|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/3/2008 9:16:30 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9263
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Awww yes, back to the God looks like a human being and is apparently naked to boot argument again....
Sorry, but your "image" of God is not Scriptural.
Your characterization of my belief is horrifically mistaken.
I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture... every word is God's word.
The word used in Gen. 1 for "image" ALWAYS refers to a visual likeness wherever it is used in the OT. (Check my research if you don't believe me)
I cannot explain everything about what it means, but I cannot deny the meaning of that word simply because I do not fully understand it. To do so would be to do injustice to the Word of God.
I know that God is spirit, but the truth is, we know very little about the spirit realm. We do not know that a spirit cannot have a shape... in fact, it's evident from Scripture that they do.
If God says that He made man to look like Him (not that God looks like a human as you erroneously stated), then that's what He meant. It is not for me or for you to tell Him that it doesn't mean what He says it means.
AID
Scripture doesn't say He made man look like Him. It says He made man in His image. Image does not require physical likeness - even in Scripture.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/3/2008 10:17:07 PM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 16596
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Why, then, are we so obsessed with them here and now?
And I cannot help but wonder why it is you seem to be obsessed with the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/3/2008 10:42:16 PM
|
|
|
LoyalFriend
Posts: 160
Joined: 9/29/2007
Status: offline
|
1 Timothy 2: 9-10 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but which becometh women professing godliness with good works.
Several scriptures are clear that we are to be modest in apparel and that means just what it says.
Matt 27: 24,28 Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,
The only question any of us need to ask is WWJD?
What Jesus did was wear apparel! He wasn't running around naked in public and neither should we. Be ye holy as he is holy!!!
A man's opinion is simply that an opinion, but the Word of God is gospel so treat it as such!
< Message edited by LoyalFriend -- 5/3/2008 10:48:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 12:42:10 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NewYork74
Unfortunatelly, in todays culture, I know too many people who go to nude beaches and they sport provocative tattoos, breast implants, they pump up their muscles before they go there, these are all people that enjoy sexual attention and they are boastfull about it. I dont want to be around people like that, with proud, sexual, and exhibitionist personalities. Too many people treat nude beaches like its club "hedonism", which many of them frequent. Ive known a lot of nudist who go there and are into wife swapping, orgys, and are bi-sexual. Thats just too much for me, and I stay clear of it. If I go to the tanning salon, than I will get nude, because it is just myself I have to worry about, and I know whats in my head.
For a moment there, I forgot you were talking about a nude beach... it sounded for all the world like you were describing a swimsuit-required beach...
In fact, your description sounds MORE like a clothed beach than a nude beach.
Undoubtedly, the things you describe do happen at some nude venues, but it is the exception rather than the rule. And many venues take active measures to make sure that those things are NOT tolerated. Some do not, of course, but they are in the minority, and it's quite easy to tell which are which.
The problem with (most) clothed venues is that no one is even making any attempt to curtail such activities. Miles and miles of beaches in FL and CA cater to exactly what you've described... and so long as people aren't nude, it's all completely unregulated.
Furthermore, the fact that some abuse the context does not invalidate the context any more than the fact that some people drive drunk on the roadways invalidates the existence of roads.
The solution to what you've described (on both clothed and nude venues) is to step up measures to eradicate such activities, not to eliminate the venues.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 1:01:31 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Scripture doesn't say He made man look like Him. It says He made man in His image. Image does not require physical likeness - even in Scripture.
Two points:
1. Scripture DOES say that God made man to look like Himself. That's what "Let Us make man in Our image," means. There is simply no getting around that.
2. I did NOT say "physical likeness," I said "visual likeness" and yes, "image" (H6754) DOES require visual likeness wherever it is found in Scripture.
Can you demonstrate that I am mistaken anywhere in the Scriptures? If you cannot, then you must grant the point.
Take a look at Gen 5:3, too. "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image [H6754], and named him Seth."
Would you not agree that this DOES mean that Seth looked like his father? "Image" and "likeness"... the very same two words that we find in Gen. 1:26. They must mean the same thing in both passages. Seth looked like Adam. Adam looked like God.
