Are nudist church services morally acceptable?

[mmksparbud]

Are you always so rude? If I disagree with you, I don’t accuse you of absurdity but you have no problem doing that to others. Can you not engage in polite converstation?

Well---of course, God only meant for Adam and Eve to be clothed, not anyone else!! [/QUOTE]

Please show me exactly where I said that.[/QUOTE]


Are you ???

Oh get real!

I didn't accuse you of being rude---You think I am being unreal, insincere, whatever---


What you said was that God only covered up Adam and Eve and did not command for anyone else to be clothed---I am not going to waste my time looking for that quote. Seeing as Adam and Eve were the only ones there, who else would He have said that to? Slap to the forehead was the only possible thing to do! You implied with your statement, that nobody else was required to cover up except Adam and Eve. Well, the curses did not affect just Adam and Eve did they?

In this case it did. This church was made up of people who had nice houses, plenty of food and money and nice clothing. But they were neither hot nor cold—so they were spiritually poor, starving and naked.

Yah---nevertheless, nakedness is here equated with spiritually poor, starving, not with anything positive. Nakedness has never been associated with purity, righteousness, or anything good. No verses state anything but negative connotations with it.

Yes, only forced nudity is wrong.

Where does it say that willful nudity is good? It is always associated with shame. Again---modest apparel does not translate to it's OK to go around naked.

 

[usexpat97]

Even if we all agreed that nudism was perfectly okay, church services are supposed to be all about God. Instead you'd be making it all about the nudism.

 

[mmksparbud]

So God was upset with Peter when he was fishing naked?

Who said He was?---But Peter was fishing with the guys and at night and the first thing Peter did was to cover up. It is a matter of debate as to whether it meant literally naked or just down to his loincloth.

Yes, God described forced nudity as shameful.

Eze 16:37 Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.

This is God letting the world see her nakedness--those verses are nit detailing how wonderful it is be naked under any circumstances.

So you are now speaking for God. That shows where this conversation is going.

Who said I was. But I will not speak for Satan! And I can guarantee you one thing---if Jesus were to walk into that church --- the very first thing those idiots would do is to look for a way to cover up!​

What I can not do is to continue with this. That any Christian would argue for nudity in a place of worship just shows where this world is going. I must "brush the dust off my feet on this one now.

Zep 3:5 The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.

 

[Darkhorse]

Even if we all agreed that nudism was perfectly okay, church services are supposed to be all about God. Instead you'd be making it all about the nudism.

Actually, it is all about God. The people there are nude because this church is situated within a nudist resort, where people do everything nude.

If you heard an audio recording of the service, you would never know there was anything unusual about it...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Oh yes, nudity is a quality to drug use. This is what people do when they have no valid argument—they make unreasonable comparisons.

No, scripture doesn’t say anything about cocaine use, but it does tell us not to use alcohol to excess, and drugs would fall in that same category.

It also tells us to dress moderately.
Mathew 5:3-10 tells us how we should behave and it doesn't seem to me that anyone following those teachings would want to go around nude.
Blessed are the meek.
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
Blessed are the pure in heart.
Blessed are the gentile.

The bible doesn't specify each and every thing we do. Are video games prohibited....but we can know what Jesus would approve and what He would not approve.

Even Paul spoke to this...
Immorality
Sensuality
Impurity
Galatians 5:19

 

[GodsGrace101]

Exactly.. they were sinless.. while being naked..
being naked wasent a sin and it dident magically become a sin when they ate the fruit.

Their perception may have changed....disobedience, rebellion etc
but if being naked was in itself a sin.. then God caused them to sin by creating them in that state.
Dont know about you but God dosent strike me as the type to make us in his own image but sneak a lil sin in there without letting us know... then sit sniggering and taking bets with the angels on how long it will take us to notice......

Its also inteesting to note... that for all the people saying nudity causes lust... the countries with the worst rape rates are ones where people(women in particular) are required to cover up the most. Seems to me that kinda points to the opposite being the case....

Their nudity DID become a sin after they ate, and they knew it and hid from God because of shame.

