Nudist-Resorts.Org - Naturist Discussion Forum / Bulletin Board

Nudist-Resorts.Org - Naturist Discussion Forum / Bulletin Board
Save Password

Forgot Password?

About Us | Active Topics | Active Polls | Site News | Nudist News | Online Users | Members | Destinations | N. A. I. R. | My Page | Search
[ Active Members: 0 | Anonymous Members: 0 | Guests: 227 ]  [ Total: 227 ]  [ Newest Member: rustyloon ]
 All Forums
 Nudist Organizations
 Pseudo-Nudist Organizations
 Organizations that prey on nudism
Previous Page
 New Topic |   Reply to Topic |   Printer Friendly
Author Topic Next Topic: I need your help
Page: of 2

Forum Member

Posted - 08/01/2003 :  12:12:59 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BlaxBeach

I know there are a lot of versions and some are intended for a clear/clearer understanding of the original text and others are sometimes used to "water down" the Word. I was just curious which version you used for that quote.

Ahh... I was hoping someone would ask me that.

I took it upon myself to omit the word sin.

Because so many Bible-thumpers have gone about pointing the finger at others and having the audacity to call them sinners (as if their sin is any different in effect), I chose to use what I believe the meaning of Christ's words was.

Sin is from an ancient archer's term to "miss the mark". Not miss the target, but the bullseye. Logically, if we are to "sin no more" we are to hit the bullseye every time.

I believe that God knows what is best for us. He wants but does not force us to do things His way. Hit the bullseye everytime. Sin no more. Don't miss. Don't err. Do what God says.

Impossible however.

In Matthew, in the famous "Sermon on the Mount" Jesus goes through a list of impossibles. "Don't even lust--it's the same as adultery. Never divorce. Don't call your brother "Empty head"--it's the same as murder. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." What is he doing? He's showing what the Law was all about. He makes the point: everyone sins; everyone is guilty. Everyone.

So why does he then go on and tell the woman, later, to "Go and sin no more."? Seems awfully cruel to me, if he already knows she can't do that.

So I think the intent must have been "Hit the mark more often" or "choose God's way as often as you can" or "go God's way."

See? Is that too loose a translation?

BTW, the Law served its purpose in revealing sin, as an MRI can reveal the presence of cancer. Neither can heal. Jesus was here to heal, not to condemn.

Lust will always be with you.

Shame is not from God. Grace is.

Country: | Posts: 44 Go to Top of Page

Forum Admin

Posted - 08/01/2003 :  08:35:48 AM  Show Profile  Visit Admin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
We have an excellent discussion on this topic already in progress in Religion and Nudism. Please continue this religious discussion there.

Do you have any comments on "organizations that prey on nudism"? We are talking about ones that pose as nudist sites in order to sell child and teen nude photography and videos.

Country: USA | Posts: 1888 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 08/01/2003 :  11:45:45 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

A new topic Are Nudism and Sin Related? has been created there, to continue any biblical discussion/arguements

Thanks for your patience. P4L

Country: | Posts: 44 Go to Top of Page

The Bead Man
Forum Member

Posted - 04/05/2004 :  11:03:14 AM  Show Profile  Visit The Bead Man's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Admin

Do you have any comments on "organizations that prey on nudism"? We are talking about ones that pose as nudist sites in order to sell child and teen nude photography and videos.

Whatever Walt Zadanoff's intentions were, he fit into the "preying" category by his pricing. I would expect a true naturist organization to charge a price commensurate with the cost of production, handling and moderate profit, probably in the $10-20 range. A $99 price indicates it is for a "specialist" market, not something intended to spread the word to the general public.


"The Bead Man"

The Bead Artist formerly known as Revilo42

Country: | Posts: 186 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 02/26/2006 :  10:15:51 PM  Show Profile  Visit solarg8r's Homepage  Send solarg8r a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
My wife & I spent 30 years raising all of our kids, and if I never see another naked kid, it will be way too soon! LOL


Follow the link & find me in the Photo Gallery - SolarG8r

Country: USA | Posts: 17 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 08/12/2007 :  02:27:01 AM  Show Profile  Visit Loki's Homepage  Reply with Quote
What Potter Stewart actually wrote in JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) had nothing to do with standards for so-called child porn, but was focused on demands from an early predecessor of current RRR groups to legally define "pornography" and subject it to increased censorship. Justice Stewart in fact opined that in most cases criteria which resulted in the standing joke, "porn is whatever gives the judge a hard-on", were so subjective and arbitrary that in all but extreme cases, so much as defining "pornography" failed "void for vagueness" and other legal tests. This was not pleasing to "Citizens for Decent Literature", an Amicus party founded by a felon and self-proclaimed bastion of morality, whose organization relocated and morphed into National Family Legal Foundation, and later Alliance Defense Fund and Community Defense Counsel.

The core of Potter Stewart's actual words, which would have made a good basis for rejection of similar efforts to codify the religious notion of "indecency" as if neutral law had they been carried forward to "Pacifica", are thus:

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
"It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, 1 that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. 2 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."


Additionally, references to MPAA rating criteria have zero valid place in law. MPAA is a private trade organization, which rates movies under subjective prejudices some pretend are neutral, but which are actually commercial marketing criteria catering to exactly the same kinds of bigotry used to pretend biased laws restricting nudity or oppressing topfree equality are somehow anything other than illegal discrimination they are. To so much as promote or use MPAA commercialized bigotry in depicting nudism standards is to in effect rail against the legality or legitimacy of family nudism existing.

If the standards cannot be clearly articulated in unambiguous form meeting all tests of religious neutrality, at the least surviving a "Lemon" review as well as enabling the affected parties to clearly determine what actions would be compliant or in violation, notions like "indecency" and "pornography" fail to be legitimately definable in valid US law. See Julie Hilden's legal commentaries on the defects in "Pacifica" and related "Miller" obscenity precedent on the "Writ" site operated by Thomson's legal publishing division.

Beyond that, there are some difficult issues with legal minors who are under many cultural and religious traditions, and age of consent laws of some or many states, of legal age or Constitutionally entitled to be sexually active or adults to at least some extent. Based on those factors, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg seems to be the only present Justice who gets it about how Constitutionally defective Federal child porn and many state sexual consent or statutory rape laws are. She's suggested age 12 is the highest justifiable age of consent, which is the age by which 5% of us have become sexually active. It impresses me that age of consent or majority are primarily defective "bright line" legal system conveniences, which are highly detached from the differential rate of human development and maturity in different forms. Some people have more mature decision making skills b

Country: USA | Posts: 11 Go to Top of Page

go n nude
Forum Member

Posted - 08/13/2007 :  8:36:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Organizations/Persons, making big profits selling this Lifestyle is nothing new. During the 50's to the 70's it was magazines with many unsuspecting people's photo's in them without their permission or knowing they were in them.
There is a market out there with big bucks to spend, though they lack maturity and are looking for sexism . The problem persists with the www links to porn & Nudism on several sites /pages glorifing Nudism as sex for $$$,being classed with such sites doesn't help.

go n nude

Country: Canada | Posts: 415 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 03/26/2011 :  3:27:10 PM  Show Profile  Visit balataf's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Actually, other than defending our own turf here, and deleting improper posts, there isn't much our Group can do. Even with innocent pics it is all a matter of personal intention and individual viewpoint.

Country: USA | Posts: 661 Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Topic Next Topic: I need your help  
 New Topic |   Reply to Topic |   Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Jump To:
Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches © 2002-2020 SUN Go To Top Of Page
This page was down to skin in 0.25 seconds.


General Rules and Terms of Service

Membership in the Nudist-Resorts.Org discussion forum is free, can be anonymous, and requires only a working email address. All email links to members are cloaked. You can disable your email link. Nude photos can be posted, if within our posting rules. No erotica, spam or solicitation is allowed here. References to sex or genitals in your username or profile will result in removal from the forum. Information and opinions regarding anything related to nudism are encouraged, including discussions concerning the confusion between nudism and eroticism if discussed maturely. All posts in this forum are moderated. Read our POSTING RULES here and here. All information appearing on this website is copyright and intellectual property of the Society for Understanding Nudism unless otherwise noted. The views expressed on these forums by participants are not necessarily representative of the Society for Understanding Nudism. Administrators reserve the right to delete anything outside the posting rules, or anything in their opinion not appropriate. To post, you must have cookies enabled and be at least 18 years of age.

Email the Webmaster | Legal Information

Copyright © 2002-2015 SUN - Society for Understanding Nudism
All Rights Reserved

Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000