Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

This is the place for your stories, testimonials, naturist humor (in good taste), family concerns, and other issues, as you help each other understand God's will for you.<P>Only Residents and higher may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 16, 2016 10:13 am

MountainDog wrote:
Ramblinman wrote:Here are some alternative views on this woman and her "prophecies": ...


It it's on the internet, it must be true!

Perhaps I am misunderstood.
I do not offer those links as proof that Ellen White is a false prophet, but each author in the links has raised points of concern that should not be dismissed without careful consideration and discussion.
We can take each point one by one here at CNV, in a new topic area of course.
The one point that is topical is the doctrine of "clothing of light" as an argument that:
Adam and Eve were not really bodily naked prior to their fall from grace, therefore we must cover our bodies.
White may have been the originator of this teaching, but I have seen it in other denominations.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby DaveT » Tue May 17, 2016 8:31 pm

She never intimated they were not naked. The "robe of light" phrase may be taken by some (who hate nakedness) to mean opaque light, I take it to mean they visibly glowed. She also mentioned the garment God gave them after sin was for environmental protection, no mention of morality. And by the way, when in vision she never breathed. Sometimes for long periods of time. Totally impossible physically. Which puts the visions solidly in the supernatural category. Read what she wrote and if we can get past the condemnation of our sins and keep reading, it's obviously not something that could come from the wrong source. It seems the only people who try to discredit her are those who are uncomfortable with their sins being pointed out, and instead of recognizing it as sin and addressing it in themselves, they try to discredit the messenger. Very reminiscent of people like John the Baptist or Jeremiah, or Jesus Himself. To be given a message from God condemning sin, and then be condemned by those who love sin. It's also typical of true prophets that they did not choose to be, they start out very reluctant, and sometimes quite resistant to taking the job. She was like that. And when she finally agreed to take the job, she asked God to humble her if she at any time yielded to pride. And He did once at least. Satan tried to kill her several times, especially when she started to write the book "Great Controversy" He was incensed that his secret plans to deceive the world were being revealed. But he can't change his plan, it's the best thing he can come up with. Ernie Knoll is being given a lot more details on it in the last few years, full detailed descriptions of what the devils masterpiece of deception will look like. The only thing the devil can hope to do is discredit them both and hope no one pays attention and believes it. God allows, or even provides, a few hooks for people to hang their doubts on, so people who do not want to accept it will find some excuse not to. However those who really love Jesus and want to find the truth, will find it. And they are the ones who are willing to adjust their own lifestyle and beliefs to match the truth when it's revealed. We are not required to believe with no evidence, evidence is given in abundance, we must weigh it carefully. But we should be aware that the truth is going to be very uncomfortable at times, it will be very politically incorrect at times, very unpopular. It will point out things as error that we always thought was truth. Every person who serves God in any manner must remain humble, after all, we are nothing compared to Him. It is His place to lift us up and give us honor if it be His will, it's our place to choose the humblest place and be happy to see Christ the center of attention. In one of her final addresses to a congregation, she held up the Bible and said, "brethren, I recommend to you this book" It's important we pay attention to what's being revealed and consider it carefully. We have the Bible, the writings of Ellen White, and now the dreams Ernie Knoll is writing down. They build one on the other with no disagreement between them. Any perceived disagreement seems to be due to a misinterpretation of something, especially in the Bible, since it's been through some translations and was written so long ago, commonly the context for what was written is missing, not explained. It can take some doing to figure out what the context was and how to apply what was written. Many times a passage is interpreted according to the pagan practices that came into the Church later, and are still here. When if the situation at the time of it's writing was ascertained it would be seen to mean something quite different.

From what I can see of it, there is nothing in any of it that would prohibit nudism. In fact Ernie privately told us that the people he saw in his dream in prison camps for their faith, who were being ministered to by a couple who God sent, miracles being done, the guards being converted. In the published version they are wearing "paper gowns" but that was just so it wouldn't unnecessarily turn people off and cause condemnation without cause. Those imprisoned were all naked, and the people God sent in to minister to them were naked as well so they could circulate among them without being noticed.

