Something to think about

[Nate Dekan]

I was thinking this morning about what Scripture says about darkness and light and had this thought I wanted to share...

"Perversion thrives and grows in dark hidden places, you wonder why are society has such perverse attitudes towards the human body? It is because we hide parts of it in shame. When all parts of the human body are openly accepted without shame there is less darkness for perversion to feed on."

Hmm, something to think about.

Nate

[Nate Dekan]

I was thinking this morning about what Scripture says about darkness and light and had this thought I wanted to share...

"Perversion thrives and grows in dark hidden places, you wonder why are society has such perverse attitudes towards the human body? It is because we hide parts of it in shame. When all parts of the human body are openly accepted without shame there is less darkness for perversion to feed on."

Hmm, something to think about.

Nate

[Guest]

Very true, Nate. Evil likes to hide in the darkness because their deeds are evil. John 3:19,20 says "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

Hiding the human body only feeds people's perversive desires and ideas about the body. It feeds their fatasies and causes the mind to go wild with ideas. The fantasies grow to epic proportions until they have to act on their fantasies through perversive acts.

[Jochanaan]

So that's why our movement hasn't broken into society's main stream! Hmmmm--secretiveness vs. openness. I know which I prefer!

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
[qb]I was thinking this morning about what Scripture says about darkness and light and had this thought I wanted to share...

"Perversion thrives and grows in dark hidden places, you wonder why are society has such perverse attitudes towards the human body? It is because we hide parts of it in shame. When all parts of the human body are openly accepted without shame there is less darkness for perversion to feed on."

Hmm, something to think about.

Nate[/qb]

---

Society has such views of nudity because most christian churches teach them to.

[Guest]

Cyndiann,
Even as a Christian I have to agree with that. Churches of all demoninations have taught that nudity is sinful and shameful, and the body must be kept covered. One pastor I had didn't like males and females swimming together even. Unfortunately, too many people have fallen into that belief and have been brainwashed.

[Guest]

Actually I should have taken it one step further because christian religions are not the only ones that teach people that nude is bad.

Who do you think you will find joining pornsites? It will be those who are taught that human bodies are something NOT to be seen.... and those are mostly people involved in organized religions. They want what is forbidden.

If we all were more open about nudity the porn industry would be lots smaller. I don't think it would ever be gone and it does have it's place. I like looking at what I call erotica myself. But I feel it would be done in a more healthy manner instead of being a substitution for open discussions and nudity around the family household.

[Guest]

Ah, yes, the forbidden fruit. When something is forbidden it's more tempting. If a father says to his teenage daughter, "I don't want you to see that boy again", she will sneak out at night to see him. If a child is told, "No, you can't have a cookie just before dinner", the child will sneak a cookie, and probably more than one. When anything is forbidden or made to seem mysterious, it becomes something people MUST have.

Making the human body seem something mysterious that must be kept hidden because it's "offensive" makes the porn business a multi-billion dollar business. Make nudity commonplace, and the mystery would be virtually removed. Porn is sex; it excites and arouses because the poses are not what not you see in a nudist environment--hopefully. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Nate Dekan]

I agree cyndiann, and that is why I'm trying to make the focus of my site, showing Christians how damaging body shame is. Unfortionatly most Christians seem to be uncomfortable with what God created and called very good, so instead of openly accepting the body as good in the light, they call it indecent, reject it and thus send it into darkness where perversion thrives.

We've had Promise Keepers in my town for big events at the staduim a few times, after one such event a local paper ran an article on how much business increased with local porn shops, porn channels at motels and with prostitutes while Promise Keepers was in town, I believe that's a direct result of Christians (and others) regulating the body and sexuality to darkness.

I know from my life and others that there is much good about Christianity, but like many other things I also know there is also much that isn't good in it. Christianity is kind of like sex, in itself it's very good, but it is also easily abused, perverted, and corrupted.

Nate

[Guest]

Well the problem as I see it is that you are only teaching half the message. I would have to know what you consider "perversions" before I could say for sure but many times not only is plain nudity healthy but many forms of sex are as well.

If you try and teach that nudity is ok but sex is not (and don't limit it so severely as many christians do) you aren't being honest. Many things that the religious call perversions are really not. Masturbation has been proven to be a good thing for the body, same sex relationships are good for the soul, sex outside of marriage is very normal and commonplace anymore and it is perfectly sane to admit you like being spanked or tied up during sex, or you like to roleplay, or you try some tantra positions.

So just what is your personal definition of a sexual "perversion"?

Mine would be sex with children or animals.

[Nate Dekan]

quote:

---

[qb] So just what is your personal definition of a sexual "perversion"?[/qb]

---

First, NO, I do NOT want to teach that "nudity is ok but sex is not" and I do think many Christians limit sexuality to severely. A good book that address's this is "Sexual Shame, an Urgent Call for Healing" by Karen A. McClintock. Do Christians need to let go of many sexual hang-ups and judgmentalism? Yep. But sexuality (while related) is not nudity and I feel trying to tackle both body shame and sexual shame at the same time by those bound with both is too much. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. People do need to know that sex is a good gift from God and ok, but the specifics of sexual acts are between each individual and God, not me.

So I won't give a act by act list of what I think is ok or perverse apart from this, sex with children or animals is clearly perverse as well as anything that is abusive, forced and not mutually consensual. (And by abusive I include things even between husband and wife. Sadly, there is such a thing as spousal sexual abuse and rape!)

Nate

Here are a couple links about the Sexual Shame book
http://www.alban.org/Review2002MarApr-4.asp
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/boo...al%20Shame.htm

[Trailscout]

Nate,

I understand that you don't feel comfortable telling people your opinion about the parameters for sexual purity, as you said it is between the person and God.

