Talk:Christian naturism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Christian naturism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clothes

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Websites

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.6 (talk • contribs) .

Please do not remove other users' comments from this page. Powers 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturist-Christians.org

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Well Mr. Natman you are either in denial or you haven't been to the file in the Naturist Christians server that your mentor Bill Martin says is restricted. Your moderators ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB. There are hundreds of them accessible from Naturist.Christians.Org by using a search engine. All your moderators would have to do is delete the sexual pictures from that so-called restricted file, but they have not. Why? It has been pointed out to your moderators and to Bill Martin who refuses to take any responsibility for those photos and blames everyone else or accuses others. Just take them off, simple as that.

Some of the photos are very provocative pictures of young children. They are not family oriented Christian naturist photos! What is your explanation for this? Are you going to deny it also, when it has been exposed already. The proper authorities and newspapers are being contacted and you will have no excuse then.

Your administrator has no excuse and neither do any of you whom tout this website as a Christian website. I am sure that most members there do not know this is going on and I am sorry for them. However, I am much more concerned for the children who have been exploited in order for their picture to be taken like it was. If there wasn't a market for it, it wouldn't happen. They are the real victims here.

We have tried to warn your members, but Martin must have them completely snowed. Clean up that site for the sake of all people that could access it. We will be checking it. Name must withheld because of the nature of Bill Martin.18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.6 (talk • contribs) .

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)

You do not want to see what I have seen. The photos I talk about were posted from the naturistchristian.org website on the google group called rec.nude, and the website they were taken from was documented on them. This is my complaint and Wikipedia would be doing themselves a favor if they did a better background check of the links that they allow to be posted here. Please take this as a serious warning and not just a ruffled feather attempt to discredit someone.18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Much of the above comments are untrue, and are unverifiable and further violate the US Code which provides for penalties (fines) of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to 2 years (law signed by President Bush fist week in January). Further Bill Martin DOES NOT RUN THE NATURIST CHRISTIANS WEBSITE; he currently serves as Chairman of he corporaion that sponsors the site. We suggest tht Wikipedia should mandata that all posters identify themselves in accordancew with federal laws in case they harrass, threaten, annooy or abuse another.

Bill Martin, Venice, FL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.14.57 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

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

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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.6 (talk • contribs) .

Naturist-Christians.org images

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

152.163.100.6, whomever you are, I just did a Google image search for naturist-christians.org and found only 124 images, primarily of families enjoying simple naturist activities. No sexual activities are displayed or implied.

Further, if the images you refer to are in a "restricted" area, how are you privy to their existence? If you know of any illicit or pornographic images on that site, please let me know so that I can bring it to the attention of the moderators and administrators.

If not, please quit altering with this wiki.

Natman55 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Natman is a friend of Mr. Martin. Why do the photos exist on the server even in a restricted file, Natman? Why can't they just be deleted. As I have said above, the photos I talk about were posted from the naturistchristian.org website on the google group called rec.nude, and the website they were taken from was documented on them. Apparently, they are easily accessible. I did not do it myself, but people do know how.

It would behoove you to monitor and clean up your own website before you post a link to it here. True Christians would not allow this to happen, naturist or not. BTW have all the people you have photos of on that website given you permission to use their photo? You know that the answer to that is false. If it is true, then should have to provide a link to their signed permission form underneath each photo.18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've had just about enough of this.

FIRST OF ALL, please please please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Please.

SECOND OF ALL, please use edit summaries when making changes to articles.

THIRD OF ALL, the change you are continually making to this article in particular results in a grammatical error. Please be more careful when removing content.

FOURTH OF ALL, nothing you have said so far is in any way justification for removing the links in question. What files they may have on their servers (and, I hasten to add, we have only your word on this "fact"; I'm not about to go searching through the voluminous archives of rec.nude in a vain attempt to find the pictures you find questionable) is no matter here. All that matters is what the link shows. And the link shows normal pictures of naturists.

FIFTH OF ALL, we have a policy here called Assume Good Faith. You are not assuming good faith on the part of Natman55.

SIXTH OF ALL, we have another policy here, where we require consensus. That means a bunch of people all agree on a particular course of action. It does not mean that you come here and remove links repeatedly despite multiple people putting them back.

Now, then, I'll say again that I have no idea what your big problem is with this website. And I don't care. Do not bring your problems onto Wikipedia. If there is a SERIOUS concern, then you need to provide SERIOUS evidence. So far you have not done so. Until you do, I will continue to stop you from removing the links without consensus. Powers 03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to anger you Mr. Powers. What is being done is being done for a very good reason. I don't expect you to understand, but are you assuming what I have said in good faith? I hope so.18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's getting more and more difficult to assume good faith here, considering you seem to have ignored every single one of my points, including the very simple one about signing your posts. The assumption of good faith can only go so far in the face of such uncooperativeness.

