Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Original Sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Original Sin

    While one can say God designed the human body and therefore said body is itself a good thing, the fallen nature of man allows for the very real danger of entering into lust.

    How would a Christian apologist for nudism deal with the doctrine of Original Sin in regards to the said lifestyle?

  • #2
    I thought that Christians believe that Jesus came to redeem us from that original sin.

    You are opening up a can of worms here. :sneaky:

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CTNudist View Post
      While one can say God designed the human body and therefore said body is itself a good thing, the fallen nature of man allows for the very real danger of entering into lust.

      How would a Christian apologist for nudism deal with the doctrine of Original Sin in regards to the said lifestyle?
      "Christian apologist for nudism"? Wow. Them's fightin' words! I may not be christian, but even I recognize that.

      Originally posted by Boreas View Post
      You are opening up a can of worms here. :sneaky:
      I would even say that's his intention...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Boreas View Post
        I thought that Christians believe that Jesus came to redeem us from that original sin.
        In Judiasm and in Islam there is no concept of inherent original sin.
        However, some people believe that hereditary depravity is passed down thru the mother's genes and thru the mothers DNA.
        If such were the case, it could be stated that God created imperfect beings, although the biblical account states that He said that his creation was good.
        I believe that human beings are born into a state of innocence with a nature that is pure at birth. Training by his parents will teach him not to do "naughty things" and to treat others well - ethics.

        Hopefully he will learn not negative but positive responses to nudity.

        Humanities redemption by bloody tortureous murder on a cross is just too primative and sadistric of a remedial concept, like the human blood sacrifice of the Inca culture of old, and it is an evil remedy to please and appease god.

        Comment


        • #5
          Original sin is part of Catholic dogma. Not all other Christian faiths accept it. I believe the previous Pope stated that nudity is not sinful.

          Before posting this, I did a brief web search on original sin and read some of the positions of different churches. I quickly came to the conclusion that it is all gibberish. Anyone who is concerned with this needs to wake up to the reality that religion is just superstition and folklore.

          Churches are fine institutions. They provide a sense of community and ceremonies for marking births, marriages, and deaths. However, nobody should allow their life to be controlled by some bizarre church teaching.
          Last edited by Mosquito_Bait; 01-15-2009, 04:26 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            My sin isn't original, lots of people have done it before!

            Pete Knight

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Lord Drakkus
              "Christian apologist for nudism"? Wow. Them's fightin' words! I may not be christian, but even I recognize that.
              Perhaps you recognize too much. The was nothing more to my above post than an honest question.

              I would even say that's his intention...
              As the old saying goes, "To assume makes an a s s out of you and me" (a s s + u + me = assume). Again, don't try to read into my question.

              Originally posted by David77
              In Judiasm and in Islam there is no concept of inherent original sin.
              For the purposes of this question that's neither here nor there.

              Humanities redemption by bloody tortureous murder on a cross is just too primative and sadistric of a remedial concept, like the human blood sacrifice of the Inca culture of old, and it is an evil remedy to please and appease god.
              One would do better to think of someone taking a bullet for another.

              Originally posted by Mosquito_Bait
              Original sin is part of Catholic dogma. Not all other Christian faiths accept it.
              The question isn't whether or not a majority of members in any religion hold a belief, religion isn't a democracy. Even if it was, disbelief in Original Sin is a rather new phenomenon that doesn’t go back more than 100-150 years, and mostly in the United States at that. Prior to then it was believed in, “by everyone, everywhere, and at all times.” Original Sin is a belief that goes back to Christ and the Apostles, and even implicitly before then.

              The point of thread isn’t to prove Original Sin, nor to necessarily make any point at all, but rather to ask the question I first posted: assuming for our purposes that Original Sin is a reality, how - if at all -one can be a nudist when considering Original Sin.

              I believe the previous Pope stated that nudity is not sinful
              This is true. Pope Jo. Paul (of happy memory) did indeed mention nudity for a number of pages in his work Love and Responsibility. If I remember correctly however, his treatment of nudity was ontological, looked at more “in a vacuum.” In other words John Paul was saying nudity in and of itself was not sinful, that intrinsically there’s nothing wrong with a nude body. However I don’t think he considered social nudity in the context of Original Sin.