I don't fully understand it. I can't adequately explain it. But I cannot deny it... for that's exactly what the Bible says.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 1:11:17 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kath
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Why, then, are we so obsessed with them here and now?
And I cannot help but wonder why it is you seem to be obsessed with the opposite.
I am not obsessed with the opposite.
I am obsessed with the truth... and the truth is that God does NOT require us to be clothed at all times... nor does He require us to go without.
I remind you of what I posted in post #152 in this thread...
quote:
I do not commend nakedness to you.
I commend to you the rejection of shame for your naked body.
I commend to you the beauty and honor of carrying God's image on your naked body.
I commend to you the rejection of the man-made rule that you must never let anyone but your spouse see it.
I commend to you the freedom to enjoy the beauty of God's image as represented on every human body in the world... and the freedom and power to do so without lust. It is ours in Christ.
How you apply these truths in your life is up to you.
I have never once told anybody that they should go without clothes. But I have been told innumerable times that we must NOT go without clothes.
So, I ask again... why are we so obsessed with clothes? God isn't.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 1:49:23 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalFriend
1 Timothy 2: 9-10 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but which becometh women professing godliness with good works.
You must have missed my post about that very passage. It does not mean what you seem to believe it means.
You can read that post here
There's some more included in this post.
quote:
Several scriptures are clear that we are to be modest in apparel and that means just what it says.
Can you please point me to ANY other passage of Scripture that teaches what you suggest? I know of none. 1 Tim. 2:9 is the ONLY passage I have ever heard put forth to teach "modesty" (the "sexual propriety" sort of modesty).
quote:
Matt 27: 24,28 Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,
The only question any of us need to ask is WWJD?
Jesus would do what He taught His followers to do: "And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." (Matt 5:40) People didn't wear anything more than a tunic and cloak... if that much. So if we follow Jesus' teaching, we should be willing to go naked in order to obey this teaching.
WWJD? Well, when He washed His disciples' feet, it tells us that he took off his clothes (plural) meaning that he took off his cloak and his tunic. Yes, he took up the towel, but that was not for the purpose of "modesty" or keeping himself covered, it was for the purpose of drying feet. Even if he kept the towel around his waist rather than hung around his neck, He would have been exposed before each one of the disciples when He used the towel to dry their feet.
WWJD? Well, Jesus was baptized publicly... and Jewish baptismal tradition required complete nudity for the ritual.
quote:
What Jesus did was wear apparel! He wasn't running around naked in public and neither should we. Be ye holy as he is holy!!!
What Jesus did was teach us to NOT be so concerned about clothing... because our bodies are more than clothing (Matt. 6:25). And he never ONCE spoke to the issue of constant clothing being required. And he never once instructed His followers to avoid the gymnasium (naked exercise center) which was active in Jerusalem during His earthly life. He never ONCE equated being physically clothed with being holy.
Which begs the question.... why do you?
quote:
A man's opinion is simply that an opinion, but the Word of God is gospel so treat it as such!
You have indeed spoken your opinion.
I do honor God's word as absolute truth. I do not, however, honor man's traditional understanding of God's word as absolute truth. And in this issue, I see many reasons to reject the traditional view... based upon my absolute commitment to God's Word as my only authority.
If you want to know some more of those reasons, I suggest that you read through the posts I've made here in this forum. You will note that I always appeal to God's word as my authority. And I have never once treated God's word with contempt or disrespect.
AID.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 9:18:08 AM
|
|
|
LoyalFriend
Posts: 160
Joined: 9/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
If you want to know some more of those reasons, I suggest that you read through the posts I've made here in this forum. You will note that I always appeal to God's word as my authority. And I have never once treated God's word with contempt or disrespect. I have read a number of your posts and part of me find them shameful as the word of God is being twisted by you the other part of me see's that you are here trying to defend your nudist beliefs. You have an agenda to promote.
Neverless I stand by my original post and I stand by what the word of God says alone.
You may spend day and night trying to convince yourself and others that Jesus ran around ministering butt naked and that he wants all of us to do the same. My response is Satan is a liar and has come to decieve us.
