Are nudist church services morally acceptable?

Archivist · Apr 30, 2019

now faith said:
That's convenient.
Christianity is just a cafeteria.
If you do not Like what the Bibles say, then toss them aside and follow your own doctrines.
It is also a good way to couch a debate, like atheist do.
They say the Bible is fables.

I never said that the Bible is fable nor did I say that we can just toss anything in the Bible aside, did I? No reason for you to make false accusations. I read the creation stories as allegory, not myth.

If you want want to start another thread to discuss this feel free, but it really doesn’t belong on this thread.

Oh, and since you say that we must believe every word of the Bible, do you believe that bats are birds?

Archivist · Apr 30, 2019

now faith said:
Tore the skins of animals for attonment for sin.
Blood sacarfice not fashion statement.

So where was the ritual sacrifice? Scripture simply says that God made coats of skin for them.

Archivist · Apr 30, 2019

Archivist said:
I never said that the Bible is fable nor did I say that we can just toss anything in the Bible aside, did I? No reason for you to make false accusations. I read the creation stories as allegory, not myth.

If you want want to start another thread to discuss this feel free, but it really doesn’t belong on this thread.

Oh, and since you say that we must believe every word of the Bible, do you believe that bats are birds?

And for the record you are, of course, free to your interpretation of scripture as am I.

BNR32FAN · Apr 30, 2019

MyChainsAreGone said:
On what scriptural basis do you make that assertion?

Temptation of the flesh is very strong, do you agree? Now you and others may be able to refrain from thoughts of lust although I highly doubt that would be 100% of the time but that aside surely you would understand that some who are ungodly may attend for the sole purpose of seeing naked people to satisfy their lustful desire. So while you yourself may not be sinning in lust you could be causing others to stumble in sin and the chances of this would be very high. I know for sure that I would run out of that place in fear of sin and temptation. I think it’s a very strong unnecessary risk of causing others to stumble in The Lord’s house of all places.

“He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
‭‭LUKE‬ ‭17:1-2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.”
‭‭ROMANS‬ ‭14:13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,”
‭‭1 TIMOTHY‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”
‭‭1 CORINTHIANS‬ ‭8:9-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

now faith said:
Tore the skins of animals for attonment for sin.
Blood sacarfice not fashion statement.

Atonement and Sacrifice?

I see no evidence for that anywhere in the Bible. God made garments of skin. That's all the Bible says. How can we be sure it was anything more than just that?

Kate30 · Apr 30, 2019

Archivist said:
But if you were raised as a nudist and had seen your parents naked on a regular basis that wouldn’t be an issue, would it?

Archivist what would your experience be with Christian naturist communities? I’m sure historically speaking that there has been much older groups than the nudist church mentioned here.

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

now faith said:
Yes it was from loin to thigh, so when they ascended down the temple steps they were not exposing themselves, you make a good point it finding this obscure passage.
These were Levite Priests who were ministering in the temple.
If God had no concerns about being covered during worship why then would he command this?

I think you're mixing passages up here...

Exodus 28 prescribes the undergarments for the priests, but it was only for the Aaronic priests (the line of the high priest) and even for them, it was only required while serving at the altar. Furthermore, before they put on those garments, they were required to "bathe." In Jewish tradition, that meant a ritual mikveh which required complete nudity in order to be valid (still does today for orthodox Jews). The pools where these mikvehs were performed were quite public and near the Temple.

Exodus 20:26 is the passage that speaks about steps... and it is for all people. But it doesn't require a garment, only that steps up to altars are forbidden. Oddly enough, it does not forbid all steps... just those at a place of worship.

The question of why God made these requirements is a good one. But I think it would premature to simply conclude that it's because God doesn't like genitals. If that were the case, wouldn't we have to conclude that we can't worship God or pray while we're in the shower or bath... or while using the restroom? Are we really to believe that the visual exposure of body parts (that God created) is offensive to God? shameful? indecent? sinful?

I've written a paper with a word study of the word ervah, which is the word translated nakedness in the OT. My effort was to find out exactly how that word is used in the OT in order to better understand the passages in which it appears (such as both these passages). I believe that it is informative in helping to understand the answer to the question of why gave his people these commands.

Nakedness in the OT

I hope you'll read it.

