Are nudist church services morally acceptable?

Are nudist religious services morally acceptable?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,943
11,697
Neath
✟1,002,161.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This is typical of "humor" directed at nudists.

It is assumed that we have dirty bodies and dirty minds - by a society which cannot separate nudity from inappropriate contentography and illicit sex.

You posted earlier how "God demands respect".
Do you realize that when you disrespect our bodies, you also disrespect their Designer?

Its not a matter of disrespecting anyone's body. Its disrespectful to go into God's house without reverence. Being butt naked in the house of God is irreverent. Being naked in God's house is selfish. Its not being humble. Its all about 'me' 'me' 'me' and what you 'think' is ok and right.

There is a time and place for nakedness and being in God's house is not one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Laureate, your original post offered nothing of substance.
I voted No, however it is something we should find acceptable in Sodom and Gomorrah.
The OP was about the "moral" acceptability of a Nudist Church services... any mention of Sodom has absolutely no relevance to the OP nor does it support your position.
Those who do not have the Love for Truth are handed over to their own imaginations.
Evidently, this is an allusion to Romans 1:21-27.

It should be noted that your quotation is not accurate. Yet you proceeded as if you had proved some sort of point. It is much better form to quote the passage you're referring to accurately, and then explain why it means what you assert that it means. Just giving your own paraphrase is of little use, and does not prove your point at all.

Furthermore, there is in your words the unjustified inference that those who participate in Nudist Worship do NOT have a "Love for Truth." I can assure you that is false.

The very first time I was confronted with the claim by Christians that social nudity was not a violation of God's moral law, I assumed--like you--that it was only the expression of people who wanted to justify their sinful ways. I was shocked to find out instead that these people loved God and revered God's Word every bit as much as I do! And I was also shocked to see that their biblical arguments were sound, while every argument I'd ever heard against social nudity from the Bible disintegrated into dust when carefully scrutinized under honest hermeneutical evaluation.

No, I discovered that people who "love the truth" can still be nudists... and devout, "godly-life" Christians.

So, your second statement is invalid and refuted by the facts.
All manner of perversities come with an addiction and a desire to promote and justify it, which only exposes it, no pun intended.
This statement is probably true.

But... social nudity is NOT a "perversity." And it is not defended by its Christian practitioners out of a desire to "justify," but rather to be truly honest about what the Bible does and does not teach.

What IS a perversity, however, is this:
  • Considering the exposed/unclad image of God in the human form to be indecent, sinful, shameful, lewd, offensive, or lust-inducing.
And yes, those who embrace that perversity do jump through all sorts of false exegetical hoops in order to "justify" that false belief... as is evident in your arguments in your second post.

So, even your third statement does not prove your point or perspective at all. Instead, you yourself happen to fall under the judgment of your own words.

So... let me continue to address your second post...
You do not think nude fellowship would be acceptable in Sodom and Gomorrah?
Totally irrelevant. How does anything accepted or not accepted in Sodom have any relevance on what it acceptable before God?
My second statement is a scriptural fact, funny how many refer to scripture as an opinion when it does not sit right with them;
Funny how many simply paraphrase a passage of scripture as if they are speaking God's Word (when they are not) and then use their own words to condemn others. By "quoting" God's word as you did, you also inferred that "Love for Truth" was absent in anyone who supports Nudist Church Services without even a hint of evidence against them... other than your presumption of their "wrongness" about such services.

That sort of inferred accusation is unacceptable.
If you feel I miss applied the verse, then defend the verse not yourself, for the truth is our defense is it not?
The inferred false accusation was the problem... not the scripture you alluded to.
The third statement I made is also an evident truth, which we all can see is evident, or at least when it doesn't apply to one's self, I am sure you would not have taken any offense if this was not being directed towards nude worship services.
Now there's some irony... it does indeed apply to yourself, yet it seems that you are the one person that you presumed to be free of the error!

