A Florida man is attempting to renovate land outside of Orlando in order to create a Christian-themed nudist community. Bill Martin has paid $1.6 million for the land, which includes an old nudist colony that had fallen into disrepair, in order to create a "modern day Garden of Eden."
"The Bible very clearly states that when Adam and Eve were in right with God, they were naked," said David Blood, executive director of the project. "When people are in right with God, they do not have to fear nudity."
The renovated park - to be called Natura - would feature an open church, a giant water park for the kids and classes in family building and strengthening marriage.
Martin hopes to have enough of the trash removed and facilities fixed up for a naturist marriage retreat and nude baptism ceremony in April.
I'm a big proponent of religious liberty but there is something a bit off-putting about this "au natural theology." Who exactly is going to want to sit on a pew that some sweaty old Floridian just removed his backside from? And anyone who thinks that we don't need to "fear nudity" obviously has obviously never been to my church.
1
I am rather curious to know what kinda of confusion of thoughts led this man to his conclusion. Anyone want to help me out on that?
posted on 01.07.2004 7:10 AM2
Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
I think God would like to see us clothed. In spite of countless verses in Scripture that indicate that it is a shame to be naked, there are still "Christians" who persist in thinking that there is nothing wrong with public nudity.
posted on 01.07.2004 9:18 AM3
Oh, before I forget, one of my favourite preachers projected (based on a vision he saw in 1973) that nude dancing would eventually become part of the church worship service. Back then he also projected that France would become one of our most bitter enemies, and that gay priests would become ordained by Christian churches.
Draw your own conclusions.
posted on 01.07.2004 9:34 AM4
Probably from the medieval Adamite heresy.
Mac,
You are confusing a metaphor for righteousness with a millinary code. . .
5
I wonder what kind of snakes he'll use to stock the place. Maybe some talking ones with legs?
posted on 01.07.2004 11:14 AM6
The guy bought this land for 1.6 million? This goes to show that you don't need any common sense to become rich. Isn't America great?
posted on 01.07.2004 11:51 AM7
Hope you don't mind if a new guy posts here.
This man's theology is totally wrong. It is not that mankind was "right" with God and appeared naked before Him. Mankind was perfect before the fall! When sin entered the world Adam and Eve hid themelves from God, covering their nakedness and shame because of the broken relationship.
The price for sin was paid by Jesus Christ as a perfect human sacrifice. Sin is still in the world even though the price was paid. Man is still seperate from God, since obviously God does not physically walk among us, but the relationship can be mended through belief in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross. Perfection however will not occur until glorification after Christ's return.
So maybe our glorified bodies will be nude, but the whole point is, nakedness and lack of shame in relationship to God occured during a time of perfection and not of just being "right with God".
posted on 01.07.2004 12:21 PM9
EBB nails it. Bill Martin talks about when man was "right with God, they were naked." Well, yeah, but I seem to remember a story about man going "not so right." Since then there has been only one man that has been right with God, but Martin may have been sick that Sunday. If you want to be naked, just say so. We understand already. But don't do it under the pretense of getting "right with God" again.
posted on 01.07.2004 2:33 PM10
Mac:
In spite of countless verses in Scripture that indicate that it is a shame to be naked, there are still "Christians" who persist in thinking that there is nothing wrong with public nudity.Meh. I think every Christian on the planet is guilty of some degree of selective reading / following of scriptures. I can cite several scriptures that indicate that life begins with the first breath, and that wouldn't stop people from believing abortion is murder, if they are so inclined.
Similarly, I can cite the commandment against killing, Jesus' "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and all the "judge not, lest ye be judged stuff," and that wouldn't deter people from supporting capital punishment, either.
Like it or not, virtually everyone takes some degree of a cafeteria approach to scripture. They cherish and live by the parts they agree with, and tend to disregard those scriptures which they find distasteful.
EBB:
Mankind was perfect before the fall!Umm, if mankind was perfect before the fall, then how was the fall even possible? Wouldn't a perfect being be immune to such temptation? Besides, I thought that only God could rightly be described as "perfect."