It reveals exactly who the special group of 144,000 are, not in person but as a group. They are those who are overcoming sin and becoming like Christ in character. Virgins to Christ, not contaminated with the false teachings of corrupted Christianity or other religions, which constitutes spiritual adultery. And God is picking them right now. He's selecting them from all peoples and all denominations. We are being told only about 1 in 20,000 SDA members are actively getting ready, serious about taking the final exam. (entrance exam for heaven as it were) God can't find 144,000 in it to make up the needed number, so He's looking elsewhere. It's a group I aspire to be part of, not for personal gratification at all, not because it would be the easiest way to survive. But because I want to work for my Lord to the utmost maximum that I possibly can. It won't be easy. It'd be much easier to just die and miss it all. But God has revealed to me personally His awesome Joy, and that drives me to want to do whatever it takes to help rescue another soul for heaven. I can take the humblest place, I can do the dirtiest work, God will impart strength of mind and body to do whatever He has for me to do, just let the great love of Jesus be seen through me.
User avatar
DaveT
Native Resident
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: TN

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby MountainDog » Wed May 18, 2016 5:51 pm

DaveT wrote:Ernie Knoll is being given a lot more details on it in the last few years,

We are being told only about 1 in 20,000 SDA members are actively getting ready,


Ernie Knoll is not a well received "prophet" and has even been quoted as saying he made up his visions. Mr Knoll is not one I would put any trust in for what he claims. There have also been a number of people come along in recent years claiming to be the newest prophet of God. You need to be very careful about who you will put your confidence in because there will be counterfeit Christs and counterfeit prophets coming in these days.

"It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared ..."(EGW) I think the term should be one in twenty. However, if you do a search of her writings, you will find she often uses the figure of "one in twenty" for a variety of situations. I think the meaning to be taken is a small fraction in the variety of situations she is discussing are pursuing a correct course.
User avatar
MountainDog
Permanent Resident
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:56 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby DaveT » Thu May 19, 2016 12:58 am

Ernie is a man subject to like passions (and defects) as ourselves. God allowed him to fall into grievous error to test, prove, and humble him. Just as he allowed Elijah to make the error of fleeing from Jezebel instead of facing up to her. Many of us need to be humbled, we need to feel our own weakness so we'll not trust in our own strength but hide ourself in Christ. I know many people who work for God, who God needed to teach them their own weakness so they would learn to trust Him completely.

Do you believe everything someone says about a person without checking them out? Lots of rumors float around, especially concerning those who are doing something different. Something that makes people uncomfortable with their sins especially. And instead of humbling themselves and asking God to cleanse them, they start hunting for dirt to throw at the messenger. Self justification. Same thing Saul did which led God to reject him as king of Israel, killed him with the sword of the philistines and put David in his place. David did almost as bad as saul did at times, but when his sin was pointed out he humbled himself and repented. Big difference.

It so happens that what Ernie is seeing in his dreams is so hot on the devils tail that he's scared, and doing everything in his power to discredit the man and make people not read what he's written. God allowed Ernie to make a serious mistake in his work, When it was discovered even his wife was shocked and confused, she made some statements that were taken out of context by some people to say Ernie admitted his dreams were made up. Which he never did. It was only a side story that he made up. When I learned of the issues, it made me reconsider the whole thing. I very carefully analyzed the content of the dreams. And finally decided that since they lead me toward Christ and lead me to do what I already know I should do, the safe thing to do is believe and run with it.

When he related what the angel told him about tithe money, the SDA churchmen turned against him real quick. Ah-ha, sensitive subject. it revealed where their heart is, love of money rather than love of Christ and His work. And they didn't want to be accountable for where they spent the tithe money either, they know they're not using it according to God's instructions. He says every person who pays tithe should know where it goes and what it's being used for. Transparency in the work. Is anything wrong with that? That's just common business sense. Anyone who handles someone elses money has to be held accountable for what they do with it. In this case it's God's money, but God is telling us that we who give it should be the ones who hold the money handlers accountable, which makes sense to me. But there's the issue that individuals have tried their best to hold the money handlers of the church accountable, and they refuse to listen to them, so the only thing they can resort to is; give their tithe money to someone else who is doing the Lord's work and using it appropriately.

It's not a matter of trusting the man, it's a matter of looking at the message and judging it based on it's own content. There is no doctrinal modification in them, only building on what's already been revealed in the Bible, expanded by EGW, and then expanded some more. Giving us much detail on exactly what's going to happen between now and Jesus second coming, details on what heaven and the new earth will be like. Lots of very terrible things to happen, but wonderful things to follow if we are faithful to Christ by keeping his Father's commandments as he told us to.

