First Christianity-themed nudist resort to open in Florida

Thu Jan 22, 1:30 PM ET

Add Offbeat - AFP to My Yahoo! TAMPA, United States (AFP) - The first nudist resort created primarily for Christians in the United States is due to open in Florida and its co-founder claims that he can provide passages in the Bible where nudity is prominently mentioned.

AFP/File Photo "Depending on the version of the Bible you use, there are as many as 40 passages that refer to nudity," said Bill Martin, co-founder of Natura, which will be the first Christianity-themed nudist colony in the country when it opens in a Tampa suburb in April.

"In (the Bible book of) Isaiah 20.2, God tells Isaiah to go into the wilderness naked for three years. So there's historical basis for a Christian nudist lifestyle," continued Martin, who is a Quaker.

When Natura is completed, the 240-acre resort area will have 500 homes, a hotel, a water-slide park, and a non-denominational Christian church. Although nudity will be mandatory, attending church services will be clothing-optional for residents, according to Martin.

Followers of the Baptist, Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, and Quaker religions are some of the different Christian denominations who will call Natura home.

"Fundamentalist Christians and the Southern Baptists may object to us, but I will meet with them anytime to talk about both Natura and nudity," said Martin. "It's funny that some Southern Baptists oppose us, because for about the first 500 years after the death of Christ, mass baptisms were done nude."

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004

Answers

Sorry, but this has nohtign to do with Sola Scriptura, more like some ridiculous excuse for nudity. ( The article mentioned Catholcis too, did it not.)

Let us not judge the Whole of one group by its extremists, and besides, the Quakers dotn beleive in Sola Scriptura.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2004.

Zarove said: Sorry, but this has nohtign to do with Sola Scriptura, more like some ridiculous excuse for nudity.

Hi Zarove. I see what you're saying because it does no mention SS directly, however, the original poster also has a point. Basically, the result of SS is that people have no central authority on which to base their interpretations of Scripture, or else they create their own central authority. In this case, they use it to justify unGodly behavior, by saying that Scripture supports it.

This has been done numerous times throughout history - just look at the murder of innocent children sanctioned by many "Christians" (abortion), the attempted mass destruction of an entire race of people by Hitler (Holocaust), or the brutal treatment of African slaves in the 1800s in the South of the United States. All of these actions were "justified" (in their own minds) with Scriptural backup.

Imagine a country such as the United States (that's my example because it's where I live) established with a founding document such as the Constitution, but then the founders left no authoritative body that could interpret and execute what was stated in that document. They simply told everyone to live by their own interpretations of it. It would over time result in mass chaos. That is essentially what has occurred in Protestantism with Sola Scriptura. (the idea of this example comes from Scott Hahn)

( The article mentioned Catholcis too, did it not.)

The fact that the behavior of these Catholics is contrary to their Church's teaching in no way nullifies the teaching of the Catholic Church. They are simply turning away from what the Church teaches.

Let us not judge the Whole of one group by its extremists,

I'm not sure which "group" you're referring to here? You just used an example of Catholics who are the extremists, and you seemed to judge them as representative of Catholicism, or perhaps of the fact that many different denominations had people who claimed to be members that were joining this heresy.

If the "group" is all those who believe in SS, you are right in saying that this is not representative of most who believe in that doctrine. However, I see a flaw in the doctrine. Who are you, as a fellow Protestant, to say that their interpretation of Scripture is false while yours is correct? You do not have that authority. It seems to me that the doctrine of SS begs for this type of group to form. Or any other heretical group.

and besides, the Quakers dotn beleive in Sola Scriptura.

Really? That's interesting - do you know what they do believe? Perhaps that God is still revealing things to us now?

Zarove, I want you to know that I always enjoy reading your messages, because you give valuable insights from a Protestant perspective, and you seem very fair in the way you discuss things. Thanks for sharing in this forum.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Quakers arent technically protestants, and do not hold to sola Scriptura. Indeed, they veiw the Bible as a doculemtation fo Gods interaction, not as a sole basis of authority, they claim that Jesus is the final authority, and that he visits in spirit his followers.

Each person in the Friends, or Quakers, has to allow personal revelation as well.

Here is a web page tellign of the basics.

http://www.langdale.karoo.net/belief.html

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2004.

Zarove said: Quakers arent technically protestants

Really? I was not aware of this. I thought that "protestant" meant anyone who follows in the Christian tradition but is not Catholic (with possible exceptions of Orthodox, who are very similar to Catholic, and also cult groups, some of which claim to be Christian but whose practices are manipulative and beliefs so far from orthodoxy that they cannot be trusted). So what is your definition of "protestant"? Do you consider yourself to be one?

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

My definition of Protestantism is simple. A Protestant is of a Church that is in protest to Roman Authority. Thus tghe first Protestant Chruch was that of Martain Luther.

Churches that did not arise in rejection of Catholisism, nor as branch divisions of other Protestant Chrurches, are not Protestant. Theirfore, Qyakers arent protestants. Neither are Mormons, or Mennonites.

Nondenomonational Churches arent protestant, nor are independant Chruches, as threu didnt branch off of Catholisism, or a Protestant Chruch, and began independantly.

From a bare bones thing, the Chruhc of CHrist, which is listed as Protestant, isnt really protestant either as its origions are more in line with what is called an "Independant" movement.

I class myself as a Christain, and htough I still hold some affiliation with Chruhc of CHrist, I am technically not Church of Christ in attendance.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 01, 2004.

Jmj

You have it about right, Emily. A Catholic would say that a Christian who is neither
(1) a Catholic nor
(2)from one of the ancient, apostolic, separated Eastern churches ...
is a Protestant.

[This would not include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, and members of certain other sects -- whom Catholicism does not consider Christians, because they do not believe in a trinitarian God in which Jesus is the second divine Person.]

As the Catholic Encylopedia's article on Quakers states (at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06304b.htm): "Although the Friends repudiate creeds as 'external' and 'human,' yet they, at least the early Quakers and their orthodox modern followers, admit the fundamental dogmas of Christianity as expounded in the Apostles' Creed."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Quakerism was an outgrowth of Puritanism and Separatism, both of which were protest movements against Anglicanism, which in turn came into existence as a protest movement against the Catholic Church. Therefore, Quakers are indeed Protestants of the Anglican, not the Lutheran, tradition.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 01, 2004.

I agree with Paul here. Quakers are essentially, protestants.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.