extra effort for pastors to wake people up to those "problem areas". Jesus used parables to sneak up on people and help them see sin with fresh eyes.

Because of the danger of sexual diseases and the emotional destruction that occurs with non-marital sex, I don't "think it's better to show understanding rather than just saying it's in "marriage" or nothing". Sometimes a parent has to get tough to save the life of his or her child. My parents didn't have to throw me a life preserver. I never jumped ship during my teen years. The reason is their 17 years of daily efforts to teach me Christian values, not a crash course in sexual ethics.

Nate, as to nudist clubs that allow "open displays of sexuality, obvious swinging, etc."
The fix needs to occur at several levels:

1. People should not be doing this in the first place.

2. If debauchery does occur, offended parties need to report public indecency to the Resort management.

3. Management needs to immediately evict and permanently bar the swingers and sex fiends.

4. AANR needs to demand that resorts cease to encourage this sort of thing and make an attempt to stop it. If not, they should force them to relinquish their AANR affiliation.

I would hate to see nudism thoroughly discredited because "family naturists" did nothing to stop the sexual solicitations, the advent of erotic clothing in nudist parks, open swinging, etc.

My favorite nudist resort allows singles, yet their gender balance isn't too bad.
I too am deeply suspicious of a resort that doesn't allow singles at all. That also reflects badly on AANR, that they allow such goings on.

[Jochanaan]

Jon-Marc, I empathize with you. I too am divorced. In my case there was no sexual infidelity; we just couldn't live with each other, and I at least was getting seriously depressed. I was fortunate in that my church stood by me and comforted me without judging either my ex or me.

Remember: "All manner of sin...shall be forgiven unto men." (Matt. 12:31) There is only one unforgivable sin (and it's unclear of what 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" consists), and it isn't divorce or any sexual sin.

[Jochanaan]

Here's a parallel to the unjust coupling, so to speak, of nudity and sex:

I love music, and play oboe with a local orchestra and woodwind quintet. In many quarters being a musician is associated with homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles. Is it true? Well, a former pastor's wife holds a degree in vocal music performance from a state college, and she told me once that there appeared to be some justice to the stereotype; her roommate was lesbian, and the homosexuality rate (the pastor's wife said) was significantly higher among music and arts majors than among other college students. But since this rate is still much less than the majority, one cannot say that music promotes homosexuality. And of course, there's always the question, "Who's out and who's not?" My instinct says that the artistic community is simply more willing to address the question and accept those with alternative lifestyles. After all, one of art's functions is to question things that everyone takes for granite.