Personal, Denominational/congregational, Non-Conformity

[nakedpreacher]

don't know how long, If it is presented as a teaching exercise it should be completely acceptable to administration. there are many professors who use this device, though not with the subject of nudity. too many students simply get bored and drop out if they are not shaken up from time to time. there seems to be a critical point at which they must be challenged or they just fall away. many Christians never reach this point, but is common to the point of ubiquity with bible college students. we will see.
naked preacher

[Ramblinman]

don't know how long, If it is presented as a teaching exercise it should be completely acceptable to administration. there are many professors who use this device, though not with the subject of nudity. too many students simply get bored and drop out if they are not shaken up from time to time. there seems to be a critical point at which they must be challenged or they just fall away. many Christians never reach this point, but is common to the point of ubiquity with bible college students. we will see.
naked preacher

My high school sociology teacher did this very thing!
He asked us, "If children attended a school in which nudity were mandatory and started from the time they were six years old, they spent the entire day together totally naked every day for their entire school career, up to age 18, would nudity between the sexes still be a "big deal"? Or would it be nothing at all?

After a few gasps and one or two exclamations, "I could NEVER do that!", he said, "You are thinking as an outsider looking in on a way of life you have never lived".

The exercise was to try to stop seeing other cultures from the perspective of the observer, but accept that some of the basic concepts of our society are seen differently by different cultures. The teacher used nudity deliberately for its shock value, but he was trying to show us that we are all guilty of cultural bias in some fashion or another.

I don't know how successful he was in making his point. I guess he was partially, because it was one of many things to help me at least contemplate the possibility of an alternate society, one in which no one wore clothes and did so without any shame or sexual connotation.

This was at a public high school. There was never any hue and outcry about this. It was simply a hypothetical question; he used no literal images of nudity and made no specific anatomical references.

So would seminary students or even students in a Bible class say about moving to a society where nudity was the norm and being naked themselves the most effective way of reaching this naked culture with the gospel message?
Would they refuse to share the gospel because the "pagans" were not decently dressed?

[Petros]

I have no idea how well the admin would accept it IF there were no student complaints.
I do know:

Once I was asked to take on a colleague's class in a subject we both taught. The assigned topic was tied to a section of textbook that gave a very misleading statement of the facts. My session with the group had me showing them - with numerous incontrovertible proofs - how the textbook was WRONG. Dismay from the students [the types who like my colleagues style enough to stick it do not care for mine, and vice versa]. I was never asked to stand in again, and soon was barred from teaching the subject altogether.

Students may need to be shaken up - but most do not want to be challenged or expanded, and increasingly colleagues and administrators do not care to see education going on.

[Bare_Truth]

Petros, I would love to hear a bit more about what the subject was that you shook them up about!

Ramblingman, & nakedpreacher. The problem is that if you raise a controversial subject (whether it should be controversial or not) people will ask why you are even talking about that. What if in Rambling man's example Several of us here had students in public school and several times the teacher posed such questions about homosexuality. How many of us would be concerned about what this teacher had his mind focused on ??? If a teacher hits a "buzzword topic" especially if done more than once, people, especially parents will get suspicious.

A topic that I have personally researched is the current progress of zoophilia in our society. Most people have such a 'YUCK factor" reaction to the topic that I feel I have to be careful about mentioning it. They may suspect me of nefarious interest, and I understand that. However my interest in tracking the topic is that I perceive that our society is on a downward slide with respect to Biblical morality. And from what I have seen the Zoophile community is using the same play book as the Homosexual community developed. And frankly I suspect that is the way things are going to go, unless the rest of us get ahead of the curve and head it off, (which I think is not likely but one could hope for a revival.) As the nation becomes more humanist, there are no good humanist arguments against zoophilia.
-- There is a flurry of activity to justify prosecuting it under animal abuse laws. But those arguments are specious and flimsy when applied to a "loving caring committed zoophile relationship" (the wording here sounds very parallel to that used by the homosexuals does it not)
-- And the "consent arguments" are equally specious" when talking about a species lacking speech but still possessing body language, and species which may actually start such an encounter.

God has reasons that he condemns zoophilia, but the humanists don't believe in God, and the biblically weak do not argue effectively.

So then consider applying the same "shake them up" strategy to the school, teacher-class interaction should you posit a society in which zoophilia as a common component of a way of life. How long do you think you would last?

There are few that I can comfortably raise the next steeper slope of the moral toboggan slide with, without stirring suspicion and even then I must do it carefully. Yet how else can I cite the danger of where our society is headed. How long before this society is fully comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I realize that "strange flesh" is interpreted other ways, but I think it has to be arguably inclusive of animals if not exclusively that meaning. It certainly would be consistent with other ancient information about pagan religion such as reports of practices at Mendes in Egypt involving sex with goats to achieve fertility.

[jasenj1]

God has reasons that he condemns zoophilia, but the humanists don't believe in God, and the biblically weak do not argue effectively.

Once you cut your morality loose from a "higher power" there are no boundaries. There are entire wings of philosophy related to that - I'm sure Petros could comment at length.

[Bare_Truth]

Ok, Petros, jasenj1 has invoked your cue.