I'm not buying or interested.
God Bless!
God is Holy, his word is gospel and that's all I'm interested in myself.
You who love the Lord, hate evil!
He preserves the souls of His saints;
He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.
Light is sown for the righteous,
And gladness for the upright in heart.
Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous,
And give thanks at the remembrance of His holy name. Psalm 97:10-12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 4:00:43 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9263
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Scripture doesn't say He made man look like Him. It says He made man in His image. Image does not require physical likeness - even in Scripture.
Two points:
1. Scripture DOES say that God made man to look like Himself. That's what "Let Us make man in Our image," means. There is simply no getting around that.
2. I did NOT say "physical likeness," I said "visual likeness" and yes, "image" (H6754) DOES require visual likeness wherever it is found in Scripture.
Can you demonstrate that I am mistaken anywhere in the Scriptures? If you cannot, then you must grant the point.
Take a look at Gen 5:3, too. "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image [H6754], and named him Seth."
Would you not agree that this DOES mean that Seth looked like his father? "Image" and "likeness"... the very same two words that we find in Gen. 1:26. They must mean the same thing in both passages. Seth looked like Adam. Adam looked like God.
I don't fully understand it. I can't adequately explain it. But I cannot deny it... for that's exactly what the Bible says.
AID
Again, you seemed mired in the idea that a word can only and does only ever mean exactly one thing. This isn't true of English and it certainly isn't true of Hebrew or Greek.
Colossians 1:15 He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
How can you be an image of something invisible unless image here does not refer to something "seen"?
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
This makes no sense if this is referring to a visual or physical image. God had already created man. How can we be conformed into the visual image of Jesus if we are already in the visual image of God? Or could this be referring to a different kind of image: not a physical one or visual one at all?
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 4:20:11 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalFriend
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
If you want to know some more of those reasons, I suggest that you read through the posts I've made here in this forum. You will note that I always appeal to God's word as my authority. And I have never once treated God's word with contempt or disrespect. I have read a number of your posts and part of me find them shameful as the word of God is being twisted by you
Such an accusation demands that you support it with citations and demonstrate how I have erred exegetically. Otherwise, you are simply stating your opinion. And opinions which have no support are not very helpful in this forum.
quote:
the other part of me see's that you are here trying to defend your nudist beliefs. You have an agenda to promote.
I do have an agenda... it is to expose the lie of Satan regarding the supposed shamefulness of our bodies; the lie that our bodies are not physically crafted in God's image; the lie that the answer to lust is to avoid seeing a human body in its natural form; the lie that the only response that we can have to seeing an unclothed body is sexual.
My agenda is to promote sexual purity by rejecting a man-made rule and rejecting shame.
Col 2:23 clearly states that man-made rules are of no value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Yes, that is my agenda. It is my only agenda.
quote:
Neverless I stand by my original post and I stand by what the word of God says alone.
That's easy to say. but your position is impossible to credibly defend from God's Word alone. I challenge you to attempt it.quote:
You may spend day and night trying to convince yourself and others that Jesus ran around ministering butt naked and that he wants all of us to do the same.
Wrong. I have never suggested such a thing. And ridiculing my beliefs with such a cavalier characterization does not help you make your case. In truth, it reveals that the only recourse you have against my argument is to make fun of your erroneous characterization of it.
Personally, I'd rather see you make some cogent arguments to support your own position.
quote:
My response is Satan is a liar and has come to decieve us.
My point exactly.
I've already spelled out some of the lies that Satan has duped us with... and the Church of Jesus Christ is ignorantly and unwittingly guilty of becoming co-conspirators with Satan in the continued promulgation of those lies.
quote:
I'm not buying or interested.
I would genuinely hope that you're not only interested in "buying" your preferred version of the truth.
If instead you are only interested in following the truth wherever it takes you, then buckle up, it's going to give you some unexpected turns along the way. God's ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts.
The truth is never afraid of a challenge.
I challenge you to attempt to defend your current position using the highest exegetical standards you can.
