Christian Naturists

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟14,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I think it is pretty awesome actually. Clothes realy sex up the human body if you get my meaning. Where as an entire naked body is raw...its not actually all that sexual in context of nudists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SeattleGuy
Upvote 0

discussmith

Newbie
Aug 5, 2009
24
0
✟7,638.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sometimes in reading these threads I wonder if I follow the same Lord as some of you or if I'm reading the same words of scripture! Adam and Eve were stark naked in the garden and walked with God and were not ashamed. Their creation was indeed very good, but they were not ashamed because they did not know they were naked or what that meant because the did not have a knowlege of good and evil. As I told my wife today when she caught me naked going into the bath tub "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." She said I certainly fit the fearful part.

They then ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and what happened. Gen 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. Gen 3:10 "I heard your voice... and I WAS AFRAID BECAUSE I WAS NAKED AND HID MYSELF." (Something mankind has continued to do ever since.) Covering your nakedness is instinctive. If that's not good enough for you what did God do? Gen 3:21 He again made a blood sacrifice for their sin and "made tunics of skin and clothed them." Once sin entered the world and man knew the difference between good and evil he was no longer innocent and clothing was needed to cover his nakedness.

But if that doesn't convince you read Ro 14:12-13 or all the way to the end for that matter. Do not allow your freedom to be a stumbling block to your brother. The point remains that most men are visually oriented and cannot abide the vision of a nude woman without lust. (Remember what David did.) It is sin in Gods eyes and theirs as well. Love says you should not by your words and conduct tempt someone to test or try nudity based on your freedom with it causing them then to lust and sin or even to see some very less seemly body and think less of them because of what they have seen.
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Sometimes in reading these threads I wonder if I follow the same Lord as some of you or if I'm reading the same words of scripture! Adam and Eve were stark naked in the garden and walked with God and were not ashamed. Their creation was indeed very good, but they were not ashamed because they did not know they were naked or what that meant because the did not have a knowlege of good and evil. As I told my wife today when she caught me naked going into the bath tub "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." She said I certainly fit the fearful part.

They then ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and what happened. Gen 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. Gen 3:10 "I heard your voice... and I WAS AFRAID BECAUSE I WAS NAKED AND HID MYSELF." (Something mankind has continued to do ever since.) Covering your nakedness is instinctive. If that's not good enough for you what did God do? Gen 3:21 He again made a blood sacrifice for their sin and "made tunics of skin and clothed them." Once sin entered the world and man knew the difference between good and evil he was no longer innocent and clothing was needed to cover his nakedness.

But if that doesn't convince you read Ro 14:12-13 or all the way to the end for that matter. Do not allow your freedom to be a stumbling block to your brother. The point remains that most men are visually oriented and cannot abide the vision of a nude woman without lust. (Remember what David did.) It is sin in Gods eyes and theirs as well. Love says you should not by your words and conduct tempt someone to test or try nudity based on your freedom with it causing them then to lust and sin or even to see some very less seemly body and think less of them because of what they have seen.

So it's okay if you're alone, in only same sex presence, or people that are not tempted by such things?
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
The story in Genesis is all about mankind's fall from grace, not clothing. When we disobey we become uncomfortable around God - that's what afraid and nakedness mean in that story - They knew that God knew they had disobeyed him. It trivialises the story where the drama of our salvation begins (God provides the covering, fulfilled perfectly in Jesus) and substitutes a story about wearing garments.

And Romans 14 that you quoted would allow for differences of belief on such a matter as this, provided one's nudity is not forced upon the other (and vice versa in Paul's argument).

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,287
MA
✟220,067.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hi Discussmith, welcome to the forums.
I find it hard to believe that Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked. The verse says they were naked and not ashamed. They weren't ashamed of being naked.

I don't think covering ones self is instinctive. Young children often remove their clothes and run around naked till parents till them to keep their clothes on. So I think that its cultural as to why we where clothes.

