Christian naturists & those with whom they disagree

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
. . . . Christ came to save the would not condemn it, I felt several posts (on both sides) were rather mean spirited rather than Christ spirited. To paraphraise from a book I've been reading (A Way of Escape, Freedom from Sexual Strongholds) condemning people who are doing things we disaprove of is counterproductive. They don't need condemnation, condemnation and overbearing authoritarianism is what useually drove those people to those behaviours in the first place. What everyone needs is a new life in Christ, when people fall in love with Jesus and give their life to Him, HE is fully able to complete the good work HE begins in them. We are not called to dispel the darkness, WE are called to turn on the LIGHT and point people to a loving God who is more than able to meet all their needs! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[NOTE: Nate originally posted this comment in the discussion "Introduction to Communal Nudity."]

Sexuality is such a pervasive human issue that nudists, including those who think of themselves as Christians, may find that a discussion of sexual issues quickly becomes an emotionally charged. Sometimes discussions of sexual preference degenerate into personal attacks on whole groups of people in the name of Christ. .

That's what happened in the thread in which Nate's comments were originally posted, and that's what prompted his response.

I've personally never understand how some Christians think that we can use mean-spirted words to assault those who disagree with us while hoping that they will gratefully embrace the Lord of Love. Nate is exactly right that condemnation is a poor starting point for producing change. It's a terrible starting point for encouraging Christian behavior.

Jesus really made it simple for us. He provided a cluster of easy to understand teachings that make these points:

A. Christians are to offer love their neighbor, however unlike us he or she may be.

B. Christians are to offer love to other Christians.

C. Christians are to offer love to their enemies.

Taking those categories together, the number of people whom it is appropriate to beat over the head is really quite small. Somewhere between zero and none.

Some posts elsewhere have indicated a view that only heterosexual people should be admitted to naturist venues. But sexualized behavior is prohibited where naturists gather; violate that rule and you get kicked out.

So how is that some Christians feel that it is safe to be with heterosexuals who are not behaving sexually, but unsafe ? or unpleasant ? to be with homosexuals who are not behaving sexually? How would you know anyway in the absence of sexualized behavior?

The naturist community is, as a whole, better at accepting people as they are without getting hung up the differences that can be seen. Why should naturist Christians, of all people, demean others for differences that cannot be seen?

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
. . . . Christ came to save the would not condemn it, I felt several posts (on both sides) were rather mean spirited rather than Christ spirited. To paraphraise from a book I've been reading (A Way of Escape, Freedom from Sexual Strongholds) condemning people who are doing things we disaprove of is counterproductive. They don't need condemnation, condemnation and overbearing authoritarianism is what useually drove those people to those behaviours in the first place. What everyone needs is a new life in Christ, when people fall in love with Jesus and give their life to Him, HE is fully able to complete the good work HE begins in them. We are not called to dispel the darkness, WE are called to turn on the LIGHT and point people to a loving God who is more than able to meet all their needs! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[NOTE: Nate originally posted this comment in the discussion "Introduction to Communal Nudity."]

Sexuality is such a pervasive human issue that nudists, including those who think of themselves as Christians, may find that a discussion of sexual issues quickly becomes an emotionally charged. Sometimes discussions of sexual preference degenerate into personal attacks on whole groups of people in the name of Christ. .

That's what happened in the thread in which Nate's comments were originally posted, and that's what prompted his response.

I've personally never understand how some Christians think that we can use mean-spirted words to assault those who disagree with us while hoping that they will gratefully embrace the Lord of Love. Nate is exactly right that condemnation is a poor starting point for producing change. It's a terrible starting point for encouraging Christian behavior.

Jesus really made it simple for us. He provided a cluster of easy to understand teachings that make these points:

A. Christians are to offer love their neighbor, however unlike us he or she may be.

B. Christians are to offer love to other Christians.

C. Christians are to offer love to their enemies.

Taking those categories together, the number of people whom it is appropriate to beat over the head is really quite small. Somewhere between zero and none.

Some posts elsewhere have indicated a view that only heterosexual people should be admitted to naturist venues. But sexualized behavior is prohibited where naturists gather; violate that rule and you get kicked out.

So how is that some Christians feel that it is safe to be with heterosexuals who are not behaving sexually, but unsafe ? or unpleasant ? to be with homosexuals who are not behaving sexually? How would you know anyway in the absence of sexualized behavior?