I used to believe as you do... and I changed my position because I found that I simply could not biblically defend the position I was taught and practiced all my life. I am quite sure that you will not be able to either. But I have my doubts whether you will be honest enough with yourself or with the rest of us to recognize or admit it.
I am fully ready to engage in respectful dialog regarding our positions. You are welcome to scrutinize anything I've stated and point out any errors. And I hope that you will allow me the freedom to do the same with yours. If indeed I am wrong, I want to know it as soon as possible.
And I will sincerely return the wish of God's blessing upon you as well. May God bless you with clarity of mind and spirit to discern His truth from His Word no matter what I or anyone else say about it.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 8:07:47 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1053
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do have an agenda... it is to expose the lie of Satan regarding the supposed shamefulness of our bodies; the lie that our bodies are not physically crafted in God's image; the lie that the answer to lust is to avoid seeing a human body in its natural form; the lie that the only response that we can have to seeing an unclothed body is sexual.
My agenda is to promote sexual purity by rejecting a man-made rule and rejecting shame.
Col 2:23 clearly states that man-made rules are of no value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Yes, that is my agenda. It is my only agenda.
I've been following this thread and staying clear of it. My position has been made known early on in this thread. There have been several threads on nudism and Christianity. AID, you are very clever, very gifted in verbage. While you can try and justify your love of unclothed human interaction and say that there is nothing sexual about it, you are simply fooling yourself.
What piqued your curiosity with nudism initially? Were you drawn to it for prurient reasons? Over time, the thrill has probably vanished, but the lure is still there. It's no different than consuminig alcohol. All it takes is a little to get a buzz at first, eventually it takes more. Pretty soon the user becomes dependant on it, often without even realizing their dependance.
You can paint this in many shades of gray, but it's still black and white: right or wrong. And those you convince to join you in your pursuits will find themselves confused and, quite possibly, hurt as they follow you into a new world to explore. It's a dangerous game you're playing Are you sure you're not being lied to?
_____________________________
You can take the man out of Alaska, but you can't take Alaska out of the man.
Me
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/4/2008 11:46:07 PM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
I've been following this thread and staying clear of it. My position has been made known early on in this thread. There have been several threads on nudism and Christianity. AID, you are very clever, very gifted in verbage.
I think I heard something of a compliment there, and I'll take it as such, so I thank you.
I would hope, however, that it is not only clever verbiage. I seek to correctly exegete the Word of God faithfully and accurately.
At this point, however, not one person has been able to demonstrate how I have been in error exegetically. Very few have made any attempt at all.
If I am so wrong, as so many seem to believe, I do not understand why that should be so difficult. True exegesis is a very objective exercise. You follow the rules and you arrive at the correct answer, or at very least you can narrow down the correct meaning of a text to a limited number of possibilities.
quote:
While you can try and justify your love of unclothed human interaction and say that there is nothing sexual about it, you are simply fooling yourself.
How is it that you can presume to know my heart? If you are projecting upon me what would be happening in your own heart if you were attempting to support my position, then you are revealing more about your own lack of self-control than you are proving about mine.
I tell you with God as my witness (and I do not say that blithely), I am not fooling myself. I know what sexual intent, desires, lusts, and actions are. I've been there/done that. I know how different it is now. You can say whatever you want, but it will not change the truth that I know is a reality in my own heart and life.
quote:
What piqued your curiosity with nudism initially? Were you drawn to it for prurient reasons? Over time, the thrill has probably vanished, but the lure is still there. It's no different than consuminig alcohol. All it takes is a little to get a buzz at first, eventually it takes more. Pretty soon the user becomes dependant on it, often without even realizing their dependance.
That's a nice little bit of fine sounding verbiage yourself. Unfortunately, your own illustration does not help your position...
Alcohol is not wrong. It is the abuse of alcohol that is wrong. The fact that one man has a weakness for it does not mean that every man must avoid it in proper moderation. In like manner, nudism is not wrong, even if there are people who abuse it, or who cannot handle it because of past (and/or current) sexual bondages.
quote:
You can paint this in many shades of gray, but it's still black and white: right or wrong.
