Mormons, Atheists and Nudity [Archive]

View Full Version : Mormons, Atheists and Nudity

MikeJB

12-21-2003, 10:05 PM

Okay, just thought id bring this up as it has a bit to do with Nudity and Religion. I got a little thing that has been bothering me lately. MY dad *because hes a christian* is against athiests, tolerates Mormons, and is almost totally against being Nude *except for little kids* and so it kinda bugged me. One, that hed be against Atheists, he says they are bad because they are against god and most religions *I dont know if any of this is true or not* and he thinks that any self respecting person would beleive in SOMETHING! Two, he tolerates Mormons because he beleives that they dont understand christianty the way they say they do and he doesny think that they can say they are true god worshippers because they dont beleive in or follow the christian faith *he thinks even though they are mormons they try to follow the christian faith and sometimes think they are christians to escape damnation and be saved*. Three, he is against nudity because he thinks that it is immoral and against what god beleives is right and he think its a sin against god and he just thinks anyone who is nude *other than little kids and other than taking showers, artwork, etc* is bad and he even thinks that nudist photos that I own that are simple nudity, he thinks they are PORNOGRAPHY which alot of them are from legitimate and official websites and wouldnt be thought of as porn by any self respecting law official. I have had several talks with my dad about nudity and he says so many things *mostly the adam/eve nude-sin thing* and just keeps saying all this immodest stuff WITHOUT even giving any reason or a shred of proof that any of what he says is actually true, but somehow he thinks that little kids being nude is CUTE and he thinks that art photos and paintings of nude people are actually educational. I mean he is obviously using a double standard here, saying nudity is bad but yet saying somehow it is good and somehow it isnt but still saying it is a bad thing *the nudity itself* and I just really dont like how he bashes other religious groups like they are evil people and I should AVOID them, ESPECIALLY Athiests and he doesnt even think I should ever get involved with a mormon or Atheist romantically because he says its against gods will because he thinks I should be with someone of the same faith and that somehow its unhealthy or unwise to be with someone else because it might make me stray as he says. I just dont know what to do or say to him and I just would like some advice because he really doesnt even have an open mind on this, he says he does but he really doesnt and he treats what I say as being immature and mostly wrong although he always says im a smart person and that im mature, which is to the contrary of what he saysduring our conversations, which seems rather odd. I just would like some advice from anyone, I dont really beleive alot of the stuff I described here myself I was just quoting what he said. Honestly hed probably think you guys wrre just a bunch of desperate activists wanting something to complain about, now doesnt that sound a bit excessive? I sure would say so!

MikeJB

12-21-2003, 10:05 PM

greensunshine

12-22-2003, 05:18 AM

Mike,

Your profile doesn't say how old you are, and thus all the posts I have read from you imply that you are younger and less experienced in writting anything where others attempt to read what you have written. I tend to find this particular posting so difficult to read, after attempting to read it several times, I said "Bag It" and moved on to another more intelligent one.

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Where lifes experiences do make a HUGE Difference in life.

PS

The Post you sent me earlier has absolutely no validity based upon lifes experiences and until you have really experienced both the So called Resorts and Public Nude Beaches, I will assume from what you have written, you have no clue as to what you have said to others.

William72

12-22-2003, 05:44 AM

Greensunshine,
That was totally unnecessary and not helpful.

Mike,
I sense you are very frustrated with your father. First, it is not good to try and "fix" a relationship when you feel the way you do right now. I suggest that you take some time to cool and reflect. Second, you will not be able to argue fact with someone when they are adamant in their beliefs; you can only argue from your personal experience. Find ways to say "nudity has helped me by..."

Hopefully others in the forum will be able to offer additional advice. Good luck!

David77

12-22-2003, 05:48 AM

I love MikeJB's inquiring mind and his willingness to share his thoughts with us. I think he expresses his thought and feelings very well. I wish everyone would try to think things thru!

12-22-2003, 08:14 AM

You're right, David.

I enjoy reading Mike's posts even though I disagree with him on most points about nudity.

We should focus on the content of what someone says rather than the composition.

Stu

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 08:27 AM

Okay, I guess you guys all deserve an answer since you all seem to be open minded and such, maybe even Stu is. I dont write alot of stuff in my profile because 1. I want people to actually come talk to me where I can explain things better and learn the real me and 2. profiles kind of suck and I just dont like them very much. Im a 19 year old college student and YES if you need a picture of me I can give you a current one, dorky as it might look and even though I may seem like I dont know what im talking about, point is I NEVER SAID I DID and in several posts I mentioned that so I mean everything I say could actually be wrong and I could be seen simply as a nutcase but those are just the things I beleive in and if people post something interesting I wanna be a part of it, especially Stu's posts because they are so negative and illogical that theyre funny and anyone even a stupid person could find loopholes in his logic, not saying his is stupid or anything is wrong with him, he might just be misguided and needs to be shown things in a new light and get a few facts straight. That said, yes that last post was kind of crappy and I shouldve been more thourough and complete in what I said, its probably those ones I write late at night and just kind of ramble on, so if anyone has any issues with it, just reply or give me a personal/private message and ill clear it up for you okay, I hope this helps and if any of you have further questions, please let me know. Thank you.

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 08:32 AM

Greensunshine,
That was totally unnecessary and not helpful.
-------------------------------------------------

Well since the vast majority of you seem to support me although you all seem to have the same issues with me, I just feel I need to stick up for this quote above. I mean yes it was uncalled for, but I think I kinda get what he was trying to say and im sure he was just being honest with what he said, although he frustration at my post mightve made him say things he shouldnt and all he needed to do was take it slow, calm down and think it through. I value everyone's posts, yes even yours Stu, because they are interesting and all of you even if you dont agree with me at all, have good points and say things good and show this debate from all sides of the table. So although I kinda was offended by the way he worded his post, I do get the meaning of what he says and im not really upset at him, I just wanted to clarify what he was most likely saying, I mean I could be wrong but thats just how I see it.

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 08:35 AM

You're right, David.

I enjoy reading Mike's posts even though I disagree with him on most points about nudity.

We should focus on the content of what someone says rather than the composition.

Stu
------------------------------------------------
Yeah I agree with Stu *shock* *gasp* but anyways yes I do think we should concentrate on the content more because this is a nudist forum not a grammar/sentence structure forum and im sure many people here have different levels of language and writing skills. I mean some people here are professionals at what they do, whereas im only a lowly college student just starting my first semester, so I guess that would be a good example. I mean i think people ought to give comments if there is a big enough error in the writing but the post should mainly focus on the nudity aspect or whatever the post has to deal with concerning nudity.

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 08:41 AM

I love MikeJB's inquiring mind and his willingness to share his thoughts with us. I think he expresses his thought and feelings very well. I wish everyone would try to think things thru!
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah like Stu. I mean from his legal and upbringing standpoint I can understand why he feels the way he does and even if he disagrees with nudity in general alot, that may or may not be his fault. I just think and im sure alot of othe rpeople have good points that Stu's posts are alot of times full of loopholes and not very logical and I just dont think he has all the facts sometimes or thinks things through. Also I just think he needs to think outside the box and that there are more concerns than just the majorities happiness, I mean that is important and crucial but not to the point that Stu tries to ban public nudity. I just think we all could be nude in public and still learn to get along in a grown up and mature way. I mean natives can do it, so obviously humans ARE capable of such things. I just think our legal system ought to give it a try and if it doesnt work then at least theyd have a reason backing their need to ban it. They have no clear reason or proof that simple harmless nudity will hurt anyone and I think most politicians understand that but are scared to actually make the move to make it legal.

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 08:50 AM

Mike,
I sense you are very frustrated with your father. First, it is not good to try and "fix" a relationship when you feel the way you do right now. I suggest that you take some time to cool and reflect. Second, you will not be able to argue fact with someone when they are adamant in their beliefs; you can only argue from your personal experience. Find ways to say "nudity has helped me by..."

Hopefully others in the forum will be able to offer additional advice. Good luck!

-------------------------------------------------

Sorry that I post so much, I just feel since the majority of posters here in this part of the forum are directing their posts to me I just think that I ought to put my input in and explain how I feel.

Ive never actually really wanted to tell my dad about my nudist exploits or the fact that im even into it. He knows I like nudity, especially with girls but I think he sees it from a sexual standpoint and tries to ban me from seeing it mostly and being nude so I mean I cant really tell him about it and I sure cant tell him about this forum because I plan on being here a long time and if he knew about it he wouldnt let me come *yes I still live with my parents and yes even though im 19, they are still demanding of me*. Anyways most of my family is against nudity, except those from the east coast and my grandparents because they used to enjoy nudity alot and let my parents be nude sometimes when they were little, my mom more than my dad because his parents were in the military and more strict and my mom lived out in the countryside alot because my grandma is from olklahoma. So yah all things considered its best to just keep mum and stay nude when I can and wait till im on my own, the im gonna be a more official nudist. Anyways thanks for the thoughtful words, maybe some others have more advice????