Yes, you directed it towards nude worship services, but you should have recognized that your assumptions about the meaning of the exposed human body is the real perversion... and your misuse of the Scriptures in a misguided attempt to defend or support such a perspective is precisely the sort of "justification" that you were talking about. And yes, your interpretational misuse of the Scriptures does indeed "expose" your perverse perspective about the human form.
As for my justification for directing these evident truths towards nude services, which the O.P. asked, What do you think? I answered the Question asked, according to my scriptural opinion.
As I've already pointed out, you failed to support your point.
Personally, I am into following scriptural examples of Righteousness, can you show me one place in scriptures where the saints held nude services?
Actually, I can...

Isaiah 20:2-3 "...at that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.” And he did so, going naked and barefoot. 3 And the Lord said, “Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush, ..."

So, here's a prophet of God that preaches nude for three years. Anytime he "led" a "service" during those three years, he would have been completely nude while preaching. Anytime he attended worship at the temple (required of all Jews at least once per year), he would have done so completely nude.

But that's not all...

In 1 Samuel 19:22-24, King Saul was overcome by the power of God's Spirit and spent a day and a night fully naked among the prophets (including Samuel)... he himself prophesying the entire time. That sounds like a "worship" event to me.

Then he himself went to Ramah and came as far as the large well that is in Secu; and he asked and said, “Where are Samuel and David?” And someone said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” 23 He proceeded there to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he went along prophesying continually until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

The reaction of the people did not give evidence of surprise that one prophesying would be nude (from which we can infer that was common enough to be considered "normal" for a prophet), but rather than the King was now "acting like" (and undressed like) the prophets.

And it even happened in the New Testament...

On the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles, Peter stood up and preached in the power of the Spirit. "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."

Now history tells us that the early church baptized people nude. Furthermore, Christian Baptism was adopted by the church from Judaism, which already had a rite of Baptism called the mikveh. And throughout history (and even today), the mikveh requires complete nudity in order to be valid.

So... that first in-gathering of new believers would have resulted in seeing 3000 nude people going into the waters for baptism as followers of Christ.

So... there are three instances of nudity in the Bible during "worship" or some other religious "service" or gathering.

And I didn't mention the baptism of Christ by John... which undoubtedly also followed the pattern of the Jewish mikveh. So... there's another instance or preaching and public baptism with nude people in attendance.
I can show you where our nudity is a token of Shame, not to be boasted in, being paralleled with one's wrong being shown to them, and them having no shame.

There are only three cases in the bible where nudity was acceptable, 1) before sin entered the picture, 2) when the King (not congregation) danced before the ark, and 3) when Peter dashed to meet our Savior.
I've already given you four examples beyond what you've mentioned. Here are some more where nudity was just fine...

Ezekiel 16:1-8. God tells the story of the coming-of-age of the nation of Israel as if a little girl. He describes her as naked from birth, and all through her growing years (including puberty and her blossoming as a young woman). Not until He's ready to marry her (verse 8) does He finally cover her up. Two very important observations here...
  1. Her nakedness was not an issue for God during all her growing up years. When He did finally cover her nakedness, it was not a matter of covering her shame, but of claiming her as His bride (remember Ruth asking Boaz to spread his cloak over her... as a promise to marry her).
  2. There was not even a hint of shame mentioned anywhere in this passage describing this young girl completed naked. She did act shamefully later, but not until long after she was no longer a naked child growing up.
Yes, it's an allegory, but such an allegorical picture would make no sense to Ezekiel's audience if they did not at least have some familiarity with the word picture that he drew about a naked child. Seeing poor people naked was a pretty common sight in that time... hence the repeated calls to "clothe the naked." There literally were naked poor people wandering around...

And then there's Jesus washing His disciples' feet... the Scripture text pretty clearly says He took off his clothes. And, since it was common practice for servants to do their work in the nude, His adopting that state of attire while washing their feet would have only made His point of being a "servant" all the more poignant.