The naturist community is, as a whole, better at accepting people as they are without getting hung up the differences that can be seen. Why should naturist Christians, of all people, demean others for differences that cannot be seen?

[californiabare]

I have to say a hearty amen to what you have said, luvnaturism! Christ came among sinners to redeem them--not to condemn them--He moved among the "sinners", showing God's great love--and we should "copy" that. :-)

Take care, brother!

Tom
Modesto, CA

[gamblefish]

I agree 100% that as Christians we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. I also agree that we are to love our enemies (here comes the BUT...).

BUT, I do not see where disagreeing with someone's "opinion" or "lifestyle" is equal to condemnation.

If I disagree with someone I am not condemning them, I just have a different belief. If you can show me that my beliefs are not biblical (speaking as a Christian), then I will consider changing them. But first and foremost, I must believe what the Word of God says, no matter what the subject is.

I do not advocate hatred or violence. I have never participated in a "public demonstration" or "protest". I have never tried to "force my beliefs down someone's throat". But if given the opportunity (such as in these forums) I will gladly voice my opinions. If they do not line up with someone elses...oh well. There are plenty of people around who do not agree with my "lifestyle", yet I do not feel that they are attacking me.

[JohnDreamwhistle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gamblefish:
BUT, I do not see where disagreeing with someone's "opinion" or "lifestyle" is equal to condemnation.

If I disagree with someone I am not condemning them, I just have a different belief. If you can show me that my beliefs are not biblical (speaking as a Christian), then I will consider changing them. But first and foremost, I must believe what the Word of God says, no matter what the subject is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just wanted to say that I agree with this. However, I would go one step further and say that if someone is doing something that you know is wrong, you have an obligation (Matt 18:15-17) to at least point it out to them.

Please note that I am talking about correction, however and NOT 'judgement'. The difference is that in one you condemn the person for what they are doing (judgement) and the other you simply remind them that they shouldn't be doing it.

This is one of the truest forms of love in that it seeks to bring the other person closer to God.

[nudistwheelchair]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

This is one of the truest forms of love in that it seeks to bring the other person closer to God.[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Amen to that, people say what religion Am I. I tell them I'm not religist I just fallow Jesus teaching to do God's will and let him know that he is a creator off all thing and a father to all things.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JohnDreamwhistle:
[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would go one step further and say that if someone is doing something that you know is wrong, you have an obligation (Matt 18:15-17) to at least point it out to them.

Please note that I am talking about correction [/QB][/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you would be alienating people if you go around "CORRECTING" them. If you feel a real necessity, maybe you could just tactfully voice your humble opinion and views, avoiding the perception of arrogance.

If you want to follow the instructions in the passage you mentioned, Acts 18:15-17, as written, then if the person you are trying to correct will not listen, even after presenting two or three witnesses, then you tell it to the church and if he refuses to listen even to the church, you treat him as you would a "pagan or a tax collector". There seems to be no "love" in this statement! This ancient writer's advice is not admirable but contrary to true Christian teaching and ethically untenable, in my opinion.

From what I read in Matt. 18:15-17, it says nothing about pointing out to someone his sin unless that sin is against YOU. If he does something to you personally, you are supposed to talk to him about it. If he won't listen then you go to him again with two or three witnesses. If he still won't do anything about his sin against you, you take him before the church. This is, of course, speaking of two believers.

This scripture does not say that we are to go up to anyone we know is doing wrong and tell them that it's wrong. That's God's responsibility and not ours. I am only told to go to him if he has sinned against me personally. Let's leave the conviction of sin up to the One Who is qualified to do it because we're not.

If someone has wronged me, I am supposed to try to settle it between us as the scripture above says. Failing that only then am I supposed to bring other believers into it.

Of course, there are times when we should intervene when wrong IS being done, but it's not our responsibility to go up to everyone and start pointing out the wrong in their lives. Besides, is there one among us who is without sin? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[JohnDreamwhistle]

Actually, there are other sources in scripture as well that speak of the need for correction (James 5:19, 2 Timothy 3:16 for example - and some place in the Old Testament that I can't find now...)

And again, you have to distinguish correction from judgement. We are all sinners and not fit to judge any one else. However, the heart of evangelism is love in that it seeks to bring others closer to the source of love in God. And it is out of that love for God and neighbor that you correct someone, not out of pride or some misguided desire to prove that you are better than they are.

Over and over again in scripture faith is expressed in obedience to God's word. It is nearly impossible to love God and not want to be obedient to Him. I used the scripture from Matthew as my example because it makes the point that you are supposed to offer correction and show them that they are going against the church (the believers) and if they will not accept that correction, then let them go.

