Makes you think, doesn't it? I can see where he/she is coming from, but from what they say I can see that they were never truly naturists to begin with.
I now have a good idea for a new part of my site though, as this helps clear up something I've been saying in my site, but that everyone overlooks. The fact that "naturism" and "nudism" is merely a label.
What do I mean? Well, I'm still a "naturist" (lol) and to find out what I mean, check back on my site. Once updated it will give better guidance to naturists and people debating on becoming naturists.
And if I find time, it will be netscape compatible, lol.
In reference to the post on another forum by an ex-nudist Christian guest columnist and the moderators of that forum:
Paul and Lori (moderators) said, "We think the Bible is clear that nudity is to be limited to the marriage relationship, but since no single verse says this it's not always easy to "prove" this point".
If they were considering the Torah verses forbidding "uncovering the nakeness of...(near relatives)", you might ask yourself if it meant that the Bible teaches that nakedness itself is wrong, but that would divorce the word "nakedness" from the context of the act of undressing for the purpose of sexual union in a society where people generally wear clothes. In other words, those often-cited passages condemn fornication and incest, not simple nudity. This presupposition of the immorality of social nudity ignores the accounts in the Bible where nudity was treated matter-of-factly with no condemnation, or a case or two where nudity is mandated directly by God.
The guest columnist seemed to recognize the weakness of this argument and proposed instead, the following premise: Social nudism becomes a wedge that drives spouses apart.
The guest columnist cannot directly find fault with nudism, so he proposes that social nudity should be avoided because he regards it as a controversial divisive issue. But I could say the same thing about a couple divided over the issue of becoming a Christian. If one spouse of an unbelieving couple becomes a Christian, it could create division and stress in the marriage, yet no one would argue that coming to Christ is to be avoided if it would in so doing, create the tension of a mixed marriage. The unsaved spouse may be driven to jealousy and anger when his/her newly saved spouse becomes active in a church, and no longer participates in immoral activities the couple once shared.
I know that some clubs ban married people from attending a resort without the spouse, but that really is a separate issue from whether one's marriage is strong enough to tolerate a difference of opinion about the morality of social nudity or if there is enough trust in a relationship for one spouse to take a separate vacation that accomodates his interest in golf, fishing, bowling or any number of things.
The guest columnist suggested that nudist resorts are undesireable because one would be exposed to immoral people. Let me give a non-nudist example of a similar situation:
My father took an interest in community theater and derived a lot of satisfaction from his acting avocation. He ran into some homosexuals in the theater group, but their presence did not tempt him to sin, did not sully his reputation in the community, nor did it prevent him from enjoying his time in the theater.
The guest columnist then discussed the problem of "secret nudism".
He made the mistake of assuming that all members of one's congregation will condemn you for visiting a nudist resort. Gossips can be found in some churches. A visit to a nudist resort is simply one of many things I would not discuss with people I did not know well nor with people who have proven themselves to be unworthy of trust. If I had a wayward son or daughter, I certainly would not tell such people, even though I am innocent of wrongdoing in the matter.
Families that are regularly nude at home vary their wardrobe when company comes. I don't know of any nudist couples who don't invite non-nudist friends over from time to time. They simply dress on those occasions. There is no deceipt involved. I have a non-nudist friend who used to allow his children to frolic nude in the living room when I was visiting, but I was a trusted friend. He would not allow his children to be nude in the presence of a stranger who was doing some home repairs or making a sales call.
I have met quite a few nudists who remained active in their local churches. I know of some who privately, but matter-of-factly mentioned going to a nude beach or camping nude. These people I refer to are pillars of the church and highly regarded.
I realize that some churches are intolerant, but certainly not all are.
I am blessed to be an easy drive away from a nudist resort where the vast majority are monogamous family folks, quite a few of whom are Christian.
I have found that in that resort, some non-Christian nudists are open-minded and that they listened respectfully and with interest as I shared my faith.
I am also aware that some couples are not so lucky as I and they may find that the nearest nudist resort has a sizeable number of immoral people to the point that the place is not a pleasure for a Christian to visit. Then again, I could find workplaces that are just as immoral. I admit that a Christian family, particularly one with young children would do well to avoid resorts with an prevailing atmosphere of carnality. That still leaves the option of trips to resorts that are wholesome, nudity on campouts, nude beaches and household and backyard nudity.
I cannot ignore the claim that the fruits of nudism "tend to be contrary to Biblical teaching".
Boyd and others can attest to the benefits of living nude as God intended. Regular nudity helps break the link between sexual lust and the sight of bare skin; nudity glorifies God who created the body while minimizing the false glamor of expensive clothes. There is not space to list all benefits, but there are many.
Your excellent rebuttal of that article is very impressive. All the points you brought up, I was thinking too.
The reason I am a naturist, is because I see my body as a decent and beautiful gift from God and I accept it as being appropriate and natural. The fact I am reducing my weight successfully has more to do with maintaining a preventive and healthy lifestyle, rather than conforming to some societal standard or attracting women. The weight is a temporary condition, but even if I didn't lose weight, I know I would be accepted as a naturist anyway.
Perhaps that is the cachet of naturism - unconditional acceptance, as God accepts mankind. The worldy detractors would have us believe that only certain men or women are acceptable. I have heard uninformed women say, or men for that matter that "that person does not belong in that bathing suit".
Who are 'they' to set standards for us? They can claim neither government office, nor legislative authority, not a professional viewpoint as a position of moral authority from which to launch their javelins of condemnation at us.
An arbitrarily arrived-at and quasi-standardized set of societally-approved measurements exists for women, though strangely, none exists for men? To me, that would indicate that the world has a far less enlightened view of humanity than we do. I am almost tempted to say that their passive aggressive apathy about their own 'naturalness' approaches the prurient, since if everybody conforms to 'their' standard of image, they will be very happy.
Some societies prior to current North American ones, have embraced partial nudity, and their social systems were in many ways, far superior to what the North American continent's societies can claim today. What was actually wrong was the shaming which missionaries participated in toward these societies, whereby they were 'educated' to feel one-down.
My love of naturism is permanent; so too, is my love of God. It has always been there. By choosing to combine the two, I believe I am making a positive step in my life.
The only comment I might make, vis-a-vis the separate seating arrangements is that while I fully understand why nudist congregations or clubs are naturally apprehensive of single males, that abusive behavior is not limited to men; witness, the Mary Katherine LeTourneau story. Hopefully some day, naturists' belief systems will evolve sufficiently to enable them to overcome their fears and openly welcome single men.
Until that day, I intend to fully respect their anxieties and allow them to get to know me as the decent human being I am, in their own time. It is the veryleast I can do.
Generalization sometimes succeeds as a debating tool but I prefer to make up my own mind. When I do join a Christian Naturist Church, of course I will not sit down next to a woman, couple, or family I do not know. I would have enough self respect as a man, not to potentially intimidate any congregants.
If I happen to meet a woman through the naturist world and she shares my religious faith, then we would be a couple and attend church together as a couple. If I happen not to meet a woman, but meet a family or couple, then perhaps they would ask me to sit with them, or perhaps not; but knowing the social behaviors expected of them is something naturists are supposed to be quite adept at and I am surprised that the writer did not embrace that concept. I I do not meet anybody, then so be it. At least I will be in a House of Worship where I can worship God in my own way.
The point is, I will not be attending church to make social contacts, I will be there to worship God. If I do meet somebody at church, then I may consider myself blessed, but that should not be my reason for attending.
To later complain about the single men sitting together, and possibly becoming homosexual, seems like the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.
Some people frequently blame others for their own actions. Particularly, the writer's comment about women being forced to attend because of their husbands or men illustrates this deftly, and it seems preposterous to me.
Granted, there are probably some domestic situations wherein the relationship is already flawed, and perhaps the woman does (or does not) indulge in maladaptive behavior for her peace of mind and hope that everything will change if she just agrees with 'him'), but I do not see this as the main reason women 'choose' to attend a Christian Naturist Church with their husband, or man.
We recieve input daily via all our senses, and the input is processed in our own brains, thus, only we can be responsible for the output.
A very good point Phil, but remember, people are still debating that very point. People today merely do not understand "people" and most importantly the relationships between them. Every week there is a magazine or online article discussing relationships; is the human being having that much problems even understanding the word, let alone what it represents? This is what causes some of the problems, naturism in this case is being used purely as a skapegoat.
About a year ago we started to get a sudden burst of "rebuttals" to the article on nudism that appears on our site. I finally tracked down hundreds of hits to the article from here. So now I know where the "e-mail campaign" came from!
There is one thing that I think is very clear, even if nudism is not in any way Biblically wrong - we are taught to go out of our way to avoid offending the "weaker brother".
The apostle Paul said "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (1Co 8:13 - NKJV) Would not nudism need to be treated the same way? Even if it's not a sin, does not the fact that it offends the majority of those who follow Jesus make it something that we need to "never do again" rather than cause another to stumble?
In light of this scripture, and others like it, I see no way to defend nudism for those who follow Jesus. To me, continuing with nudism is making the nudism more important than the weaker brother.
BTW, the above is basically what I say to those who write me about this, so unless you really want to hear it again ...