Further, to my knowledge, God did not demand that Adam and Eve clothe themselves after the fall. They did this themselves, in embarrassment. The Bible says nothing about them having changed in physical appearance, so it would seem that it's all in the attitude.
posted on 01.07.2004 2:40 PM11
Ham was in big trouble for looking at his passed out drunk naked Dad. Shem and Japeth were good because they walked in backwards and covered him up. If you aren't careful with the Bible you can make it seem to mean whatever you want it to mean, but if you are careful, you can learn the truth.
posted on 01.07.2004 3:17 PM12
tgirsch:
I would define perfection as being without sin. Sin did not exist on earth before Adam and Eve sinned. Sin had it's origin in Adam and Eve.
Genesis 1 says man was created in the image of God. God gave man an intellect, emotion, and a free will. These are three characteristics that man shares with God. Man is intelligent as God is intelligent. All wisdom and knowledge flow from God. Man is also emotional. We feel joy, pain sorrow, sadness, anger... the whole gambit of emotions God feels also. The most important characteristic that man has is a will, a free will. God gave man the ability to choose.
In the garden, life was simple. God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to live great and fulfilling lives. God had one simple rule for living in the garden - Do not eat of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Can you imagine living in a world where there was only one rule? Heck we wouldn't need so many stupid lawyers.
What happens to a child when you tell them they can't have something? They want that thing with all their soul and they will do anything to have the forbidden fruit won't they? Well, satan knew this and went to Eve and tempted her by saying the fruit would make her like God and that God doesn't want her to be like Him. The serpent tempted Eve by saying she could be like God if she ate the fruit. Of course we know Eve succumbed to temptation, breaking the only rule that existed on the earth and therefore sinned against God. Adam followed her into sin. They realized they had broken the rules and they hid from God, the relationship between mankind and God damaged from that point onward.
I hope that helps. Please feel free to drop me an email if you have further questions.
posted on 01.07.2004 3:46 PM14
EBB:
I think a big part of the disconnect comes from our varying definitions of "perfect." And I still have some confusion as to how God's creations can have sin if God didn't put it there.
And there wasn't just one rule in Eden. Could Adam really have killed Eve if he wanted to? Rules may complicate life, but they're necessary any time the number of people around is greater than one. ;)
posted on 01.07.2004 4:03 PM15
David O... My serpent infatuated friend. Yes, the snake was kicked out of heaven because of his rebellion. Right now we are talking about the doctrine of man and sin - Hamartiology I believe it is called. In order to talk about the serpent, we would have to change topics and talk about Angelology.
tgirsch... I can see your definition of the word perfect revolves around "being incapable of" and I am defining perfect as "being without". In your sense of the word, Man is not perfect and never was. Having a free will always allowed them the ability to choose to sin. Man was without sin in the beginning. It had to start somewhere, right?
posted on 01.07.2004 4:13 PM16
He couldn't have killed Eve because death had not entered the world yet. Death entered the world when ADAM sinned. No death before that.
posted on 01.07.2004 4:14 PM17
Now in regular words; was the serpent sinful? was sin in the serpent? You said; "Sin did not exist on earth before Adam and Eve sinned. Sin had it's origin in Adam and Eve." Was the snake's evil not sin?
Hope this helps.
posted on 01.07.2004 4:17 PM18
Yes David O. The serpent was sinful, but the serpent sinned in the heavenly realm first. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden first. The serpent brought temptation to the earth, Adam and Eve brought sin. Maybe I'm just being too technical.
posted on 01.07.2004 4:23 PM19
Maybe you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The serpent sinned but somehow brought a non-sinful temptation to earth and Adam somehow came up with sin on their own. Was that temptation from the serpent sinful?
Did that help?
posted on 01.07.2004 4:30 PM20
EBB:
I am defining perfect as "being without [sin]"Then you are using an very non-traditional definition of "perfect." To me, "perfect" doesn't even mean "incapable of sin," as you suggest; rather, it means "without flaw." Whether or not the ability to sin is a "flaw" is debatable. However, nothing about the inherent nature of Adam and Eve changed when they sinned. They hadn't done this before, but they were always capable of it.
Getting back on topic, nothing about their physical appearance changed, either, once they had sinned. So one wonders why it's okay for a non-sinner to be naked but not a sinner. This simply does not make sense.
posted on 01.07.2004 6:19 PM21
I agree that too many use a cafeteria approach to Scripture, but I'd be hard pressed to find a verse that says it's all kosher to frolick about in our birthday suits once we receive Christ as our Saviour.