Furthermore, you should expect me to understand. Assuming good faith does not require me to take you at your word no matter what you say. You must provide evidence for your claims that will help me understand your point. So far you have not done so. You have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence that your claims are at all true. The longer you fail to do so, the less likely it is that your actions will be viewed as good-faith efforts. I appreciate your desire to improve this article, but you are going about it the wrong way. Powers 00:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to quit altering the page. I have also asked you to provide evidence of what you are speaking about so it can be addressed to the NC site moderators. As far as I know, there are no such images, even in "restricted" areas. At least have the decency to sign you posts. Natman55 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to perform due diligence before posting a link to a website that contains questionable photos. If you need for me to post the questionable photos here I guess I will have to, but I really don't want to. If you want to verify what I have said, go to rec.nude and do a search on Richard. If you need more proof, go to Naturist Christians website and look at the photos posted in the forum that one of your OWN members said were inappropriate. Read all the posts in that forum and you will find people in denial. This is very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.6 (talk • contribs)

You don't have to post the photos here. Just give us a link. I'm not going to search through rec.nude, because I don't know what I'm looking for. I don't know what you find objectionable. A simple link. You can link to a post in a newsgroup through Google Groups. You can link to a thread in a forum. Show us a link. I'm not going to waste my time trying to find something objectionable because a) I don't know what you find objectionable (all we've gotten so far is that they are "exploitative") and b) I don't have the time even if I did. Put up or stop removing the links. Powers 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

205.188.117.6, you continue to hide behind your AOL assigned IP address and refuse to sign you postings. I WAS able to view the "questionable" images listed on the forum before they were moved or removed. The area that was listed was an area used by the moderators to review images posted by other users, BEFORE they are to be considered appropriate to be placed in the viewable albums. Of the 25 images listed, I found only two to be questionable, not because of sexual content, but because of camera angle. The rest were simply of naked people doing things that otherwise dressed people would do, such as playing on the beach or in the water. At any rate, it appears they are taking appropriate action to insure that even these images are not even remotely available to the general public.Natman55 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Message to Natman: Do you have any idea how long it took them to remove those terrible photos? They had to be displayed on rec.nude several times and have one of your members view them there and then post them in your own forums before they would take the appropriate action. How long will it take next time? Bill Martin, however, still contended that there were no such photos and then stated that they were there but were in a restricted file and that people were breaking into the restricted file. In fact they were readily available with a normal search engine. Why the two different stories from the Administrator of the site? Questionable operation.

Another point to make is that Naturist Christians boasts of having over 17,000 photos of nudes. Why is that necessary? Have all of these people given permission for their photo to be posted there? We know that is not the case and so do you Natman. Why are there no links to signed permission affidavits and signed permission to use copyrighted materials? It appears that there is a very questionable group of people operating that website. We advise people looking into Christian naturism to look at the others sites. Thanks for hearing me out. Sorry, but it is necessary. 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)~~

Message to MYSTERY PERSON (?), I have visited the NC site for several years as a general user and NEVER once come across images that would be considered questionable. In fact, I have seen or read far more graphically detestable items on christianforums.com and christianity.com. All in all I believe they have done an excellent job of keeping the site appropriate for all audiences. Also, as far as I know, although his 501(C) corporation owns the rights to the site, Bill Martin is not an administrator and only periodically operates as moderator when severe actions are required. Additionally, the actual administrators are scattered all over the globe.

The point is that the vast majority of the site is dedicated to Christians that are either practicing or seeking information on the moral consequences of nakedness.

If anything, your actions have brought to light some areas that needed to be cleared up and it appears they have taken the necessary actions to do so. Will you please quit messing with the wiki now? Natman55 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do until Bill Martin and few others there are no longer affiliated with it. I do not trust him and Brumby. It does not matter whether or not you have seen questionable photos. I have told you where you can see the types of photos that were on the Naturist Christian website (rec.nude and do a search on Richard). I beg to differ with you, but Bill Martin is shown as the Administrator of the website and has several other titles with regard to that website. He is ultimately resonsible for this type of material showing up as located on that site for a very long time, but he denies it. He blames everyone else there. Very questionable.

People, please visit the other sites, as they are not in question here. Just be very wary of Naturist Christians site. I am sure that there are some very nice members there that have not seen what we have seen and I feel sorry for them. I hope they find another place to go.03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I still don't understand what pictures appearing on rec.nude under "Richard" have to do with Naturist Christians and Bill Martin. To humor you, I did a search. I assume you are the Richard in question? All I get in a search for "Richard" is a flame war starring... you. As I said before, it's not my responsibility to waste time delving into a newsgroup looking for evidence of rejected photos residing on private servers. I will ask again: if the photos are readily available, post a link. At a minimum, tell me which of your many newsgroup posts I should read. I'm not about to read all those threads.

