Where is that elusive line?

[luvnaturism]

There seems to be a certain amount of discomfort generated in response to some discussions of a religious/moral/ethical nature on these pages. It causes me to ask, "What's appropriate in a forum of this kind?"

The administrators have provided a category called "Nudity and Religion." Within that category conversations that link the two topics are a natural fit. Yet sometimes I find myself uneasy at what I'm reading.

I don't like too much agreement in a forum. It's dull, and I'm not learning anything when I'm just reading comments that I could have written myself. I like a sharp edge in a forum. But there has to be a boundary line, elusive as it may be.

I like it when people of whatever persuasion are expressing their strongly-held views. It is uncomfortable when the tone becomes, "Anyone who has a different opinion is an idiot."

The discussion passes from discomfort to offensive when people make statements that put down entire categories of people on the basis of religion, race, or sexual identity. I'm not OK when the implication becomes "People who don't fit my categories are substandard and impaired."

I'm a very involved Christian with strong convictions. In my own life the Bible is authoritative. However, I recognize that the Bible is only accepted as authority by those who have accepted its authority. Therefore in this forum, where people of all persuasions participate, my view is that we leave the realm of reality when we respond to a post from a non-Christian with an argument based on the assumption that the writer must recognize the Bible as being relevant to them.

[luvnaturism]

There seems to be a certain amount of discomfort generated in response to some discussions of a religious/moral/ethical nature on these pages. It causes me to ask, "What's appropriate in a forum of this kind?"

The administrators have provided a category called "Nudity and Religion." Within that category conversations that link the two topics are a natural fit. Yet sometimes I find myself uneasy at what I'm reading.

I don't like too much agreement in a forum. It's dull, and I'm not learning anything when I'm just reading comments that I could have written myself. I like a sharp edge in a forum. But there has to be a boundary line, elusive as it may be.

I like it when people of whatever persuasion are expressing their strongly-held views. It is uncomfortable when the tone becomes, "Anyone who has a different opinion is an idiot."

The discussion passes from discomfort to offensive when people make statements that put down entire categories of people on the basis of religion, race, or sexual identity. I'm not OK when the implication becomes "People who don't fit my categories are substandard and impaired."

I'm a very involved Christian with strong convictions. In my own life the Bible is authoritative. However, I recognize that the Bible is only accepted as authority by those who have accepted its authority. Therefore in this forum, where people of all persuasions participate, my view is that we leave the realm of reality when we respond to a post from a non-Christian with an argument based on the assumption that the writer must recognize the Bible as being relevant to them.

[Kenny G]

Unfortunatly, many discussions comparing diferent viewpoints of the various religions really turn into all out slugfests. I, myself, have my own beliefs, but generally shy away from religious topics. Don't get me wrong, I try to read the different threads on all the topics, I just don't usually post replys. There are alot of, let's just call them "strong willed", outspoken zealots, that are ready to take up arms against those who don't agree with thier religious position. I prefer to stay non-confrontational, if you know what I mean. I don't subscribe to any particular organised religion, except to say that my beliefs are predominatly Christian in nature. I believe in the word of the Bible, but I don't like some one to tell me what it means. I do believe that if you're looking for an answer, you;ll find it in the Bible. But, not necessarilly where the preacher says it's at. I think the Bible was written in such a way that it's open to some measure of interpretation, and the way that I understand a passage to read isn't always the same way that you might read it to mean. So, if we derive to different meanings from the same passage, does that make one of us wrong? I don't think that it does, I think that our God (by whatever name we choose to call Him by) speaks to each individual through his/her own heart. So, I'm pretty sure there's others like me that shy away from subjects likely to start a flame war. Also, if anyone ever posted thier beliefs and got torched because of it, probably is in no hurry to go through it again. Skyclad, in another thread, posted her joining a Wiccan group. I must admit total lack of knowledge to the practices and beliefs of the Wicca, however I fully support her in her decision to choose the path that's right for her. Is anyone's beliefs more right or wrong than mine, who am I to say? "To each his own", "Live and let live", and so forth. I'll discus facts, opinions, and experiences all day long, but when the topic goes to ethical/moral issues don't expect to see me. I'll be here reading, but I'll stay out of the crossfire. As for my own choice? I think Whitesnake said it best in a song, "Here I go again on my own....goin' down the only road I've ever known..." Peace

[Trailscout]

Luvnaturism,

I wish everyone could be like you in the way you so readily distinguish a disagreement from a put-down.
If we can't discuss values, ethics and even religion here, this might as well be a forum on nudist vacations and treatments for sunburn.

One of the most controversial threads centers around behavior that some perceive as incompatible with nudist values. Lack of regard for one's own health (characterized by obesity, poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking etc.) seem at odds with European health movement origins of nudism.

Body modifications, such as piercings and tattoos, particularly mods that draw attention to the genitals, seem to mock the original spirit of nudism. The shaving fad was obviously never a part of nudism until very recent times as evidenced by photos documenting our movement, and the very fussiness and self-absorption it fosters seem laughably inconsistent with the natural hairy look we have promoted for generations.

The exclusive nature of many resorts seems to be in conflict with traditional family nudism in the case of resorts that ban children. I would be interested to read whether singles were originally banned from nudist resorts to the extent that they are now. One could say that singles are not families and don't belong in a family resort, but if nudism doesn't bring in new blood, that is singles who could meet and marry and breed a new generation of nudists, organized social nudism could die with the current generation. I am not aware of resorts that ban gays from nudist venues, although it seems that their presence seems like a logical inconsistency with hetero family nudism. A ban on gays at resorts would make perfect sense.

Swinging and homosexual activity of course is largely conducted in private and I don't know how these behaviors can be eliminated from nudist venues. The best we can do is make families with children and singles of good character feel as welcome as possible. A clean wholesome environment tends to attract people of that caliber.

It would be rash to assume that everyone on this forum is ready to accept the Holy Bible. Fair enough. However, it gives me a rash when some post how irritated they are that the Bible is quoted by two Christians exchanging ideas with each other. I guess the same goes for poor unsuspecting newbies who get flamed for asking "what will people think of me if I get an erection at a nudist resort?" Typically they are chided and told to run a keyword search on posts from 2 years ago.
The fact is, no topic will appeal to all readers. It is easier to ask disinterested parties to ignore the thread than it is to ask the posters to change the subject.