I agree. This is not a gray area. This is clearly a white area. Nudism (like alcohol) is not intrinsically sinful. The Bible simply does not condemn it at all.
quote:
And those you convince to join you in your pursuits will find themselves confused and, quite possibly, hurt as they follow you into a new world to explore. It's a dangerous game you're playing Are you sure you're not being lied to?
I am playing no game.
And I am quite sure that I am not being lied to, because it was the Scriptures themselves that led me to adopt the understanding that I now hold... an understanding that finds more truth in the naturists' view of the natural goodness of the human body than in the traditional Christian Church's understanding of the human body. The Scriptures do not lie. We are made in God's image. To be ashamed of our nakedness is a sure sign that things are desperately wrong between us and our Creator. There is no place for shame in the life of an individual who has been redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:1).
I am not following the teaching of any man in this matter... only the instruction of the Spirit of God in my life through God's Word.
Are you sure that you're not being lied to?
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 12:11:13 AM
|
|
|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei
Posts: 41
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Again, you seemed mired in the idea that a word can only and does only ever mean exactly one thing. This isn't true of English and it certainly isn't true of Hebrew or Greek.
And it seems that you believe that you have the freedom to redefine a word if the natural meaning bothers you for some reason.
Yes, some words have more than one meaning, but not this one. It has the very same meaning every time it is used in Scripture. God chose that word because it had the precise meaning that He wanted to communicate. For you to claim that at this one occurrence only it has a divergent meaning is simply not credible.
quote:
Colossians 1:15 He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
How can you be an image of something invisible unless image here does not refer to something "seen"?
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
This makes no sense if this is referring to a visual or physical image. God had already created man. How can we be conformed into the visual image of Jesus if we are already in the visual image of God? Or could this be referring to a different kind of image: not a physical one or visual one at all?
In answer to your final question, yes, it does mean something different. But since you are quoting from the New Testament, you are obviously not addressing the specific word I was referring to in the Old Testament. You are presuming that a Greek word translated "image" in English has the same meaning as a Hebrew word translating "image" in English.
Therefore, your effort to demonstrate divergent meanings is utterly irrelevant. There are even 2 different words in Hebrew which are translated "image" in English... I was just referring to the one which God used in Gen 1.
So my challenge still stands unmet. Can you demonstrate any other usage of the Hebrew word translated "image" in Gen 1 & 5 (H6754) which does not describe a visual representation?
To address your earlier question... Can an "invisible" God ever be visible at all? Obviously, He can, because the Scriptures are full of examples where He did just that. We call the "anthropomorphisms" but perhaps God was simply allowing Himself to be seen as He really is.
God meant what He said. We are created physically to look like His spiritual being. I can't explain it, but that's what God said he did, so I believe Him.
It seems to me that you are very resistant to this teaching of God. Why is that? I truly do not understand.
AID
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 12:42:11 AM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1053
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
How is it that you can presume to know my heart? If you are projecting upon me what would be happening in your own heart if you were attempting to support my position, then you are revealing more about your own lack of self-control than you are proving about mine.
I don't know you personally. But, I've worked with men who speak with the same tongue as you for several years. Getting under the mask and revealing the true intentions of these men's hearts. In my life before Christ, I was very promiscuous as well. I've had many discussion with men about matters such as this. During my early adulthood I was introduced to nudism through some folks I knew. It was described as something very innocent, something that tried to keep all the perverts out. yet, the same people trying to introduce me were living promiscuous lifestyles. One was a man who was trying to seuce me. Ans no, I'm not projecting my own heart. Yes, I know the the ability to lust dwells in my heart. But, as i said, after years and years of experience with my own walk and working with people convicted of sex crimes I have yet to meet someone who is so pious that they are incapable of lust.
quote:
I tell you with God as my witness (and I do not say that blithely), I am not fooling myself. I know what sexual intent, desires, lusts, and actions are. I've been there/done that. I know how different it is now. You can say whatever you want, but it will not change the truth that I know is a reality in my own heart and life.