Yes, God clothed Adam and Eve when the clothes they make didn't do what God wanted. But what God wanted us to learn is that God must cover our sin. That's what we as Christians teach and what I base my whole relationship with Jesus on. But was God teaching us to be clothed. Well, the clothes that Adam and Eve 1st wear were they made (man made) clothes made from plants. That's pretty much what people wear today. God said those weren't good enough and as you say God sacrificed animals and made them clothes from the animal's skin to wear. Now if Gen.3 is a type that we are to follow we must say that our made made clothes also aren't good enough both because we made them and because they are made from plants. We must have God make our clothes from the skin of animals He sacrifices for our sin. I know of noone who is clothed that way or teaches that doctrine. Notice this is a type interpertation as there is no command in Gen. 3 to wear clothes.

Your right in going to Paul and his teaching on the weak and strong brother. The more I understand Christianity the more these verse mean to me. The next verse Rom.14:14 Paul says nothing is unclean of itself, but is unclean to him to reckons it to be unclean. So being naked is clean unless we reckon it to be unclean. Seeing someone naked is clean unless we reckon it to be unclean. But as always we aren't to cause our brother to stumble or loss faith to the point of being destroyed. How are we to know this. Our brother has to tell us how much its bothering him. That's the only way I know that a brother will know how much he is offending an other. So as verse 22 says he that has faith is to have it before God and is happy in that he condems not himself.

My conclusion from reading Paul is that its clean to be naked or see people naked unless one doesn't have faith to do that or someone has told me it would cause them to stumble and deny Christ and thus be destroyed.

I hope you see that I am following the same Lord as you are and that I love Jesus very much,
dayhiker
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SeattleGuy
Upvote 0

discussmith

Newbie
Aug 5, 2009
24
0
✟7,638.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi Discussmith, welcome to the forums.
I find it hard to believe that Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked. The verse says they were naked and not ashamed. They weren't ashamed of being naked.

Go back and read the verse that says after eating the fruit their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked.
 
Upvote 0

discussmith

Newbie
Aug 5, 2009
24
0
✟7,638.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
QUOTE: I find it hard to believe that Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked. The verse says they were naked and not ashamed. They weren't ashamed of being naked.

I already answered in previous but examine below your own words about children and how they view being naked. We are no longer children.

QUOTE: I don't think covering ones self is instinctive. Young children often remove their clothes and run around naked till parents till them to keep their clothes on.

Young children is exactly how Adam and Eve were before their eyes were opened.

QUOTE: So I think that its cultural as to why we where clothes.

This is not why I wear clothes. It is only why I wear a particular type or style. I discuss why at the end.

QUOTE: Yes, God clothed Adam and Eve when the clothes they make didn't do what God wanted. But what God wanted us to learn is that God must cover our sin. That's what we as Christians teach and what I base my whole relationship with Jesus on. But was God teaching us to be clothed.

Yes the lesson is our complete nakedness before God and our need for Him to cover our sin so we can have a relationship with Him again. The use of clothing as an example or metaphor is something I think we should be able to understand or associate with as it should be self evident.

QUOTE: Well, the clothes that Adam and Eve 1st wear were they made (man made) clothes made from plants. That's pretty much what people wear today. God said those weren't good enough and as you say God sacrificed animals and made them clothes from the animal's skin to wear.

QUOTE: Now if Gen.3 is a type that we are to follow we must say that our made made clothes also aren't good enough both because we made them and because they are made from plants. We must have God make our clothes from the skin of animals He sacrifices for our sin. I know of noone who is clothed that way or teaches that doctrine. Notice this is a type interpertation as there is no command in Gen. 3 to wear clothes.

I seriously doubt you believe this and I certainly made no such correlation. Do not cloud the discussion with such poor interpretation unless I misunderstand you and you really don't understand these scriptures. The practical point is, apart from all the spiritual implications of the fall God realized that man now needed to be clothed for mans sake not His. If you do not understand this my discussion will be pointless.

My modesty allows me no desire to expose myself in public, and not because I am poorly made. My modesty allows me no desire to see you naked not because you are poorly made. In fact because of modesty I or others might likely be offended. This in itself should give you pause before God to do nothing in His name that would cause such offense. This is Paul's point. It should be apparrent in this case that there are those who will not understand and be offended.