I've considered carefully everything that's been written, asking myself, where does this lead? up or down? does it lead me to love Jesus more and want to get ready for his coming? Does the writer lift up Christ and keep self out of the picture as much as possible? If so it's most likely inspired of God. The way the extreme love of Christ is brought out by both Ellen and Ernie, I'd say it's pretty safe to read and believe. And if it is all true, ignoring it could prove to be dangerous. I'd say the safe thing to do is believe and get serious about getting ready. If I refuse to believe and it's true, I'm in trouble, If I believe and obey, and it's true, I'm OK, if I believe and things turn out different and we find it's not true, no real harm done. And by the way, getting ready for Jesus to come is all about reflecting the character of Jesus in our own lives, which is all rooted in love, and keeping the ten commandments, which can only be done through the power of Christ working in us. All of which we need to do whether Jesus comes real soon or not.

I think the 1-20,000 is accurate for today, in my own small conservative church, I see very few who are really actively preparing for the end in their own lives. As least by external appearance, we can't see the heart of another. Considering such few numbers, it makes me search my own heart, what makes me think I'm one of those few? I'd better get serious in my relationship with Christ and make sure of my salvation. I'm defective, I can see it, but I keep asking for God to work in me to make me pure, to clean up my dirty heart, and I see significant progress being made in the last several years, which is encouraging. And shocking as it seemed at first. Naturism seems to be part of that process.

All though history we see time after time, God raises up a people, they follow Him for a while, and then drift away. He pulls them back, they drift away again. Several times God has had to restart his church, once in Noah's time with the flood, another time when he called Abram out from his people, again with Moses, again when Jesus came, he chose new leaders from the common folk. And then the old church which claimed to be the true church but who'd compromised with sin, was destroyed in 70 AD. Then the roman church drifted too far away from Christ, mixing paganism with the truth, trying to kill those who held to the pure truth, and the true followers of Christ had to hide in the mountains. It's often been the leaders of the church who led out in apostasy. Persecuting the ones who held to the pure truth. And so it comes around again. The church leaders rejecting the truth and leading the people on in the ways of compromise with evil. Are we going to drift with the compromise? or follow Christ where ever He may lead, even if it's unpopular and uncomfortable?

Personally, I love Jesus so much I want to grab up every ray of light that comes from Him in whatever disguise it may come, I want to be as much like Him as possible, and I want to go home and be with Him forever. But I don't want to go before I've taken as many others with me as I possibly can. The more I learn to love Jesus the more I love those around me and want them in heaven too.
User avatar
DaveT
Native Resident
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: TN

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Petros » Thu May 19, 2016 7:10 am

I do not know the writings and writers in question. But it is quite true that no human prophet is without blemish, and that if nobody on the web calls you a heretic and fraud you must never have said anything in public.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5582
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Ramblinman » Thu May 19, 2016 8:44 am

Petros wrote:I do not know the writings and writers in question. But it is quite true that no human prophet is without blemish, and that if nobody on the web calls you a heretic and fraud you must never have said anything in public.

The issue is not that Ellen, Ernie or Bert, and Kermit for that matter have sinned at some point in their lives.
Ellen made specific points of doctrine that must be compared with the Holy Bible.
She claims that her words amplify or expand upon the scriptures without contradicting them.
Others disagree.
We can systematically examine her claims point by point without making her into a devil or the 13th apostle.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Bare_Truth » Thu May 19, 2016 10:03 am



As a "Sabbatarian" Christian, not (SDA) and a "Biblical Literalist" I get a bit leery when someone places some special revelation on the same level as what can be read from the Bible or claims some special expertise at eisegesis. Indeed that is why I found the transition to Biblical Naturist views so easy seeing as how those who claim the Bible condemns nudity lack a leg to stand on.

However the above cited links are screeds no more sound than SDA teachings and probably more strident than SDA teachings or at least their equal (I am trying to be generous here).

I do not base my penchant for being a Sabbath Keeper on any sort of special revelation delivered to some latter day prophet but rather on a historical view of how the establishment of Sunday came about and the eisegesis that was used to support it. I find no major fault in the additional practices that various cults feel are important to adopt that are extra biblical except when they try to equate it to biblical command rather than admit that it is derivative largely from their own attempts to be biblical in their approach to life, and not a demand of God.

So for instance, if the Amish think it is necessary (for them!) to live a simple life without the high technology of today, I find no offence so long as they do not relegate to HELL those who make use of it, (e.g. does You Tube really aid one in living a righteous and holy life ???). Likewise if an SDA thinks it is better to be a vegetarian or some sort of Baptist thinks it is impossible to be righteous if one ever consumes any alcoholic beverage but does not condemn me to hell if I do not agree; then I am not going to be contentious on that point, though I would be comfortable to engage in a respectful discussion on the matter.

It is one thing to wish to share the gospel but an odious perversion to try to conquer another person for self aggrandizement of having a "righteous ego trip" (that is an oxymoron! and not the only moron involved in such an event :wink: ). Launching into a vitriolic screed is more likely to "send someone to hell" than to rescue them from it!

Standing for something that is right is very different from trying to stuff one's "personal view of right" down the throat of another.

I think the message of Christ more emphasizes being a LAMB than a RAM! I would hate to see disruptive division and contention stirred up here. If we remember to nuance that the pronouncements of various persons are ones that we hold in esteem, be they our pope, prophet, saint or seer, and we do not imply that everyone must necessarily esteem them and we therefore do not speak as if everyone else must hear them we will be a lot less contentious than the radical Muslims who go nuts if we do not speak in glowing terms of their beloved Mohammed.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Ramblinman » Thu May 19, 2016 10:59 am

Bare_Truth wrote: As a "Sabbatarian" Christian, not (SDA) and a "Biblical Literalist" I get a bit leery when someone places some special revelation on the same level as what can be read from the Bible or claims some special expertise at eisegesis. Indeed that is why I found the transition to Biblical Naturist views so easy seeing as how those who claim the Bible condemns nudity lack a leg to stand on.

I have no problem with the idea of a Friday night to Saturday night Sabbath rather than some other day.
But first (as you do) I would not be more inclined to "keep it" (whatever that means) because Kermit the Frog says so.
If it isn't in the Bible, it may yet be good advice, but I get nervous when people quote Kermit with equal authority with the Bible.
Secondly, what does it mean to "keep" it?
I had a friend who would not put money in the collection plate at church because that was working on the Sabbath, but back in the day, she would cheerfully put a quarter in a coin slot at a public phone to talk to friends.
Does keeping the Sabbath mean going to church on Friday night?
I guess it means not going to work, but then you get into the issues of modern society and emergency care workers.
I have sabbatarian friends who work in hospitals.
Is it a sin to attend church on Wednesday night for prayer meetings?
Until sabbatarians can clear up the confusion, I can agree with the spirit of what they are trying to do, without making a denomination out of it.
Give God a portion of your week consistently and in practice he gets a portion of every day!

Bare_Truth wrote: However the above cited links are screeds no more sound than SDA teachings and probably more strident than SDA teachings or at least their equal (I am trying to be generous here).

I did not post those links because I agree with everything they claim. But they raise important issues. That's all.

Bare_Truth wrote:I do not base my penchant for being a Sabbath Keeper on any sort of special revelation delivered to some latter day prophet but rather on a historical view of how the establishment of Sunday came about and the eisegesis that was used to support it. I find no major fault in the additional practices that various cults feel are important to adopt that are extra biblical except when they try to equate it to biblical command rather than admit that it is derivative largely from their own attempts to be biblical in their approach to life, and not a demand of God.

Looks like we are not that far apart in our opinion on this one.

Bare_Truth wrote:...Likewise if an SDA thinks it is better to be a vegetarian or some sort of Baptist thinks it is impossible to be righteous if one ever consumes any alcoholic beverage but does not condemn me to hell if I do not agree; then I am not going to be contentious on that point, though I would be comfortable to engage in a respectful discussion on the matter.

There is a SDA offshoot that mandates a vegetarian diet for their members, but while vegetarianism is common among the main denomination, it is not mandatory.
I had a friend who was a junk food vegetarian. She ate candy, refined flour, horribly imbalanced assortment of meatless foods and was content that she was complying with the antediluvian diet.
Her acne was abundant and health overall was pretty bad. She was fooling no one but herself.
I think a vegan diet makes more sense from a health standpoint rather than vegetarian, but even then a vegan diet can be unbalanced and contain too many calories.
A balanced diet probably does reflect good stewardship of the body God gave us, so while I dare not mandate what God does not, I do recommend a healthy diet that is all or mostly vegetables as part of an overall plan to be a faithful steward of the "talent" we are given.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby DaveT » Sat May 21, 2016 11:35 pm

We are told to test the message of a supposed prophet, test it by the previously established Word of God. Not by tradition or a traditionally influenced interpretation of the Word, which a true message may conflict with. Problem is; some people look at passages in the light of tradition without realizing that's what they are doing. What people do is interpret certain passages according to traditional understanding while they ignore some very plain passages elsewhere that say something entirely different. But in all the critical doctrinal points there are enough passages concerning them to establish what truth is. What we need do is gather up everything the Word says on a given subject and lay them out side by side, see where the overall trend is going with it. When I do that; (I have reviewed all the studies of that type and searched the concordance for myself at times) I find the doctrinal elements all line up with what Ellen White advocated and Ernie Knoll's dreams as well, with only an occasional text which seems to support the other side, but not necessarily if the wording is understood slightly different making it agree with all the others. And considering the trend of their message. I've decided they both have to be from a divine source. Although I suppose there's a slight possibility Ernie is still inventing it all, I'd suggest it's a very remote chance of that. Because men of their own will want to be accepted. The message he's writing out is not designed to obtain the favor of many. It's stepping hard on sin, real hard. And as such it follows in the steps of men like Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus Himself. It does not supersede the Bible, rather it reinforces it, lifts it up as the Word of life. And as we can see, neither of them are seeing much better acceptance than those old prophets did in their time. But the test of a true prophet has never been "how many people believe it" or "how many church leaders accept it" We know that Noah was a true prophet and man of God. But how many people believed him and got on the ark? We're told that the end days will be as it was in the days of Noah.

When it comes to the Sunday/Saturday issue, the advocates of Sunday have exceedingly weak arguments in favor of it, with no biblical command to change the day of observance. Seventh day observance has a very direct command in it's favor in the middle of the ten commandments, a history beginning with creation and ending on the earth made new. A command by Jesus instructing his disciples to be careful to observe it 40 years after he was gone. Then we have a historical record of the emperor of rome and the popes making the change in worship days and claiming authority from God for doing so. So if we are a disciple of popes and prelates we should observe Sunday, if a follower of our Creator and Jesus Christ we should observe the sabbath which is Saturday, which we are told to do in recognition of Him as our Creator. There is more to it but it would take much space to delineate it all. Observance of the sabbath is simple, Jesus made it clear that the sick are to be cared for, the animals attended to. All unnecessary work and trade avoided. Those who carry things to an extreme are like the pharisees who Christ condemned for making the sabbath a burden. The Sabbath is to be a delight, a day of rest from work to worship God in social meeting and in nature. As Jesus said "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. We take the few guidelines given in the bible and use some common sense.

Another major point of difference is the doctrine of natural immortality of the soul. Or the consciousness of the soul after death. And it's related doctrine of eternal torment of the unsaved. We're told by both EGW and Ernie that the soul is not immortal, death is a sound sleep from which Jesus wakes us up at the resurrection. And in that agrees with most of what the bible says about it, some passages being very plain. But most of the christian world believes in a naturally immortal soul, which with some examination seems to be supported by a small minority of bible texts on the subject. EGW says it's the extension of satan's first lie to Eve, "ye shall not surly die but become as gods knowing good and evil." (gods are known as immortal, good as in heaven and evil as in hell fire) The immortal soul doctrine brings up many difficulties in understanding other issues, which a mortal soul doctrine eliminates. Such as; why a second coming and resurrection if everyone who died is already in heaven? And making God out to be the worst horrible mean person that ever lived by subjecting his enemies to endless torment. And a diligent examination of it indicates it originated with paganism. Look at the terminology associated with the fate of the wicked, it's pretty much all terminal terms. A very plain one states "the wicked shall be burned up, they shall be ashes under your feet" Even that most used text John 3:16 mentions the fate of the wicked in the word "perish". That's terminal, tortured in hell fire forever is not perishing. Therefore, discarding tradition and taking the weight of evidence, and taking those few texts that seem out of harmony to mean eternal results rather than eternal duration of hell fire. I see harmony between the Bible and the more recent writings. Although it's the less popular view for sure. It's the one that makes the most sense by far, all things considered.