              Anyone who is concerned with this needs to wake up to the reality that religion is just superstition and folklore.
              Again, this has absolutely no bearing on my original question.

              However, nobody should allow their life to be controlled by some bizarre church teaching.
              Of all religious doctrines considered one finds Original Sin to be perhaps the least bizarre and easiest to believe.

              To reiterate: The point of thread isn’t to prove Original Sin, nor to necessarily make any point at all. But as you said a belief such as Original Sin is bizarre, there must be a response:

              That mankind has a propensity to do wrong is something that seems to be widely accepted even by people and institution that have nothing to do with Christianity.

              If any of us use keys (e.g.: house keys, safe keys, car keys), then there seems to be some acknowledgement that the nature of man can allow for evil (e.g.: theft). Speaking personally, when I go to the city to cash my paychecks, I must do so through 2-3 inches of bulletproof glass with only a little slot to pass through cash. The owners of the company seem to have a dim view of the nature of man. When I ride the bus, go into a store or drive down the street there are literally cameras everywhere. The government and local businesses seem not to think too highly of the goodness of mankind. Newspapers are perhaps the greatest proof that humanity ain’t so jolly.



              Getting back to my original question: the reason this poster asked about Original Sin is frankly because there’s a very real danger of falling into lust, even unwittingly.

              I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but it’s been my experience that lust destroys beauty, it turns others into nothing more than body parts, it takes what it good (e.g.: the body) and turns it on it’s head for a selfish end (e.g.: self gratification). Therefore this poster would like to avoid lust.

              Due to cultural conditioning or personal proclivity nudity, especially for a Westerner, could stoke lust. That being said: how would a Christian reconcile the fallen nature of man via Original Sin with nudism?

              There’s no agenda to this question, it’s simply a point that Christian defenders of nudists haven’t addressed in my research.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CTNudist View Post
                How would a Christian apologist for nudism deal with the doctrine of Original Sin in regards to the said lifestyle?
                The Original Sin was a disregard for God's Word and therefore an attempt to know like Him and be like Him. That's why Adam & Eve were cast out of the Garden. The Old Testament is a rich tapestry of God's people turning away from God, suffering consequences and seeking redemption. The root of this is Original Sin, a failure to have faith and trust God.

                I will also point out that events described in Genesis, including Original Sin, were written in their present form Biblical scholars say perhaps 800 years before Christ. You must first make a connection between Original Sin and Christians (which you have not done) or a connection between Original Sin and nudism (which you have not done) before you make critisisms of Christian behavior.

                Lets leave aside Christians, New Testament writings, and Church Doctrine and get to the root of your question: What does Original Sin have to do with the practice of nudism? I don't see a connection. You might be asking me how, in light of Original Sin, I can defend my practice of eating apples.

                I have much more on this topic with references but I first want to see if you have a serious inquiry or you're just another closed-mined on-line bore throwing a stone at a crowd hoping for a reaction. Given the way you cut responses line-by-line I'm thinking you might be the latter.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You shouldn't sin, but if you must it might as well be original ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What does Original Sin have to do with the practice of nudism? I don't see a connection. You might be asking me how, in light of Original Sin, I can defend my practice of eating apples.
                    Neither do I see a connection.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by LamontCranston View Post
                      What does Original Sin have to do with the practice of nudism?
                      Three times a charm. Let's try this again: Christian defenders of nudism talk at length about the body being good seeing as God designed it. To back this up, a goodly number of Scripture verses are used, along with quotes from Church leaders and other noted individuals. In fact, some of the members of this forum might be familiar with Mr. Jim Cunningham’s recent work “Nudity & Christianity” which does this very thing at length. It’s often stated further that a chief reason nudity is taboo is because it’s culturally conditioned and that things like Playboy would go by the wayside if everyone just took up nudism; that an unhealthy attitude develops regarding the body if it's covered up and kept secret all the time. All well and good.

                      What I have not found factored into this defense of nudism, done from a Christian prospective, is that for all the wholesomeness which a nude body has in and of itself, due to Original Sin lust is a possibility. Whether we like it or not we a influenced by our culture. So while tribesmen in Africa would generally have no problem lust-wise around people in the nude (as this is literally a daily reality for many), Americans would find it easier due to cultural conditioning to fall into lust in a nude setting.

                      As “near occasions of sin” are to be avoided as strenuously as sins themselves (for instance, an alcoholic would avoid going to bars, being around beer, as much as he would avoid drinking alcohol itself), and even upright men are often tempted, is nudism to be considered a valid lifestyle when we realize Original Sin disposes us to lust however well intentioned we may be?

                      This question wasn’t meant to be particularly difficult in it’s wording, which has indeed turned out to be the case. My apologizes for any confusion.

                      You might be asking me how, in light of Original Sin, I can defend my practice of eating apples.
                      Not to digress, but there are no apples mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve. Off the top of my head, I don't think apples are mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

                      When the language of literacy was Latin, and as such the Bible was chiefly in Latin, European artists would often make a play on words of sorts when depicting the story of the Fall. You see, the Latin word for evil ("malus") sounds like the Latin word for apple ("malum"). So when talking about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, malum became a good visual for malus.

                      I have much more on this topic with references but I first want to see if you have a serious inquiry or you're just another closed-mined on-line bore throwing a stone at a crowd hoping for a reaction. Given the way you cut responses line-by-line I'm thinking you might be the latter.
                      In all kindness, please answer the question or don't.

                      There's really nothing behind this inquiry, as I've stated at length. As has been mentioned in other threads, I've personally been to nude resorts a number of times. How some people are seeing this as an attack thread is beyond me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CTNudist View Post
                        ...
                        How would a Christian apologist for nudism deal with the doctrine of Original Sin in regards to the said lifestyle?
                        I guess I can't answer the question because I am not a Christian apologist for nudism. I am a nudist apologist for Christianity!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          When the language of literacy was Latin, and as such the Bible was chiefly in Latin, European artists would often make a play on words of sorts when depicting the story of the Fall. You see, the Latin word for evil ("malus") sounds like the Latin word for apple ("malum"). So when talking about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, malum became a good visual for malus.
                          The original Hebrew (oral folklore) account of creation was written in Hebrew language. The Vulgate Bible in Latin came much later, so current scholars translators go to the oldest documents, which are in Hebrew language.
                          Thus the similarity in Latin words (malus/malum) has no bearing in modern translations.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mosquito_Bait
                            I guess I can't answer the question because I am not a Christian apologist for nudism. I am a nudist apologist for Christianity!
                            As you like it. Semantics aside, would you care to answer the question?

                            Originally posted by David77 View Post
                            The original Hebrew (oral folklore) account of creation was written in Hebrew language. The Vulgate Bible in Latin came much later, so current scholars translators go to the oldest documents, which are in Hebrew language.
                            Thus the similarity in Latin words (malus/malum) has no bearing in modern translations.
                            Yes, I understand. I was simply stating how it came to be that in Western culture eating an apple came to represent the Fall when there is no actual apple mentioned in the story.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK, to address the original question ... it begs a connection between nudity and lust that the practice of nudism displaces. I suppose one could argue that by disconnecting the link most of society makes between nudity and sexual urges the practice of non-sexual social nudism creates some movement towards a 'pre-fallen' state of grace. But I don't think that is substantive, or a particularly useful argument.

                              Part of my problem with it is that I think "original sin" is balony.

                              We all know that nudism doesn't eliminate lust. It just makes it less likely to coincide with mere nudity. Big deal. So you may be infinitesimally less likely to be tempted into lust, maybe. Original sin suggests you are doomed anyway, avoiding temptation doesn't redeem you, that is just running away from the real soul work which is resisting temptation.

                              But who says temptation is always a bad thing? I think it is just as much a gift as a curse.

                              Lead me not into temptation - unless it is worth it ...

                              -Mark

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X