QUOTE: Your right in going to Paul and his teaching on the weak and strong brother. The more I understand Christianity the more these verse mean to me. The next verse Rom.14:14 Paul says nothing is unclean of itself, but is unclean to him to reckons it to be unclean. So being naked is clean unless we reckon it to be unclean. Seeing someone naked is clean unless we reckon it to be unclean. But as always we aren't to cause our brother to stumble or loss faith to the point of being destroyed. How are we to know this. Our brother has to tell us how much its bothering him. That's the only way I know that a brother will know how much he is offending an other. So as verse 22 says he that has faith is to have it before God and is happy in that he condems not himself.

My conclusion from reading Paul is that its clean to be naked or see people naked unless one doesn't have faith to do that or someone has told me it would cause them to stumble and deny Christ and thus be destroyed.

I hope you see that I am following the same Lord as you are and that I love Jesus very much,
dayhiker[/quote]

And as such I would expect you would want to please Him in every thing you do 1Cor 10:31-33 and not even give the appearance of wrong doing, but that is for you to determine.
 
Upvote 0

discussmith

Newbie
Aug 5, 2009
24
0
✟7,638.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The story in Genesis is all about mankind's fall from grace, not clothing. When we disobey we become uncomfortable around God - that's what afraid and nakedness mean in that story - They knew that God knew they had disobeyed him. It trivialises the story where the drama of our salvation begins (God provides the covering, fulfilled perfectly in Jesus) and substitutes a story about wearing garments.

And Romans 14 that you quoted would allow for differences of belief on such a matter as this, provided one's nudity is not forced upon the other (and vice versa in Paul's argument).

John
NZ

The OP's question and the following discussion is about whether public nudity is acceptable as Christains not the spiritual interpretation of Gen. 3! The use of Gen. 3 in light of this discussion in no way trivialises what happened in the garden. Hopefully you are just unaware that much of scripture has practical as well as deep spiritual meaning at the same time. You will miss much of what God says in His word if you omit either. Otherwise your comments cause me to question your intent.

The practical point is God clothed man after they became aware they were naked. The majority of us still wear clothes today for this very reason!


Your understanding about Rom. 14 That I quoted is inacurate. It does not allow for differing beliefs as much as it is because of differing beliefs that Paul spoke. The point is my actions should be such to not cause offense or cause one to stumble but to glorify God in all that is done. 1Cor.10:31-33 My allowing you to see me naked or me seeing you naked does not do this!
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
It's not a matter of a 'spiritual interpretation' of that chapter but a matter of what that chapter actually teaches. Are you aware that there are several different meanings (and Hebrew words too) of the word 'naked' in Scripture? You see it only as without clothing. But it can also mean openness, vulnerability, poverty, disgrace.

You believe Genesis 3 teaches we should wear clothes because that's what God has shown us is the right thing to do. I believe that the reference in that chapter is teh first story of God's provision for restoring relationship - ie salvation.

I agree that differing beliefs should not cause offence or others to stumble. But note that Paul made his own view on foods very clear. In the case of nudity then application of Paul's teaching would be that a person could believe in nudity not being wrong but not practising it where some fellow believer would be offended.

1 Cor 10:29-30 or why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? NIV

The principle is that I am free to act within the limits of my own convictions, but in the company of fellow Christians I may chose to act differently for the sake of unity and love. Note that Paul here and in Romans was discussing the corporate life of the church where such issues would surface. But Paul was never commenting on what anyone might do in other settings that were private.

Your last sentence is a useful application. If you would be offended by a my nudity I would not place you in that situation. But where a someone had no objections that would be fine, because the underlying issue is whether or not nudity per se in wrong. Some Christians, me included don't hold that position. You do. Therefore we can agree to differ and neither oppose the convictions of the other as Paul taught.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,287
MA
✟220,067.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hi Discussmith,
Your right it is my desire to please Jesus and I do live for Him.

I didn't do a good job explaining why I wrote about about using the type method of interpretation of the fall. Since Gen 3 doesn't give a command that we are to wear clothes we have to use a method of interpretation called types. I've heard some preachers callit is spiritually interpretating scripture. I see using the fall as a type that teaches us to wear clothes is being very selective. In Gen 3 the clothes Adam and Eve made weren't acceptable. God made clothes were. If we are using Gen 3 to say we should wear clothes then I don't think we should select an out of context type and require it of everyone. I don't see any command in Gen 3 saying we should wear clothes and I think people use Gen 3 as a type aren't following what Gen.3 actually would teach as a type.