[jochanaan]

my hope is to obtain my M.Div. and teach at a denominational college. I plan on using naturism as a challenging point to kind of rock those beliefs into which they have been raised. these are valuable learning experiences which shake all that can be shaken (Doctrines of men) so that only that which can not be shaken (true gospel) remains. I had a professor in college who reveled in reading the complaints brought against him to the academic dean. one read "Prof. E.H. denies the deity of God", which is self contradictory once you call him God you have deified him. What he did was to show the stupidity of man made doctrine so that true doctrine would shine all the more. I hope to have many such complaints against myself where I teach. If some not finding biblical injunctions against nudity reason that simple nudity is permissible and even desirable then I will not argue. what do I hope to accomplish? creating pastors who, when confronted with a naturist church member do not freak out and boot them from the church. If not naturist pastors, at least naturist tolerant ones. baby steps
Naked Preacher

I wish you well. But I know of at least one cautionary example. In my alma mater, a conservative college sponsored by the Church of the Nazarene, one religion professor lost his job because he was open to the possibility of speaking in tongues, which the church did not recognize as valid. He didn't advocate it; he was merely open to it, yet he still was asked to go elsewhere. And he was a very well-liked professor, one of the best they had.

[Petros]

Them's the worst kind. Not only have they no real motive for changing their stance, if they are student appreciated their insidious heresies may corrupt more students.

Professor A: cordially despised in his field, terrible administrator, serious personality issues, thoroughly orthodox, decent teacher in less valued subject: asked NOT to serve as chair, but long and prestigious career.

Professor B: competent in his field but not productive, decent administrator, really bad teacher, actively pro or con particular students, unimaginative but thoroughly orthodox, long and prestigious career.

Professor C: Mouth without substance - a laughing stock in the discipline, mediocre teacher and administrator, far from productive, thoroughly orthodox, long and prestigious career.

Professor D: Productive researcher, conscientious administrator, teacher reaching and holding some if not all, highly unorthodox - fired once but reinstated thanks to Professor E, later pressured toward leaving, which eventually I did.

[Petros]

Not that I have any cynicism or bitterness - simply observation.

[Petros]

Ok, Petros, jasenj1 has invoked your cue.

I shall essay to respond - but "at length" will not be instantaneous

[jasenj1]

Ok, Petros, jasenj1 has invoked your cue.

I shall essay to respond - but "at length" will not be instantaneous

My intention was not to create work for Petros, but to comment that the subject has been thoroughly researched and discussed in academic circles. A wee bit of Googling I'm sure would come up with volumes on the topic. I'm sure Petros could write something better than many of them, but the topic is well covered outside of this forum.

[Petros]

One does not in fact require volumes of current research.

If I were to prepare a statement, it would begin in Judges 17:6:

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

And continue through Luke 6:47:
Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it
fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

[Ramblinman]

...I wish you well. But I know of at least one cautionary example. In my alma mater, a conservative college sponsored by the Church of the Nazarene, one religion professor lost his job because he was open to the possibility of speaking in tongues, which the church did not recognize as valid. He didn't advocate it; he was merely open to it, yet he still was asked to go elsewhere. And he was a very well-liked professor, one of the best they had.

If tongues has always been Satanic, then what happened in the Upper Room in Acts chapter 2 was a baptism of Satan and all of Christendom was founded by Satan.

If however tongues were of God back then, but the Bible does not clearly teach that tongues have ceased, then we still do not have permission to say that any current manifestations of it are Satanic or at least misguided.

If the Nazarenes are calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of Satan, are they not guilty of the unpardonable sin, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and thus the Nazarene denomination is the Apostate Church of the anti-Christ?

But let's say the Nazarenes are correct, let's assume that speaking in tongues in this dispensation is misguided, sinful or even the hallmark of demon possession.
Was the professor treated as a brother in Christ who needed correction, dialog or treated as a dangerous heretic?
Is this in itself not a deep, deep problem that could manifest in countless other purges in the Nazarene cult?

[jochanaan]

...I wish you well. But I know of at least one cautionary example. In my alma mater, a conservative college sponsored by the Church of the Nazarene, one religion professor lost his job because he was open to the possibility of speaking in tongues, which the church did not recognize as valid. He didn't advocate it; he was merely open to it, yet he still was asked to go elsewhere. And he was a very well-liked professor, one of the best they had.

If tongues has always been Satanic, then what happened in the Upper Room in Acts chapter 2 was a baptism of Satan and all of Christendom was founded by Satan.

If however tongues were of God back then, but the Bible does not clearly teach that tongues have ceased, then we still do not have permission to say that any current manifestations of it are Satanic or at least misguided.

If the Nazarenes are calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of Satan, are they not guilty of the unpardonable sin, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and thus the Nazarene denomination is the Apostate Church of the anti-Christ?

But let's say the Nazarenes are correct, let's assume that speaking in tongues in this dispensation is misguided, sinful or even the hallmark of demon possession.
Was the professor treated as a brother in Christ who needed correction, dialog or treated as a dangerous heretic?
Is this in itself not a deep, deep problem that could manifest in countless other purges in the Nazarene cult?

Why do you think I'm no longer a Nazarene? -- To be sure, many individual Nazarenes are good people who understand and live God's grace; but there is indeed an overemphasis on church authority among the Nazarene hierarchy. (Disclaimer: I haven't been actively involved in the Nazarene church for more than thirty years, so it may have grown and become more gracious, or at least relaxed some of its Special Rules during that time.)