From: scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JEFF)
Subject: RE:  Christian nudes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: na
Date:  9 Nov 1992 15:46 EST  

Flames follow.

In article <1der1lINNmgv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, gchatham@cats.ucsc.edu (Gregory Chatham) writes...
> 
>As someone asked, I'm responding to a remark in my previous article.  For
>those of you who didn't read it, I made a reference to Jesus' sermon on
>the mount where he writes that anyone who looks upon a woman to lust after
>her already commits aldultery in his heart.  I didn't give any interpreation
>to this verse, I basically said..."consider this."
> 
>What I DID NOT mean:  nudity = lust = sin.
>    As I had also quoted Genesis were many have remarked that nudity is
>    a natural state.  I agree with them.
> 
>What I DID mean:  lust = sin
>    If nudity, or type of clothing (someone mentioned bathing suits) tends
>    to make some people lust (I am hoping we can take this as a given),
>    then I have to wonder about some "nude experiences" which involve many
>    "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.

Wait a minute.  Are you trying to say that a person is not ultimately
responsible for one's own behavior?  Most nudists are not trying to attract
gawkers, far from it.  Instead the gawkers go out of their way to find the
nudists.  That's the gawkers' moral problem, not the nudists'.  Your
opinion smacks of "blame the victim" thinking.  If someone sins, that's
basically their own problem.

I might add that some people are going to lust after fully clothed people.
So maybe people should not wear clothes?  :-)

>  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...")

This is irrelevant as it only refers to a deliberate act, not a state of
being.  (BTW, note first part of that quote.  How many fundamentalists
are dedicated vegetarians?)

While you are reading your Bible, you might read chapter 7 of Mark.  It
says that it is not what goes into a person but what comes out of the
person that defiles one.
> 
>What I STILL DON'T MEAN:
>    That one should lock themselves in a closet, so as to keep everyone's
>    heart pure.  But I am saying that the concerns of those who havn't yet
>    reached your stage of "elightenment" concerning
>    the proper view of the body, need to be addressed.

So many of us advocate designated clothing optional areas, with warning
signs so that your less-enlightened people are forewarned that they
might *sin* or otherwise take offense.  But this seems to be too much for
many in the religious right.

What do you advocate - going back to secretive "colonies" behind high
walls?
> 
>The final word:
>    IMO: It would be better if nudists didn't reveal themselves
>    quite so fully to those who may sin because of it.
>    
Or maybe the person who is tempted to sin by looking at nudists should
follow Jesus' advice and pluck out one's own eye if it causes one to
sin.  (IMO Jesus was prone to exaggeration in making some of his points.
Perhaps the person who is tempted should just look in another direction!)

Jeff