And that's where we seem to be. You ahve this truth you've created for yourself and you use scripture to support your own reality.
quote:
That's a nice little bit of fine sounding verbiage yourself. Unfortunately, your own illustration does not help your position...
Alcohol is not wrong. It is the abuse of alcohol that is wrong. The fact that one man has a weakness for it does not mean that every man must avoid it in proper moderation. In like manner, nudism is not wrong, even if there are people who abuse it, or who cannot handle it because of past (and/or current) sexual bondages.
I didn't say alcohol was wrong. Some people, flat out, cannot handle alcohol. Others can drink in moderation and be fine. Yet, when it comes to our sexuality, because there are more people who abuse it or cannot handle it, advocating public nudity is the same as extending an invitation to the sexual abuse gala. When it's described os gently as you describe it, it makes the curious feel welcome. The curious here the things they want to hear and tune out the warnings in their gut. After succumbing to the temptation, they become numb to adverse affects and go about looking for others to come join this mentally numbing euphoria.
I've said it before and I will say it again. If this "lifestyle" is so important to you that it takes a priority over your relationship with other people, then it's more important than God. And that, my friend, makes it an idol.
_____________________________
You can take the man out of Alaska, but you can't take Alaska out of the man.
Me
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 11:46:00 AM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
I find the Ad Hominin attacks here against AID to be very revealing. Rather than debate his exegesis, people simply try to paint him as a swinging sex maniac. How strange. I find his examination of the scriptural coverage of the naked human body (which is extensive, BTW) to be thorough, objective, and intriguing. I think if we focus more on what the bible actually says about the human body and nakedness, and less on what the culture (both in and outside of the church) says about it, we could have a more enlightening dialog. So I would humbly suggest we lay off the personal attacks and moreover the personal presumptions about people, and get back to God's word on the subject.
A point of clarification, the thread is not discussing general public nudity. It is discussing semi-private to private group settings where nudity is acceptable or preferred. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that we all simply drop our clothing (weather permitting) and walk around naked.
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/5/2008 12:31:42 PM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 1:02:59 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7605
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Ad-Imaginem-Dei,
An email has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://christianfriend.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 3:44:04 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9263
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ad-Imaginem-Dei
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Again, you seemed mired in the idea that a word can only and does only ever mean exactly one thing. This isn't true of English and it certainly isn't true of Hebrew or Greek.
And it seems that you believe that you have the freedom to redefine a word if the natural meaning bothers you for some reason.
Yes, some words have more than one meaning, but not this one. It has the very same meaning every time it is used in Scripture. God chose that word because it had the precise meaning that He wanted to communicate. For you to claim that at this one occurrence only it has a divergent meaning is simply not credible.
I have shown that this term has more than one meaning - even in Scripture. If you believe it only means one thing, prove it. I've made my case, through Scripture. And yet you reject it because it doesn't fit into your little scheme. I have shown that God is not a physical or visible Being which should make it fairly simply to see that God is not referring to man being a polaroid snapshot of Him. Image must relate to something aside from the physical if God is not a physical being.
It's not a difficult concept. "In the image of" refers to one's very essence. It's a very deep meaning - not the surface stuff that Scripture tells us God looks past. When God created Adam and Eve, He breathed into them more than the breath of physical life. He gave them a soul. Up until that point, they were no different than any other creature He created. The unique aspect of creation was that second breath of God.
Think of it this way. If man is the physical image of God, what happens when a child is born with severe deformities? Are they less in the image of God? What about certain species of chimps that share 99% of the same DNA as humans do? Are they "more" in the image of God than say a toad? Or is image not referring to our physical bodies at all?
quote:
quote:
Colossians 1:15 He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
How can you be an image of something invisible unless image here does not refer to something "seen"?
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
This makes no sense if this is referring to a visual or physical image. God had already created man. How can we be conformed into the visual image of Jesus if we are already in the visual image of God? Or could this be referring to a different kind of image: not a physical one or visual one at all?
In answer to your final question, yes, it does mean something different. But since you are quoting from the New Testament, you are obviously not addressing the specific word I was referring to in the Old Testament. You are presuming that a Greek word translated "image" in English has the same meaning as a Hebrew word translating "image" in English.