I think anyone who, with the church, loves God, will eagerly accept that correction because they want to follow God's will. So it is not perceived as 'judgement', so much as trying to help them find their way...

Of course, most people are more interested in following their own will than God's will and perceive any reminder about what scripture actually teaches as 'judgement' because it is contrary to their desires.

And, in my opinion, most people nowadays already know what they are doing is wrong and don't want to be reminded of it...

[Trailscout]

We need a little clarity here.

A church denomination can and should have some guidelines for what is expected of their members.
I don't many organizations, religious or otherwise that don't have some conditions for membership.

This forum, by contrast is merely an open board where anyone can express any opinion within the limits imposed by the forum administrators.

Some of these posts seem to imply that a private religious organization has no more right to set membership policies than a public Web forum!
I disagree.

With those caveats out of the way, I do think that forums such as this have served as a way of educating Christians that nudity is not only not a sin, but nudity is healthier, more comfortable (in fair weather), more esthetically pleasing, and even more honoring to God than wearing clothes. (with the understanding that exceptions should be made to avoid offending those who do not yet understand).

I have heard a lot of opinions on this forum that do not square with orthodox Christianity. I do think it is possible and necessary to lead people to a better understanding of Biblical truth about these non-nudist issues, but the forum administrators have insisted that all religious debate be limited to nudity-related issues.
I will abide by that policy.

I do think it is important to note that nudity is not just for Christians who are "liberal" or interpret the Bible in exclusively figurative terms.

Christians who take a literal approach to the Bible should also embrace a lifestyle of frequent social nudity. If they will simply use a little logic and read the verses that apply, they will see that the Bible makes a strong case for nonsexual nudity as part of the Christian life.

Conservative Christians have been taught the "priesthood of the believer" and that the Holy Spirit needs no intercessor to interpret or filter the Bible's teaching for the individual believer. All too often they ignore this teaching when it comes to nudity, repeating the misbegotten mantra that "nude is lewd". The Bible teaches otherwise!

[2nude]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luvnaturism:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
. . . . Christ came to save the would not condemn it, I felt several posts (on both sides) were rather mean spirited rather than Christ spirited. To paraphraise from a book I've been reading (A Way of Escape, Freedom from Sexual Strongholds) condemning people who are doing things we disaprove of is counterproductive. They don't need condemnation, condemnation and overbearing authoritarianism is what useually drove those people to those behaviours in the first place. What everyone needs is a new life in Christ, when people fall in love with Jesus and give their life to Him, HE is fully able to complete the good work HE begins in them. We are not called to dispel the darkness, WE are called to turn on the LIGHT and point people to a loving God who is more than able to meet all their needs! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[NOTE: Nate originally posted this comment in the discussion "Introduction to Communal Nudity."]

Sexuality is such a pervasive human issue that nudists, including those who think of themselves as Christians, may find that a discussion of sexual issues quickly becomes an emotionally charged. Sometimes discussions of sexual preference degenerate into personal attacks on whole groups of people in the name of Christ. .

That's what happened in the thread in which Nate's comments were originally posted, and that's what prompted his response.

I've personally never understand how some Christians think that we can use mean-spirted words to assault those who disagree with us while hoping that they will gratefully embrace the Lord of Love. Nate is exactly right that condemnation is a poor starting point for producing change. It's a terrible starting point for encouraging Christian behavior.

Jesus really made it simple for us. He provided a cluster of easy to understand teachings that make these points:

A. Christians are to offer love their neighbor, however unlike us he or she may be.

B. Christians are to offer love to other Christians.

C. Christians are to offer love to their enemies.

Taking those categories together, the number of people whom it is appropriate to beat over the head is really quite small. Somewhere between zero and none.

Some posts elsewhere have indicated a view that only heterosexual people should be admitted to naturist venues. But sexualized behavior is prohibited where naturists gather; violate that rule and you get kicked out.

So how is that some Christians feel that it is safe to be with heterosexuals who are not behaving sexually, but unsafe — or unpleasant — to be with homosexuals who are not behaving sexually? How would you know anyway in the absence of sexualized behavior?