Archivist · Apr 30, 2019

Kate30 said:
Archivist what would your experience be with Christian naturist communities? I’m sure historically speaking that there has been much older groups than the nudist church mentioned here.

In Colonial times some Quakers in Pennsylvania chose to live in the nude, something that upset the Puritans of New England when they heard about it. The Friends believed that outward adornment was a distraction from the pursuit of virtuous deeds. In Newbury, Massachusetts, one Quaker woman entered a Puritan church naked and strolled down the aisle shouting insults at the minister. She later explained that she was trying to illustrate the nakedness of Puritan religious practices. BTW, the Puritans ( you know, the religious fanatics who hung a bunch of innocent people for being witches) hated the Quakers, even hanging several Quaker missionaries.

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

now faith said:
Then there was Ham who uncovered Noah and caused shame to Noah.
Noah blessed Shem and Japeth but cursed the generations of
Ham.
This was long before the Law, but it clearly shows a distain for being naked, under certain circumstances.

I think you need to read Genesis 9 again... your summary of the narrative is not entirely accurate.

There's no "shame" mentioned at all. The guy that was naked was not the one that was cursed. Ham didn't uncover Noah, Noah did that himself. We most assuredly don't know what exactly happened (speculations abound) or why it was that while Ham was the one who dishonored his father Noah, it was the grandson that was cursed.

Interestingly enough, God never speaks or offers any commentary at all on this passage, so we really don't know what to make of it... is it in any way prescriptive? I don't think so. It's just a (true) story about what happened. The only reason I think we can come to regarding why it's in the Bible is that it explains when and how the Canaanite tribe was cursed. The rest of the story of the Israelites then exposes the continuous conflict Israel had with the Canaanites.

So, aside from that, the passage really gives us very little. We can speculate all we want about what exactly happened or what it means, but in the end, it's only that, speculation, because God didn't tell us what we are supposed to learn from the story.

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Temptation of the flesh is very strong, do you agree? Now you and others may be able to refrain from thoughts of lust although I highly doubt that would be 100% of the time but that aside surely you would understand that some who are ungodly may attend for the sole purpose of seeing naked people to satisfy their lustful desire. So while you yourself may not be sinning in lust you could be causing others to stumble in sin and the chances of this would be very high. I know for sure that I would run out of that place in fear of sin and temptation. I think it’s a very strong unnecessary risk of causing others to stumble in The Lord’s house of all places.

BNR32FAN, thanks for writing.

Keep in mind that people can (and do) lust after someone who is fully clothed. What you're basically suggesting is that if we are clothed and other people lust after us, it's on them, but if we are unclothed and they lust after us, then we are to blame, too.

I don't think that is a biblically defensible position. The Bible never even hints that our attire can be the cause of someone else's sin.

To the contrary, if someone lusts, it is completely and only an expression of their own heat. Jesus made it clear in Mark 7:14-23 that nothing outside of a man can make him unclean by going into him. Not food... not anything seen (look at the list of sins Jesus gives... it includes sexual sins).

BNR32FAN said:
“He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
‭‭LUKE‬ ‭17:1-2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The way Jesus was using the word, "Stumble" meant that someone was the reason that someone else didn't make it into heaven. That's clear from the context. This is not the same way that Paul uses the word, "stumble." We cannot conflate the two teachings as meaning one and the same. Nor does the word "stumble"--as Jesus used it--mean that someone has tripped someone else up so that they sinned some... this "stumble" is much more serious and "final" than that (hence the very severe curse that Jesus calls upon the one who "causes" the stumbling).

BNR32FAN said:
“Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.”
‭‭ROMANS‬ ‭14:13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Yes... if you read Romans 14 completely, you'll see that there is a strong emphasis on "not judging one another" over different ideas about what's morally permissible and what is not.

And unless I'm mistaken, you are on the edges of doing just that, if you assert that people who worship nude are "wrong" or in sin for doing so. The whole point of Romans 14 is to tell us that different people have different ideas about what is morally permissible and what is not, and it's not for us to judge someone else.

And the way Paul using "stumbling" really means that they don't yet have the freedom in their own spirit to do something, but because they see you (a more mature Christian) doing it, they go ahead and participate in the activity, in violation of their own conscience's state about the activity.

These passages are frequently misused in the effort to control people's behavior. I've written a paper about what these passages really mean.