However, the most important point is that you cannot just keep removing these links from Wikipedia without more justification. I'm to the point where I'm considering semi-protection for this article. Powers 10:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Powers, it is very important to remove the questionable link, just as it important to remove people whom exploit children and adults from society. If you did the search like you said you did, you should have been able to see the links to Naturist.Christians.org that Richard posted there with the photos. If those photos did not offend you, then there is nothing more I can say to convince you. I am not for total censorship, as is obvious, because I think the other links posted here are fine and show good examples of what the article is trying to portray. I am not trying to enflame you or this site, but my concerns about the questionable link are valid. I thank you for looking into it anyway. Hope this time you look a little farther and find the photo links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.6 (talk • contribs) .

Why are you so reluctant to just give me a link to the correct newsgroup posting? And why are you so reluctant to sign your posts? All you've given me is a name and a newsgroup. I did a search on the name, and it was useless for finding what you want me to find. I have better things to do than waste time trying to find images that you might find objectionable. Powers 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to do this but here are the links and they are posted under the original topic called Bill Martin is strangely silent (the topic name has been changed several times though):

Here are some more from quasi-nudist magazines of the 60's http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aat.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aba.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/abp.jpg These were NOT nudist and were sold in the various porn shops. They used the guise of nudism to get "legal", but they featured lots of crotch shots and sexual poses.

Some more that he has STOLEN from other people:

http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aab.jpg I doubt if Daniel, Mark, Kathy and Terri know that he is using their photos. http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aap.jpg Here are more of various Seattle nudists http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aaq.jpg ditto - I will have to ask mark and kathy if they approve.

Here are some more from quasi-nudist magazines of the 60's http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aat.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/aba.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/abp.jpg These were NOT nudist and were sold in the various porn shops. They used the guise of nudism to get "legal", but they featured lots of crotch shots and sexual poses.

Is this nudist? [answer: no] http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/abf.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album303/abo.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album304/aaa.jpg http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album304/aah.jpg <<<========== This is another example of a perfectly innocent "pose", but what is the intent of publishing such a photo? http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album304/aai.jpg another of the same http://naturist-christians.org/albums/album304/abe.jpg still more

more to follow.....................

Look, what folks do on their restricted 'moderators only' portion of their website that none of us have access to (although you do - curious) is their business. I have no idea what tehse pics are or if they even exist - these links all go to a password protection. What is accessible from the open web is perfectly reasonable.Bridesmill 16:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They just did that very recently because of our complaints about non-naturist, non-christian photos on their site. I did not realize that when I posted them here. I am sure the guys who got them in the first place have saved them. If you really need to know you can go to rec.nude and look for any post by Richard and send him a private email. Please identify yourself as being from Wekipedia and trying to confirm what has been stated there about the naturist.christians.org website.

Firstly, I don't hang around the usenet for images, and I'm not about to go emailing people for nude pics - think about it: If this stuff is as bad as you imply it is, that would be illegal in many jurisdictions. I'm not really interested in stuff that is not readily accessible - what the link goes to now appears fine - what they did in the past I neither know nor care. If they do stuff in the future which causes it to be a link 'of danger' to WP because of illicit material etc, then get rid of it. meanwhile, WP is not censored.Bridesmill 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, then you can stop removing the link now that the images are no longer accessible, right? And PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!! Powers 12:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The same people in control of the website when the nasty photos were accessible are still there and since their previous actions were to allow it, they should still be considered questionable, especially when it comes to Christianity and also naturism, and that what this article is about.14:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be censorship, and that would also be a POV judgement. On WP, the reader is the one who makes the assessment/judgement - not the editor. Please play by the same rules & guidelines everyone else uses.Bridesmill 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What would be censorship? This is an editible article for a reason. If you are entitled to your edits, then why wouldn't I be entitled to mine? I don't have to play be your rules if I feel they are wrong. When people do not do the right thing it is our right, in fact, it is our responsibility to see that they are reprimanded for it. The world is troublesome enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.114.182 (talk • contribs) .

Is there a reason you still refuse to sign your comments? Anyway, please read WP:Consensus before continuing to pontificate on your entitlement to do whatever you want to a WP article. Powers 14:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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)

This person seems to be into total censorship and is distorting reality. I tried to give both sides of the issue including a link to a newspaper article, while balanced, gives some very negative comments about Mr. Martin. This person just keeps on deletes everything. Semi-protection is a good idea as long as the rest of us who have contributed can still edit. RGNU 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Might I recommend semi-protection on the page? Unwillingness to engage in debate, absolute censorship, and hiding behind a screen of anonimity because 'the rest of us wouldn't understand'.....just does not seem conducive to developing any good article. If the linked site is bad, let a real user willing to debate explain properly, rather than playing edit war.Bridesmill 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Similar thing happened at Carthage; anon with some weird agenda; would not listen to reason - 7 or 8 users in consensus & 1 anon going 'but I am right because I know I am'. The partial protection forced them to get an account, which doesn't cure all ills but at least makes them subject to 3RR etc like the rest of us, and evens the playing field of the debate. You've tried to reason more than sufficiently, and they have answered none of your questions, I would suggest.Bridesmill 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The "mystery user", continues to vandalize the wiki, out of spite for Bill Martin, despite the fact that any questionable images have been removed or completely blocked on the NC site. He is not satisfied that action has been taken to correct a situation that was brought to light or that the public accessible areas of NC present noting but pure Christian naturism. The images that he lieted are no longer available because they are no longer there. I do not understand why Wikipedia tolerates un-registered edits in the first place. It seems to me that this sort of thing might be minimized or averted altogether if one had to be a registered user with a verified email address before posting.Natman55 14:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I understand that. The problem comes when there is necessary discussion on controversial issues, such as this one and a poster refuses to comply with standards or arbitration. I'm still new to this (obviously), and I'm certain Natman55 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the correct solution is here (though I don't expect at least a temporary semi-protect would ruffle too many feathers besides this guy's), but it seems more and more like this guy is nothing more than a troll. Initially he seemed like an over zealous...well...zealot, but as time goes on it becomes more and more apparent he's just bugging people. Since the link apparently (haven't visited it) is deemed appropriate by all the other users on this talk page, and considerable effort above and beyond the call of duty has gone into doing a completely atypical background check of the site being linked to, I don't see how Wikipedia has any responsibility (legal or ethical) to remove the link. If this guy actually has a legitimate concern about exploitative pictures which (from what I gather by his comments) border on child-pornography, then he needs to contact law enforcement, not Wikipedia. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.6 (talk • contribs) .

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)

Thanks for the advice Mr. Powers. Avoidance of frivilous law suits is a very good thing. Anonymous13:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.6 (talk • contribs) .

Early Christianity

Originally Jewish, and later, Christian, baptisms (or mikvehs) required people to be completely naked, even mass baptisms with men, women, and children together. It signified their being restored to man's original condition, having their shame removed. Others claim that children were baptized first, then men, then women, all separately.

Sources please?

Nudity at the YMCA

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Gen 3

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Goldfritha, if you would like to discuss some of the "criticisms" to Christian naturism I would certainly be interested. I have been studying this issue for about five years fervently. Thus far, the only criticisms I have found come from extra-Biblical sources, mostly Victorian or Puritan in nature.

Also, I do not know how to un-slant this article since it is describing a particular philosophy, not a debate. Natman55

Why the change of title?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Quakers do not "encourage nudity"

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have deleted "Even today, Quakers are known to encourage and enjoy nudity at their Farm and Wilderness camps in the USA.[1]" as it is untrue.

The Camps may be inspired by Quaker ideals. Some of their staff may be Quakers but "encouraging nudity" is not one of the principles of Quaker belief and your article should not represent the views of "Farms & Wilderness camps" as being sanctioned or supported or owned by any formal Quaker body.

Some Quakers may enjoy skinny dipping but so do some people of most religious persuasions.

Yours pedantically,

===Vernon White (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the article has now been modified to say:

"At most of the Quaker-inspired Farm and Wilderness summer camps in Vermont, USA, campers are free to wear what they want at the waterfronts. This includes skinny dipping after a discussion on body acceptance, and respecting others choices. However, the camps are not run by the Quaker church, and are open to people of all beliefs."

There is no such thing as "The Quaker Church". As far as I can see, The Farm & Wilderness Camps do not encourage nudity for religious reasons.

===Vernon White (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article now reads

"At most of the Quaker-inspired Farm and Wilderness summer camps in Vermont, USA, campers are free to wear what they want at the waterfronts. This includes skinny dipping after a discussion on body acceptance, and respecting others choices. However, the camps are not run by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and are open to people of all beliefs."(link to camps website)

Isn't this now out of place in an article on nudity and Christianity? The camps appear to have no specific Christian affilaition. The "Meetings for Worship" are not necessariliy held "in the Manner of Friends". The whole argument is extremely tenuous. === Vernon White (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

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)

This problem is now been fixed. All the POV statements were moved into the foundation section and clearly indicated as beliefs of Christian Naturism -- not encyclopedic facts. RGNU 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I didn't touch the quotes before, but now that you mentioned it, I'll delete them. They're available elsewhere, and Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for them.

RGNU 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to a more scholarly critique of Christian naturist argument, although there is a possibility of it merely bashing a strawman of sorts, since it is a response of "Liberated Christians", a site that promotes polyamory, among other things.

Kernan Rio —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently Added Tags

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

These problems have been fixed. RGNU 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)