However doesn't God make it plain enough in the Bible that he wants sex to be exclusively between a man and his wife?

I can't imagine that you advocate loveless sex. That seems antithetical to the Christian message.

I do believe that our western society makes it very difficult for young people to find a mate and stay married.

In other years, it was unheard of for huge numbers of people to live single sexless loveless lives well into their thirties and forties. That is an unnatural situation and I am not unsympathetic, but I don't believe that promiscuity and an endless series of affairs and meaningless loveless physical couplings is a welcome substitute.

[Suntied]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben_m:
I guess I took a "stand" on that one - fire away [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [/QB]

---

Ben!!!

The bonds of Marriage?

In the old testimate, marriage was simply the claim of ownership/right two bear offspring from-by the man. I'm not even sure they called it marriage ???

Ben, you have always shown a remarkable intellect in the replies I've read... how did you become so set in the societal way all of a sudden?
The same people that invented the bonds of marriage are the same people who said we have to wear clothes?!?!

Cindiann is a bit exteam with the comments she made, but I beleive that if you find the right mate, companion, freind and they want you to be true, thus making it nessesary for the relationship to survive... you are true and honest, there shouldn't be any certificate or title put to that relationship. It is between the two of you and only that. If the trust is broken... so is the relationship.

If the MCF (mate,companion,freind) is the right one and your happy with each other, the fun is never lost! It is the people that stay married long after they havn't been an MCF to each other that lose the fun and excitement needed to hold the relationship together/survive.
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
We need to look at the big picture as naturist. We can't be naked in public because of documentation exactly like a marriage licence!
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Back to the subject of this Post... (I think) the darkness has been concealing all of us and we need to join together to get out into the light; ie;social nudity accemptance and true freedom. Discusing sex with anyone or anything preverse is not a way to the light, but a simple argument about unlightened things in the DARK!!!

Sorry I think I got a bit carried away [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]

Just a bit concearned with us keeping our "EYE ON THE BALL" (originally said by Frank R)

Ignore me and continue you argument [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img] Bart/Suntied [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

[j4king]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trailscout:
[qb]However doesn't God make it plain enough in the Bible that he wants sex to be exclusively between a man and his wife?[/qb]

---

"And David took him more concubines and wives"
2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 14:3

David (a man after "God's own heart") had 10-15 wives/concubines if not more.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Nate Dekan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trailscout:
[QB]Nate,

I understand that you don't feel comfortable telling people your opinion about the parameters for sexual purity, as you said it is between the person and God.

However doesn't God make it plain enough in the Bible that he wants sex to be exclusively between a man and his wife?

I can't imagine that you advocate loveless sex. That seems antithetical to the Christian message.[QB]

---

I was wondering how my post would be responded too, actually not nearly like I thought it would be. At least not yet! I hit some hot buttons, so I expected far harsher, more judgemental responses. Hopefully it gives me an opportunity to speak some of love anyway.

Look at some of the stuff in the Old Testament. If you get legalistic and start dotting i's and crossing t's you can justify polygamy and a number of perverse sexual things including prostituting your daughters to violent men in order to save a couple male strangers from being raped.

However if you look at sex from a Spiritual perspective, with the relationship of man and wife being an illustration of the relationship of Christ and the Church yes, I believe the highest, best, and holiest place for sex is between man and wife only. I do not in any way advocate loveless sex, unfortunately I know that loveless sex including spousal sexual abuse and assault happen between men and their wives. A wedding or marriage certificate is no guarantee of loving sex. And I will not judge people outside the Body of Christ who do not live up to that high standard of man and wife or those within the Body of Christ who are struggling because their spirit longs for such righteousness, they know it is right and desire to live that way, but their flesh is weak.

Jesus befriended and loved the even the dregs of society, yet too many Christians are like the Pharisee Jesus spoke of who looked down on a sinner in self-righteousness and contempt saying "Thank God I'M not like him". Yes, Jesus told those he loved not to sin anymore, but he compelled them with ONLY love, no self-righteousness, no condemnation, (he reserved that for the self-righteous) and no contempt. That can't be said of how many Christians treat those they see as "sinners", especially when it comes to sexuality. Jesus said He came not to condemn, but to save (John 3:17).

I recently read an updated version of the Good Samaritan in which those who passed by and left the beat up stranger for dead where leaders of today's fundamentalist Christian organizations and the Good Samaritan who had compassion and helped the stranger was a homosexual. I think it is a very powerful, hard-hitting update of the story. I'm not saying that homosexuality is what God wants or the standard of Christian righteousness, I'm saying that the way homosexuals and others are treated by many "Christians" in the name of God, isn't what God wants, such treatment is far from Christian righteousness! I say with Jesus "let him who is without any sin cast the first stone". No one except him has that right and even he doesn't do it. Many people have rejected Jesus not because of Jesus, but because of those who call themselves followers of Jesus, how are those "followers" going to answer for themselves before the father?

I'd say that those things that are sexual sins by Christian standards are natural by the standards of the world. The Christian standards are spiritual or "supernatural" if you will. How can we condemn people who are not in Christ for not living up to supernatural, spiritual, Christian standards? Further, how does condemning them bring them to Christ???

As far as judgment (I can hear it coming), if someone within the church is flagrantly sinning with no remorse, yes there is a place to judge and act on that. But for those outside the church (I believe even those "flagrant" sinners) and those struggling with sin within the Church we should have only, grace, compassion, forgiveness, understanding, and love, compelling them with God's love. Christian standards of righteousness are for Christians who can hope to live up to those standards ONLY by living in a dependent relationship in Jesus Christ. There should be no expectation that those who are not in Christ should live the way those in Christ do. Christian standards of morality/righteousness are NOT something to condemn and bash non-Christians over the head with!

OK I'll get off my soapbox.

For now anyway

Nate