Gary Naturist

12-22-2003, 08:54 AM

MikeJB, your posts would be easier to read if you broke your long paragraph(s) in to much shorter ones.

Gary

12-22-2003, 09:19 AM

Back on topic... first of all your dad only *thinks* he's christian. The real ones aren't against anyone.

Another point, atheists don't believe there is a god so how can they be against what they feel is a figment of someone's imagination? The atheists I know are more than willing to see proof there is a god. Nobody has been able to dig any up.

Another point... Mormons are already christians. They just have different beliefs than you dad does. He seems not to like anyone that doesn't believe just as he does.

Also, if nudity were so bad why are there so many nudists that are christians?

Now for the bad news. Your dad is not likely to change or even question that his beliefs could be wrong. Your best bet is leaving him to his beliefs and not bringing all that up. Leave him with his delusions and go on with your life the best way you can. Don't believe him when he says you are a bad person or doing bad things when you know they aren't bad.

Unfortunately this might mean actually lying to him in the future about what you may be doing and what you personally believe in but I'd consider it the lesser of evils. If you continue to show him the truth he will refuse to look and just get mad at you. I know families that have totally come apart over deep rooted beliefs like what your father has. Love him as he is, the best you can and realize he's not doing this intentionally. It's either that or you will end up not having a relationship with him and that might be even worse.

I know... take it from me. My dad has nothing to do with me, although for different reasons and it was nothing that I did wrong.

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 09:45 AM

"Back on topic... first of all your dad only *thinks* he's christian. The real ones aren't against anyone."
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah ive kind of figured that out. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

------------------------------------------------
"Another point, atheists don't believe there is a god so how can they be against what they feel is a figment of someone's imagination? The atheists I know are more than willing to see proof there is a god. Nobody has been able to dig any up."

------------------------------------------------

I dont disagree with you on that. I just said thats how my dad feels and what he has told me and for a long time, thats the only real reference I had on the issue and basically just thought he was right and went with it because I didnt have any info to debate it with him, because he would just flame me.

-------------------------------------------------

"Another point... Mormons are already christians. They just have different beliefs than you dad does. He seems not to like anyone that doesn't believe just as he does."

-------------------------------------------------

Yes I already kind of figured that about Mormons. My dad says they THINK they are christians but just have different views that areint part of gods word or something. He seems to have a thing against different people *not very christian like* and he acts like he doiesnt but he does.

-------------------------------------------------

"Also, if nudity were so bad why are there so many nudists that are christians?"
-------------------------------------------------

Exactly! He would say they are not christians though or he would say they dont mind doing bad things as long as they enjoy it. He doesnt think they have consideration of other people, because theyd put clothes on if they did. I mean all this stuff is just rubbish to me and has been for a while. He doesnt even have a shred of proof of what he says.

------------------------------------------------
"Now for the bad news. Your dad is not likely to change or even question that his beliefs could be wrong. Your best bet is leaving him to his beliefs and not bringing all that up. Leave him with his delusions and go on with your life the best way you can. Don't believe him when he says you are a bad person or doing bad things when you know they aren't bad."

------------------------------------------------

Yeah ive kind of figured that out and no I dont feel that im a bad person but standing up to him while I live in his house isnt really an option, id be sunk if he kicked me out. Also I think old age is getting to him, he gets worse as he gets older, hopefully he wont get too bad, he can get very angry sometimes.

------------------------------------------------

"Unfortunately this might mean actually lying to him in the future about what you may be doing and what you personally believe in but I'd consider it the lesser of evils. If you continue to show him the truth he will refuse to look and just get mad at you. I know families that have totally come apart over deep rooted beliefs like what your father has. Love him as he is, the best you can and realize he's not doing this intentionally. It's either that or you will end up not having a relationship with him and that might be even worse."

-------------------------------------------------

He wouldnt go as far as say disowning me but he would be upset and hed make his opinion known. Besides I wouldnt want him telling my aunt because him and her are really close and both of them are perfectionists, morals and deceny wise and my aunt is worse than my dad, he correct everyone for everything and dresses her kids up real fancy for such stupid things and she always fixes em up and makes them smile at everyone, plus she lectures her beleifs and opinions like they are the law of the land just so that she doesnt feel embarassed or uncomfortable. I mean I dont question her controlling her own kids too much, thats her business and she can be friendly at times but when she tries to control me, even when my parents are around I question that alot, I mean shes not my mother and thats my parent's job and NO she doesnt suggest things, she TELLS you how its gonna be. Those two people are just soooooooooo annoying, Although when i get older im gonna tell em im a nudist anyways and im gonna be so far away they cant do a darn thing about it, not that half of my family would come to visit me anyways, they dont even bother to come here for the holidays.

------------------------------------------------

"I know... take it from me. My dad has nothing to do with me, although for different reasons and it was nothing that I did wrong."

-------------------------------------------------

Yeah like I said I dont think itll ever get that bad, but ya never know when and if that alzheimers kicks in ya never know what he might do. I mean my grandpa lives in a controlled place now because he went a bit loony and when my dad gets old hes probably gonna end up like that cuz I think it runs in his family. Hehe, just to get back at him, maybe I should put him in a looney bin right next to the nudist resort id go to hehehe, not that that would ever happen or be possible but it sure as hell would be funny and might get him to open his eyes a bit.

12-22-2003, 03:44 PM

At the risk of being criticized, I have to agree with Greensunshine on one thing she (not he) said. Your posts, Mike, are hard to read because of the lack of punctuation.

Everything runs in together and makes little sense. You seldom use an apostrophe in words like (he'd), which comes out (hed), or (I'd) and (I've) which come out (id) and (ive). Capitalizing the I and using an apostrophe makes it easier to read.

Otherwise, I understood enough to know what you're going through. My dad used embarrassment and intimidation, as well as the Bible to "prove" his point. I'm a Christian and agree with Cyndiann that many people who claim to be Christians aren't. I know quoting the Bible offends some people here, but the Bible says "You shall know them by their fruits." The Christians that is.

Stay away from any talk about nudism with your dad because you won't change his mind. He sounds a lot like my dad was, and he was "always" right.

MichelleCA

12-22-2003, 04:20 PM

I'd have to agree with some people here, Mike will probably never be able to talk to his dad about nudism rationally. Some people have just believed that something isn't right for so long that they can't be persuaded to think another way. You can debate with them all you want, Until your blue in the face, and they wont budge on the issue. Mike's dad just believes so highly that nudity is inapporiate that he wont ever except Mike's wanting to be a nudist, So Like the others said Dont bring up nudity with your Dad.

MikeJB

12-22-2003, 04:26 PM

I never said I would. If I ever did id do it when im far away from him and if he gets upset, well I guess he'll have to get upset then. I dont think id see him much after I moved out anyways.

12-22-2003, 08:18 PM

After you're out on your own, Mike, there's nothing your dad can do about you being a nudist. He can tell you how "wrong" it is, but that's just his opinion. If you think it would destroy whatever relationship you have with him by telling him, it would be best to keep it to yourself even then. Anyway, what you do or don't tell him is up to you. No one can make that decision for you.

A fellow Christian at work, before I retired, found out I was planning on moving into a nudist resort and tried to convice me how wrong it was. I wasn't convinced.

Prometheus

12-23-2003, 12:21 AM

Mike, for your own education you might be interested in reading the following page about Mormons. The website covers most world religions and tries its hardest to be as objective as possible. The link below goes to some information about Mormon beliefs as well as some of the criticism leveled against them by other Christians. That might help you figure out what your dad is talking about, even if you don't agree with him.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm

Artie

12-23-2003, 01:02 AM

Mike,
Your fathers ideas a bout nudity being wrong by using the Adam and Eve thought is very unfounded. Later in the Bible, God tells Isaiah to take off his clothes and preach to the people for three years. God wouldn't tell him to do that if ti was "wrong" or sinful.
As far as the Mormon debate goes. Many of their beliefs conflict harshly with Christian orthodox scripture. I for one do not believe they are true Christians; however, many of them do not realize these belief conflict with conanical scripture. (I know I'm gonna get some heat for this)
As for talking with you father about nudism, I don't have a great deal of advice. Many people are duped by the stereotypical idea that all nudists are perverts that just want to show off and see other people naked. Maybe you could show him some good nudist sites on the net that combat this.

