From: galster@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight Galster)
Subject: Christian nudists
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:38:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Marty says:
>I have to wonder about that.  What is lust?  A desire to have sex?  Is
>that sin?
>
>Where would we be if no one had a desire to have sex?  Most of us never
>would have been born.  I suppose some people might grudgingly engage in
>sex out of a sense of duty to have children, but most people would find
>more pleasant things to do.
>
>Lust - desire to have sex - is how a species survives.

Definitely the biblical idea of lust is something beyond what is required
for the purposes of procreation.  I think we are instructed to "cleave to
our wives" (what an awful use of the plural!) after marriage and put thoughts
of sex with others out of our minds.  Jesus said "whoever lusts after a woman
(not his wife) has committed adultery already."  This considered in context
was to show that ALL are sinners and NONE can obey the law perfectly.  The
members of the audience believed they could attain moral perfection by 
obeying the law.  Jesus was demonstrating that perfect obedience to the law
is impossible and simply not an option for gaining salvation.  On the other
hand, we Christians have a Gospel motivation--we would like to live according
to God's will because a) we know God's will is always what is best for us
                      b) there are benefits in obeying God's will
                      c) It is an important part of our witness to others.

The real question for Christians about nudity should then be
     NOT "Can I get away with this?"
     BUT "Is it God's will for us in this life?"
         "Are the benefits greater in practicing nudity or abstaining?"
         (Just like "Is it better to drink alcohol or abstain?")
         "How does this practice impact my witness for Christ to others?"

>>     "gawkers", and the like.  I AM NOT saying that the people going nude are
>>     sinning because they are going nude.  I AM saying that other people may
>>     sin because of it.  THIS is what I believe is wrong.  (see Rom 14:21 --
>>     "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor do anything that
>>     causes your brother to stumble...")
>
>Your writer loses credibility by the rest of the prohibitions.
>Nothing is wrong with eating flesh in moderation, and wine, also in
>moderation, is one of the marvels of man working with nature.  I even
>recall that a Nazarene born in Bethlehem is said to have gone to a
>wedding where the wine had run out, and saved the day.
>
I welcome Marty's posts in this thread but I frequently find that he
misunderstands Christian's use of Scripture.  Marty, the previous writer
was saying essentially the same thing you are.  It is not the use of or
abstinence from flesh, wine, etc which is important here, but the effect
it has on others.  We (Christians) should measure the value of our
actions and abstinences according to their effect on others.  This might
even be a reasonable ethical guide for humanists!

Jesus's actions at the wedding have always been puzzling to students of the
Bible.  Essentially it seems to have been an act of obedience (or respect,
as in honor thy...) to his mother rather than an endorsement of wine or
any other possible ministerial purpose.

Non Lutherans may disagree with my analysis here, but I would say that
if someone had said it was necessary to wear clothes to be saved, Jesus
would have promptly taken his off.  At least Paul would have done that.
Those interested can examine Paul's actions with regard to circumcision.
(Acts 16: Timothy is circumcised to fit in better with the Jews, vs.
Galatians 2: Paul refuses to have Titus circumcised because some claimed
salvation depended on this work.)  In other words, when someone tries
to make obedience to the law necessary for salvation, a Christian's
appropriate response is to immediately and publicly break that law!
This is to illustrate that obedience to the law can never save.

>If I show my naked body, or some woman shows me her naked body, it does
>not cause anyone to stumble, any more than if I leave my car unlocked
>that causes someone to steal it.
>
Of course everyone is ultimately responsible for his own actions, but on
the other hand, those who contribute to someone's "delinquency" share
some responsibility.

>Lusting instead of working, instead of loving, instead of helping -
>that is sin.  But there are many other things you could also do
>instead of working, loving, and helping, that are also sin.  Gluttony
>is a sin if you eat instead of helping, working, and loving.  But
>wanting to eat is now we survive from day to day.
>
>You can't object to eating in moderation, because that's what keeps
>you alive.  You might define gluttony as wanting to eat too much.
>Then does displaying food in a food market or a restaurant cause
>gluttony?  If sex is good, because it creates the next generation,
>lust might be wanting sex too much.  Then does displaying your body
>cause lust?  Or just moderate sexual desire?  Or no sexual desire
>at all?
>
>Appetite is good, gluttony is bad.  Some sexual desire is good, too
>much is bad.  Don't be so hung up about sex!!!!
>
>							Marty
>
>marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
>Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	

All true.

A good summary would be the verse "All things are lawful but not all
things are helpful." (ref. unknown at the moment).  HELPFUL is a
pretty big word...

Dwight
galster@plains.nodak.edu       Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus
Superior Christian Education, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.nude