We may have drifted too far from the topic at hand, spreading the message of social nudism among Christians. So back to that. It's going to be difficult to get very far very fast with it. It's a truth that contradicts and cancels error when applied. But is the kind of thing that is mistaken for error by many Christians who make assumptions according to tradition and don't study the subject. (same as those other topics I just dealt with) It's been said the path of truth lies close beside the path of error, and only by the Word of God can the two paths be discerned. That is as true for nudism as for any truth. Since sexual nakedness called pornography and nonsexual nakedness are not differentiated until the difference of intent is discerned. It's been said error runs around the block while truth is getting it shoes on. Truth seems to have much opposition wherever it resides and has difficulty making headway against it, but that shouldn't be a surprise. We have a very determined enemy, a fallen angel who hates Jesus for throwing him out of heaven, and tries his best to get back at him through whatever means he can. The enemy who's name was Lucifer was once the covering cherub, he stood next to God's throne, was the no 1 in command below Christ. Because of his high position there, he was trusted implicitly by all the other angels. Making the unmasking of his deceptions the more difficult. All intelligent inhabitants in the universe must see the full results of satan's kingdom before God can safely destroy him and his sympathizers without risk of sin again arising somewhere. That plus God's efforts to rescue everyone he possibly can from this world, is why this world of sin and evil continues. But from a study of prophecy, and considering current events how they are definitely trending toward the fulfillment of the prophesied end time scenario. We see the end of all things evil to be close at hand. At which time the issues will be resolved. Naked versus clothed will cease to be an issue. With the garden of Eden restored to us, Adam and Eve reinstated in it, and all his children (including ourselves if we are faithful to the truth) Being void of our earthly garments will be a pleasure for everyone, even those who are frightened of being naked here. Because no sin will exist, and that feeling of shame that began when Adam and Eve sinned will be forever removed from our minds. EGW tells us that prior to the flood God took the original garden of Eden to heaven to preserve it as a sample of his original creation, and when Adam and Eve are resurrected they are taken back to it, and how happy they will be as looking around they see the great multitude of his family saved, and yet humbled by the sacrifice their Redeemer made to restore it and rescue them from sin. And we can be there to enjoy it with him if we are faithful.
User avatar
DaveT
Native Resident
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: TN

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Bare_Truth » Sun May 22, 2016 12:37 am

DaveT wrote:We are told to test the message of a supposed prophet, test it by the previously established Word of God. Not by tradition or a traditionally influenced interpretation of the Word, which a true message may conflict with. Problem is; some people look at passages in the light of tradition without realizing that's what they are doing. What people do is interpret certain passages according to traditional understanding while they ignore some very plain passages elsewhere that say something entirely different.

:roll: :lol: I find it a little more than ironic that such a point has to be made on a Naturist Christian web site seeing as how what you have just described is how traditional textile Christians treat the scriptures that we see as not prohibiting and even promoting naturism.

As a sabbatarian Christian your arguments in favor of the of the Sabbath vs Sunday are all quite familiar to me and of course they are largely the same and lead me to the same conclusion as to what my weekly practice should be. But in contrast I find no need for a prophet to convince me of that, and nothing more than a teacher to point out to me the relevant scriptures and issues. I think the rub comes in when some try to reason from those scriptures in ways that they reinforce with prophecies.

Of course I think that while Sabbath observance is a doctrine that will single out a person who holds to it, Being an SDA adds a whole lot more than just the Sabbath. And I struggle to see why the extra is necessary, Also at the same time I read in leviticus 23 and find:
Moses recorded God's instructions for days of religious observance in Leviticus 23 where Moses wrote:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
And right first off God names the weekly Sabbath but he does not stop there but goes on to also specify 7 other "Annual Sabbaths (Holy Convocations) that occur throughout the rest of the year. Now since he says that these are HIS sabbaths/feasts/holyconvocations, i.e. not Jewish or Israelite etc. it looks a bit curious if one just picks the weekly ones and skips all the others. After all even a light reading of the Gospels will show that Jesus was observing the Annual Sabbaths. Sunday Keepers can at least point to an explanation that they believe the council of Nicea had the authority to change the observed days. It does rather make a Sabbath keeper look like the one who is picking and choosing according to his own tastes. Now a prophet(ess) could be a basis of such a choice but I would have to allow that it should be someone with credentials comparable to Moses.