I hope that explains what I was thinking. No I don't think we should only wear clothes that God makes out of animal skins.

dayhiker
 
Upvote 0

discussmith

Newbie
Aug 5, 2009
24
0
✟7,638.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Quote:It's not a matter of a 'spiritual interpretation' of that chapter but a matter of what that chapter actually teaches. Are you aware that there are several different meanings (and Hebrew words too) of the word 'naked' in Scripture? You see it only as without clothing. But it can also mean openness, vulnerability, poverty, disgrace.

Please don't say what I see as you are wrong but Ok I will make one last attempt. While I make absolutely no claim of having all knowledge I have studied to show myself approved rightly dividing the Word Of Truth. In light of the OP's(original poster) question the Facts found in Gen.3 are what I am stating not what you think it teaches. Let us use what you have shown. Gen.3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. From the facts please tell me did these leaves cover their openness, their vulnerability,their poverty, their disgrace or their genitals? Your limiting use of the scripture to what you think it teaches denies the facts it may contain and any other use the spirit may choose to speak to you.


Quote: You believe Genesis 3 teaches we should wear clothes because that's what God has shown us is the right thing to do.

Again you are wrong about what I believe and my reasons for quoting Gen. 3. I never said I believe Gen. 3 teaches we should wear clothes because God showed us that. I quoted the verses as a fact that at one time man was innocent ,naked and unashamed as a child but once mans eyes were opened he covered himself, and that because God understood that man would need to be clothed because of this knowledge he slew animals and made tunics of their skins because man was not allowed to kill animals at this time for himself. The fact that this points to a type of Christ is of no use to this discussion at this time and purpose. I use the facts of this event to show you that the natural result of mans eyes being opened and realizing he was naked caused him to cover himself just like you still do today. Again it is what man, (even you) still does today.

Quote:I believe that the reference in that chapter is teh first story of God's provision for restoring relationship - ie salvation.

You believe this and you do well, but that does not negate the facts that this was an actual real event and you wear clothes now because of it.

Quote: I agree that differing beliefs should not cause offence or others to stumble. But note that Paul made his own view on foods very clear. In the case of nudity then application of Paul's teaching would be that a person could believe in nudity not being wrong but not practising it where some fellow believer would be offended.

Exactly! And you not being able to know the hearts of those who may be there or who though not there but may find out would fall under this teaching.

Quote: 1 Cor 10:9-30 or why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? NIV

Take note that Paul asks the question and does not make it a statement.

Quote:The principle is that I am free to act within the limits of my own convictions, but in the company of fellow Christians I may chose to act differently for the sake of unity and love. Note that Paul here and in Romans was discussing the corporate life of the church where such issues would surface. But Paul was never commenting on what anyone might do in other settings that were private.

The key to the principal of 1Cor. 10:9-30 hinges on verses 23 and 24 and includes verses 32 and 33, with verse 32 covering in the church before the jews and before unbelievers who are in the world. You should not be judged as Paul posed the question but he understood that you will be anyway. The key overriding principal being though you are free you are not free to act as your convictions allow but you are to seek the benefit of all others that they may be saved.

Quote: Your last sentence is a useful application. If you would be offended by a my nudity I would not place you in that situation. But where a someone had no objections that would be fine, because the underlying issue is whether or not nudity per se in wrong. Some Christians, me included don't hold that position. You do. Therefore we can agree to differ and neither oppose the convictions of the other as Paul taught.

Again do not put words in my mouth as I do not find "nudity per se wrong" and never said I did. If I were to be offended it would not be because of your body but because of your lack of regard for those others in the body who may see or hear and don't believe as you and are offended but more so those who don't believe and like nothing better than to accuse the church of hypocrisy and thus deny Christ. We are always a witness in our actions. Whether the hypocrisy exists or not is not the issue all it takes is the appearance of wrong doing.

Quote:John
NZ[/quote]
 
Upvote 0

discussmith

Newbie
Aug 5, 2009
24
0
✟7,638.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
QUOTE:Hi Discussmith,
Your right it is my desire to please Jesus and I do live for Him.