The naturist community is, as a whole, better at accepting people as they are without getting hung up the differences that can be seen. Why should naturist Christians, of all people, demean others for differences that cannot be seen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[2nude]

I belive that we all could go nude if the people didn't grab their sex organs be lewd or obsene.I think that if the department of defense can say that being a witch is a religion that being a nudist should also be a religion. I don't think that being a nudist is wrong.It is what we think and do wrong that hurts us all.
thanks
2nude icon21

[Dario Western]

Hi,

As a Christian who doesn't attend church anymore, I think that the Bible teaches us to be open-minded to new things, but also not to tolerate things that it states are intolerable.

The problem with much of the Christian religion is that it is very much based on patriarchal authorities in which the subjugation of women and also child sexual abuse had occurred for years without anyone speaking out.

Now, we are living in an age where we must 'adapt or die'. The feminist movement having come full circle, together with the churches reaching out to gay and lesbian people and the growing interest in the supernatural with young adults shows that we could be heading for a one-world-religion in the not too distant future.

This should be of much interest to us all on here.

Do you think that naturism will cause it to come about?

Dario Western
(Brisbane, Australia)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 2nude:
I belive that we all could go nude if the people didn't grab their sex organs be lewd or obsene.I think that if the department of defense can say that being a witch is a religion that being a nudist should also be a religion. I don't think that being a nudist is wrong.It is what we think and do wrong that hurts us all.
thanks
2nude icon21 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A religion needs a belief in one or more deities. Witches would qualify.... nudists would not.

What did you mean by the dept of defense says being a witch is a religion? How did they get involved in it?

[Daz]

Hi, While there are many good points made in this forum topic I have one thing that may not have crossed some peoples minds...yet. The christian views discussed here may only be relevant to those putting their point forward and other christians. When people say that homosexuality is a 'sin'- it is only a sin in the eyes of those people. If they are quoting the bible do they stop and think the person/issue they are targeting may not even find the bible relevant? There are many different religions and spiritual beliefs and to believe that everyone must be judged by the religion you choose is naive. It is arrogant and naive to believe that gay people need to be 'redeemed', gay/lesbian people are living according to gods plan -living in the body and mind that was given to them by god,accepting what nature/god has provided for them and hopefully living the best way they can.

It amazes me that it is an issue even today that two adult people will be scrutinized because they may fall in love and consumate that with someone of the same gender. And I don't mean lewd behaviour in public, I mean making love as people who have romantic feelings for each other do. Why not use your christian vision and energy into things like preventing theft in neighbourhoods, anti-drug campaigns, preventing child abuse of all kinds and voilence in the family home and protesting against war!(which has literally killed millions of people all over the planet!!!) Where is the perspective here???

For god's sake....love and let love!

Take care and peace to all....
Daz

[gamblefish]

Hi Daz.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When people say that homosexuality is a 'sin'- it is only a sin in the eyes of those people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So then, when I say murder is a sin, is it only a sin in my eyes also?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is arrogant and naive to believe that gay people need to be 'redeemed', gay/lesbian people are living according to gods plan -living in the body and mind that was given to them by god,accepting what nature/god has provided for them and hopefully living the best way they can. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A Christian believes that ALL of us need redeemed. Once we are redeemed, then God goes about the business of cleaning us up. We use the bible, which we believe is God's Word, as our point of reference and "judge" our behavior according to it.

I do agree that trying to get a non-Christian to live by Christian standards is ridiculous. Unfortunately, we Christians have tried to do this time and again!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Most of us catch on sooner or later.

My beef is that sometimes when I voice my opinion (homosexuality is wrong and a sin), I am told that I am "attacking" certain individuals and that I should just shut up. If you feel "attacked" by someone with differing convictions from your own then I say you are somewhat uncomfortable or unconvinced about your lifestyle. But that's just my opinion.

I am all for live and let live. I am not going to try to convince anyone to change their ways. But I will exercise my freedom of speech when I feel the need.

Gamblefish,

As usual, I'm with you on this. I just didn't want to be the first one to say so. Every time I say anything against something that God very clearly--at least to me--says is unnatural, I get verbally lambasted.

Like you, my beliefs are based on the Bible, KJV. However, using Bible scripture on people who don't believe it's the written inspired Word of God is a waste of time. It's like beating your head against a wall; you accomplisg nothing worthwhile. I don't care what anyone thinks of me for it, I will say what God says: Homosexuality is a sin. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of that sin. However, those who don't believe the Bible won't believe that to be true. those who say they don't believe in God certainly won't.

As I've said before and will repeat here--Calling good evil and calling evil good won't change the facts. god is Supreme, and He makes the rules and sets the standards. We can choose to accept or reject them, but we will all answer to the Almighty God whether we believe it or not.