Actually, your exegesis is incorrect as I stated in an earlier post on this thread. The idea that if a word absolutely must mean one thing and ONLY one thing because other places outside the context ONLY have one definition is extremely faulty at best. If you look back, I provided you with a very clear example of one of these Hebrew words to show why your logic is poor. One should never interpret Scripture like solving a crytogram puzzle (here, this term means x, therefore anywhere we see this term, we must always translate it as x). So, I do not need to play your word game to prove my point.
And you said show in Scripture. I did.
But ok, lets play your game a little. See, you say that image is a visual image, not a physical image. However, by your logic, I looked up how the Hebrew term here is used in the OT only and every case (outside of God's image which we are debating what that means so it would be circular logic to use those Scriptures) refers to a physical image. So, according to your own unique Bible translation, that must mean that man is in God's physical image, right?
quote:
Therefore, your effort to demonstrate divergent meanings is utterly irrelevant. There are even 2 different words in Hebrew which are translated "image" in English... I was just referring to the one which God used in Gen 1.
This is circular logic. You say that your one and only definition must be the correct one because it is as you have defined it in Genesis one and yet Genesis one "image" is only referring to man in God's image which is what we are debating.
quote:
So my challenge still stands unmet. Can you demonstrate any other usage of the Hebrew word translated "image" in Gen 1 & 5 (H6754) which does not describe a visual representation?
Psalm 39:6 refers to emptiness/nothingness - shadows or phantoms
quote:
To address your earlier question... Can an "invisible" God ever be visible at all? Obviously, He can, because the Scriptures are full of examples where He did just that. We call the "anthropomorphisms" but perhaps God was simply allowing Himself to be seen as He really is.
No, it doesn't say God is visible but can be invisible. It says He is invisible. And yes, He an comes to us in many forms. He has come as fire, as a dove, as a man, as a burning bush. Are you saying that He appears as those things and we'd better not shoot doves because they are in God's image?
quote:
It seems to me that you are very resistant to this teaching of God. Why is that? I truly do not understand.
I am very resistant to anything that is contrary to Scripture. If you read my posts around these boards, you will see that I argue vehemently against things that are contrary to God's Word.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 4:14:11 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
I have shown that this term has more than one meaning - even in Scripture. If you believe it only means one thing, prove it. I've made my case, through Scripture. And yet you reject it because it doesn't fit into your little scheme. I have shown that God is not a physical or visible Being which should make it fairly simply to see that God is not referring to man being a polaroid snapshot of Him. Image must relate to something aside from the physical if God is not a physical being.
Your comparison was between a Greek word and a Hebrew word, both of which translate into the same English word. AID is focusing only on the particular Hebrew word, which he has demonstrated has only one meaning in scripture and it is that of a visual representation of something that is also visible.
quote:
Actually, your exegesis is incorrect as I stated in an earlier post on this thread. The idea that if a word absolutely must mean one thing and ONLY one thing because other places outside the context ONLY have one definition is extremely faulty at best. If you look back, I provided you with a very clear example of one of these Hebrew words to show why your logic is poor. One should never interpret Scripture like solving a crytogram puzzle (here, this term means x, therefore anywhere we see this term, we must always translate it as x). So, I do not need to play your word game to prove my point.
I do not recall you referring to any Hebrew words, as your citations all came from the New Testament. Please clarify.
quote:
This is circular logic. You say that your one and only definition must be the correct one because it is as you have defined it in Genesis one and yet Genesis one "image" is only referring to man in God's image which is what we are debating. No, AID referenced the word in Genesis one and then maintained that it's use throughout the OT consistently refers to a visible representation of something.
quote:
quote:
So my challenge still stands unmet. Can you demonstrate any other usage of the Hebrew word translated "image" in Gen 1 & 5 (H6754) which does not describe a visual representation?
