Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Here you can discuss differences in belief between different denominations, or other religions and Christianity. This is an informational forum. Always be courteous and polite, and respect other people's views and values.<P>Permanent Residents may only reply to posts here; Native Residents may initiate & reply to posts here.

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

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby natman » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:49 pm

bn2bnude wrote:We are to judge this INSIDE the church and let God judge those outside.


Agreed! :like:

bn2bnude wrote:How many of the people that Jesus personally forgave actually "repented" prior to (or a record of after for that matter) being forgiven.

Not that Paul doesn't mention repentance but we seem to put a much heavier weight on it than Jesus did. If that is so, why?


I'm not sure. It seems to me that whenever Jesus talked to a sinner, He closed His conversations with "Go and sin no more." (repent).
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Bare_Truth » Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:09 pm

As I read the gospels, it was neither correct doctrine nor repentance that was required but simply faith. When he healed the man with palsy in the presence of his critics. He simply said, thy sins be forgiven thee. (Mark 2:9) The centurion with the sick servant was not known to be of the Israelite religion but was praised for his great faith (Matthew 8:5). Nor the woman with the flow of blood was healed by any direct action of Jesus but through her great faith (Matthew 9:20) And while those are all healings, The man sick of the palsy I first cited make a link between forgiveness and healing.
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: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Ramblinman » Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:58 pm

Bare_Truth wrote:As I read the gospels, it was neither correct doctrine nor repentance that was required but simply faith. When he healed the man with palsy in the presence of his critics. He simply said, thy sins be forgiven thee. (Mark 2:9) The centurion with the sick servant was not known to be of the Israelite religion but was praised for his great faith (Matthew 8:5). Nor the woman with the flow of blood was healed by any direct action of Jesus but through her great faith (Matthew 9:20) And while those are all healings, The man sick of the palsy I first cited make a link between forgiveness and healing.

I think a simple online Bible search using "repent" or "repentance" as a keyword will find plenty of New Testament admonitions to repent.

In Matthew 22:29, Jesus said to the Sadducees, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God".

In II TImothy 2:15, Paul admonished, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth".

In James 1:22, James says, "... But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ... But
be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. ... ".

baretruth you used the word "required" and it is an orphan verb, lacking a noun. If the noun is salvation, then, yes, one could argue that salvation is not caused by works, but is merely evidenced by works. Sometimes God is the only one who sees the evidence, but quite often we see changes in the life of the redeemed after salvation, marking his progress toward the likeness of Christ.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:27 pm

Ramblinman wrote:baretruth you used the word "required" and it is an orphan verb, lacking a noun.
Sorry if I caused confusion there. I was at the time responding to the immediately previous post, particularly the last part where both Natman's comments on the quotes from born2bnude and those quotes had a focus on repentance before or after forgiveness.

So perhaps my words should have been, "it was neither correct doctrine nor repentance that was required to receive forgiveness "

I am quite sure that the Roman Soldiers pounding the nails through Christ's hands and feet, were not particularly repentant when Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Roman soldiers were known to be largely a brutal lot and I have no expectation that those particular ones, ever came to repentance or knowledge of correct doctrine (with the possible exception of the ones that made the remark as noted in Matthew 27:54, if in the end they held to it. I believe that Christ's statement in that case was an act of mercy to spare these ignorant misguided brutes from the wrath of God for their actions which were probably no worse than many other Roman soldiers had wrought on other victims.

Repentance, so far as I am aware, is rarely if ever a requirement for our obligation to forgive others.

Likewise when Christ forgave the sins of the man sick of the palsy there is no evidence presented that the cripple repented of anything.

Repentance is a necessary step for one who answers the call from God, but I am not aware that repentance is needed to receive that call. And how cold it be? seeing as so many of us do not even know what it is we need to repent of when we are called.

Jesus' position on foregivness was quite clear when in Chapter 6 and verse 15 Matthew wrote: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
It would appear that there is no act one needs to carry out receive forgiveness but there is a an act that is a distinct impediment if one fails to give forgiveness.
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: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby natman » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:42 am

Bare_Truth wrote:As I read the gospels, it was neither correct doctrine nor repentance that was required but simply faith.


Faith in what or whom?