And for the record, even though the word describing how he put on the towel is translated "gird" in English, the Greek word is NOT the word that means "gird" (wrapping a garment "around" yourself). He "wore" the towel the same way that anyone would who wanted to keep it handy for washing and drying someone's feet... he draped it over his shoulders so that it close at hand.

Finally, in order to make the case that Nudity=shame in the bible, it stands to reason that you must demonstrate that shame always accompanies nudity in the Bible. But you yourself gave several examples where there was no shame. I've given you several more.

But I will turn it around and make a different claim that you are welcome to investigate and find any biblical example contrary to my claim. It is this:
  • Whenever shame is described with nudity in the bible, there is always a more compelling cause for the shame than the simple fact that nudity was present. For example, someone is shamefully immoral, and so God exposes them in their sin. Nudity and shame are present, but the real shame is the immorality, not the nudity.
  • Here's another related claim... in the Old Testament, there's never any shame associated with any word describing nudity except for the word ervah. In my study, I've discovered that while that word does get translated simply as "nakedness" in the OT, its usage consistently implies "active" nakedness... and that "activity" almost always sexual. Even so, however, that term itself is not always associated with shame (such as Ezekiel 16:8 referenced above), because sexual activity is not always shameful.
Personally I hold no shame to the naked body, we grew up in the country where the whole family would swim or bathe nude in a pond.
That's actually pretty cool. It's very beneficial for kids growing up (and for grown-ups, too!)
Hello! We happen to live in a Perverse World, in a day and age where the greater congregation is suffering more loss behind the perverse antics of religious leaders, and as I'm sure you are well aware, that the Enemies of our Sovereign Author are the members of His household.
Indeed. But a significant part of the problem behind this epidemic of impurity in the church is the continued support and teaching within the church that the unclad human body is inappropriate contentographic and dangerous to spiritual health. Such teaching is not taught in the Bible and the teaching has not resulted in greater purity in the church... rather, quite the opposite. But this indeed is the guarantee of Colossians 2:20-23... that man-made rules for righteousness "are of no value against fleshly indulgence."
Yes, in My opinion nude worship is neither an expedient nor an appropriate means in which to hold public fellowship, where one should be focussing in on the Word, Will, and Wisdom of our Sovereign Author, and nothing else Period.
But your assumption is that worshiping nude would impeded focusing on God and His word. It is not such an impediment. Only those who have never experienced it would think so... and that only exposes their own perversity of mind, imagining that the beauty of God's highest creation would be a trigger for sin or a distraction from God's Glory.

The fact is that the first hand testimony of several people in this thread have personally testified that nude worship and prayer has actually enhanced their worship experience and drawn them more tangibly close to God.
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, its called decency. Going into a house of God butt naked is just not decent. Even Adam and Eve covered themselves in the garden when sin revealed their vulnerability and we are very much like them.

God demands respect.

The Apostles didnt go around preaching in the nude. Mose and Elijah didnt appear naked at the Transfiguration.
Ah, but Isaiah preached completely naked for 3 years (Isaiah 20:2-3)!

And for the record, Adam and Eve covered their bodies in fear/shame... instead of doing what was right!

They should have run directly to God exactly as they were (still naked) and confessed their disobedience to Him.

Instead, they did the following three things:
  • They hid from God (how stupid)
  • They attempted to address their sin/shame by crafting clothes (how stupid)
  • They blamed someone else for their own sin (how stupid)
I continue to be amazed at how many people think that Adam and Eve did the right thing when they sowed the fig leaves... (how stupid!). No, they did nothing right after they sinned. For all we can tell from the text, they never even repented of their sin.

There's absolutely nothing disrespectful to God in my body exactly as He Himself made it!!

How could you possibly suggest otherwise??
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a time and place for nakedness and being in God's house is not one of them.
Um... might I remind you that our bodies are the "Temple of the Holy Spirit"?

And... that's true even when we're naked. Evidently God's "house" can indeed be naked... and God doesn't mind.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.