My original point still stands, even though the verse is metaphorical in nature, it's inherently clear that nakedness is a "shame" which should be addressed. (Matt 25:36)
One also finds it hard to take those Christians who use the same line of reasoning Britney Spears does to justify nekkedness. :-p
posted on 01.07.2004 7:41 PM22
Add "seriously" at the end of my previous post. :-P
posted on 01.07.2004 9:10 PM23
Mac:
I'd be hard pressed to find a verse that says it's all kosher to frolick about in our birthday suits once we receive Christ as our Saviour.You'd be hard pressed to find a scripture condemning slavery, too. And you can find plenty of instructions how to treat your slaves, and how slaves should behave, especially in the New Testament. From a purely Biblical point of view, there's no reason at all to condemn slavery.
Whether you like it or not, the Bible is not the be-all and end-all guide to what's right or wrong. Should it be? Probably not, seeing how it's about 2,000 years overdue for an update. :)
it's inherently clear that nakedness is a "shame" which should be addressed. (Matt 25:36)I don't think it's "inherently clear" from the verse at all. In context that verse, as I understand it, discusses treating the least among you as you would the greatest among you. You'd have to stretch pretty far to come up with "nakedness is evil" from that verse!
In fact, upon cursory examination, I wasn't able to find any direct commandment against nakedness. Nakedness and shame are compared on many occasions, but I don't see nakedness compared with sinfulness anywhere.
posted on 01.07.2004 11:41 PM24
Ok, I'm a little late to the party but I wanted to put my 2 cents worth in.
Before the sin of eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good & evil, good and evil were two separate entities.
Adam and Eve could be considered "perfect" in the sense that there was no evil intermingled in them there was no element that was against G-d.
However, Adam and Eve did have free will and one commandment. Don't eat from that tree.
Adam blew it by adding to the rules ("Don't eat or touch")
and then Eve went and ate (after the snake pushed her into the tree and she touched it and didn't die.)
However, upon eating evil became intermingled with the human body and death came into the world, in part as a way to allow the evil to be separated out from the body (which is recreated with the resurrection of the dead.)
There are commandments in Jewish law that dictate modesty. However, I am not sure of the specific passages that indicate the laws, and laws are given in the bible from small hints such as extra words and letters. (The twin and tripplet siblings (girls) of Cain, Abel and Seth are indicated by the "extra" word "et" in the original.) Whether these laws apply in a Christian context I will leave to the rest of you folks, but in any case it isn't the nudity that made Adam and Eve "right with G-d", and so creating a nude environment isn't going fix what's broken.
By the way, if they had waited 6 more hours they would have been permitted to eat from the tree. Haste makes waste.
posted on 01.08.2004 12:13 AM25
If you are correct in asserting tat Adam added the, "do not touch part," then he had alreday sined. It seems much more likely to me that Eve added that part while she was in the process of being beguiled by the serpent- sinning. She ate first. Lying or adding to God's word is a sin.
posted on 01.08.2004 6:41 AM26
David O, temptation is not sin, giving in to temptation is.
My use of the word perfect was wrong and imprecise language. I should have been using the word innocent. Adam and Eve were innocent at creation.
Sin brought about a change in relationship between God and Adam. The nakedness of the pre-fall relationship showed Adams righteousness. He had no shame or guilt. Afterward, the relationship was broken, there was no longer righteousness on Adam's part and he couldn't stand naked before God. He had shame and guilt.
posted on 01.08.2004 9:22 AM27
David O:
If you are correct in asserting tat Adam added the, "do not touch part," then he had alreday sined. [sic]Not if EBB's assertion that the only commandment at the time was "don't eat from the tree. No commandment against lying, no sin.
EBB:
David O, temptation is not sin, giving in to temptation is.Umm, what about Commandment #10 (9 & 10 if you're Catholic)? It's not a commandment against doing anything, it's a commandment against wanting to do something. If that's not a commandment against temptation, I don't know what is. posted on 01.08.2004 11:04 AM
28
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...WHOA.
I didn't say nakedness was evil, I said it was a SHAME. If it was evil I would have to take my showers fully clothed.
Throughout the Bible, the meaning is expressly conveyed: nakedness=shame
As for the slavery comparison, pffftttttt...basically there is one epistle that demonstrates Paul's desire to see believing slaves taken in as an equal brother instead, and in the Bible, the laws governing "slavery" make it clear that they enjoyed basic rights and were to be released after 7 years and given a portion of their master's possessions. Any abuse and violence directed to a bondsman was dealt with severely. Doesnt exactly fit in with the standard image of the master whupping his slave with a bullwhip to do his bidding. But then that's another story and another discussion.