The problem with that statement is that, in reality, it is VERY important in Whom we place our faith, no matter how simple that faith is. Faith in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, our parents, the president or any other human being or false deity will never save us. Even when we say we have faith in "Jesus", it is important to know "WHO" Jesus is in order that our faith is not place in some contrivance of what we THINK Jesus is, such as the Great Genie who always fixes everything and wouldn't ever dream of letting anyone go through suffering or hardship and wants all his followers to be multimillionaires.

Bare_Truth wrote:When he healed the man with palsy in the presence of his critics. He simply said, thy sins be forgiven thee. (Mark 2:9) The centurion with the sick servant was not known to be of the Israelite religion but was praised for his great faith (Matthew 8:5). Nor the woman with the flow of blood was healed by any direct action of Jesus but through her great faith (Matthew 9:20) And while those are all healings, The man sick of the palsy I first cited make a link between forgiveness and healing.


The problem with these examples is that we do not have the full story on all of them and that these healings are all recorded to show Jesus power over sin, suffering and death, particularly in the face of the Pharisees and Jewish leaders. The fact that these people even approached Jesus may indicate that they had some sort of relationship with Him prior to or after that is simply not recorded.

Further, I did not say that "repentance" is "required" for forgiveness nor for salvation. The question was, "How many of the people that Jesus personally forgave actually "repented" prior to (or a record of after for that matter) being forgiven?" I pointed out that many times Jesus ended His conversation about forgiveness by saying "Go and sin no more." The fact that it is not recorded in "ALL" of His cases of forgiving sin and healing does not necessarily mean that He did not say it, as "repentance" was not the key focus of the event.

However, Paul seems to make it clear that, once we are saved and forgiven, that we are not to continue in the sins we have been forgiven of with impunity. That does not mean that we will NEVER sin again or even that we will NEVER commit those same sins again, but that we do not allow those sins to define us.

The question in this forum is whether a "Christian" naturist society can be formed, and if so, then what will it look like.

In my (not so) humble opinion, it should like like a microcosm of the larger Church itself, albeit without clothing as a central tenet. As such, it's members should comply with Biblical Christian principles, including proper Church discipline. Meaning that all are welcome, but those living in overt sin, whether it is sexual immorality (including homosexuality, adultery, whoremongering, beastiality or incest), idolatry, thievery, lying, murder (including abortion), false teaching and false prophesy, then they are to be excommunicated until such time as they repent of their sins and seek forgiveness and refellowship, as described in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. If they never repent, then we will have done what God has commanded us to do and God will sort it out. However, we are to always leave the door open if they do.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby bn2bnude » Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:49 am

natman wrote:
bn2bnude wrote:We are to judge this INSIDE the church and let God judge those outside.


Agreed! :like:

bn2bnude wrote:How many of the people that Jesus personally forgave actually "repented" prior to (or a record of after for that matter) being forgiven.

Not that Paul doesn't mention repentance but we seem to put a much heavier weight on it than Jesus did. If that is so, why?


I'm not sure. It seems to me that whenever Jesus talked to a sinner, He closed His conversations with "Go and sin no more." (repent).

I agree, but we seem to mix up the order.... We want repentance before "salvation" or it's often not viewed as genuine.
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Bare_Truth » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:29 am

natman wrote:.......
In my (not so) humble opinion, it should like like a microcosm of the larger Church itself, albeit without clothing as a central tenet. As such, it's members should comply with Biblical Christian principles, including proper Church discipline. Meaning that all are welcome, but those living in overt sin, whether it is sexual immorality (including homosexuality, adultery, whoremongering, beastiality or incest), idolatry, thievery, lying, murder (including abortion), false teaching and false prophesy, then they are to be excommunicated until such time as they repent of their sins and seek forgiveness and refellowship, as described in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. If they never repent, then we will have done what God has commanded us to do and God will sort it out. However, we are to always leave the door open if they do.

:like:
I believe you have done an excellent job of defining an acceptable and functional category of membership. And you have done so on a behavioral basis. however I believe that you have left out an important category. Would you be willing to include those who do not do such things but nevertheless promote those behaviors. I think not, if we are to include the admonition in the last half of Romans 1:32
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
-- not only do the same,
but
-- have pleasure in them that do them.

So if a well behaved atheist advocated zoosexuality for those who could not find a spouse, I would think that person ought also be excluded, (and more realistically) those who advocate Abortion on demand for any reason. Advocacy of a sin is potentially as bad if not worse than the sin itself. The advocacy of the practice or toleration of a sin is classed as just as evil as the commission of the sin itself.