Peace,
Artie

greensunshine

12-23-2003, 04:49 AM

Ok Artie, "What is Your True Definition of a Christian??? if by your standards Mormons are not Christians...

And for the record, I am a Mormon and very proud to be also a Christian /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am also a female and proud of that too /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Greensunshine, up here in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS

Inquiring minds would like to know...especially Us Mormons /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jochanaan

12-23-2003, 03:15 PM

Mike, I'm sorry to read that your father is so intolerant. For the record: Not all fathers are that way.

I hope that some of us can be mentors to you.

florida-david

12-23-2003, 07:10 PM

i don't mind mike's writing stlye as i would rather not use punctuation marks and i don't use capitals (and i usually ramble in my writing). this thread by mike must be especialy close to his heart, as his previous posts did not seem so disjointed. usually he is very good at getting his points across, whereas on this thread he seems to ramble. mike, sorry to be a critic, but i think this post is obviously important to you and deserving of proper comment. so here it goes - i am not sure if your mom is present in your life, but it is obvious that your aunt and dad are powerful figures in your life. it has take me 36 years to figure out that i do not have to agree with everyone, i just nod my head and grunt in agreement and move on past whatever they were babbling about. why create hardship at your age? just go with the flow. i lived at home for my first two years of college, so i know you need the parents on your side right now. maybe you can find a way to get some nude time in outside of the house. also, why bother telling your dad about you being a nudist after you are out of the house? what good will it do? just let him live his closed minded life while you enjoy yours. i have discovered there is no use in "burning bridges", it only causes you hardship later. just my two cents and i wish you the best in all your endeavors!!!

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 11:56 AM

Well I dont really give a rip what my aunt says cuz I barely see her anymore and she just is so stuck up and really doesnt have any good reason for anyone to really respect her. I mean she has good intentions and trys to act sweet, but she cant get past the fact that she is a control freak and perfectionist and will say anything and ruin anyones life just so that they conform to her standards and dont do anything to make her image look bad or embarass her in any way. As for my dad, yeah im just going with the flow with him and I probably will never tell him about my nudist lifestyle cuz he doesnt need to know anyways. If he were more open to it then I would but he just wouldnt understand it.

florida-david

12-24-2003, 07:34 PM

hey mike - i knew you had your head screwed on straight. enjoy the holidays -

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 07:41 PM

Yeah my head is just fine. Its just other people's heads *which im not going to mention* who need to be fixed or examined.

Croydon

12-25-2003, 04:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
Mike,

Your profile doesn't say how old you are, and thus all the posts I have read from you imply that you are younger and less experienced in writting anything where others attempt to read what you have written. I tend to find this particular posting so difficult to read, after attempting to read it several times, I said "Bag It" and moved on to another more intelligent one.

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Where lifes experiences do make a HUGE Difference in life.

PS

The Post you sent me earlier has absolutely no validity based upon lifes experiences and until you have really experienced both the So called Resorts and Public Nude Beaches, I will assume from what you have written, you have no clue as to what you have said to others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to agree with GS on this. Sometimes I think you, MikeJB, should read people posts VERY carefully before responding. It would help if you took a moment to think about what you are going to type before you do it. I normally skip over your posts because it is so hard understanding what you say. I have to read and re-read your posts over 3x just to understand. It would help if you used proper punctuation and allow your sentences to flow well. Re-reading your messages before you post it can solve that.

You bring up good topics on the boards and I commend you for that. You get people talking with great topics but it would help us a lot if you tried to be clear and concise.

12-25-2003, 06:06 AM

I also concur with what Croydon has said.

greensunshine

12-31-2003, 04:36 AM

Dear Artie,

Since you were unwilling to post your answer to my following question in the main room for others to read, as I am sure many would enjoy, I will post my response to your PM here:

Dear Art,

And on behalf of "We Mormons", nor do we see religions such as the ones you spoke of, as having the complete truth...thus while you may consider the one(s) you practice as having such, in the eyes of those of us who do practice and or believe in the Mormon faith, we know in our hearts, mind, and soul, you do not.

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
Ok Artie, "What is Your True Definition of a Christian??? if by your standards Mormons are not Christians...

And for the record, I am a Mormon and very proud to be also a Christian /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am also a female and proud of that too /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Greensunshine, up here in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS

Inquiring minds would like to know...especially Us Mormons /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jochanaan

12-31-2003, 09:11 AM

Greensunshine, that reply got me thinking: None of us, individuals or denominations, have all the truth. And my denomination, the Seventh Day Baptists, has never claimed to. The truth, and the Truth, is out there for anyone to find.

I will only say here that the Bible has successfully defended itself against all attacks. None of it has ever been conclusively disproved, and parts of it have been spectacularly proven true.

12-31-2003, 11:23 AM

Which parts do you consider proved true?

nudeM

01-01-2004, 07:58 AM

Life /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

MikeJB

01-01-2004, 02:09 PM

have to agree with GS on this. Sometimes I think you, MikeJB, should read people posts VERY carefully before responding. It would help if you took a moment to think about what you are going to type before you do it. I normally skip over your posts because it is so hard understanding what you say. I have to read and re-read your posts over 3x just to understand. It would help if you used proper punctuation and allow your sentences to flow well. Re-reading your messages before you post it can solve that.

You bring up good topics on the boards and I commend you for that. You get people talking with great topics but it would help us a lot if you tried to be clear and concise.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah I will read posts more clearly. Thanks.

Jochanaan

01-02-2004, 08:44 AM

Here's a friendly suggestion, MikeJB: A college professor I respect a lot said once that there's no such thing as good writing; there's only rewriting. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (It's true; even in the above sentence I changed a few words as I was typing it.)

I'm glad you're not afraid to bring up controversies!

Jochanaan

01-02-2004, 08:56 AM

Cyndiann, a historian named Josh McDowell once went to the Middle East to see if, using archaeology's methods, he could prove or disprove the Bible. I will only quote one example here:

Ezekiel 26:4-5 states: "Tyrus...shall be a place for the spreading of nets..." Mr. McDowell found the site of that ancient coastal city from descriptions in secular sources. It was a place on which fishermen spread their nets to dry!

(Source: Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol. 1. (c)1972, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc.)

01-02-2004, 10:00 AM

About Josh and his "evidence"

"Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict has been variously described as an authoritative defense of Christianity and a masterpiece of Christian apologetics, which provides scholarly, intelligent, well-grounded answers to questions about the Christian faith. In the summer of 1999, my brother, a fundamentalist Christian, invited me to engage in an email discussion of the historical reliability of the New Testament, specifically focusing on McDowell's defense of NT historicity. As a result, I began a six-month investigation of McDowell's Chapter 4, entitled "The reliability of the Bible".

By checking McDowell's sources and consulting works of NT scholars, I was eventually able to discover that much of what McDowell presents is untrustworthy, misleading or simply incorrect. In the ensuing six months, my brother and I engaged in detailed email discussions in which we debated the McDowell's evidence. I give below a transcript of our discussions. My hope is that the detailed evidence presented here will give both Christians and non-Christians ammunition to help expose and rebut the distortions and falsehoods being promulgated by McDowell and other like-minded fundamentalists."
http://users.iems.nwu.edu/~hazen/McDowellRebuttal.html

----
"Josh McDowell's theology is in tension with this familiar view of Christianity. While Paul's faith is a mystery in Christ, in McDowell's fundamentalism faith becomes an inerrant collection of historical facts. McDowell warns us not to trust our feelings and uses an analogy in which fact is a train engine pulling the cars of faith and feeling.3 "Christianity appeals to history, the facts of history," which are indisputable facts, McDowell writes.4 He argues that it is the factual basis of the gospels as historical truth that supports the Christian faith.5 McDowell's purpose in analyzing the New Testament (NT) texts is to support their empirical and historical reliability.6 In doing so, he insists that the biblical texts stand "unique" and represent the "reliable" or factually transmitted Word of God. Because the Word of God is factual, "one can hold the Scriptures in his hand and say, `The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable'."7 I shall call this position the "reliability doctrine" and contrast it to Pauline faith. This paper has three main sections, each of which attacks the reliability doctrine's soundness. In the first section, I illustrate how the gospels came to be transmitted to us from the historical Jesus to demonstrate that the gospels are not literal historical records. In the second section, I challenge the findings of so-called "Biblical Archaeology" to conclude that archaeological discoveries from the Near East do not support the view of the Bible as literal historical records. Finally in the last section, I engage in a philosophical analysis of the reliability doctrine in order to expose its underlying attempt to substitute foundationalism for faith."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html

-----

""Apologetics as practiced by Josh McDowell is merely an exercise in after-the-fact rationalization of beliefs held on prior emotional grounds. . . . The more seriously one takes him as a representative of his faith, the more seriously one will be tempted to thrust Christianity aside as a tissue of grotesque absurdities capable of commending itself only to fools and bigots."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/preposterous.html

----
"Josh McDowell is one of the most popular writers that fundamentalist Christianity has. He is also one of the least trustworthy. Almost nothing he says in his books (e.g., Evidence That Demands a Verdict) has been researched at more than the most superficial of levels. Perhaps it is that very sloppiness that makes his books popular with lazy students who don't want to be confused with a lot of facts. They want simple answers, even when there aren't any.