Abortion is another wickedness accepted as legal and right. This nation has legalized murder. We slaughter unborn babies by the thousands. There is only one time I would say abortion can be justified, and that is if the mother's life is in danger, and she could die. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Bob S.]

Let me just add something before Bart says it. Homosexuality is not the issue. Let's drop it before it becomes the decisive one.

And Dario, were you serious when you said,

"Now, we are living in an age where we must 'adapt or die'. The feminist movement having come full circle, together with the churches reaching out to gay and lesbian people and the growing interest in the supernatural with young adults shows that we could be heading for a one-world-religion in the not too distant future.

This should be of much interest to us all on here.

Do you think that naturism will cause it to come about?"

If you are referring to Harry Potter, virtually all of the children who read that understand that it is not real. And isn't belief in a supreme being with omnipotent powers showing interest in the supernatural?

As for that one-world-religion, don't count on it. This was probably a debate about 2,000 years ago when Christianity was just starting, or at least when it was gaining in popularity. There will never be a one-world religion.

Bob S.

[gamblefish]

I believe there will be a "one-world" religion someday soon (it won't be Christianity), just as there will be a "one-world" government.

There is coming a day when all who do not adhere to this religion will be done away with, either into "concentration camps" or by death or more likely both.

[Daz]

Meanwhile....luvnaturism I totally agree with your comments and thoughts at the beginning of this thread. You sound like a true christian and a person who respects others. Nice to see.

Daz

[Dario Western]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gamblefish:
I believe there will be a "one-world" religion someday soon (it won't be Christianity), just as there will be a "one-world" government.

There is coming a day when all who do not adhere to this religion will be done away with, either into "concentration camps" or by death or more likely both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi,

Have you heard of the Interfaith alliance, and the Raelians at all?

They are trying to bring the world faiths together to prepare for the second coming.

Futurists (especially devout Bible scholars and Nostradamus speculators) have said that after the reign of Pope John Paul II, there will be two popes, both who will rule the world for 3 1/2 years and wreak intense misery and pain on the Western world. Many people think that the time is starting to come now with the Sept 11 bombing, and a frantic hunt as to who does own the WAMD.

Dario Western

[Jochanaan]

I am part of a denomination that has "congregational polity;" that is, the power is not with the hierarchy but with the people. Churches are not set up by Central Command; rather, groups of people voluntarily join the denomination after meeting certain criteria on which the denomination, that is, the people, has agreed. At every level--local congregation, regional association, and general conference--we work to reach consensus. I said all that to say this: We have disagreements among our members, sometimes passionate; but in the end, we can still meet in worship as brothers and sisters. We realize that God does not demand uniformity, but rather unity. It's the difference between a chorus of monks singing plainchant (which is beautiful in its own way) and an orchestra playing many different instruments but the same symphony.

[Jochanaan]

Disagreeing is not judging. And to disapprove a person's actions or beliefs is not to condemn the person. There is only One Judge.

"I may not be welcome in your Heaven....But you are certainly welcome in mine."....Catch todays Dear Abby column... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

Bart,

I am perplexed. You have called me down in the past for posting some strong opinions that incited a lot of controversy and I will be the first to admit that my posts had nothing to do with nudism.

I gave you my promise that I would stay on topic no matter what.

Now I see this thread, which has many posts with nothing to do with nudity, naturism, nudism at all.

If you do not delete this thread, why should I refrain from posting my opinion on anything but nudism on this forum?

[Corky]

Hi Trailscout,
Bart is in Australia on assignment taping and interviewing for new Nudes in the News webcasts and taking new photos. It is summer weather there now (Lucky Bart!!).

Anyway, I am taking over for a while overseeing the forums.

I hope Bart wasn't too harsh on everyone. One of our main goals is to spread the word about wholesome naturism and another goal is to help manage these forums so everyone is happy and the forum stays organized. But I try to be a little less formal and let a few off topics run their course. I do stress that everyone try their best to stay on topic. As you can see I am not on topic right now, but let's get back to nudity and religion now. We appreciate your posts Trailscout. Thanks!!!
Corky

[Christian Bare]

Well, well, brothers and sisters... What a wonder to see so many messages of spite...



I would just love to say that GOd loves each and everyone of you and He created all of our bodies and there is no shame in being a Christian and being Nude! I cannot speak for other religions, but surely most are similar.



Enjoy GOd's Creation the way God Created you!



Love...