Talk:Christian naturism/Archive 1

message: RGNU,
I think I agree with the final point you were trying to get to in stating that "there seems to be no other explanation for covering their bodies except to cover sin", however, by including "(where nudity is allowed)" referring to marriage, you are also inferring that nudity is not allowed outside of marriage, which the Bible never states.
Natman55 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clothes 

message: True Christian Naturists should beware of a website that has been posted here. It has photos in it's gallery that are exploitive in nature. That would be the Naturist Christians website owned, administered, and controlled by Bill Martin. This seems very strange for a Christian Naturist site.18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove other users' comments from this page.  Powers 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites 

message: I have been to Naturist-Christians.org myself, and viewed most, if not all of the images on that site. I have found NONE that are exploitive or even slightly sexualized in any way. The moderators have been EXTREMELY diligent to insure that all of the images and links portray natural, non-sexual nudity. They even have rejected images if they are THOUGHT to originate from pornographic sites.
Furthermore, the site has many, many excellent links to other Christian naturism sites as well as aticles supporting Christianity.
If you desire to remove the links, please at least give a specific complaint.
Natman55 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who has no idea who Bill Martin is, this sounds like you're bringing an outside disagreement into Wikipedia.  That's really not a good idea.  If you have a specific complaint about the links in the article, provide them.  All we have now are your vague warnings about inappropriateness and that the site is not a "Christian" site.  We need more than that.  Until then, the links appear useful and I will continue to revert attempts to remove them.  Powers 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:LEGAL before making further legal threats.  Powers 13:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Mr. Powers.  His statements should explain what we have been saying.  By the way, Bill Martin IS THE ADMINISTRATOR of the website and HAS FINAL CONTROL - it is in the website information.  Bill Martin is famous for telling people how to operate their websites.  
People are not required to identify themself by any law except a court order.  If what Bill Martin has said is true, then he will have to account for his harrassment, threats, annoyance and abuse of other people in other areas on the internet.  
It should be noted that the photos were found with a search engine that young children know how to use, even when they were supposed to be in a restricted area.  However, the moderators at that website recently placed further restrictions on the access of the photos in question.  Our new question is why keep them at all since they are inappropriate?  Bill Martin says we are saying untruths but he knows we have documented that the photos were available using a search engine.
Another question is why do they brag about having 17,000 plus photos.  Why are that many photos necessary and how could you have gotten consent from all of those people to place their photo for viewing on your "Christian" website?  These issues are too important not address.  Bill Martin's only defense is to threaten those that have exposed him with the laws that also protect us and the news media.  Signed - anonymous.00:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naturist-Christians.org 

message: I have requested comments on this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.  Hopefully we can get some additional input on the dispute over the links.  RfC'ers can place their comments here if they like.  Powers 12:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, I've considered it.  It certainly would solve the problem here, which involves our complanaint using AOL and thus a non-static IP, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate (after reading the relevant policy).  Powers 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not in the spirit of Wiki to require registration before contribution.  It causes problems, true, but the benefits are seen to outweigh the drawbacks.  Powers 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The article has been semi-protected, which has indeed stopped the link removal for the time being.  Powers 00:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Powers,  I understand why you felt that you had to semi-protect the article.  You asked me why I remain anonymous.  Do you think natman is HIS real name - therefore he is anonamous also.  I will tell you that the reason why I don't sign my posts is clearly because of the post by Bill Martin above.  This man has filed numerous frivilous law suits against people and lost in court on all 11 of them - just as it is stated in the link you provided to him in your response to him quoting law here.  The people he sued had to pay attorney's fees and have filed suit against him to get their money back.  It is my understanding that natman is David Blood and he was a party to 8 of those frivilous lawsuits.  Mr. Martin and Mr. Blood filed 8 law suits saying that 4 naturists, that were trying to protect access to their property, tried to kill them.  The records are available at the Pasco County Florida Government building and may be available on the internet.  The judge heard the first one and threw the rest out.  I am sorry to go into detail here, but I feel that for you to take me seriously, I had to explain further.  I thank you for your time and patience with me.  
Some people here claim that I want censorship. I have said above that the other links to websites concerned with this article are perfectly fine.  However, censorship has its place when the people involved in a website have questionable motives that should be investigated prior to allowing the link.  I am thankful that our complaints have been taken seriously by the moderators of the questionable website and they have made the terrible photos inaccessible.  It is good to know that protests do still work in this country.  I guess that is because I still have a little of the old hippie in me. LOL  Anonymous11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me tell you about anonymity on Wikipedia.  Natman55 is more anonymous than you are right now.  Why?  Because we know your IP address (currently, 152.163.100.6, although it changes because you use AOL).  We know what ISP you use (AOL).  We don't know what ISP Natman55 uses.  We don't know his IP address.  If you are concerned about legal action, you would do well to register and use a username; you will be far more anonymous than you are now.  Please see WP:ANON and Wikipedia:Privacy policy.  Powers 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the advice Mr. Powers.  Avoidance of frivilous law suits is a very good thing. Anonymous13:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I deleted this section because it was mostly incorrect. Firstly, some Y's began admiting women in the 1930s, not the 1960s as claimed.  By the mid-1940s over 60% of Y's admitted women. Co-ed naked swimming would have been highly unlikely, at least while a lifeguard was present.  The bit about wool suits clogging the filters is absurd. Even if swimsuits shed like an Angora cat, the strainer predates the YMCA.  The statement about nude gyms in ancient Greece is irrelevant because that was before Christianity.  If you take that away, all that's left is that it was once common to swim nekid, which is the whole point of the previous section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H Bruthzoo (talk • contribs) .
Bruthzoo,
My father in-law lived at the YMCA in the thirties and forties and says that no swimsuits were ever allowed for the reasons stated. I have alse read and heard the same story many times.
Also, Olympic events carried on in the nude lasted well beyond the first century and even into the times when Christianity had spread throughout the area. Paul's language in Greek aludes to this as well. 
Natman55 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nudity at the YMCA

message: Adam and Eve began a blame game AFTER being confronted by God about their covering up and hiding...
Gen 3:7-13
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" 
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." 
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" 
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." 
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 
They realized they were now exposed to the wrath of God, so the covered themselves in leaves (camouflage) in 3:7. Then, when confronted by God, Adam first blamed the wife that God had given him, in essence shifting blame to Eve and then to God Himself in 3:12. Then Eve blamed the serpent in 3:13. Basically it is presented in reverse order. The correct order is snake-Eve-God, no Adam.
Natman55 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen 3 

message: This article is definitely slanted toward one view; nudism has been widely rejected among Christians but their arguments are elided, and the Bible is by no means as accepting as is presented here -- Paul objects to women having their hair uncovered.  As it stands, it reads like a pamphlet.  Goldfritha 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Not all naturists are social in their practice. Some simply enjoy being naked in natural surroundings, not limited to the confines of their homes. 
Therefore I believe that Naturist Christians actually covers a broader scope of practitioners.
Natman55
:Naturist is a POV reference. So is nudist. Social nudity covers both. Naturism and nudism have both only been around for around 100 years. Social nudity is more broad.  User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the change of title? 

message: This page seems to be almost entirely a propaganda piece by Christian nudists.  In its language, presentation and selection of facts it is obviously biased.  I would suggest that the entire article be deleted, but that seems a little drastic; maybe it should be collapsed into another article about arcane Christian sects. Oldkinderhook 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to say the same thing; this is the most POV article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. 72.82.61.53 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not so certain of that, if all those huge names at the bottom in those quotes honestly believed that Christians can or should all be nudists, you'd think that would be more notable in the news or something, yet this is the first i've read of it. I have a suspicion that these are all taken out of context, and even if they aren't, having an "Unknown" at the bottom just screams OR. The "Biblical verses about nudity/nakedness" section reads exactly like an apologetics website, mostly due to the section titles, which clearly lead the reader into believing that the Bible clearly supports nudity, compleatly ignores any possible Biblical evidence that going around seeing everyone in the nude would cause people to go wild with lust after the other gender. (Which it mostly likely would in our culture anyway) The usage of un-Wikipedian bolding is a good sign of this, and the main tip offs are lines like "Again, objectors claim that this meant in only a tunic, not totally naked.", and "In our day of machine-made cloth we have little concept of just how much labor went into making cloth and clothing.", which sounds like a single person is addressing the audience, such as an apologist. Besides, Wikipedia isn't supposed to address the reader anyway. Homestarmy 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: This article does not cite any sources except that directly address this subject except websites that belong to advocates.  The criticism section does cite anybody directly addressing the idea of Christian Naturalism.  This is also a WP:NPOV issue.  There are no reliable independent sources cited that directly address this idea which violates WP:NOTABILITY, and puts this article in danger of being deleted. Idioma 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently Added Tags