You Can't Do That!

BNR32FAN said:
“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,”
‭‭1 TIMOTHY‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

This passage speaks only to the avoidance of ostentation... or dressing to impress (with one's wealth). It is not about sexual purity or avoidance of lust at all.

Furthermore, it has been misunderstood and even mistranslated. The translation that you quoted (NASB) is actually evidence for that fact. The word translated "proper" is the word that other versions translate as "modest." The word translated "modestly" was translated as "shamefacedness" in the KJV and "decency" in the NIV. (this second word really means "with downcast eyes"... and I think the best English equivalent might be "demurely"). The point being that the word "modest" isn't exactly in this verse at all... and certainly not the way we think of it today (keeping body parts covered).

I wrote an article about my deepdive into this passage and my conclusions. I'd encourage you to read it and see what you think.

Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9

BNR32FAN said:
“But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”
‭‭1 CORINTHIANS‬ ‭8:9-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Again this is like the Romans 14 passage above... be sure to read the "You Can't Do That" article.

BNR32FAN · Apr 30, 2019

MyChainsAreGone said:
BNR32FAN, thanks for writing.

Keep in mind that people can (and do) lust after someone who is fully clothed. What you're basically suggesting is that if we are clothed and other people lust after us, it's no them, but if we are unclothed and they lust after us, then we are to blame, too.

I don't think that is a biblically defensible position. The Bible never even hints that our attire can be the cause of someone else's sin.

To the contrary, if someone lusts, it is completely and only an expression of their own heat. Jesus made it clear in Mark 7:14-23 that nothing outside of a man can make him unclean by going into him. Not food... not anything seen (look at the list of sins Jesus gives... it includes sexual sins).

The way Jesus was using the word, "Stumble" meant that someone was the reason that someone else didn't make it into heaven. That's clear from the context. This is not the same way that Paul uses the word, "stumble." We cannot conflate the two teachings as meaning one and the same. Nor does the word "stumble"--as Jesus used it--mean that someone has tripped someone else up so that they sinned some... this "stumble" is much more serious and "final" than that (hence the very severe curse that Jesus calls upon the one who "causes" the stumbling).

Yes... if you read Romans 14 completely, you'll see that there is a strong emphasis on "not judging one another" over different ideas about what's morally permissible and what is not.

And unless I'm mistaken, you are on the edges of doing just that, if you assert that people who worship nude are "wrong" or in sin for doing so. The whole point of Romans 14 is to tell us that different people have different ideas about what is morally permissible and what is not, and it's not for us to judge someone else.

And the way Paul using "stumbling" really means that they don't yet have the freedom in their own spirit to do something, but because they see you (a more mature Christian) doing it, they go ahead and participate in the activity, in violation of their own conscience's state about the activity.

These passages are frequently misused in the effort to control people's behavior. I've written a paper about what these passages really mean.

You Can't Do That!

This passage speaks only to the avoidance of ostentation... or dressing to impress (with one's wealth). It is not about sexual purity or avoidance of lust at all.

Furthermore, it has been misunderstood and even mistranslated. The translation that you quoted (NASB) is actually evidence for that fact. The word translated "proper" is the word that other versions translate as "modest." The word translated "modestly" was translated as "shamefacedness" in the KJV and "decency" in the NIV. (this second word really means "with downcast eyes"... and I think the best English equivalent might be "demurely"). The point being that the word "modest" isn't exactly in this verse at all... and certainly not the way we think of it today (keeping body parts covered).

I wrote an article about my deepdive into this passage and my conclusions. I'd encourage you to read it and see what you think.

Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9

Again this is like the Romans 14 passage above... be sure to read the "You Can't Do That" article.

I concede, I have a strong moral conviction about it but perhaps that’s just a warning to me because of my own weakness.

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
I concede, I have a strong moral conviction about it but perhaps that’s just a warning to me because of my own weakness.

Wow! Kudos to you, BNR32FAN for that candor!

Let me give you one more thing to think about... when you read Romans 14, it surely tells the "strong" to be alert for the "weak" so that their own freedom (to do something) isn't a "stumbling block" to them...

But... it's not a license for the "weak" to remain weak. If we take Paul's instructions seriously, then it follows that the "strong" should work with the weak... instruct them, mentor them... until the weak becomes strong.

