One guy wrote in about noting that a lot of Christian people come to the Domai site. He proceeds with a bunch of arguments about why Christians should have trouble with nudity. Stobblehouse, a non-Christian, responds with counter arguments. Very interesting stuff.
It is rather interesting. I think though that a lot of people are confused by the old testament (as previously been mentioned that most "legalistic" churches are) because they forget that the New Testament is just that..NEW! They are missing a vital point.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and the legal requirements of sin. Death. He fulfilled all the little prophecies throughout his ministry.
Once that is resolved, then we need to go to the book of Hebrews, and specifically, 9:6-15. It is pointed out that the priests went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. They had to first cleans themselves with washings. But second tabernacle, they dared not enter except for the high priest and only once a year with blood.
9:9 points out that these rooms were symbolic; the first room represented the old covenant, the second room represented the new covenant. Once Jesus entered the second room with his own blood, the first room is no longer needed. In fact, 9:8 precedes this with the fact that the second room cannot be manifest as long as the first is still standing.
The first tabernacle, (the Old Law) cannot stand as long as we are in the new. If we accept Jesus as our High Priest, we cannot under any circumstances use the first room...it does not exist! We forfiet the entry to the second room. Jesus is there 24/7 and as long as he is in there, the old is no longer valid! It is only for those unclean to enter the second room. Therefore, the first room had to be destroyed so the second room (Jesus) will be the only way to salvation.
So why are we even looking to the Old Testament for our lives? Yes, we read it so we can understand how we got here, how Jesus came, why He came, for whom he came. Those prophecies in the OT are NOT prophecies of current United States or England or any other post crucifixon except for the prophecy of the church being started and the Temple being destoyed. There may have been some references of Judah, Rome of some other local country or people, but not much. Once Jesus entered the picture, all prophecies to be fulfilled were probably fulfilled by 100 AD at the latest.
The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, (note, it was approximately 40 years after the death, resurrection and assention of Jesus. Sound familiar?) That was the call and signal that the old way is gone forever.
I also noted that the writer of this article said that the "lust after another woman" subject may (may) have been altered. We cannot argue one way or the other. All we can do is work with what IS written in there. And my arguement states that it is the responsibility of the man to not lust after another woman, while not qualifying the woman or her state of dress or undress. It is a matter of the heart, and he is correct, WE cannot judge another on the matter of the heart, but GOD CAN! So he does need to beware.
Sorry, but that site is intended for lust, and naturism is not about that. I just hope that the Christian writer does not judge all of us based on this. Besides, he is judging according to the Old Testament and very little New.
One of the things that occured just about the time Jesus took his last breath was the world turned dark, and the temple curtain was torn. This was a symbolic thing to show that we all can enter the holy place of God through Jesus.
It's plain to see that Stobblehouse does not have the religious training but is familiar with the Bible. Some of his comments from his viewpoint are most interesting.
As long as he can give an opposite arguement: "If you say that we must obey one law, then we must obey the other law" which is true. "If you break one of these commandments, you broke them all, and if you obey one law, you must obey them all".
He has a valid point in this regard, but he doesnt give the real reason why we must not be yielding to the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is the real reason, not the logical arguements of one law over another.
He may know a lot of technical things and know of scripture, but so does Satan for his own devices. Satan the devil gave scripture after scripture, yet Jesus gave his repute and overcame Satan.
Thats what happens when you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without first eating the tree of life.
Re: Some good pro and con arguments in Domai today
February 12 2005, 6:54 PM
I personal believe that this person photo's are artistic but believe that middle age and older women should be used. Yet in regards to men being only turned on one type of women and "beauty" is not true. Beauty is within. Lust is in the mind and of the flesh. But we all know the truth.
Re: Some good pro and con arguments in Domai today
February 12 2005, 8:16 PM
i thought the pictures were like playboy photos...the nudity was sexual reducing the women in them to objects to be enjoyed...they looked great and would be the only reason i would return to the website...if more in naturism took care of their bodies like working out and eating less food...developed hard bodies that were sexually attractive textiles would beat the doors down to become naturists and the movement would grow as people discovered the positive health benifits of non sexual nudity
Re: Some good pro and con arguments in Domai today
February 13 2005, 1:52 AM
Domai's stated purpose is that it exists to celebrate the beauty of young women. If I look at individual photos, most of them are just that: wholesome and beautiful.
But a few of the photos have gratuitous camera angles that give special attention to the genitals. A nudist photographer might not avoid including genitals in a photograph, but they should not be a focal point.
Some of the essays are clearly sexual in nature. Stobblehouse admits that he is not a Christian, so we should not be too surprised when some of his comments reflect that.
Even if those issues were dealt with, my life would be out of balance if I spent much time looking at photos of attractive women.
I would rather be out in the real world and meeting attractive women, getting to know them as people and not as mere images on the screen. And I have some female friends who are not physically attractive, but whose friendship I cherish just the same.
This is what I trhink is wrong with naturism: so many people who are perceived as ugly both in body and mind pose off in nudist magazines with big beer bellies, sensitive bits festooned with piercings and tattooes saying 'naturism is healthy, every body is beautiful'.
I don't know what naturist magazines you are reading. I only see the TNS magazine, Nude and Natural. I haven't seen anything of the nature you are describing. Perhaps you should change your reading preferences.
That being said, I agree that the emphasis on health would be good. A return to the roots of naturism with this emphasis would be welcome.