And nudity DOES cause lust ---
Would I like to post a couple of images here and see what the guys think about it!

 

[Balugon]

I've ran nudist church services in a park in Pennsylvania. I think God's totally okay with it. Why? Because lust doesn't originate from lack of clothing, it originates from sexual desire going down the wrong path. Lust happens all the time to people who are wearing clothing, even conservative clothing. If you don't believe me, look at the stats on Christian ministers who have cheated on their spouses, or look at the sexual problems that happen in Muslim-majority countries, or go out in the general public long enough- you'll see ordinarily dressed women getting cat-called. That said, control doesn't come from clothing either. It comes from the strength that God provides (Romans 2:28-29).

One benefit of getting to know people in a public setting while nude is that your mind actually starts to realize that naked bodies often have no interest in sex, unlike what inappropriate content might want to say. In person, someone might want to play board games or eat lunch or talk to other people besides you. It helps one's mind to realize there is a person in the skin, and the skin kind of becomes like clothing- it clothes the person. While it might be easy for someone's imagination to get the best of them while looking at pictures online, thinking that that body wants to have sex with them, it's harder to do when someone clearly expresses no interest in person.

Another big thing to remember about nakedness in person is that very few people are model-level beautiful in real life. There are a lot of not-sexually-appealing bodies out there, and you'll find these at nudist parks and nude beaches. Your body won't likely be jumping at the bit over someone's obese grandmother. Even if someone who is physically attractive shows up, it's not really any different than if they have clothes on, because often these individuals know how to dress well (I mean people who spend significant time on their looks know how to look sharp, even if dressed conservatively). It likes living in normal life. I work with some very attractive women (in a clothed environment). I don't go jump them. Why? Because I respect them as human beings. Nothing changes there in a nudist environment.

And as for Biblical backing- If God created Adam and Eve nude, and God doesn't change, then nudity is still an acceptable part of holiness. Even if it were lost in the fall, God came to restore what was lost in the fall.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Ridiculous.
God is not ok with nudity in that fashion .
God Himself clothed Adam and Eve.
I cannot even fathom why this is even a debate.

 

[FreeInChrist88]

I've been visiting friends in Virginia this past week and just got out of a service at the nudist church that is the subject of this thread. There were 15 people present by my count.

I did not see any overt indications of lust or sexual attraction. None of the male attenders had erections. People did not appear to be distracted by the nudity of others.

Instead I observed the following: The needs of the community both within the resort and outside were discussed. A food drive is underway to provide Thanksgiving and Christmas meals for disadvantaged people. The recent devastating tornadoes in Richmond were brought up and the folks in the service were asked to pray for and keep the victims in mind. People's physical and spiritual needs were brought and prayed for. The attenders were encouraged to reach out to the other members and residents within the nudist resort community. Luke 11:46 was the main verse of the Pastor's message where all of us were exhorted to not put religious burdens on others.

 

[mmksparbud]

I've been visiting friends in Virginia this past week and just got out of a service at the nudist church that is the subject of this thread. There were 15 people present by my count.

I did not see any overt indications of lust or sexual attraction. None of the male attenders had erections. People did not appear to be distracted by the nudity of others.

Instead I observed the following: The needs of the community both within the resort and outside were discussed. A food drive is underway to provide Thanksgiving and Christmas meals for disadvantaged people. The recent devastating tornadoes in Richmond were brought up and the folks in the service were asked to pray for and keep the victims in mind. People's physical and spiritual needs were brought and prayed for. The attenders were encouraged to reach out to the other members and residents within the nudist resort community. Luke 11:46 was the main verse of the Pastor's message where all of us were exhorted to not put religious burdens on others.