----------------- and now the other part of the problem --------------------

The title of this strip starts off with an auxiliary verb "Could". It is used to query a conditional possibility or ability.

Such a society as Natman has defined could be accused of being discriminatory. And of course that is just the point. It gets into the issues of freedom of religious belief and worship versus Free Exercise of Religion. So has our culture gone so far that it would be effectively impossible or a prosecutable offense, or a likely victim of successful litigation. If such a "Christian Naturist Society" existed would it be treated as a social pariah by the other organizations, particularly Naturist organizations. Would it be treated like the Ku Klux Klan Or would the courts come to their senses and realize what the "Free Exercise" terminology of the 1st Amendment really means? And if it could exist in the U.S. could/would it be accepted elsewhere.
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: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby prairieboy » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:02 am

Part of our problem is with the word repent. In the past it has often been thought of as being sorry for what we have done. I believe that the church generally is moving towards a more correct definition of changing of the mind. As such, should a Christian society of any type ("normal" church, or naturist) withhold membership from a new believer who advocates for access to abortion? Or should they be allowed a period of time to study the Word in order to renew their mind. There are well intentioned Christians who believe that this is a social-political issue, and not a spiritual issue. If and when they actually begin to study the Word, and allow the Holy Spirit to teach them, and have their mind renewed, they will come to see abortion as it really is. But do we withhold fellowship until then?
prairieboy
Native Resident
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Bare_Truth » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:21 am

prairieboy wrote:....As such, should a Christian society of any type ("normal" church, or naturist) withhold membership from a new believer who advocates for access to abortion? ...If and when they actually begin to study the Word, and allow the Holy Spirit to teach them, and have their mind renewed, they will come to see abortion as it really is. But do we withhold fellowship until then?


I think that the terms catechumen vs member is a relevant concept here although catechumen carries a lot of formal baggage with it. The terms "probationary member" versus "full member" are probably a better concept. Tentative extension of fellowship seems appropriate. Go to a naturist resort for the first time and see if they do not treat you differently until they have checked you out. It just makes good sense.
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: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby natman » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:18 am

Bare_Truth wrote:
natman wrote:.......
In my (not so) humble opinion, it should like like a microcosm of the larger Church itself, albeit without clothing as a central tenet. As such, it's members should comply with Biblical Christian principles, including proper Church discipline. Meaning that all are welcome, but those living in overt sin, whether it is sexual immorality (including homosexuality, adultery, whoremongering, beastiality or incest), idolatry, thievery, lying, murder (including abortion), false teaching and false prophesy, then they are to be excommunicated until such time as they repent of their sins and seek forgiveness and refellowship, as described in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. If they never repent, then we will have done what God has commanded us to do and God will sort it out. However, we are to always leave the door open if they do.

:like:
I believe you have done an excellent job of defining an acceptable and functional category of membership. And you have done so on a behavioral basis. however I believe that you have left out an important category. Would you be willing to include those who do not do such things but nevertheless promote those behaviors. I think not, if we are to include the admonition in the last half of Romans 1:32


I believe that is covered under the "false teachings" category.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby natman » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:23 am

prairieboy wrote:...should a Christian society of any type ("normal" church, or naturist) withhold membership from a new believer who advocates for access to abortion? Or should they be allowed a period of time to study the Word in order to renew their mind.


I do not think that "membership" should be denied to ANYONE who desires to be a "member". However, "fellowship" (perhaps being a "member in good standing") can and should be denied to those who are unrepentant sinners, including those who advocate for abortion (murder).
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Petros » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:13 am

A problem I see [after this discussion not the only one] is that this assumes an institutional vetting person or committee.Which is not arguably needed - I as individual [a status I claim] can and do pursue fellowhip with those with whom I feel rapport, and avoid fellowship with others - the windbag with the pointless stories, the punk panting at every glimpse of tanned hide, the swine who pushes into the middle of the queue, and the rest of Koko's little list.

But an Acceptability Tribunal - quis custodiet ipsos custodes? They may exclude the lascivious, but what down the road stops them pushing me out [as happened at the U] for holding unacceptable views on the Eucharist? Alright, at the U the issue was not the Eucharist, but you know what I mean.