I think you understand the boundary in debates quite well when you say, "Anyone who has a different opinion is an idiot."

I hear no racial putdowns on this forum and few disparaging comments about other belief systems, except for those that reject social nudity. I think we can tolerate intolerance of those who do not tolerate nudity.

I don't think sexual orientation per se has been condemned. Most of us recognize that we wake up one day and realize whether we are AC or DC and have little choice in the matter.

However, it does not logically follow that people of either orientation are driven to madness like a rutting moose and we must mount the nearest object of our passion or die. There is moral accountibility for failing to maintain celibacy before marriage or taking a vow of lifetime celibacy if there is no moral way to satisfy our sexual urges, whether we are obsessed with animals, children, the dead, or people of our own sex. Having an obsession does not constitute a right to fulfil that desire.

It is indeed tragic when people reject the Bible, and I have seen more and more that unless the Holy Spirit illumines our darkened hearts, no matter how many substantiating facts and logic we hear, we persist in our path to destruction.

If I quote scripture here, it is for the benefit of those who accept it, but question the compatibility of social nudism with good Christian living.

We have a certain duty to clear up misconceptions about the Bible when we are directly challenged, but it is beyond the scope of this forum to address the complete spiritual needs of an ernest seeker of the truth.

[nacktman]

I learned a long time ago that the old adage of never discussing Sex, Politics or Religion with your friends or enemies was a wise course to be true. I am with Kenny G I enjoy reading this forum but do not post very often because of some of the opinions that are posted have been acerbic and really have no place in a forum to discuss and debate ideas and opinions. All of us that are alive have our own notions as to the ethical, moral character we want to hold ourselves to and what we expect others to adhere to. This can be similar to the collective mass of humanity or as deviant as to be just for oursleves, and as humans we desire to surround ourselves with what we feel comfortable with, so it is true that we form into groups of "like-minded folk" at every opportunity we can. Also, there are those who do lash out to distance themselves from anything different from their view of the cosmos.
The "fine" line of the posts to this forum is what we make it...in my opinion I feel the forum should be used to discuss the nudist life, social nudism and what are interest are because we have far more people reading the forum than posting and I'd wager quite a few of those are not nudists and of the non-nudists reading this there are some attempting to "Find the Dirt on them damn nudists" for their own agenda what ever that may be; Therefore it would be in the interest of us all to maintain a sense of self and not degrade the discussions in this forum to the sewers some other fourms I have read have sunk to. While I have not read anything in this forum that approaches the rants and illogical tirades, and ravings I have seen in other forums, I have seen some posts that have been a bit on the snitty side but they have been concerning the taboo 3-sex, politics and religion for the most part. We all have sex in whatever fashion, we all participate in politics to some degree, we all have our faith in the sacred whatever that may be, so Let's agree to disagree on theses subjects and discuss all topics with as much rationality as we can without losing our passion for the topic for without rationality their can be no discussion and without passion there can be no discussion, but allowed to wander to irrationality or to apathy this forum will become a quagmire of spit and spittle and nothing more.

Be Nude, Be Free and all will be well in your world.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luvnaturism:
I like it when people of whatever persuasion are expressing their strongly-held views. It is uncomfortable when the tone becomes, "Anyone who has a different opinion is an idiot."

The discussion passes from discomfort to offensive when people make statements that put down entire categories of people on the basis of religion, race, or sexual identity. I'm not OK when the implication becomes "People who don't fit my categories are substandard and impaired." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I quite agree. I can handle comparing beliefs. I can handle the fact that those beliefs sometimes seem to disagree. I have a problem with someone saying or implying that I'm wrong because I believe something different from him/her. Often, we can both be right; after all, everything is relative.

I'm not sure how to make allowances for people who feel their religions require them to convert others or who feel that they have the right to pass judgement on someone else's path. On the one hand, they fear some Divine repercussion if they don't do those things, so prohibiting those behaviors might cause them harm (or at least stress). On the other, such behavior most definitely harms the vicitm, so it probably should be prohibited.

And then there are some who simply seem so completely convinced of their rightness that they don't even realize their attitudes are harmful to others. They can't stop themselves hijacking threads, because their worldview is so deeply ingrained it permeates everything they say. They literally seem unable to conceive that someone who disagrees with them may also be right or may take offense at their words.

All that said, I very much appreciate the Nudity and Religion forum. It's great for those who include ritual nudity in their religious practices, and it's great for those of us who are interested in the practices of religions other than our own.

BB,
Vin

An it harm none, do what you will.
--from the Wiccan Rede

[Jochanaan]

Those who condemn others who disagree with them, using "Christianity" as a basis, do not follow the example or teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who said, "Love your enemies," and, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." No matter how passionately I may disagree with someone, with the Spirit's help I will never sit in judgment over another person even though I may think their actions are against God and/or nature.

[GO AWAY]

First of all TrailScout is the first to make personal attacks on people, him and RIVERRAT...so don't even try to come in here and act like you are innocent...

that was my Ten Cents...My two cents were free...

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH PEOPLE...

that's all I will have to say in here...

TTFN

TaTa For Now

[Trailscout]

Miami,

If we were in a dining room in a nudist resort at adjacent tables and the room was small and crowded and I lit up one cigarette after the other, if you asked me to please refrain from smoking while you were eating with your family, would you be making a personal attack on me? Of course not.

What if I said, "that smoke ain't hurting you none!" Would that make everything all right? Courtesy sometimes demands that we not always demand our rights, be it the right to smoke or the right to wear offensive jewelry (even if it is just an opinion).

That's how I feel about people who try to enter a resort wearing genital jewelry. They are saying that they don't believe in nudism, but they want to come to a nudist resort anyway and tell people how bad nudism is whether they want to hear it or not.

I'd say, if you don't like nudism, please don't go to the resort and put our lifestyle down by wearing that stuff. That's not a personal attack either.

It's not the person it's the behavior that is not acceptable.

Miami you are so very right. Trailscout and Riverrat have said some very nasty things about gays, about Caliente resort, about piercings, about anything they don't believe in.

Opposing opinions are one thing...ignorant flames made by trolls are quite another and have no place on this messageboard. They need to take their hate and prejudice someplace else.

Trailscout you are a flaming troll no matter how you look at it. It is a shame you can't read the first two posts and actually *comprehend* them.

[sojourner]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Miami you are so very right. Trailscout and Riverrat have said some very nasty things about gays, about Caliente resort, about piercings, about anything they don't believe in.

Opposing opinions are one thing...ignorant flames made by trolls are quite another and have no place on this messageboard. They need to take their hate and prejudice someplace else.

Trailscout you are a flaming troll no matter how you look at it. It is a shame you can't read the first two posts and actually *comprehend* them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are nine posts on this thread, so far. Six seem to be wanting this topic to be "flame free" with open discussion. Two comments are a direct flame at Trailscout, and one is Trailscout's rebuttal. Who is the first and second to change the flavor of the thread and use it as a forum to bash someone? (And why is Riverrat named - he supposedly isn't posting anymore?)
I have seen more posts from cyndiann flaming people she disagrees with as if she is the forum's policewoman to watch any posting that disagrees with hers. On the flip side, I have seen very few posters flame cyndiann initially, and if they do so it is only in rebuttal.
Cyndiann, if you go back and take an honest look at your posts and see how many times you initiate flame on others you might see the feelings you express about others are the ones you have inside.
I, like many (I didn't say all) others who don't post much on this forum, get pretty tired of hearing you flame others who disagree with you. Try letting threads go, give your input, but stop making the personal attack on those you disagree with.

[CalgaryMark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sojourner:
[QUOTE]. . . I have seen more posts from cyndiann flaming people she disagrees with as if she is the forum's policewoman to watch any posting that disagrees with hers. On the flip side, I have seen very few posters flame cyndiann initially, and if they do so it is only in rebuttal.
Cyndiann, if you go back and take an honest look at your posts and see how many times you initiate flame on others you might see the feelings you express about others are the ones you have inside.
I, like many (I didn't say all) others who don't post much on this forum, get pretty tired of hearing you flame others who disagree with you. Try letting threads go, give your input, but stop making the personal attack on those you disagree with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right On, Sojourner!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sojourner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Miami you are so very right. Trailscout and Riverrat have said some very nasty things about gays, about Caliente resort, about piercings, about anything they don't believe in.

Opposing opinions are one thing...ignorant flames made by trolls are quite another and have no place on this messageboard. They need to take their hate and prejudice someplace else.

Trailscout you are a flaming troll no matter how you look at it. It is a shame you can't read the first two posts and actually *comprehend* them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are nine posts on this thread, so far. Six seem to be wanting this topic to be "flame free" with open discussion. Two comments are a direct flame at Trailscout, and one is Trailscout's rebuttal. Who is the first and second to change the flavor of the thread and use it as a forum to bash someone? (And why is Riverrat named - he supposedly isn't posting anymore?)
I have seen more posts from cyndiann flaming people she disagrees with as if she is the forum's policewoman to watch any posting that disagrees with hers. On the flip side, I have seen very few posters flame cyndiann initially, and if they do so it is only in rebuttal.
Cyndiann, if you go back and take an honest look at your posts and see how many times you initiate flame on others you might see the feelings you express about others are the ones you have inside.
I, like many (I didn't say all) others who don't post much on this forum, get pretty tired of hearing you flame others who disagree with you. Try letting threads go, give your input, but stop making the personal attack on those you disagree with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Boy have you been missing what's going on! I only calls them as I sees them. I didn't initiate anything. This is a continuation of flames, Trailscout has been trashing people and places for weeks. I've asked the moderators to help and they haven't. Please, I forgive you both for posting when you aren't aware of the background.

I think this thread originated because of his behavior on those other threads actually.

[sojourner]

Cyndiann,

There you go assuming again. Assuming that your viewpoint must be right. I wrote this as I see it, which is in response to your posts to many others, not just Trailscout. In addition, my perspective is from a few months of seeing the message you present in the forum. Trailscout is your present target, coming after Jon-Mark, Riverrat, Snoboy, Stu, to name the few I have seen.

People in this forum come from very different worldviews and will probably not change their perspective just from the posts that are here. If you understand that, maybe your anger will subside, and understand that we won't all have to believe "the word according to Cyndiann."

People in this forum, because of their viewpoints, have different authorities which is the source of their beliefs. If the Bible is someones source for authority, you should have a pretty good idea where their moral values originate. They have as much right to have their belief as you do to yours. Contrary to revisionist history, our country was founded by people who valued the Bible's moral authority and allowed for those who disagreed with its principles to still have a voice. Ergo, you are allowed your voice and opinion. But if you can go back and understand my post, try to respond to others posts without the flaming regardless of how much you disagree with them. Flaming does not enhance your postion, no matter how strong or weak it is.

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
I think this thread originated because of his [Trailscout's] behavior on those other threads actually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so.

When I originated this thread I was thinking of the behavior of multiple individuals, but I had no specific person in mind.

I actually wrote an additional paragraph that made it clear that my concern was not restricted to Christians who post here. It was, of course, wonderfully expressed. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sadly I decided to delete it because the post was just getting too long. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

I think Kenny G's response basically sums it up for me. I also like what luv's basic theme was: Discuss, but don't insult.

I have seen certain messages that have come close to violating that tenet. And I also hope that those who do use their religion or Bible as a basis for their opinion don't feel insulted when those of us who do not believe as you do or do not see the Bible as an authority disagree with you on such a basis of what we see as religious based intolerance.

Now Trailscout, why are you dragging a topic that has nothing to do with the main topic into this when you know that it has been one that has been much debated in a 6 page topic? It would have been fine if you just referred to it, but you actually are making your case here again. I am not going to debate you on that here except to say that I disaree with you.

I wish this whole board was flame-free, but I must agree with cyndiann in that the administrators must do a better job in determining what is a flame and what is just a heated discussion.

Bob S.

[nacktman]

I have been reading this thread and the postings have begun to snip and snipe toward one person or the other.
All who post have their ideas and all attempt to express them. A true discussion would embrace all and not exclude any...whether you agreee with or can be persuaded to agree with an idea is up to you and your own reasoning. "flaming" another's ideas is just not a very good way to hold a discussion.
As a point of history from a person who is learned in the subject the United States was not founded on the princples of the Bible, but upon Agnostic, Deist and Stoic ideas and ethos (of which some are the princples espoused within the Bible) it is the revisionist's who want to cast the image of the countrie's founding was upon christian beliefs when in fact only one of the founding fathers was a practicing christian the rest were agnostics, deists, stoics and a few were atheists.
I do not intend this as a "flame" toward anyone or group it is just true history. I have my training in Archeaology, Psychology, History and I also happen to be an ordained minister and I can admit the truth of the founding of this country...they wished to be free FROM religion as they knew it as an institution and to be free to persure the religion OF their choosing. Many have chosen christainity and many have not.
Sorry for the history lesson but the old professor in me came out to play.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nacktman:
Sorry for the history lesson but the old professor in me came out to play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I, for one, am glad he did. Thanks for setting the record straight and confirming what I thought I already knew.

Vin

[Bob S.]

nacktman, thanks for the history lesson. It is important to know that the founding fathers were advocating freedom from an oppresive church. That is why they placed into the constitution the clause that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" as they knew what happens when the church and government are intertwined.

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Bob,

I shall try my best to be succinct:
If I contend that a certain behavior is unbecoming a nudist and you happen to regularly engage in that behavior, does this constitute a personal attack? I contend that it doesn't.
Some people are posting for the first time, so I couldn't possibly be singling them out for criticism.

Just as surely as I make some general remark about people who don't use enough sunscreen, we will shortly be beseiged by plaintiffs who felt personally insulted and demand a retraction. It reminds me of the story about a transit bus that was involved in an accident that was the fault of the driver. The bus was otherwise empty, but by the time the police arrived, the bus was filled with hopeful "victims" moaning and complaining about the great insult and injury they received while under the care of the transit company.

I do not think the issue is one of Christians asking unbelievers to obey any particular commandment in the Bible.

I think the issue revolves around the right of members of a private organization to freely associate with those whom they choose.

If this were a question about access to a public school or the right to purchase a home in a certain neighborhood, the law very plainly requires equal access to all regardless of belief.

But we are debating the merits of a resort that admits all who wish to enter vs. policies that screen out certain people. In the process of framing the discussion we did admittedly digress into a side discussion of why a certain behavior is unacceptable to some of us on the INA forum.

I also contend that there is a nudist ethic, which should be immutable. There might be some room for interpretation on how that ethic is implemented, but as a practical matter, one should know what to expect before entering an AANR affiliated resort.

Should AANR forbid resorts from banning children? If you want to create a quiet retirement RV park for stressed-out seniors, perhaps an exception could be made.

Should AANR stipulate that affiliates cannot sell alcohol? Should there be a list of banned risque social events?

What about singles? Should AANR dictate that all resorts cannot totally ban unescorted singles of either sex?

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nacktman:
. . . . only one of the founding fathers was a practicing christian <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, but I think you've gone a little overboard here. The historian Clinton Rossiter, who was actually making a point rather similar to your claim, identified many more than one practicing Christian at the Federal Convention in Philadelphia that produced the US constitution:

"Although it [the Constitutional Convention of 1787] had its share of strenuous Christians like Strong and Bassett, ex-preachers like Baldwin ?and Williamson, and theologians like Johnson and Ellsworth . . . . most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country."

If by "Founding Fathers" you mean specifically those who attended the constitutional convention, then it is correct that their debates and the resulting document that was sent out for ratification reflected more of governmental theory than Christian theology.

It is also true that the constitution that was first adopted said nothing about separation of church and state. In order to secure ratification of the constitution it became necessary to agree that a Bill of Rights would be added as a series of amendments, but separation of church and state was not included in the original work of the "Founding Fathers."

[Trailscout]

How secular were the laws that inspired the Continental Congress?

To what extent was our government patterned after English law and other predecessor regimes?

Do we have an American veneer on a basically British system, or do we have a total remake?

I understand that biblical Jewish law, Anglo-Saxon tribal law, Roman law, Norman French law, Danelaw and centuries of treaties between king and nobility, vassals and nobles all had a role in developing what we have.

To what extent were these other legal systems derived from religious-inspired values? (Even inspired by the Roman worship of their pantheon of gods).

Are these values so deeply entrenched in government that they have become fundamental assumptions about the role of government?

[Prometheus]

I will now grab the wheel and attempt to steer the car back into the on-topic lane -- everybody hold on -- /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Everyone okay? Good.

Err, umm, what I meant to say was that I see two things happening here. First, many of us take ourselves and our topics waaayyyy to seriously. I am probably as guilty as anyone else. Second, those of us that don't take ourselves too seriously seem to be conspicuously absent.

I think we could all use a good dose of gamblefish, or Suntied, or Raised_by_she-wolf, and I might have forgotten someone or other. Maybe hw's voices can help us locate them?

[Peter Stokes]

Nacktman referred to the 'founding fathers' who sought freedom from religious pressure; luvnaturism, you're talking about the constitution.

Couple hundred years difference .... ?

But hey, what do I know - I'm just one of the old oppressive colonial regime /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter Stokes:
But hey, what do I know - I'm just one of the old oppressive colonial regime /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope you don't mind that we just celebrated our "Independence Day" (July 4) /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We love all you Brits!

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prometheus:
I will now grab the wheel and attempt to steer the car back into the on-topic lane -- everybody hold on -- /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Everyone okay? Good.
I think we could all use a good dose of gamblefish, or Suntied, or Raised_by_she-wolf, and I might have forgotten someone or other. Maybe hw's voices can help us locate them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Prometheus for answers to your question check out Off Topic Fun Stuff. That's the place everyone plays nice together in the sand box and no one gets hurt. The only flames going on there is my inner child playing with matches again! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gifIs it hot in here, or is it just me? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

I shall try my best to be succinct:
If I contend that a certain behavior is unbecoming a nudist and you happen to regularly engage in that behavior, does this constitute a personal attack? I contend that it doesn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that was all that you said you'd not have so many people posting against you right now. You used some ugly words about Caliente, about people who are pierced, about gays. They were flames. They were against the rules of this website nevermind the administrators have gone for cover and chosen to ignore you. They were hurtful and rude. Here are a few I found that you didn't manage to hide:


Perhaps Caliente is close to the wintering grounds of the circus and that's where all these bizzare people are coming from.

Let's assume that you are correct and nudists at resorts are becoming more and more a hangout for social misfits. (he's referring to those who pierce)

I do have trouble understanding the rationale behind self-mutilation. It is such a revolting concept. I still have a hard time believing that people are even doing this. If it is a trend it must be keeping the psychiatrists quite busy.

I don't care how much the penis piercers try to deny it, to mainstream America, they are sending a clear message that they are into some wierd sexual S&M torture kind of thing.

My contention is that no matter what the original intent of the ring bearer, the majority of people perceive the genital jewelry as a very strong sexual message with possible sadomasochistic overtones.

Too bad about Caliente. You can always draw a crowd to a house of ill repute, but that doesn't make it praiseworthy.

I do have to snicker a bit at those who are puzzled why they can't get into a nudist camp with their gothic nudist look, Marilyn Manson lookalikes and Dracula wannabes.

Nothing says pervert better than genital piercings, even if that was not your intent.

There were others that he removed but they weren't any better and maybe the worst of it. These are flames... this makes him a troll. Calling him that isn't a flame if I can back it up with his own words. If you look back at several threads you will find that I've asked the moderators here more than once to stop this and they have chosen not to.

Thank goodness his worst posts about gays are gone! He hurt a lot of people.

[Trailscout]

I'll admit that I might be guilty of frenetic hyperbole from time to time, but none of the examples you so graciously provided are targeted at any specific individuals, save one wayward resort that needs reining in by AANR and AANR should shoulder most of the blame for napping while a few of their resorts sully the good name of family nudism.

Let's be fair to the administrators and not presume that their silence is implicit agreement with every position I have ever taken. Heck, I don't even agree with every position I have ever taken!

I don't mind being called a troll. They bring good luck to the people who have one around!

[NoodJuggler]

Hi everyone..Talking about July 4th..As they say that this country was build with the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. Built with the idea of religious freedom, but that was the idea of just that religion at that time, if you did not belong to that religion or if you did not agree with their religion you were an outcast. It was freedom of religion, but just for certain ones. We still do not have freedom, to a point, yes, but not complete, never have and never will. You want to walk around nude? but different religions are against that so you can't. Why can't you? because it is against their religious belief. Want to buy beer on Sunday before 1:00 PM? Can't, why not? religious people say that Sunday is for worship. That you should be in church. Your religion might not care but someone else's religion says you can't. Do you have freedom? Want to be GAY? The people in office who are baptist or another religion says it is against the bible, so you have no rights. They are forcing their opinions on you whether you want them or not. That is what I see going on here at times, someone disagrees with you and they run to the administrators. I don't agree with what you said so I am going to tell and they will make you stop. and it goes on and on. If you disagree with someone let them have their say, it is suppose to be a free country, if it really bothers you then be a man or a woman and PM them and fight it out there. If you don't like my pictures or anyone else's let the administrators handle it, they monitor these posts, they don't need forum police. If you really want to tell everone what to say or do then start your own forum and stay there, do what you want there but don't come in here and stir up trouble. Say all that you want but keep it positive. Some of the stuff that is said about different people or resorts is probably true, but this is not the place to fight it out, that is why they have email..Maybe they should start an area in this forum just for fights? a flaming war area where you can just go at it with no holds barred? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Say anything that you want? Have a good day and remember...Love one another. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ..Bye..Keithmj

[Trailscout]

Wait a minute, Keithmj,

Say all I want as long as it is positive? I thought you just completed a long essay about freedom of speech. What happened? Did you change your mind at the end of the essay?

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter Stokes:
Nacktman referred to the 'founding fathers' who sought freedom from religious pressure; luvnaturism, you're talking about the constitution.

Couple hundred years difference .... ?

But hey, what do I know - I'm just one of the old oppressive colonial regime /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately members of "the old oppressive colonial regime" often know more of US history than people who are born here. Our schools do a horribly poor job in this department...but that's a different subject.

The people who came to the New World looking for freedom from religious oppression (and who typically became oppressors themselves when they could control things) founded some of the original thirteen colonies.

The term "Founding Fathers" is generally not used for the colonists, but to describe those who brought the colonists together in a common cause?first to engineer a revolution and later to form one single nation out of many by developing a national constitution. This period doesn't have exact boundaries, but at least stretches from 1776 (Declaration of Independance) through and beyond 1787 (Constitutional Convention).

Nacktman's post was referring to the legal foundations of law in this country, and that can only mean the constitution.

Incidentally, one of the Founding Fathers was the most prominant nudist of his time, though that term wouldn't have been used. Ben Franklin, who played crucial roles in both the revolution and the development of the constitution, not only swam nude (universal among men of the day who enjoyed the water), but was famous for his enjoyment of "air baths" in which he sat naked in front of a window or perhaps strolled his grounds in the altogether.

[NoodJuggler]

Sorry..I should have said..Don't piss everyone off..