Psalm 39:6 refers to emptiness/nothingness - shadows or phantoms
Yes - but in the sense of a visible form with no substance derived from a physical object that has substance. It still corresponds to a visible, formed, representation. The psalmist is not saying we walk around invisible, or more importantly, that the "phatom" we manifest ourselves in represents an invisible being (for certainly we are flesh and blood). What he is saying is that we walk around as only a "shadow of our true selves." As everyone knows, a shadow is a visible representation of a person (or thing).
The entire point of AID's argument, if I can be so bold as to speak for him, is that the language in Genesis 1 is not strickly metaphysical. There is a form component, a visual aspect to the "image" and "likeness" terms. A review of these words throughout the Old Testament confirms this. AID has not denied the abstract, spiritual aspects of the language, he has only defended the corresponding concrete, visual aspects of it.
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/5/2008 5:32:31 PM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 5:15:25 PM
|
|
|
gengwall
Posts: 213
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
FYI the other uses of tselem (image) in the OT
Gen 5:3 - Seth was begat after the likeness and image of Adam. The very same phrasology used in Genesis 1.
Gen 9:6 - Man in the image of God like Gen 1
Num 33:52 - referring to idols
1 Sam 6:5 - referring to idols (of terrestial objects, animals)
1 Sam 6:11 - as above
2 Kings 11:18 - idols
2 Chron 23:17 - idols
Psa 39:6 - see above analysis
Psa 73:20 - referring to the ungodly
Eze 7:20 - idols
Eze 16:17 - idols (of men)
Eze 23:14 - idols
Amos 5:26 - idols
That's it, only 17 (in the AV)
Now, it is only fair to mention that the Greek word referred to is the one used in the Septuagint in Genesis 1. But, the Greek word is not reserved to "image of the unseen". It is also the word used for the image of Caesar on coins. Put simply, it is not some grand God only, metaphysical term in the New Testament, any more than tselem is in the old. To say so is to ascribe to it an inappropriately narrow definition. The proof in using it is to prove that the two terms are universally synonymous. But they are not. The Greek eikon is used for several other Hebrew words and several Greek words are used for tselem. In fact, there is very little correlation between the two words. So drawing any inflexible comparisons is unwarranted. Which brings us back to the Hebrew alone for proper context.
AID's only points, found in post 180, were:
quote:
1. Scripture DOES say that God made man to look like Himself. That's what "Let Us make man in Our image," means. There is simply no getting around that.
2. I did NOT say "physical likeness," I said "visual likeness" and yes, "image" (H6754) DOES require visual likeness wherever it is found in Scripture.
AID's statement - "'image' (H6754 [Hebrew tselem] ) DOES require visual likeness wherever it is found in Scripture" - is a factually true statement. So, all of this bluster seems to be much ado about nothing.
Having said that, this is quite off the beaten path. The main point (in relation to the OP) is that nowhere does the bible condemn public nakedness, let alone nakedness in semi-private and private group settings. It is not listed anywhere in the law, and is not addressed in the teaching of proverbs*. Conversely, there are several examples of public nakedness that are condoned and even commanded by God (Isaiah and Saul), at least one other that is treated indifferently or non-consequentially (Peter fishing naked), and several where nakedness is certainly presumed for the period, although not explicitely stated (baptisms including Jesus', people at public healing pools).
*In fact, the Hebrew word for the simple state of having no cloths on (H6174) found in Genesis 2:25 disappears completely from the scriptural scene until Saul begins his naked prophesying.
< Message edited by gengwall -- 5/5/2008 6:25:07 PM >
_____________________________
DOGBERRY on posters:
They have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 6:31:32 PM
|
|
|
schupfNoodle
Posts: 103
Joined: 7/27/2006
Status: offline
|
This looks like a private setting
Gen 9
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches - 5/5/2008 6:37:40 PM
|
|
|
schupfNoodle
Posts: 103
Joined: 7/27/2006
Status: offline
|
I Cor 12
22 In fact, some parts of the body that seem weakest and least important are actually the most necessary. 23 And the parts we regard as less honorable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect those parts that should not be seen, 24 while the more honorable parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together such that extra honor and care are given to those parts that have less dignity. 25 This makes for harmony among the members, so that all the members care for each other. 26 If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts are glad.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