The way in which McDowell came up with exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that belief in Jesus was intellectually correct, is interesting. It shows how faulty reasoning can easily lead one astray. McDowell decided that to disprove the intellectual validity of Jesus be had to 1) demonstrate that the New Testament was not historically reliable, and 2) since every-thing in Christianity was based upon Jesus' resurrection, all he had to do was prove that the resurrection never took place. Of course, the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that an event never took place didn't bother McDowell. He came to the incredible conclusion (on the basis of a faulty examination of the faulty evidence) that "the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best established events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence" The fact that none of the "evidence" could have been admitted into a current American court under any of the ordinary rules of evidence seems not to bother McDowell."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html

And I could post a lot more people who have looked at what Josh McDowell wrote and said it was bad research at the least.

But I guess you never looked closely at the guy to see if he was posting truth or fiction?

nudeM

01-03-2004, 03:06 AM

Again, Cyndiann is trying to use her Athiest views to make a few points. I just checked out the source provided by her, and guess what. The link, Infidels.com has the following links inside the web site: HeresyHouse.com, ROF.com, FreethoughtRing. After searching these sites, I have found that they are either owned and/or operated by athiests. Members in the FreethoughtRing are athiests. HeresyHouse is owned by athiests (pointed out on the home page).

Ever wonder why she constantly argues with every issue that is posted here, be it political, religious or "civil liberties" beliefs? I think her world is so narrow, that she has nothing to do but argue on just about any subject. Many of her views are either athiest or far left liberal. This has been proven time and time again, but this time, she has provided a source that explains her intentions, and that is to push her athiest views upon these religious-oriented subjects.

She asked for proof, proof was provided, and yet she "still" chooses to argue with points from an athiest web site.

Posted by Cyndiann: "But I guess you never looked closely at the guy to see if he was posting truth or fiction?"

Based on whose truth? Christian, athiest or yours? I added the third option for the fact that you go in either direction many times to support whatever you are trying to say at any particular time.

stevenf64

01-03-2004, 03:48 AM

Watch out NudeM,
You will be called bigoted or intollerent or some other flame by people who dont agree with you. I have noticed the same thing but over the last few weeks have chose to ignore rather than point out because somehow somepeople will just pick apart parts and turn it back at you.

just my opinion
steve

PS there are non so blind as those who WILL NOT see

01-03-2004, 03:54 AM

So research doesn't count if it's done by an atheist? Look, this guy has been discredited by other religious folks as well and my proof includes that. The Internet is chock full of people who have checked on what McDowell actually did and found it was not valid.

You attack me without even knowing if McDowell's work is solid or not.

Do your own research. Stop assuming he's got valid things to present when he doesn't. Blind faith should not apply to research.

nudeM

01-03-2004, 04:00 AM

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WNYjoe

01-03-2004, 04:14 AM

One person posted that as a 7th day Adventist, they know that the Truth is out there and they do not have all of the answers.
On both sides: how about everyone here starting to realize this????
Cyndiann quotes several sources, and the reply back is that they are all Atheist and she can not find anything good to say. There is a hard concept that we as Americans need to understand and that is ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION: it is possible for both sides to be equally right!!
The major religious books were written 100s of years ago. By humans. By MEN in particular. By a society very different than how we live now. By a society that could not explain some things without Divine reasoning. By people who also understood things we have lost.
That is to say: sure, the Bible can be quoted as far as geographical combinations, astrological references, etc. Using those to make any comparison to the events and the message and claiming them to be truth is missing logic. Even still, they could be true. They should be held up to their own merits. And with anything else, the truth usually lies somewhere between both extremes.
I personally am Pagan. And the biggest thing about that means that I actually think about everything and decide what to believe based on a process. Just blindly interpreting any text as "it is written, there fore it HAS to be true" is just asking for trouble. (My writings here included, lol) A perfect example: Many of the people who post here have had conversations about nudity, laws, open spaces, etc. And would love to see the laws and society change. Well, to change that-something which is WRITTEN needs to no longer be considered valid. That also does not make it right or wrong, just different.
Religiously, what does that mean? every religion teaches love, tolerance, a higher connection, a concept of reward/punishment, etc. If we each try to live our lives by that same lesson, it should not matter if we beleive in one God/multiple gods/or a general "Great Divine." It should not matter whether we believe in the sanctity of the Pope or not. Or any of the human influenced rules that are placed onto us to help make us a more consistent, organized, productive society. What does matter is how we treat each other.

01-03-2004, 04:35 AM

"PS there are non so blind as those who WILL NOT see"

You got that part right! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

01-03-2004, 04:46 AM

I guess the best example I could come up with is his treatment of
Tyre. Mr Mcdowell holds up an abbreviated version of Ezekiel's prophesy of Tyre:

Ezek 26:3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against
you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea
casting up its waves.
Ezek 26:4 And they will destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down here
towers; and i will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock.
Ezek 26:7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am
going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of
kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
Ezek 26:8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword;
he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls
and raise his shields against you.
Ezek 26:11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will
kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to
the ground.
Ezek 26:12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they
will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your
stones, timber and rubble into the sea.
Ezek 26:14 And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the
spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have
spoken, declares the Lord God.
Ezek 26:21 I shall bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though
you shall be sought, you will never be found again, declared the Lord God.

Josh Mcdowell then says of Nebuchadnezzar's war:

PREDICTIONS:
1B. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy mainland Tyre ...

Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophesy.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "After a 13 year siege (585-573 BC) by
Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonian suzurainty.
In 538 BC Tyre, with the rest of Phoenicia, is passed to the suzerainty
of Achaemenid Persia.

When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty.
The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about on-half
mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was
destroyed in 573 (Prediction 1B) but the city of Tyre on the Island
remained a powerful city for several hundred years.

This narration, Mr Burrill, is deceitful. First, Tyre was always an Island
city. It often, in prosperous times, had settlements on the mainland, and
sometimes those settlements were fortified, but Tyre was always an island
nation. In fact Ezekiel himself notes these "settlements on the mainland."
Second, while Josh references the Encyclopedia Britannica, he does not
mention that the EB (ie: Encyclopedia Britannica) states that Tyre

"successfully withstood a prolonged [13 year] siege by the
Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II."

Nebuchadnezzar did not break down the Tyre city gates, only the gates of the
settlements on the mainland. Thus Josh Mcdowell's narration is dishonest and
deceitful. His insistence that "Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the old (mainland)
city of Tyre," is a lie, as there never was an "old (mainland) city of Tyre."

As to Alexander the Great's victory over Tyre, Josh quotes Phillip Meyers,
who he calls a "secular historian:"

"Alexander the Great... reduced it to ruins (322 BC). She recovered in
measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously
held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city
is now as bare as the top of a rock - a place where the fishermen that
still frequent the spot, spread nets to dry."

Now I find it very odd that a truly "secular historian" would use Ezekiel to
describe present Tyre, especially as the entire statement is false, but I will
let that pass at present. I will though point out that it is a lie to say
that "the larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the
top of a rock," as The present city takes up from 2/3 to 3/4 of the entire
island and almost all of the site of the original city. It is also a lie to
say that it "never regained the place she had previously held in the world,"
as one of Josh's own references, EB, notes that Tyre became a very important
trade city in Roman times, early Christian times, early Moslem times and even
during the crusades. In fact during Roman times, Tyre became so prosperous
(due to silks and dyes) that the ruins from Roman times cover the entire
island. It should also be pointed out that after the Crusaders took Tyre it
was considered significant enough so that they even buried the the Holy Roman
Emperor Frederik I Barbarossa in the Cathedral built there. This, of course
did not thrill the Moslems, and when they recaptured Tyre in 1290 AD, it never
really recovered as a trade capitol after that.