Now if you followed my posts on the NC site you might know that I suggested that Bill Martin might act as an apologist and explain Quakerism to the rest of us. And he did a good job and without preaching at us but merely stated how Quakerism was structured and how it arrived at doctrinal positions or practices and the like. But being well informed still he did not preach at us, he just told us what Quakers do without trying to make Quakers out of the rest of us.

I do not think that anyone here really wants to see this site turned into a "Mars Hill" or a "Soap Box Corner" But a bit of Apologetics might be in order, (for any not fully familiar with that theological term, perhaps reviewing on Wikipedia would help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics ) Of course if that is too likely be beyond the scope of this web site then perhaps Natman can chime in.

If it is to be done, I think it really deserves to be done in a strip of its own As it will likely be a sizable chunk of text, then that does not really fit in any of the other strips. Of course in keeping with the theme of this web site it would probably be quite important to express how well accepted naturism is within the SDA community and Church.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Ramblinman » Sun May 22, 2016 5:32 pm

DaveT wrote: When it comes to the Sunday/Saturday issue, the advocates of Sunday have exceedingly weak arguments in favor of it, with no biblical command to change the day of observance.

I have never argued for a Sunday Sabbath, but neither do I argue for a Friday/Saturday Sabbath. By the way, a lot of people think the Sabbath falls on Saturday and that isn't exactly true.
The Bible says to let no one judge you on sabbath keeping. One man esteems one day above other days and others esteem all days alike.
God will need his time, so you can't really avoid the spirit of that commandment and work yourself to death or live a life of selfish pleasure.

I used to dread the Sabbath. I was always trying to thread the needle with my legalistic friends with park admission fees, donation plates and credit card purchases. And at church we found ourselves at an endless series of meetings and classes that filled the day and I would go to bed exhausted. Sunday rest was blessed relief from those overworked sabbaths.

DaveT wrote:Another major point of difference is the doctrine of natural immortality of the soul. Or the consciousness of the soul after death. And it's related doctrine of eternal torment of the unsaved. We're told by both EGW and Ernie that the soul is not immortal, death is a sound sleep from which Jesus wakes us up at the resurrection. And in that agrees with most of what the bible says about it, some passages being very plain.

I don't condemn those who believe this doctrine of soul death, but I believe the Bible says otherwise. This is one of those things that someone can misunderstand and not lose his salvation over.


DaveT wrote:...Being void of our earthly garments will be a pleasure for everyone, even those who are frightened of being naked here. Because no sin will exist, and that feeling of shame that began when Adam and Eve sinned will be forever removed from our minds.

Not every culture on Earth retained Adam and Eve's shame. That does not mean we know that their motivation for nudity is innocent, but for some peoples living in remote areas apart from western culture, they are born naked, die naked and are naked every moment in between, but typically have strict rules of etiquette between men and women in the total absence of clothing. The same can be said for nudists. We have our bad apples, but our culture keeps sex private and nudity is just nudity. Bad apples are usually shown the door very quickly in my corner of the world.

Back to topic, I would strongly encourage others to work with Christians about becoming nudist.
American nudism had large numbers of Christians in its early days and we are still very much a presence in my part of the US at the nudist campground.
I meet Christians, sometimes even pastors and their wives every time I go to a nudist place.

We are often misunderstood, but I have encountered some people who respond immediately to an invitation to consider innocent family nudity and others need more time and patience.
Those people who are worthy of your trust deserve a chance to hear about this better way of life.
I know of one couple who kept naturism completely hidden from their children on the chance that they might blab about it.
That's a high price to make your kids pay.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby jochanaan » Mon May 23, 2016 11:09 am

Bare_Truth wrote:


As a "Sabbatarian" Christian, not (SDA) and a "Biblical Literalist" I get a bit leery when someone places some special revelation on the same level as what can be read from the Bible or claims some special expertise at eisegesis. Indeed that is why I found the transition to Biblical Naturist views so easy seeing as how those who claim the Bible condemns nudity lack a leg to stand on.

However the above cited links are screeds no more sound than SDA teachings and probably more strident than SDA teachings or at least their equal (I am trying to be generous here).

I do not base my penchant for being a Sabbath Keeper on any sort of special revelation delivered to some latter day prophet but rather on a historical view of how the establishment of Sunday came about and the eisegesis that was used to support it. I find no major fault in the additional practices that various cults feel are important to adopt that are extra biblical except when they try to equate it to biblical command rather than admit that it is derivative largely from their own attempts to be biblical in their approach to life, and not a demand of God.