[NoodJuggler]

Hi..Georgie boy..AKA..George Washington swam Naked also..but not across the Delaware. I think. or was it the Hudson? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Those voices are getting to me hw. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Help. http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flame.gif ..Keithmj

[hw]

Children, children, children! Here's that elusive line you are looking for:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everyone has their own belief system. This is what makes us the unique individuals we are. Let's all play fair and quit bickering over the fact that not everyone is going to agree on every subject. Let the "Flames" die down before someone gets burned.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if that full moon last night brought out the PMS in everyone? lol /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Snoboy]

To Soujouner: Thanks for the thoughtful words on my behalf and for the others who have had some difficult times within the forum because of "one" individual. I have begun speaking again because I love INA and what it means to its membership. Thanks for sending a clear signal to everyone. Blessings. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jochanaan]

Having read through this thread, what seems to be happening is a failure to distinguish between criticism of a person's or group's actions and condemnation of the person or group. Sometimes the person criticizing slips into condemnation, but just as often the recipient reads condemnation where there is only criticism. I have dealt with this in my personal life a little too much, so I write from knowledge.

Probably none of us are free from sin in this; I know I've sometimes felt attacked when I was only corrected. But I've also been accused of attacking when I know I was only criticising (not here, I'm glad to say).

Unfortunately, it's unreasonable to expect we'll never be attacked or hurt. Life isn't like that. And we can't stop living just because life isn't fair--well, we could, and many do, but that's a painful solution for everyone concerned.

So what do I do when I get hurt? I may yell once, but then I take a deep breath and put a bandage on; if it's bad enough, I go to a doctor. End of story. And I sure don't remember every time someone hurt me--waste of good mental storage. Ideally, it should be that simple for emotional or spiritual hurts, too.

[Sorry this got longer than I intended, and clumsier, but this is an important issue.]

[nacktman]

Those who posted in response to my earlier post have part of the point correct. Let me attempt to clarify the rest of it.
As to the christains among the "founding fathers" there were several but only one PRACTACING their faith in christianity at the time of the conventions to set forth the laws thet were to form the basis of the new country. The other christians had ceased practicing or began questioning hence the term agnostic.
The system they devised and implemented into a fuctioning government was indeed "new" and "unique", but had its influences from multiple methods of government that mankind had devised up to the time of the country's founding, including some ideas of the native peoples as well as the "classic greek", English, Nordic, and Persian methods of government. And I feel there were other influences as well they just haven't been named to let us know what they might have been.
I am glad some are interested in the history we share for it is true that if we don't know history we are doomed to repeat it...and quite frankly there are historical events that I personally would not like to relive.
We should be proud of our history and the fact that some of the "founding fathers" were nudists although that term would not have been used...All people during this era swam nude if they swam at all and just being nude was not a concern to many of the day just surviving was. Nudity only concerned the closed minded just as it does this day and only in the northeastern colonies to any great extent the southern colonies except for small pockets of prudery had a practical view of nudity...it was just too bloody hot to be wearing much in the summer months and it was a fairly comman sight to see a farmer wokinf his fields nude of a loincloth like the local indians wore on a hot summer afternoon. And they still went to church meetings every time the traveling parson came to the local town.
As to ritual nudity in the practice of one's faith all religions have a tradition of nude worship, some still perform their rites nude others do occassionaly, still others have begun not the be nude during their worship. It is up to the indivdual to worship as he desires, singely, collectivly en masse or in intimate groups.

Be Nude, Be Free and alll will Be Well in your world!

[luvnaturism]

Nacktman - Well said!

[Bob S.]

Trailscout, if you are still trying to argue your side of the body modification issue, stop. As I said in my previous post, I thought it was wrong of you to even bring it here. The topic was about what was appropirate to say in this forum and bringing a heated topic from another board onto this one with no real reason was just irresponsible, IMHO. As such, I will not debate any points other than those that are somewhat aligned with the main topic.

I will comment on your post about laws. You conjecture about the basis of laws. Yes, they were based on laws passed in other countries that had a large church presence in the government. But realize that the USA was one of the first nations to create a secular government; one detatched from churches as they knew how corrupting the two could be together.

So yes, our laws were based on laws from non-secular nations, but that does not mean that they are all good or bad. Most of them are common sense, such as no murder or harming others, no staling or cheating others, etc.

In fact, take the ten commandments and you will find that, taking out all commandments that refer specifically to G*d Himself, the others can be seen as the basis for most of the laws. Most laws for a civilized society will be the same no matter where you are, beit a highly restrictive government or a free society. So are laws secular? Yes and no.

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Bob,

The original question addresses the distinction between a critical remark that is targeted at an individual vs. remarks that criticize a behavior any number of unspecified people may be engaged in.

We seem to have a difference of opinion, you and I, about the extent to which we can illustrate this discussion with examples from previous posts. It takes a little discipline to break away from an illustration lest it overshadow the original question we hope to answer. Without totally agreeing with you, I will try to exercise greater restraint.

Bob, I don't want to dwell on the issue of secular government, but one issue is of concern to us:

It seems that all this debate about whether the USA was founded as a secular government vs. a government founded on Christian principles was based on the misperception by both sides that the outcome would somehow determine the right of a private nudist resort to make admission decisions based on character, appearance or behavior of those who wish to enter.

I contend that even a secular society has a duty to protect the rights of private groups to freely practice their philosophies including their admission policies.

I do not want to see liberties abbridged, even if I do not agree with their morality.

But freedom of association is so crucial to liberty that we cannot dictate to nudist resorts or any private group what their admission policies will be.

I would rather risk living in a society where private groups are free to determine their own admission policies, because it that is the only way that people will have the right to freely exercise their right to freedom of expression. And yes, nudist resorts have made some phenomenally stupid admissions decisions!

[Bob S.]

"I contend that even a secular society has a duty to protect the rights of private groups to freely practice their philosophies including their admission "

Trailscout, of this I agree. There needs to be this protection of private groups to be able to "discriminate" for their membership. It was this basic right that I supported in the Boy Scouts case.

We can at least say we agree on this topic.

Bob S.

[David77]

Sometimes "legal rights" become confused with moral or ethical justification, which can be two different things.

The Boy Scout organization, the courts ruled, has a legal right to exclude the boy with the mere homosexual orientation, but many of us see no ethical or moral justification for forbidding this young fellow from the Boy Scouts.

[Trailscout]

David77,

There is a greater good in having a society which allows groups to exist with unpopular ideas and ill-conceived admission policies. Why?
Because the next time it might be you and your group who hold an unpopular minority opinion and suffer calls for shutdown, the "Florida Righteous Crusaders for Body Shame" (fill in the blank with the latest right wing wacko group) can't do a thing about it.

[Croydon]

And my mother often ask me why i don't attend churcha anymore, read the bible, pray. Why I wan't nothing to do with religion?

My answer: People like Trailscot are the primary reason why I am turned off when it comes to religion. Hatred, intollerance. People like Trailscott think they way they do b/c they do not understand and have no experience with the topic. People criticize things they do not know or understand. Furthermore, people like Trail have little desire or motivation to educate themselves or broaden their horizon. They are content with holding the ignorant views that they have because they are afriad. Afraid of what they will learn. Afraid that whatever they learn will only show that they thought was right is actually wrong.

[Trailscout]

Whew! I thought I was being flamed for a minute there, but then I realized he was flaming Trailscot and not me. I haven't seen Trailscot around here in a long time, so it looks like the flame wars will be a thing of the past. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Trailscout]

Tralscot is another Trailscout wannabe who has dogged my steps and made life miserable for me.
At least the truth can now come out and these scoundrels will get their just flambe from the grillmasters of this forum.

[NoodJuggler]

http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Wont%20Share.gif
http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/FlameOn.gif
Can't you Read the Sign?
http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Thread%20Dumb.jpg http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flamer.gif

Be Friends and have a cold one... http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Lager%20Louts.gif ..Bye..Keithmj

[Trailscout]

Dave,

Just having a little fun with you. I feel like a longtailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Let's get back to the topic. If I disagree with you does that mean that I need to be educated until I see things your way?

I think hate and intolerance are just as necessary a part of good religion as love and acceptance. You must have both.

Before you have a hissy fit, let me explain that you aren't doing someone any favors if you never speak up when you see them heading for trouble, if you don't hate the effect of sin in their life and you always ask them to do their very best. You love people who are going the wrong way in life, of course, but you don't have to love the path they are on. Be intolerant of wrongdoing, but patiently tolerant of your loved ones while you pray that the Lord show them the path again.

"God loves you just the way you are today, but much too much to let you stay that way". Quote from John Reilly, Bible teacher and motivational speaker from Montgomery, Alabama.

[luvnaturism]

Thanks to all who have added their thoughts to this thread. Many of the posts have been well considered, and collectively they add wisdom to our discussions.

On the other hand, it has been intriguing to me to see how a gently-stated topic provided the opening for several flames. It's hard for me to avoid thinking that some of us are carrying around an excess of anger.

My theory is that flames reveal little about the one to whom they are directed, but a lot about the flame thrower. How do others see it?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
I think hate and intolerance are just as necessary a part of good religion as love and acceptance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hate and intolerance are loaded words today, and they may carry baggage with them that obscures your point.

Having said that, it's also true that churches in general have failed to deal realistically with the many times that Jesus was angry, and with how fierce that anger was. The meaning of some of his comments is never expressed in English translation because it would be utterly offensive to modern readers.

Christians also miss this: there are NO times recorded in the Bible where Jesus was angry over an offense done to him. His anger was directed at those who took advantage of the poor, helpless, and disadvantaged. He was furious when he saw people in positions of power adding further burdens to already burdened lives.

Modern Christians easily become angry over wrongs done to them, or on account of behavior that they personally find uncomfortable. Such anger misses the point.

[nacktman]

The posts on this topic have been onformative. However some have come close to mean spirited in personal reactions to others posting.

If I am incorrect about the original topic please let me know...I felt it was about the " line " we attempt to hold in open forums and not cross into the abyss of insipid natting. This topic is especially sensitive when faith and religion are involved.

Luvnaturism's previous post pointed to a good idea for those quick to feel " put upon " by anything not in their realm of experience and are afraid (yes I do mean afraid) to experince new thoughts and ideas to improve the quality of their life; learn to use the gray matter between your ears it is there for a reason and its not to hang your hat on..."for if you do not question your faith in me you are false and well never be allowed to sit by me in my kingdom..." (that by the way is a quote from the Bible, though you may have never known it before, it is a translation directly from Aramaic to English and does not come down from Yiddish to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to Old English to Middle Englis(King James version by the way) to Modern English and losing text with every translation and enitre sections left out by the church at every new translation and the insertation of others...and do not forget the Council of Trent which totally ripped apart the Book and rewrote it as they wanted to be...so what you may think you know about your faith as a christian could be of man's design and not god's. I too grew up as a southern baptist reading the King James bible (heck he's a distant relative in Clan Stuart) and was ordained as a lutheran but I learned to read the languages of the bible all the way back to the original writings...and Jesus spoke Aramaic not Hebrew of Yiddish and his anger was horrible for those who oppesed and were intolerant... the literal translations of what he said at tose times would send the saltiest sailor running to the church begging forgiveness of his sins...but would be extremely offensive to most modern readers.

Also a a matter of history Jesus was probally nude as often as not...being a carpenter he would wok in the heat and like others during the era he would work nude and not ruin his clothes...when he met Simon who was to be Peter he was working on his boat nude as well.
Nudity and religion go hand in hand.

I do wish to apologize for my bad typing and spelling skills...I can spell encyclopedia without any qualms but Kat gives me the willies...and my typing is hampered by all the memories of bones broken as a child and reckless teen...Arthur you know one of the Itis brothers.

To everyone always question, never follow blindly your leader may be blind as well.

[David77]

Nacktman,
I am surprised that you seem to indicate that you have read the writings of the New Testament in Aramaic.
When I took two years of the ancient Greek language in college over 50 years ago, I recall that I was told that Jesus probably spoke Aramiac and that the oldest biblical writings may have been in Aramiac but that they had not found the Aramaic writings, and the Greek writings were the oldest found.

(It can be noted that the Greek/Roman culture permeated "all" of that middle eastern region, especially in commerce, so Jesus may have been bi-lingual, as so many were then).

My question - where have you come up with the Aramaic text; or straighten me out on the facts, please.

John Dominic Crossan, the premier scholor who spent over 25 years studying the historical Jesus, states that the text of the gospels were written, I think from 75 to 125 years after Jesus death, in Greek, by recording the legends that were passed down after Jesus death.