You have a right to your believes, as do I. You may see nothing wrong with this, but that is not the question. The question is what does God feel about it. Everything in the bible points to nudity not being an acceptable practice. Nowhere that it is mentioned is it condoned. That there is no verse that states "thou [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] not be nude" is no reason to do so. Everything in the bible associated with nudity is always in a negative connotation.
Uncovering the nakedness of another is also how the bible talks about having sexual relations, the 2 go together. Sex, nakedness is between husband and wife. Now, that gift of sexual unity is to be kept private and only between them and they would be stoned for violating that. There is much made of the fact that nudity at this level makes it so mundane that nobody reacts to it--no erections and therefore no lust. I don't know which is worse, the lack of even seeing how wrong this is, or the putting of a gift of God that brings 2 people together into one in bliss and joy and love that now becomes just total nothing. It is part of the 2 joining together and it becomes just no big deal. Long term marriage is hard enough without making this one loving act just another bodily function. Sex was never meant to be mundane nor was nudity.

 

[Archivist]

Ridiculous.
God is not ok with nudity in that fashion .
God Himself clothed Adam and Eve.
I cannot even fathom why this is even a debate.

I read the Garden of Eden story as an allegory, not an actual event, but either way scripture tells us that Adam and Eve clothed themselves first. God simply replaced the clothing they made with something better.

As far as saying that God is not ok with this, that is up to God to decide not you.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

I read the Garden of Eden story as an allegory, not an actual event, but either way scripture tells us that Adam and Eve clothed themselves first. God simply replaced the clothing they made with something better.

As far as saying that God is not ok with this, that is up to God to decide not you.

Actually it is up to me to decide from His Holy Word.
And we already went over this.
If you think that the Genesis account is allegory then you have a huge stumbling block before you.

And for you or anyone to say He just clothed them better , I say sir , you do not comprehend The Word of God.

 

[Archivist]

Actually it is up to me to decide from His Holy Word. And we already went over this.

Your exact words were "God is not ok with nudity in that fashion." If that was clearly stated in scripture you would be correct. The problem is that it is not so stated. It is an issue upon which Christians can and do disagree. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation, but just because you interpret something one way doesn't mean that is God's view on the matter.

If you think that the Genesis account is allegory then you have a huge stumbling block before you.

Again, you are entitled to your interpretation of Genesis. If you want to believe in a literal Garden of Eden you are entitled to do so. However, I and many other Christians disagree.

And for you or anyone to say He just clothed them better , I say sir , you do not comprehend The Word of God.

Genesis 3:7 states "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." It is only in Genesis 3:21 that we are told "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them."

That seems pretty clear to me.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Your exact words were "God is not ok with nudity in that fashion." If that was clearly stated in scripture you would be correct. The problem is that it is not so stated. It is an issue upon which Christians can and do disagree. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation, but just because you interpret something one way doesn't mean that is God's view on the matter.



Again, you are entitled to your interpretation of Genesis. If you want to believe in a literal Garden of Eden you are entitled to do so. However, I and many other Christians disagree.



Genesis 3:7 states "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." It is only in Genesis 3:21 that we are told "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them."

That seems pretty clear to me.

There is no reason ,but to take it literally.
I'm not sure what is clear to you .
Adam and Eve tried to cover up their sins with their works.
It took God Himself to cover up their sins with the shed of blood.

 

[Archivist]

There is no reason ,but to take it literally.

And you are entitled to interpret Genesis literally. I and many other Christians do not.

I'm not sure what is clear to you. Adam and Eve tried to cover up their sins with their works.
It took God Himself to cover up their sins with the shed of blood.

Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve first covered themselves with loincloths. Only later did God make garments of skins for them.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Pretty sad that 13 individuals voted yes to the OP question.
For real.
SMH.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

And you are entitled to interpret Genesis literally. I and many other Christians do not.



Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve first covered themselves with loincloths. Only later did God make garments of skins for them.

Hmm...
Later? When?
And , more importantly WHY?

 

[Archivist]

Pretty sad that 13 individuals voted yes to the OP question.
For real.
SMH.

Only according to your opinion.

 

[Archivist]

Hmm...
Later? When?
And , more importantly WHY?

Scripture doesn’t tell us that.

Of course, I read it as an allegory, not an actual event.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Scripture doesn’t tell us that.

Of course, I read it as an allegory, not an actual event.

Yeah. It doesn't state that it is allegory.
But, what does it state?
Pray tell...