So for instance, if the Amish think it is necessary (for them!) to live a simple life without the high technology of today, I find no offence so long as they do not relegate to HELL those who make use of it, (e.g. does You Tube really aid one in living a righteous and holy life ???). Likewise if an SDA thinks it is better to be a vegetarian or some sort of Baptist thinks it is impossible to be righteous if one ever consumes any alcoholic beverage but does not condemn me to hell if I do not agree; then I am not going to be contentious on that point, though I would be comfortable to engage in a respectful discussion on the matter.

It is one thing to wish to share the gospel but an odious perversion to try to conquer another person for self aggrandizement of having a "righteous ego trip" (that is an oxymoron! and not the only moron involved in such an event :wink: ). Launching into a vitriolic screed is more likely to "send someone to hell" than to rescue them from it!

Standing for something that is right is very different from trying to stuff one's "personal view of right" down the throat of another.

I think the message of Christ more emphasizes being a LAMB than a RAM! I would hate to see disruptive division and contention stirred up here. If we remember to nuance that the pronouncements of various persons are ones that we hold in esteem, be they our pope, prophet, saint or seer, and we do not imply that everyone must necessarily esteem them and we therefore do not speak as if everyone else must hear them we will be a lot less contentious than the radical Muslims who go nuts if we do not speak in glowing terms of their beloved Mohammed.
:like:
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby jochanaan » Mon May 23, 2016 11:25 am

Somehow we must get past most Christians' reluctance to examine thoroughly what the Bible says, and does not say, about nakedness. Any of us can make an eloquent, Biblically sound defense of our beliefs and practices--if they let us speak. There's the rub.
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 23, 2016 2:02 pm

jochanaan wrote:Somehow we must get past most Christians' reluctance to examine thoroughly what the Bible says, and does not say, about nakedness. Any of us can make an eloquent, Biblically sound defense of our beliefs and practices--if they let us speak. There's the rub.


We have to be on our A-game socially. People tend to listen worse in a group, unless you are with another naturist both working to convince a non-naturist.
I was with a hiking club, ran into an old friend of mine and told her I was a naturist. She went, "huh?"
And oddly enough, a girl on the trail with us overheard and did a better job explaining than I could, and said, "You should really try it sometime!"
My friend is very open-minded and an artist, used to working with nude models, so it is not a quantum leap for her.
I don't know if she ever tried it, but she certainly learned a lot more about nudism that day.

In the minds of some, Nudism is so loaded with the "yuck factor" that you really want to keep conversations like that private.

In my own case, I reached a point where I was sure of the concept of nudism, but I wasn't sure if the campground lived up to the ideals.
It took me a couple of years to work up the courage to give it a try.
On the odd chance that a place is not as family-friendly as they claim, you could simply leave.
But generally the wild places make that abundantly clear and family-friendly places go out of their way to avoid scandal and evict rude people right away.

But as ideal as a nudist resort can be once you are sold on the concept, for some, a nude beach or a secluded beach that can accommodate nudity may be easier to try.
If you get a group of friends skinny dipping on a regular basis, comfortable with mixed nudity...
turning to social nudity at an official nudist venue should not be that big a leap as long as a camp or resort is within easy drive.

The biggest adjustment for me was home nudity at our non-landed club and this was well after I had been going to nudist camp for a couple of summers.
A female friend of mine from work invited me to spend an evening nude with her (non-sexual), but it was way too intimate a setting for my comfort.
I was on the rebound from a previous relationship and not ready to start dating again, but this woman was very, very attractive, single, common interests.
I declined. Maybe if she and I had gotten used to socializing clothed at her home, I would have eventually accepted the idea of social nudity, but I still had traces of textile attitude that needed to work out.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Lets expand Christian Social Nudism - Idea

Postby jochanaan » Mon May 23, 2016 7:45 pm

Ramblinman wrote:We have to be on our A-game socially. People tend to listen worse in a group...you really want to keep conversations like that private....
I have good social skills, and when I've brought it up it has indeed been in private. Some family and leaders still won't listen, and in fact will say things to me they'd not dare say in public.
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

PreviousNext

Return to General conversation about nudism / naturism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron