quote:[NOTE: Nate originally posted this comment in the discussion "Introduction to Communal Nudity."]
Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
[qb]. . . . Christ came to save the would not condemn it, I felt several posts (on both sides) were rather mean spirited rather than Christ spirited. To paraphraise from a book I've been reading (A Way of Escape, Freedom from Sexual Strongholds) condemning people who are doing things we disaprove of is counterproductive. They don't need condemnation, condemnation and overbearing authoritarianism is what useually drove those people to those behaviours in the first place. What everyone needs is a new life in Christ, when people fall in love with Jesus and give their life to Him, HE is fully able to complete the good work HE begins in them. We are not called to dispel the darkness, WE are called to turn on the LIGHT and point people to a loving God who is more than able to meet all their needs! [/qb]
Sexuality is such a pervasive human issue that nudists, including those who think of themselves as Christians, may find that a discussion of sexual issues quickly becomes an emotionally charged. Sometimes discussions of sexual preference degenerate into personal attacks on whole groups of people in the name of Christ. .
That's what happened in the thread in which Nate's comments were originally posted, and that's what prompted his response.
I've personally never understand how some Christians think that we can use mean-spirted words to assault those who disagree with us while hoping that they will gratefully embrace the Lord of Love. Nate is exactly right that condemnation is a poor starting point for producing change. It's a terrible starting point for encouraging Christian behavior.
Jesus really made it simple for us. He provided a cluster of easy to understand teachings that make these points:
A. Christians are to offer love their neighbor, however unlike us he or she may be.
B. Christians are to offer love to other Christians.
C. Christians are to offer love to their enemies.
Taking those categories together, the number of people whom it is appropriate to beat over the head is really quite small. Somewhere between zero and none.
Some posts elsewhere have indicated a view that only heterosexual people should be admitted to naturist venues. But sexualized behavior is prohibited where naturists gather; violate that rule and you get kicked out.
So how is that some Christians feel that it is safe to be with heterosexuals who are not behaving sexually, but unsafe ? or unpleasant ? to be with homosexuals who are not behaving sexually? How would you know anyway in the absence of sexualized behavior?
The naturist community is, as a whole, better at accepting people as they are without getting hung up the differences that can be seen. Why should naturist Christians, of all people, demean others for differences that cannot be seen?