The Bible is the final source because its authour is ultimately God, whose writers were movd by the Holy Spirit rather than the personal bias of their own interpretations. God is unchanging, and therefore his laws are unchanging as well, and remain just as valid today as they were since the beginning of time.
posted on 01.08.2004 11:27 AM29
Only Hebrew slaves were released unless they chose not to be released. The Bible provided a way for them to refuse to be released. Non-Hebrew slaves stayed slaves. There is nothing wrong with slavery. The person who owes another is a slave of the one to whom he is indebted, according to Proverbs (God.) Slaves are still to submit to their masters. Slaves are God's freemen. The rich are God's slaves. If you beat your slave and he didn't die, you weren't in trouble with God.
Exodus 21
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Tempting someone else seems to me to be a sinful act.
Lying was not unsinful before the fall of man. Satan is the father of liars.
John 8
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Lying was not an option for an unfallen man. Lies are committed by fallen men. Eve's lie was committed by a falling woman.
30
Mac:
God is unchanging
Bwahahahahahahaha! That's a good one. Ahahahaha! On a number of levels, too. First, on what basis do you say God is "unchanging?" Wouldn't that be limiting God, something we mere mortals aren't really up for?
Second, if God is unchanging, why did He change the rules? Why are there Old Testament rules that no longer apply? Did He change His mind? No, can't be that, because He's unchanging!
Third, what a nice guy this God must be if He creates creatures who are capable of sin and vulnerable to temptation, and then gets pissed off at them when they succumb to the very weaknesses He personally gave them. Isn't that rather like you having marijuana, showing your kids where it is, saying "don't smoke that," leaving them completely unattended, and then kicking them out of the house for smoking it?
By the way, God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the three they would "surely die." They ate from the tree, and they didn't die. Was God lying? Did He change His mind?
posted on 01.08.2004 1:53 PM31
Bwahahahahahahaha! That's a good one. Ahahahaha! On a number of levels, too. First, on what basis do you say God is "unchanging?"
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Second, if God is unchanging, why did He change the rules? Why are there Old Testament rules that no longer apply?
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
The rest requires a bit more of a fuller explanation, but my effort would be wasted here, so with this I bid adieu (that's French for goodbye) :-D
posted on 01.08.2004 8:28 PM32
Mac:
So I'm confused now. Am I allowed to eat shellfish, or no? Should I banish my wife from the town when she menstruates, or no? You're faced with three choices:
- These rules are still in effect (and virtually all of us ignore them)
- The Old Testament is not now and never was valid (but then why do we keep it around?)
- God changed the rules (i.e., he changed his mind -- he changed).
33
Jesus changed the rules. Unclean things became clean. You do a similar thing when you wash your dishes. We are to obey all the commandments of the New Testament, which come from the Old Testament, but are slightly different because Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the old law. The law exists to bring death. We get to use it to die daily like Paul said to do. None of the Old Testament rules are immoral. The morality stays the same, but the application of morality is different. It's still wrong to touch unclean stuff, but pork is no longer unclean! (I love bacon.) It's still wrong to muzzle the ox as it treads out the corn (or to do the same thing to your pastor by not giving to the offering plate.)
posted on 01.09.2004 10:36 AM34
David:
Jesus changed the rules. Unclean things became clean.Why? Why was this necessary? Why didn't God just explain to Moses' people how to make pork clean? posted on 01.09.2004 6:23 PM
35
I believe that the unclean spirits had a control over the unclean animals (possibly gained at the fall?) that they lost at some point in Jesus' ministry (when He declared all things clean) This would explain why the pigs that the Legion demons entered were able to kill themselves. It appears that a demon seeks a place to live, more than just a victim, so it is not likely that they would have pleaded with Jesus to let them enter something that they could not stay in. Or that they would instantly destroy their new homes. I believe that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego asked to be allowed to not eat their ruler's food for this same reason- to avoid the unclean spirits. There are still rules in effect about blood and strangled things and fornication. I believe that these all have to do with the spirit world also (there is life in the blood.) Look up the word "Unclean" in the Blue Letter Bible;
posted on 01.12.2004 9:52 AM