I didn't do a good job explaining why I wrote about about using the type method of interpretation of the fall. Since Gen 3 doesn't give a command that we are to wear clothes we have to use a method of interpretation called types. I've heard some preachers callit is spiritually interpretating scripture. I see using the fall as a type that teaches us to wear clothes is being very selective. In Gen 3 the clothes Adam and Eve made weren't acceptable. God made clothes were. If we are using Gen 3 to say we should wear clothes then I don't think we should select an out of context type and require it of everyone. I don't see any command in Gen 3 saying we should wear clothes and I think people use Gen 3 as a type aren't following what Gen.3 actually would teach as a type.


Please read my response to John so I don't have to repeat myself, as the first time I typed it, it did not save properly and I lost all of it and had to retype the entire thing. I am not using Gen.3 as a type of Christ.

I don't understand why my quoting the historical account causes you both to think that this is an interpretation of Gen. 3. Do you not believe this really happened? Were Adam and Eve not real people innocent, naked and unashamed as children before their fall? Did they not cover themselves with fig leaves once their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked (as in showing their genitals)? Do you not wear clothes? I know you do. As God didn't command this (and I never stated so) why do you do it? Isn't it because this is the normal response else we would still be naked? So concerning those who practice nudity for nudities sake would they not be considered "of the world"? And as one who names the name of Christ are you not commanded to come out from them and be separate as in not worldly but different as one belonging to Christ, walking in the light as he is in the light? Or would you be like them?

I am done. Do as you think the spirit leads but consider those in the world who think our faith is not real and what this says to them in their minds.
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
the Facts found in Gen.3 are what I am stating not what you think it teaches. Let us use what you have shown. Gen.3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. From the facts please tell me did these leaves cover their openness, their vulnerability,their poverty, their disgrace or their genitals? Your limiting use of the scripture to what you think it teaches denies the facts it may contain and any other use the spirit may choose to speak to you.

The facts? What did the leaves signify -actual clothing, and for what reason, and is the whole story of Genesis 1-3 to be taken as a literal account 'as it really happened', or as a story containing some essential elements for the rest of the biblical narrative? Your 'facts' are in fact your personal view. That's OK. But please don't assume that your views are the only true ones. How big were those fig leaf coverings - briefs only (therefore women topless are OK), whole of body? Who really knows what they literally covered?

You believe this and you do well, but that does not negate the facts that this was an actual real event and you wear clothes now because of it.

Not a fact but your opinion of the facts.

Exactly! And you not being able to know the hearts of those who may be there or who though not there but may find out would fall under this teaching.

So, Paul was wrong when he said Rom 14:14
14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. NIV

Could not someone struggling with this issue caused to stumble by Paul's forthright statement of his belief because they did find out what his surely authoritative views were?

If I were to be offended it would not be because of your body but because of your lack of regard for those others in the body who may see or hear and don't believe as you and are offended but more so those who don't believe and like nothing better than to accuse the church of hypocrisy and thus deny Christ. We are always a witness in our actions. Whether the hypocrisy exists or not is not the issue all it takes is the appearance of wrong doing.

There are a lot of value judgements here. But some non believers are offended by my stance on drugs, premarital sex and alcohol. That goes with the patch. If what I do is OK biblically then criticisms by others are not significant. And if Christian nudists are careful to be naked only with like minded people your comments don't apply - unless of course any social nudity is actually wrong

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,287
MA
✟220,067.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hi Discussmith,
I do tend to believe that Adam and Eve in gen.3 tell a real historical story. But there are some good reasons to think its not historical also. So I'm thinking I'll have to wait till heaven to be 100% sure. My study of Gen.2 and 3 has Adam and Eve knowing they were naked before the fall. As it says they were naked an unashamed. The realization of they being naked after the fall I think is refering to their inability to hid their sin. Even tho they clothed themselves with fig leaves they still hid from God when he showed up. This tells me that their fig leaves didn't cover what they wanted to cover up, ie their sin.

Yes, I wear clothes. Moslty because its darn cold where I live most of the year. I'd love to be able to go without clothes when it gets warmer, espcially at the beach. But I'd get arrested if I did. No I don't consider those who practice nudity to be of the world. I consider those who don't love Jesus to be of the world. What makes me seperate from the world is I love Jesus and have the kingdom of God in my heart. The Holy Spirit has never lead me to seperate myself physically from people. I try to love people as I love Jesus.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, I've enjoyed our discussion.
God bless you,
dayhiker
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

satexsun

New Member
Mar 14, 2017
4
2
74
Nothwest Georgia
✟8,152.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Widowed
What would you reply to a person who said that they were both a Christian and a naturist, commonly known as a nudist?

Is that something that you feel a Christian could do without sinning?

Kevin
Since I am both, I would have to welcome and bless him.
 
Upvote 0

SeattleGuy

Member
Mar 22, 2004
5
11
Seattle, WA
✟986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It isn't a sect- if I belong to any sort of sect, it is probably the Lutheran denomination, though that distinction isn't terribly important to me either. I think naturist Chirstians call themselves such to emphasize their difference from other kinds of nudists who do not believe in following the will of God, not from other Christians. Nudity is by no means necessary for the practice of Christianity, though for some it can help in their walk.
I don't see how it is deception. I am a Christian. I'm also a naturist. If Christianity was actually accepting of social nudity as a unified whole, then one would just say "Christian" and assume that one came with the other, no additional adjectives necessary.

I bicycle, ski, snowshoe, hike, kayak... but don't necessarily (but could and sometimes do) identify myself as a "Christian bicyclist", "Christian skier", etc. It doesn't mean it's a sect - just that it's something I do, as a Christian. I think most (not all) Christians who skinnydip or otherwise go nude in a coed setting would treat that activity similarly. I.e. not as a sect, a separate set of Christians per se...
 
Upvote 0

SeattleGuy

Member
Mar 22, 2004
5
11
Seattle, WA
✟986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I haven't read the other replies in this thread, but I see nothing wrong with a Christian nudist, I do believe you can be both.

Not sure about other countries, but here in America, the nude human body is highly sexualized. We see nudity in movies typically in bedroom scenes and in strip clubs or other purposely provocative scenes. We have magazines that sexualize women's bodies to advertise, and then there's inappropriate contentography. It's become a part of the culture....We're basically conditioned to think of the naked human body as inappropriate because of it's close association to sex (which is believed to be a sacred, private act to be shared between a married man and woman).

But it doesn't have to be that way. There ARE cultures still in existence in which the people do not wear clothes and do not cover up "private" areas. A woman's breasts aren't seen as sexual or intended for a man's pleasure but rather hold the purpose to nurture babies. If you take away the sexualization, the nude human body really isn't all that exciting. It's just become taboo in a lot of countries.
,
It should be remembered that "American culture" is not monolithic. With respect to coed nudity in particular, my wife and I have been to nudist clubs and resorts, to nude beaches, to hot springs, and hiking in a remote area of Kauai, where nudity was accepted without remark - the human body was NOT highly sexualized - no one was strutting or showing off, and there was most definitely no sexual activity.

At any given time, at any of these venues, you will find people who for the very greatest part are not sexualizing nudity - that's collectively many thousands - perhaps, overall, millions of Americans.

One small example: a decade or so ago, my wife and I were bicycling across northern California, and happened to ride past a rural mailbox where a woman had walked down to collect her mail. She was topless, and chatting with a neighbour as she took her mail out of the mailbox. Neither of them was embarrassed - it was very matter-of-fact. We weren't rattled at all - it was a very ordinary occasion, and apparently accepted in that community. I'm quite certain that if this occurred more often in other parts of the country, it would be commonplace enough that it wouldn't be upsetting or controversial. I certainly wasn't enticed to lust.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SeattleGuy

Member
Mar 22, 2004
5
11
Seattle, WA
✟986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think it is pretty awesome actually. Clothes realy sex up the human body if you get my meaning. Where as an entire naked body is raw...its not actually all that sexual in context of nudists.

I very much agree. Many years ago, my wife and I had an epiphany: we were, for the first time in our lives, at a resort with clothing-optional hot tubs, sauna, and outdoor shower. At first, of course, we had our swimsuits on whilst everyone else, men and women, some attractive and some not, was naked; no one was gawking, leering, or making inappropriate comments or actions.

Then a strikingly attractive young lady arrived on the scene in a hot pink bikini - and all eyes swiveled to watch her! She was actually more attention-getting than the naked bodies were! That was the epiphany - that skimpy clothing was actually more alluring than plain nudity.

Shortly thereafter, we took off our swim suits because we realised we stood out wearing them.
 
Upvote 0