If I may, I'd like to encourage you to read through the articles at the MyChainsAreGone.org website. It deals directly with how men view the unclad human form, and exposes how the inappropriate contento-prudish mindset is literally the power behind inappropriate content addiction.

Everyone seems to believe that the problem is how God made women... with beauty... with curves. But that's not true... their form is not the problem, and God is not a inappropriate contentographer.

We sinfully view the unclad human form because we have a sinful view of the unclad human form!

If you believe that you are incapable of avoiding lust at the sight of a woman's form (that is the inappropriate contento-prudish mindset), the change that is needed is in your own heart/mind. And that change is possible. And honestly, once we realize where the real issue is (what we believe) the change is pretty rapid and persistent.

Changing what you believe is the path to life transformation. "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." (Romans 12:2) And "You will know the truth and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32)

I'd love to hear what you think when you read through the site.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

now faith said:
That's convenient.
Christianity is just a cafeteria.
If you do not Like what the Bibles say, then toss them aside and follow your own doctrines.
It is also a good way to couch a debate, like atheist do.
They say the Bible is fables.

Isn't that what you're doing?

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Temptation of the flesh is very strong, do you agree? Now you and others may be able to refrain from thoughts of lust although I highly doubt that would be 100% of the time but that aside surely you would understand that some who are ungodly may attend for the sole purpose of seeing naked people to satisfy their lustful desire. So while you yourself may not be sinning in lust you could be causing others to stumble in sin and the chances of this would be very high. I know for sure that I would run out of that place in fear of sin and temptation. I think it’s a very strong unnecessary risk of causing others to stumble in The Lord’s house of all places.

“He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
‭‭LUKE‬ ‭17:1-2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.”
‭‭ROMANS‬ ‭14:13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,”
‭‭1 TIMOTHY‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”
‭‭1 CORINTHIANS‬ ‭8:9-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Should every one become a total hermit? I personally find while I please some I offend others by the same actions.

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

ace of hearts said:
Isn't that what you're doing?

If you're going to accuse someone of "doing" something... it would be helpful to specify what you are referring to... I don't know what you are talking about and why you said that "now faith" is doing what they said someone else is doing.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

MyChainsAreGone said:
If you're going to accuse someone of "doing" something... it would be helpful to specify what you are referring to... I don't know what you are talking about and why you said that "now faith" is doing what they said someone else is doing.

My statement is only complete with the post I responded to.

MyChainsAreGone · Apr 30, 2019

ace of hearts said:
My statement is only complete with the post I responded to.

I read it with the post you responded to. And I couldn't see how your response made sense, because what you accused NF of doing, I could not perceive in their post. So... whatever you were trying to highlight was not clear.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

MyChainsAreGone said:
I read it with the post you responded to. And I couldn't see how your response made sense, because what you accused NF of doing, I could not perceive in their post. So... whatever you were trying to highlight was not clear.

Here is what NF said -

If you do not Like what the Bibles say, then toss them aside and follow your own doctrines.

To which I responded with -

Isn't that what you're doing.

If you need more for context I'll do the back tracking and quote.

MyChainsAreGone · May 1, 2019

ace of hearts said:
Here is what NF said -

If you do not Like what the Bibles say, then toss them aside and follow your own doctrines.

To which I responded with -

Isn't that what you're doing.

If you need more for context I'll do the back tracking and quote.

I've been following that entire conversation.

NF was startled when Archivist said that he believed the Genesis account of Creation and the fall to be allegorical rather than historical. NF considered that to be a significant departure from following what the Bible actually say. I have not seen NF ever say anything that was so clearly contrary to the natural reading of the Scriptures.

So... I don't think your accusation of NF doing the "same thing" is warranted.

now faith · May 1, 2019

ace of hearts said:
Isn't that what you're doing?

No not at all, I do not consider the Genesis narrative a fable.

Genesis 3: 7. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10. And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

What provoked them to cover themselves?
Sin.

Are nudist church services morally acceptable?

Are nudist religious services morally acceptable?

Yes

No

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

He’s a Way of life

Image Bearer

Active Member

Image Bearer

Senior Veteran

Image Bearer

Image Bearer

He’s a Way of life

Image Bearer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Image Bearer

Well-Known Member

Image Bearer

Well-Known Member

Image Bearer

Veteran

Similar threads