As to the present Tyre, Josh says:

We will now see at Present, as described by Nina Jidejian: "The 'Sidoan'
port of Tyre is still in use today. Small fishing vessels lay at the anchor
there. A examinatio of the foundation reveals granite columns of the Roman
Period which were incorporated as binders in the walls by the Crusaders.
The port has become a haven today for fishing boats and a place for
spreading nets."

"The destiny according to the prophet is a place where fishermen would
spread their nets. The existence of a small fishing [There is a city of
Tyre today but it is not the original city, but is down the coast from
the original site of Tyre] upon the site of the ancient city of Tyre does
not mean that the prophesy is not fulfilled but is the final confirmation
confirmation that the prophesy is fulfilled. Tyre as the mistress of the
seas, the trade and commerce center of the world for centuries passed away
never to rise again."

It needs to be pointed out that the present city of Tyre is not, as Josh
interjects, "down the coast;" it is still on the island. Second Josh and his
non-secular sources make Tyre sound like a hamlet of maybe 10 to 100 people.
On the contrary, it is presently has about 14,000 people. That's between a 1/3
and 1/2 Tyre's population during its heyday). It should also be noted
immediately after the prophesy of Tyre, Josh discusses a prophesy for the
neighboring city of Sidon. He points out that among other thing, the prophesy
specifically did not discuss the destruction of Sidon, and concludes that
Sidon present existence helps verify the prophesy. This is significant
because he points to the present population of 20,000 as evidence that Sidon
is still a thriving "city." So we see that according to Josh, the 14,000
people living in Tyre, show that it is "extinct," but 20,000 of Sidon shows it
still to be a "city." In fact Josh explicitly proclaims in his conclusions of
Sidon:

George Davis concludes with a chilling claim: "No human mind could have
fortold that Tyre would be extinct, and Sidon would continue, but suffer
tribulation during the succeeding centuries; instead of Tyre enduring
sorrows and Sidon being desolate and deserted the long period."

Of course Josh was able claim this because he didn't bother to tell us the
present population of Tyre, and was thereby able to hide how much of a gross
misrepresentation of the term "extinct" is. As such, this lie of omission is
just one more reason I also find Josh's sporadic use of "facts" to be
slanted and dishonest. And Mcdowell's abuse of Tyre's history is just one
example of his worthlessness as a credible reference.

All in all I find the propaganda of Mcdowell to be sloppy, erroneous and
deceitful. In fact, realizing that someone would eventually, once again bring
up either Josh Mcdowell's, or James Kennedy's book talking about the success
of the prophesy of Tyre. I did some research and wrote the following summary.
I include it now because it gives references:

There have been repeated references made to Ezekiel`s prophesy of Tyre in this
group. Most often people make references to books like Josh Mcdowell's
"Evidence Which Demands A Verdict" and James Kennedy's book "Why I Believe."
The problem with these books is that, from what has been presented on this
newsgroup, they make some very deceitful claims. They represent Tyre as
originally being a mainland city, which was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II,
and rebuilt on an Island. They claim that Alexander then destroyed the island
city entirely, and thus the prophesy in Ezekiel is presently fulfilled, as
the ancient location of Tyre is now barren like a rock, and only a place to
spread fishing nets. The problem with such claims is that they are quite
false.

For one thing, Tyre has always been an island city. We have manuscripts from
over 100 years before Nebuchadrezzar which show this. One example of such a
manuscript is contained in the book "The world of the Phoenicians" by Sabatino
Moscati. It is a record left to us by Assurbanipal (668-626 BCE), the Emperor
of Assyria, to whom the kingdom Tyre, at that time owed fealty. Baal, king of
Tyre at that time rebelled against Assurbanipal, and Assurbanipal records:

In my third campaign I marched against Baal, king of Tyre, who dwells
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the midst of the sea, when he did not observe my royal command and did
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not obey the words of my lips. I threw up earthworks against him, by sea
and land. I pressed them sorely and made their lives miserable. I made
them submit to my yolk. A daughter, the offspring of the his loins and
daughters of his brothers he brought into my presence to serve as my
concubines. Yahi-Milki, his son, who had never before crossed the sea,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
he had them bring to me, for the first time to render me service. His
daughter and his brothers' daughters I received from him, with large
dowries. I had mercy upon him and gave him back his son, the offspring
of his loins.

This book also contains many other pre-Nebuchadnezzar (ie: pre 586 BCE)
references to inscriptions and records discussing the island nation of Tyre
(also called Aradus) which "dwells in the midst of the sea."

It should also be noted, that at times Tyre was sufficiently prosperous to
have suburbs on the mainland, and there were instances when these settlements
grew large enough to even have their own wall, but Tyre, and all its real
glory has always been on the island (some of this is discussed in the Aug 74,
National Geographic and other parts are discussed in Sabato Moscati's book).
When Nebuchadrezzar "trashed Tyre," he had actually only trashed the
settlements on the mainland. Finally, after 13 years of siege, the war was
dragging on, and the Tyrans gave Nebuchadrezzar some hostages, allowed him to
choose the next king from the Tyran royal line (another King Baal who, with
the aid a a Babylonian minister, reigned from 574 to 564). Nebuchadrezzar
called it a win and left. It should be noted though that his cavalry never
actually set foot in Tyre, or crushed it underfoot. Nebuchadnezzar, did
though indeed, as the Bible asserted: "ravage the settlements on the mainland
by sword."

Now some 250 years later, Alexander approached Tyre and demanded entrance to
the city (ie: the island). Tyre though, had never yet granted entry to an
invading army, and refused. That is when Alexander used a completely new
strategy and built a land bridge (ie: mole) out to the island. A map showing
this mole is contained in the book "The Phonicians" by Harden. In fact this
map shows the land bridge of Alexander, the southern Harbor, the archeological
excavation of 1947, and the ancient city area. It is recorded that Alexander
killed ~10,000 Tyrans on entry into the city, and took ~30,000. It is not
recorded what happened to the Tyran trading and war fleets, which were
substantial.

Since then Tyre has been rebuilt and reinhabited for most of the intervening
time up to the present. It was very prosperous and massively rebuilt in Roman
Times (and in fact there are the present archeology digs are having to go
through Roman ruins). We know that there was even a significant Christian
population there in the 2nd century, and that the Church father Origen is
buried there. It was also prosperous though the early Moslem period, and this
led the crusaders to make it an important stronghold during the crusades. It
did though lose its trade significants after the the Muslims reconquered
the area (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Presently the city of Tyre contains about 14,000 people, and is built upon the
ruins of the ancient city which people Mr Kennedy and Mr McDowell insist was
never rebuilt, and is bare as a rock. For those who would like to see
evidence of this city, aerial photographs can be found in the books: "The
Phonicians" by Harden, and "The Biblical Lands" by P.R. Moorly. These
photographs graphically show that the present Tyre take up from 2/3 to 3/4 of
the entire island space, and most definitely located on the site of the
ancient city area (as shown by the book "The Phonicians" by Harden). One can
also see a ground level photograph in Aug 74, National Geographic, showing the
present archeological digs in old harbor area of Tyre, with the present City
of Tyre in the background. For other background supportive testimony, one can
also look at the map produced by the National Geographic Society: "Special
maps of the World: Holy Land" produced in December 1989, and distributed with
the National Geographic Magazine. This map explicitly points out the present
city of Tyre/Sur, and states that this is the same city which Alexander
conquered in 322 BCE by building a land bridge.

Now I want to point out, that I am not refuting such men as Mr Kennedy and Mr
Mcdowell because, as has sometimes been suggested by admirers of these men, I
hate Christianity; I do so because I am deeply offended by by those of any
religious or political ilk, who proselytize with lies. I am not trying to
disprove Christianity; I am trying to expose lies used by some people who just
happen to be Christians.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22Josh+McDowell%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&selm=14364%40pogo.wv.tek.com&rnum=4

nudeM

01-03-2004, 04:51 AM

WNYjoe: Great post. I like your way of thinking. Your remark, "Just blindly interpreting any text as "it is written, there fore it HAS to be true" is just asking for trouble". If only certain people would adhere to that thought. I've heard that somewhere before. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I, myself, am a Christian, but not a "practicing" one. I do share many beliefs, only I do not participate that often i.e., bible studies, church, etc. I know there are those who dis-believe christian practices, but don't "tell" me I am wrong. That is where I will go off, as you have seen.

I personally like the way you "debate" your particular issue. You stated your belief and left it at that. That is what debating is all about. It's just when there are those who try to "ram" information down our throats. Again, great post. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

01-03-2004, 05:26 AM

Presenting alternate views is hardly ramming anything down someone's throat.

I just feel sorry for people who believe anything thrown at them. Atheists (and pagans and agnostics) tend to actually research things instead of blindly believing them. Perhaps that is why christians are christians. Even they admit they believe on faith alone.

David77

01-03-2004, 07:19 AM

Cyndiann,
Thank you for the extensive historical information and research references. Very interesting.

Trailscout

01-03-2004, 10:38 AM

"Faith alone" is misunderstood by some. It merely means that God does not honor any outwardly correct behavior that is not motivated by love and faith in the God to whom the behavior is ostensibly directed. In other words, God dispises hypocrisy.

Knowledge and fact are very much necessary to the Christian faith and its Jewish antecedent.
Judaism and Christianity are faith systems that are tied to specific people, places and events.

It is not good or necessary for Christians to defend every conservative author who has ever published. Some very poor scholarship is out there, to be sure.

It is equally unwise to presume that atheists, agnostics and pagans are free from bias and error when they evaluate Bible passages.

For those interested in a fair-minded look at the Biblical prophecies about Tyre, here are a couple of links:

Tekton Web site (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_03.htm)

CRI web page (http://www.equip.org/free/DA151.htm)

01-03-2004, 11:53 AM

A very fair assessment trailscout and thanks for the links.

greensunshine

01-06-2004, 06:01 PM

Gees Cindi,

I thought I was long winded...but you seriously are right up there with several others who I prefer to ignor what you all have to say vs. read /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Female, Mormon and Proud of Both /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

01-06-2004, 06:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
Gees Cindi,

I thought I was long winded...but you seriously are right up there with several others who I prefer to ignor what you all have to say vs. read /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Female, Mormon and Proud of Both /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are all Mormons as rude as you are?

Trailscout

01-06-2004, 07:50 PM

Of the two posts, Cyndiann's was definitely the shortest. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wannabenaked2001

01-06-2004, 08:13 PM

Cyndiann, please do not take this as a "flame" because I do not intend it that way.

I try to gain at least some kind of understanding of the various religious followings I encounter, but I don't understand Athiests (at least not very well). Do Athiests belive that there is no life form or inteligence greater than humans, or do they belive that no lifeform / intelligence created humans, that we simply evolved into what we are now? ( Or maybe both/neither)

Also, I assume (I know, I know... "A**" .."U" ..Me) that the Athiests are the leaders in the struggle for separation of church and state. By this I am referring to prayer being taken out of public schools, "under God" being removed from the pledge of allegiance, the 10 Commandments being removed from public property etc.

Help me out here, I only want to understand more about where you are comming from.

Thanks!
Jim

WNYjoe

01-06-2004, 09:04 PM

Also, I assume (I know, I know... "A**" .."U" ..Me) that the Athiests are the leaders in the struggle for separation of church and state. By this I am referring to prayer being taken out of public schools, "under God" being removed from the pledge of allegiance, the 10 Commandments being removed from public property etc.

That is not a safe assumption. And it is miscontrued. And at least you are willing to listen.
Many people want to keep separation of Church and state. What this means is schools should not endorse ANY religion. And to 90% of the people in this country, that means some form of Christianity. So automatically it is the same God. Jews believe in Yahweh. Hindus, Muslims, etc in others, Pagans in a pantheon of others, still. There is no problem when people realize that my beliefs are different than yours. But that is not the case. I have no problem with schools allowing after school prayer sessions, but that means they should equally allow someone else to have an after school full moon ritual, or after school Jewish ceremony, or whatever. But it doesnot work that way. And thus the fight.

The Pledge of Allegiance is even more blatantly so. First, it again assumes that your God is my god. Second, the words are not part of the original text. They were added during the McCarthy era to diferentiate us from those "godless commies."

The 10 commandments again do the same thing. It becomes an endorsement by the government that Christianity is the "official religion" of the state. And that is not the case. In this country, we have freedom of relgion. Which means that even though 90% of the population is Christian based, 6% is Jewish, 2% Muslim or Hindu, and the remaining 2% Pagan, other, or none, they are all equally legal and acceptable.
It is just wrong to assume that 10% of 230 million people (aka 2.3 million people) should believe they are wrong in their religious beliefs because the government says so. By having the 10 commandments in an Alabama Court house is the case.

I am too tired as I write this. But that is is the basics. I hope that helps.

Joe
a Pagan. As if you could not tell.

01-06-2004, 09:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
Cyndiann, please do not take this as a "flame" because I do not intend it that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And anyone that would think it is should use that little "off" button on the computer. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

I try to gain at least some kind of understanding of the various religious followings I encounter, but I don't understand Athiests (at least not very well). Do Athiests belive that there is no life form or inteligence greater than humans, or do they belive that no lifeform / intelligence created humans, that we simply evolved into what we are now? ( Or maybe both/neither) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All atheists don't believe the same just as all that believe in religion do not either.

In general they believe there is no proof of a higher power. They are totally open to having such proof presented to them. They don't think there is no god, justs that there is no proof of a god.
religionists think that atheists hate their god. How can they hate something they don't believe in?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Also, I assume (I know, I know... "A**" .."U" ..Me) that the Athiests are the leaders in the struggle for separation of church and state. By this I am referring to prayer being taken out of public schools, "under God" being removed from the pledge of allegiance, the 10 Commandments being removed from public property etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually there are a lot of people who don't want christianity in our government and schools. This includes atheists, agnostics, and religionists. Like joe said, the problem isn't prayer but an exclusion of all religions but one from participating. If all paths were included there would be no problem. Unfortunately the christians who want christian prayers and words in our schools and governments don't care that they are being exlusive and unaccepting of all others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

Help me out here, I only want to understand more about where you are comming from.

Thanks!
Jim <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for asking Jim! Feel free to continue this discussion.

missouriboy

01-07-2004, 03:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
All atheists don't believe the same just as all that believe in religion do not either.

In general they believe there is no proof of a higher power. They are totally open to having such proof presented to them. They don't think there is no god, justs that there is no proof of a god.
religionists think that atheists hate their god. How can they hate something they don't believe in?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you sure about this? I thought the definitions lined up as follows:

Theist: one who believes in a supreme being

Atheist: one who does NOT believe in a supreme being (the "a" prefix meaning "anti," like "amoral" for example)

Agnostic: one who believes mankind does not know (but is open to proof either way)

The first two DO have a definite belief/opinion. Your last sentence above alludes to this.

wannabenaked2001

01-07-2004, 03:45 AM

I have to take exception to the idea that the 10 commandments represent Christianity. The 10 commandments are actually from the old testament, which is Jewish in origin. Jesus was a Jew. Also, while other religions may not actually recognize the 10 commandments as a part of their religion, many if not most do teach the same or similar ideas of conduct toward their fellow man.

Also, I don't understand why "God" automaticly means the Christian God. While our founding fathers were Christians of one sort or another, the word "God" can mean any God whether he/she be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan etc. I guess I just don't understand how so many people can be offended by "God".

Naturist Mark

01-07-2004, 03:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
Also, I assume (I know, I know... "A**" .."U" ..Me) that the Athiests are the leaders in the struggle for separation of church and state. By this I am referring to prayer being taken out of public schools, "under God" being removed from the pledge of allegiance, the 10 Commandments being removed from public property etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Most people who support separation of Church and State are religious people, not atheists.

Separation of Church and State was designed from the start to protect religion, not to eliminate it. The Founding Fathers knew from intimate experience with the Puritans, the Crown, and official religions in the Colonies that State entanglement in religion led to persecution of minority religions and corruption of the favored religious establishment.

Groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/) were established by religious leaders. The current executive director of Americans United is Rev. Barry W. Lynn (http://www.au.org/lynn.htm), of the United Church of Christ.

-Mark

Nudist Elmer

01-07-2004, 05:59 AM

Cyndiann don't you think you are being a little hard on Green, I can't see where from reading both of your posts where she done anything to you.

Oh, and for the record, when you attack her beliefs for being a Mormon, You are also attacking the rest of that group...many of whom have been some of the best neighbors one could ask for...and I am making that statement as a non-mormon.

Elmer

01-07-2004, 06:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nudist Elmer:
Cyndiann don't you think you are being a little hard on Green, I can't see where from reading both of your posts where she done anything to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you either didn't look very well or have no sense of what an attack is. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

Oh, and for the record, when you attack her beliefs for being a Mormon, You are also attacking the rest of that group...many of whom have been some of the best neighbors one could ask for...and I am making that statement as a non-mormon.

Elmer <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But I never attacked her beliefs "for being a Mormon". Please read for content and not what will make the biggest splash.

She claims morality because she's mormon and at the same time acts totally childish and very unmormonlike. She is not doing the mormons a favor by claiming to be one, poor mormons. Attacking me because she only quoted half a sentence is a bit much don't you think? Wanna place bets on when the apology will come? LOL!

wannabenaked2001

01-07-2004, 07:52 AM

Naturist Mark, Thanks for setting me straight on the AU and separation of church and state. I have to admitt, that I am now even more confused than before.

WNYjoe

01-07-2004, 03:21 PM

--------------------------------------------------
I have to take exception to the idea that the 10 commandments represent Christianity. The 10 commandments are actually from the old testament, which is Jewish in origin. Jesus was a Jew. Also, while other religions may not actually recognize the 10 commandments as a part of their religion, many if not most do teach the same or similar ideas of conduct toward their fellow man.

Also, I don't understand why "God" automaticly means the Christian God. While our founding fathers were Christians of one sort or another, the word "God" can mean any God whether he/she be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan etc. I guess I just don't understand how so many people can be offended by "God".
--------------------------------------------------

Valid points. But it goes back to what I said about percentages. Perception is reality. And in this country, what you say is true, but what you question/what I address differently in another post is what is perceived by most.

I see there is another thread going about public nudity vs public sex. I got into the edge of a conversation with someone at work on a semi-related subject. And I know he is very religious and would be rather disgusted by the fact that I (his boss) am Pagan. I find it safest in this sometimes screwed up country to reveal that only when relevant.

Joe

Naturist Mark

01-07-2004, 04:33 PM

Do you think you know the 10 Commandments?

From Exodus 34:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> 1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.

4. All the first-born are mine.

5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.

6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.

8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.

9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The 10 commandments as you are probably more familiar with them are derived from Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. There are actually about 22 or so directives which are traditionally grouped into 10 commandments. However, different traditions group them in different ways.

Catholics group them into commandments differently from most Protestants and Jews. Additionally Jews list the preamble as their first commandment I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. and combine what Protestants consider Commandments 1 and 2.

Any way you look at them, only 6 or so have to do with general moral behavior. The rest are concerned with worship and religion.

The good news is that nudism is perfectly compatible with any version you choose.

About the 10 Commandments (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm)

-Mark

wannabenaked2001

01-07-2004, 04:42 PM

Joe, I think I understand what you are saying, but people's perceptions can change. Not so long ago in this country's history blacks and indians (american) were thought of, and treated as, less than human. As a country, those perceptions have changed (although some still cling to those ideals). As nudists we try to change the perceptions our society has toward nudity.

At one time the Earth was thought to be flat, the sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was the center of the universe. Just another example of no matter how "real" our perceptions may be to us, our perceptions are not necessarily fact.

We have come a long way, in this country, in the acceptance of various races into our "melting pot" as equals. I admitt, we still have more to accomplish in this area. We also have any number of cultural practices (yoga, Tai chi, karate, etc) that have been readily accepted into our culture. The food of various cultures has also been widely accepted (I really like sushi and Tai). I simply do not understand why religions have been left out. I am a Catholic, and have no desire to change. I also accept that other cultures have thier religions too. (I actually have this theory that we have the same God who has revealed him self to different cultures using diferent names and even forms) The only thing I think is important is that we belive in a higher power. I mean no offence to the atheists, but "faith" is all about beliving without proof.

Earlier, you had suggested that if schools had prayer, you would want to be able to perform a moon ritual. Is a moon ritual, or any other "ritual" necessary for prayer in your religion? I mean, as a Catholic, I can pray virtually any where/time I want. I do not require the rituals that are normally present in our church services (Mass), and most of the people around me would not necessarily know that I was praying.

But back on the topic of "seperation of church and state", I was truely shocked to find out that this cause is being lead by a Christian minister. That really makes no sence to me, but I guess they are like the ACLU (from another thread), often doing the wrong thing for the right reason. (my opinion)

Thanks for allowing me to rant!

WNYjoe

01-07-2004, 05:31 PM

Thank you for the compliment(s).

I agree with your observations about blacks, the flat earth, etc. And it was a fight to get us to where we are. And we do still have a ways to go.
A favorite quote of mine recently has become "I find it deplorable that in my lifetime, a man as insightful as Martin Luther King was killed because of the message he preached." (I am 39)
Even still, perception is reality. Perfect example: nudists are comfortable with, and understand the nuances of "body image." But how many times do we all talk about first-timers, uncomfortable women, etc and make reference to the "Victoria's Secret" image of body perfection?
We know a different reality, but to the reluctant woman, her reality is that her body is not as perfect.

That was very astute comparing a full moon ritual with the rituals of mass. And it is true that you can pray without being at mass. I used it more as an example. Prayer could be considered a way of "talking with God." And so, yes it is possible to communicate with the Pagan deities in more ways than one, too.
But don't expect me to participate in your praying of "The Lord's Prayer" before the weekly High School football game. I will however respectfully wait in peace until you are done.

I did not know there is a Christian minister leading the fight as you say. But I like the sound of that. Because he does recognize the fact that while others may have different beliefs, deities, approaches, etc/it has been said that we all worship difforent forms of the same god; but the point that too many people do miss is that the first amendment allows each of us that same freedom to decide for ourselves. And anything that enhances the attitude of being otherwise is a problem.

01-07-2004, 05:32 PM

Why do you feel it is wrong to keep the government and churches seperate?

(not a flame either BTW) I'm curious.

Artie

01-07-2004, 06:42 PM

Cyndiann,
Do you look at athiesim as being a religion? I was just wondering. Were had a discussion in that in my religious studies class in college. I was just wondering what your two cents worth are.

By the way. As a Christian I think it is very important to keep Government and Religion seperate. Uncle Sam screwes up everything he gets his hands on, so I want him to keep his hands off of my faith.
Oh BTY, George Washington was a big proponent of a national church, that is why he made Christmas a national holiday.

Artie

wannabenaked2001

01-07-2004, 06:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Why do you feel it is wrong to keep the government and churches seperate?

(not a flame either BTW) I'm curious. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good question! I never really thought about "why" I feel this way. I guess I see much of what is happening in our country (drug abuse, teen pregnacys, school shooting for example) as a degrigation of our moral values as a society. We have developed a society where many feel that liying, cheating and even stealing are only wrong if you get caught.

Don't missunderstand, I don't think religion is a "fix all" solution, but I do belive stronger religious/moral values would be able to help.

I agree that the government should not promote any specific religion, but I also recognize that our founding fathers (or most at least) belived in a higher power. My perception is simply that by referring to "God", our government is not endorsing any specific religion, but recognizing that there is a higher power. I do not want to see tax dollars supporting any church, even mine. But I don't see the point in spending tax dollars to remove referances to "God" from government property or documents. I also do not want the government to make laws about what is "moral" where there is no victim involved. (But then we get into the fur ball of what is a "victim". I mean, a husband cheating on his wife is not a "criminal" offence, but beating his wife is. The wife could be thought of as a victim either way, but then again not.) I am confusing myself now!

I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel we need a "body(s)" (for lack of a better word) outside of the government and not supported by the government, yet endorsed/recognized by the government that offers a "moral compass" for non-criminal issues.

My argument has run out of steam after Naturist Mark enlightened me of the Americans united for the seperation of church and state site. I had just assumed it was the atheists who were the driving force behind this movement, but it appears that my assumption was wrong. I was even more suprised to learn that this organization is lead by a christian minister. I am guessing that they have fore seen a time when the government would be forced to provide equal billing for non chirstian religions. (but I really don't know) I also suspect they (the AU) may have hidden goals (Oliver North is involved with this group).

But you have a very interesting question, I'll give it some more thought.

Thanks!

01-08-2004, 12:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Artie:
Cyndiann,
Do you look at athiesim as being a religion? I was just wondering. Were had a discussion in that in my religious studies class in college. I was just wondering what your two cents worth are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I don't see it as being a religion. To me a religion has a belief in a higher power. I've had others say that a higher power isn't a condition of religion. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

By the way. As a Christian I think it is very important to keep Government and Religion seperate. Uncle Sam screwes up everything he gets his hands on, so I want him to keep his hands off of my faith. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with that too. I don't think he should be saying that this country is protected by his god either, as if the muslims don't think they have that same protection by their god. I think he feels that the war in Iraq was something predestined by his religion and therefore right and necessary. It turns out we had no legitimate reason to enter Iraq and definitely no reason to march overtop the UN to get there. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

Oh BTY, George Washington was a big proponent of a national church, that is why he made Christmas a national holiday.

Artie <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Christmas is shared by many religions and many of it's main symbols (tree, candles) are pagan in origin. That is how it should be, with everyone having their own rituals and nobody saying their particular way of celebrating is any better than the others.

01-08-2004, 01:06 AM

"Good question! I never really thought about "why" I feel this way. I guess I see much of what is happening in our country (drug abuse, teen pregnacys, school shooting for example) as a degrigation of our moral values as a society. We have developed a society where many feel that liying, cheating and even stealing are only wrong if you get caught.

Don't missunderstand, I don't think religion is a "fix all" solution, but I do belive stronger religious/moral values would be able to help.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel we need a "body(s)" (for lack of a better word) outside of the government and not supported by the government, yet endorsed/recognized by the government that offers a "moral compass" for non-criminal issues."

I think stronger values are a good (great) thing but you are assuming that that is only possible through religion and that just isn't true. Actually in my personal experience I've found that religion is misused quite frequently and does not represent morality whatsoever.

I don't think religion and morality are linked in the real world even though religion is supposed to be about learning how to be the best person you can be. There are way too many people abusing that train of thought.

Maybe we should be pushing morality instead of religion. Another huge problem is defining morality. What one may find moral another won't and who is to say what is right? Some things we can all agree on like stealing is wrong. We hear all the time about religious leaders being caught stealing. We just had one guy down near me get released from prison after doing a few years for taking church funds for himself. A lot of religious people think that innocent nudity is not moral.

Then we get into other topics like homosexuality and there are opinions on it's morality from one end of the spectrum to the other. Most people who have a problem with it are deeply religious and it is causing a huge rift in one church right now after appointing a gay man to a high office.

Perhaps a separation of morality and church would be more effective than other present solutions.

One more point.... teen pregnancies have been less of a problem now than ever before. Other perceived moral problems on this planet are also not as bad as they used to be. Perhaps the message that things are getting progressively worse is the real problem.

David77

01-08-2004, 07:57 AM

Many of the world's population are atheists, such as the vast number of Chinese. The much respected and honored Deli Lama is non-theistic. You can be atheistic and religious at the same time, such as the Buddhists, who are estimated to be 350,000,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/personal/religion/buddhism.shtml

Evernude

01-21-2004, 08:01 AM

As an atheist, I have to add my 2 cents. Which, adjusted for inflation, are probably worthless anyway. You decide.

1) I, as an atheist, do not hate religion or those who practice it. However, when those religious people start forcing their beliefs on me, then I get upset. They do it every day when trying to close nude beaches, pass laws banning nudity everywhere...etc. All because they, as a small "moral majority" think their beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong.

2) You DO NOT want those same people in charge or in control of our government. Believe me, the conservative right wing religious crowd is a very scary bunch. If you let them have enough power, they will become the taliban. You will be FORCED to conform. This is a very real danger with fanatical religious groups. Be they Christian, Islamic...whatever. Killing, torture, oppression, mass murder is all ok when you have your "God" on your side. Look at history. It has happened over and over again.

3) I realize that the VAST majority of religious people are not fanatics. Most of them can moderate their beliefs and tolerate others. But, many people are, respectfully, sheep. They will do and believe whatever they are told to do and believe. The fanatics know this and are exploiting it every day.

4) In my humble opinion, we are in a very dangerous time now. History is about to repeat its self. When it happens, religion will be the motivator. Our God is better than your God, you must worship our God or DIE. Don't kid yourselves, it's happening on both sides.

All I want to do is be able to enjoy my life, be nude as much as possible, respect others who respect me and raise my kid to be a good and moral person. I don't need religion to do that. I just hope I am "allowed" to do it.

namedun

01-21-2004, 08:34 AM

I too am an athiest, although as far as christianity is concerned, I am an anti-christ. Unlike many athiests, I not only don't beleive in a higher power, I DO hate organized religion. Why? Becasue almost every organized religion is leading us down a path of destruction.

What is he talking about you ask. This: Almost every organized religion (although especially christianity) says "Our god(s)(insert name of diety or dieties) created the world, then he/she/they created us, therefore, the world was created for us; Therefore we might as well do with the planet what we damn well please"

Why am I an anti-christ? Why haven't you heard of "Namedun the anti-christ" on the news? Because an anti-christ doesn't have to be someone that has killed many people or has gotten a lot of bad media coverage (ie. Hitler, Sadam, whatever tyranically guy pops up every generation), thats a common misconception. An anti-christ is anyone who draws people away from the christian religion......That would be me.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

florida-david

01-21-2004, 04:42 PM

evernude and namedun - i am partially in agreement with you both. i think the 'moral' religious wackos (bush pops to mind) are taking over the u.s. and are forging ahead with plans that the majority of americans are not in agreement with. but in terms of religion, i prefer to let people live as they want, and do not go out of my to persuade others. i am happily raising my own family in the way i see fit, which is pretty non-organized-religion.

Trailscout

01-21-2004, 05:45 PM

Namedun,

I think I might be an anti-christ Christian. I believe that a lot of things have been done in God's name that he didn't authorize. I will allow that a little bit of organization helps sometimes: If there was a fire, and everyone marches single or double file out the door, that is better than stampeding out all at once. Otherwise the efficiency of an organization is inversely proportional to its' size and is equal to the square root of its complexity.

There are a lot of people who claim to be christ or claim that someone else is christ. I am an antichrist with only one exception: I accept only one person, Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel and the World.

I am not an atheist, but I am convinced that God is an atheist. By that I mean, if God is the supreme being and there is no other, then he has no god over him.

A lot of people worship lesser gods and complain about them. If your god is not an atheist, he is not GOD ALMIGHTY!

All these people who are killing for their god... Well, there is one spirit being who lives for destruction and demands that his followers commit murder and destruction: Satan

Hitler, Osama, Stalin, Napolean they were all his choirboys.

01-21-2004, 07:13 PM

"I think I might be an anti-christ Christian. I believe that a lot of things have been done in God's name that he didn't authorize."

Exactly!

I get accused of being anti-christian when in reality I am anti-pseudo christian. I am glad that as a religious person you realize there are a lot of fakes out there. Too often the religious don't speak out against the fakes and it blurrs the line between real nice people and those who want to control everyone else.

nunne

01-30-2004, 02:00 PM

This is going to be a long post, and I am sorry about that. I will try to make it as concise as I can. I am impressed with the arguments, and the information contained in the previous posts. I respect the opinions as they are stated, and I don't want to be attacking anyone's sincerely held views.

I don't think Christianity is all about morality, although that is certainly a large part of Christian teachings. I am a Christian, and certainly believe in a higher being within the universe, whom we call God. The purpose of my religion, and my practice of Christianity is not to become a moral indivual, but to find the closest relationship to God that I can have.

Further, as a Christian, I accept and believe that salvation for my soul comes through the divine action of Christ upon the cross, and that that alone is sufficient to assure my access to eternal life. I am well aware that those with other views find this concept to be simplistic, unintelligent,and perhaps even stupid. Nevertheless, this is my faith, and I am very comfortable with it, and cannot imagine my life without this controlling concept in my life. But it is my life, not yours, and you may have found similar sustenance in a completely different philosophy or religion, or none at all.

As a believing Christian, I also believe that I need to follow the teachings of Christ, which I find to have very good moralistic standards for the living of my life. Unfortunately, as in all religions, there are many ways to interpret them, and too many Christians believe they have a pipeline to God or the "Truth". And I will not for a moment try to defend the actions of Christians who have committed injustices to others in the past and continue to do so.

We all need to accept each other. I, too, am opposed to the government supporting one religion over another, and support the separation of church and state.

When I go to a nude beach or elsewhere, I cannot for the life of me make any determination of who is a Methodist, Mormon, atheist, or Roman Catholic. Let's all be naked and accept each other as we are.

nunne

01-30-2004, 02:12 PM

My last post was very long, but there is a story I want to tell about Mormons.

When my wife and I moved to our town about 25 or thirty years ago, there was a movement by a few Mormons to establish a Church here. There were two Mormon missionaries (Elders) who were going door to door explaining the Mormon faith to people, and, I am sure, trying to recruit new members.

They came to our door, and we invited them in, assuring them that we were very comfortable in our Church and would not change. I didn't have a very good knowledge about Mormons, and was a bit negative toward them. As we spent the next two or three visits with them (we invited them back and became very comfortable talking to them), we discovered that many of the teachings of the Mormon faith are very similar to those of my Church, and that we had a lot more in common than not.

I have come to respect the Latter Day Saints very much although I still can't accept all that they teach, and still find it a bit alien to my perceptions. Who, however, cannot respect a church who places so much emphasis on family values, and whose young men commit two years of their lives to being elders and sharing their faith?