[nacktman]

The texts are known to my fellows in the Archeaological world and have been for over 30 years. The "Dead Sea" scolls that have been made famous are in that language as well as hebrew. There have been other scolls found are are being studied even now...one must remember finds are not immediately known to the geneal populace except in rare cases...too much fraud in the past and all that.

In fact the findings of mummies and burial pits of Celtic origins in the Chinese desert was not known outside the Archeaological world for about 10 years...now there is a documentry on PBS, and other cable channels regularly.

The existance of amaraic texts is a reality and all refer to stories found in the bible...even a few of the old testament...the writing of the oral traditions of a people is the first step in preserving it and it is the Myths (to use the greek for story) that are written first, folllowed by the ever present tax rolls and governmental records...account tallies and such are the last. Familial histories are a modern era pastime;in the past it was just out of the range of possibilites for the "working" man.

The texts will be made known when they are studied more and the PBS will have a documentry on them as well.

[Trailscout]

Nacktman,

Are you referring to the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a version of the Bible? I found a translation of it in my college library in 1980 or thereabouts. It comes from the Syrian Christian community where the Aramaic language has been preserved to this day.

Sorry about the hyphens. I had to put them in for obvious reasons.

[nacktman]

Sorry for the confusion the texts I am refering to are not available to the general populace at this time.
They are like the artifacts behind the walls of the dioramas in the museums there are more and more fansinating things than are shown. I have worked in the labs behind these dioramas and watched as the public walked by the exhibits and it has struck me many times how much they never really get to see or know. I still bear the scar of an obsidian blade that was sharper than any steel blade and finer than the one on display where I caught it before it hit the floor and shattered after the stack of boxes it was resting on ...above eye level...was tipped by another in the lab. (the stack had been sitting there since 1902 when the train car it came in on was unloaded and stored and forgotten...it was from the Biltmore estate found and crated during its construction)

All versions of the book have been sanitized for modern readers...years from now they will be further sanitized to meet the desires of that era's readers as well...it is how it goes

[Trailscout]

David77,

It looks like I had been confusing the Syriac dialect with the Aramaic of the Holy Land. They have a common origin, but the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a, the authorized version of the Bible for the Syrian Orthodox Church is merely derived from 4th Century translations of an original Greek text.

There is a lot of debate about original language of the gospels. Let me take a stab at it. The Eastern Church has made much of the fact that Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, but it would be wrong to assume that the New Testament or even all the gospels were first written in that language. Now I will admit that it would make perfect sense for the disciple Matthew to have written his gospel in Aramaic, since his is the most Hebrew and Messianic of the gospels. John with his passages about the Word (Logos) seems to be appealing directly to a Greek readership. As for John Mark and Luke, weren't they early Greek converts to Christianity? If so, would they not also have written in Greek? Now I would suppose that Matthew would have been translated fairly early on into Greek. And I would not be surprized if the apostle Paul was the one who translated it into Greek for the benefit of his Greek-speaking parishoners. Likewise, all the epistles of Paul, which were written largely to the Greek diospora, would have been in Greek. They certainly would not have been written in Aramaic, which was not spoken in the Roman Empire (where the gospel was preached) (with the notable exception of Galilee Judea). (The Roman Empire later expanded east, but the gospel was initially preached in Greek-speaking areas, and only in the time of Justin Martyr did it reach Syriac or Aramaic speaking areas).

I did read about a Palestinian "Syriac" version of the New Testament. It is a misnomer to call it Syriac, because it is actually in the same Aramaic that Jesus spoke, but it has been shown to be derived from the Greek text. So yes, a true Aramaic New Testament exists, but it is one translation further removed from the autographs than the Greek text.

Does an untranslated original copy of the gospel of Matthew exist? The gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible that could possibly have an Aramaic text that predates the Greek. It would have to be distinguished from the aforementioned Palestinian New Testament. If it was not merely another copy of the Palestinian Syriac, and did not show derivation from the Greek text from any other source, then such a book of Matthew would be a candidate for consideration as text identical to the autograph of the apostle Matthew.

If Paul translated Matthew under the unction of the Holy Spirit and the other three gospels and the rest of the New Testament were autographed in Koine Greek (also under the Holy Spirit's unction) then a more reliable source for the word of God does not exist.
Here's a great link for additional reading:
New Testament Canon (http://www.ntcanon.org/)

[sojourner]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luvnaturism:
Thanks to all who have added their thoughts to this thread. Many of the posts have been well considered, and collectively they add wisdom to our discussions.

On the other hand, it has been intriguing to me to see how a gently-stated topic provided the opening for several flames. It's hard for me to avoid thinking that some of us are carrying around an excess of anger.

My theory is that flames reveal little about the one to whom they are directed, but a lot about the flame thrower. How do others see it?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said! Too bad flames couldn't be limited to private messages and discussion be carried on in the threads.

[Trailscout]

A simpler solution would be to translate all flame posts, (deleting the English original), and post the translation instead in Aramaic, Koine Greek or Syriac, if you prefer, and leave them posted for practice sake for people who are improving their skills with these languages. No one else would have to suffer the abuse.

[Trailscout]

I found a Web page or two that offers free translation. Here's the above post in Norwegian:

En enklere l?sning er oversette all flammeposter, (stryking English original), og posterer oversettelsen istedenfor i Aramaic, Koine Greek eller Syriac, om De foretrekker, og forlater dem som postert for ?velsesskyld for folk som forbedrer deres ferdigheter med disse spr?kene. Ingen annen lider misbruket.

[Buzzer]

This is just my belief. I'm not trying to convert anyone else, nor do I desire to have them try to convert me.
I believe a person's religion is the way he or she chooses to live his or her life. To include not harming anyone else, mentally or physically
At the same time, I try to follow the message of Christ. He said: "Destroy this temple and in three day I will raise it again." Therefore, I belive, as a naturist I am doing what I can to take care of my "temple" (body), and should have no shame of it. I protect it from weather, illness and harm. But, I also believe it has a need to be subjected to the good, clean air and a moderate amount of sunshine.