Ah yes, Groucho - I would never join a club that would accept me as a member [precise wording not checked].
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: 5584
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Ramblinman » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:30 am

natman wrote:
prairieboy wrote:...should a Christian society of any type ("normal" church, or naturist) withhold membership from a new believer who advocates for access to abortion? Or should they be allowed a period of time to study the Word in order to renew their mind.


I do not think that "membership" should be denied to ANYONE who desires to be a "member". However, "fellowship" (perhaps being a "member in good standing") can and should be denied to those who are unrepentant sinners, including those who advocate for abortion (murder).

I have totally lost track of what kind of membership we are talking about. The visible church? The invisible church? A naturist campground?
But maybe it doesn't matter, at least in terms of human institutions...

I recall the case of Antelope Oregon where the town was flooded with new immigrants, devotees of some bizarre Indian guru, overwhelming the local populace with voters whose votes were consistent with the beliefs of their cult and destructive to the lives of the original baffled inhabitants.

The Church has likewise been overwhelmed by Gnostics, Arians, followers of "The Queen of Heaven" relabeled as "The Virgin Mary", any number of perversions over the years. I suppose that no plan is foolproof, but if there are no criteria for church membership, you'd have a body of Christ in name only, so badly infiltrated by people with their own Satanic agenda, personal vendetta or money-making scheme.

One final example: I know of more than one naturist venue overwhelmed by people with a sexual agenda. Most of these places started as family-friendly venues, but somehow lost control.

Back to church orthodoxy:
Protestant churches run the gamut from highly hierarchical in much the same way that the Roman Catholic Church is, to churches run at the local level by force of "Might makes right" democracy.

As long as church tradition does not get an equal footing with scripture, there is some restraining influence to having a creed, statement of doctrine that is essentially immutable, and having tight control over pastoral appointments, perhaps even to requiring orthodoxy of seminary graduates to limit candidates to those who conform to church doctrine.

As goes the doctrinal beliefs of these graduates, so go the sermons and lesson plans of every congregation in that denomination.

Local congregations can dissent from heresy (I am a former member of a congregation that did just that), but we have seen heretical congregations dissenting from orthodoxy.

If we manage to manage to find a way to guarantee orthodoxy on this forum, I would be most pleased (and quite surprised). :biggrin:
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby Bare_Truth » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:57 am

natman wrote:
Bare_Truth wrote:
natman wrote:.......
Meaning that all are welcome, but those living in overt sin, whether it is sexual immorality (including homosexuality, adultery, whoremongering, beastiality or incest), idolatry, thievery, lying, murder (including abortion), false teaching and false prophesy, ....
..... I believe that you have left out an important category. Would you be willing to include those who do not do such things but nevertheless promote those behaviors. I think not, if we are to include the admonition in the last half of Romans 1:32
I believe that is covered under the "false teachings" category.
I think you have pointed out to me an otherwise obvious meaning that I missed through a mental quirk.

Somehow "false teachings" is a term that has always registered in my thought as referring to variant forms of specifically theological doctrine such as:
-- The nature of Christ
-- The nature of the Godhead
-- The fate of the unsaved
and such like.

Basically it was presented to me as referring to points of belief and not necessarily conduct. Or in other words it was taught in the context of, false or questionable doctrine that is not necessarily a matter of conduct, but refers to things that are primarily an impediment to proper understanding of basic concepts such as:
-- salvation,
-- faith,
-- mercy,
-- fate of the unbelievers,
-- reward of the saved,
-- forgiveness,
etc.

Those things I have always contrasted to the gross and unchristian paradigms of the surrounding culture which involve acts of commission :
-- infanticide,
-- wars of conquest,
-- usury,
-- polyandry,
-- lying,
-- prostitution,
etc.

But I must defer to your concept of the breadth of the term "False Teachings" which also, I can see, does include the the grosser and coarser issues and condemned actions addressed in Romans 1:32, (which I will re-quote for convenience).

I suppose I should not totally fault the teachers of my youth, as they were trying to inculcate a basic understanding of Christian belief, and doing it in a time when societal acceptance of such gross perversions had not risen to the level we now see, and see developing.

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
-- not only do the same,
but
-- have pleasure in them that do them.
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: Could a "Christian Naturist Society" be formed

Postby jochanaan » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:59 am

Amazing; the "Society" is not even formed yet and already we're trying to write bylaws! Can we not trust the LORD to help us "know them by their fruit"? (Matthew 7:16)
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 Christianity and other religions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron