Bob R

     "How can you love ALL nudists? After all, have you ever looked at some of them? All wrinkly and pudgy and scarred and … and … they're ugly … I mean, I prefer young, perfect bodies. Shouldn't everybody?"
     "Let's see if we can change that attitude. Look across the street at that beat-up old Chevy parked in front of the drug store and at the new Mercedes two cars behind it. Tell me which of their owners you would love more."
     "Now how am I supposed to tell you that unless I know them? After all, you can't judge a person by the car he drives."
     "Exactly right. But aren't you judging people by the shape and condition of their bodies?"
     "Uhhhh … that's different … isn't it?"
     "Is it? Tell me about yourself."
     "Well, I'm 31, I like to work out, I love classical music and science fiction and…"
     "That will do. Now look at your reflection in the window behind us. What do you see?"
     "I see myself, of course."
     "Wrong. You see an image of your physical self. Would anyone else seeing that reflection know that you are 31, that you work out, and that you enjoy classical music and science fiction?"
     "How could they if they don't know me?"
     "And you have just made my point. They would only know your physical appearance until they got to know you as a person. So going back to your original comment, until you actually meet the people who live in those wrinkly and pudgy and scarred bodies, isn't it judgmental to say that they are unlovable?"
     "I guess so, but…"
     "And why do you believe that you can only love 'beautiful' people with young, perfect bodies? What will they look like in ten or twenty or fifty years? They certainly won't be young and perfect any more. Would you reject them then?"
     "No, of course not."
     "And what would you think if when you're 50 or 60, young people avoided you because you were wrinkly and pudgy and scarred?"
     "It would hurt."
     "Let me give you a challenge. The next time you're at the club, instead of shunning those imperfect people, talk to them. Get to know the owners of those beat-up bodies. I think you'll find that they're a lot deeper and wiser than the hot twenty-somethings that you prefer. And if you meet enough of them, you might get to know the concert violinist and the science fiction author who are residents there. They own a couple of those wrinkled, pudgy, scarred bodies."
     "I didn't know THAT!"
     "Now's your chance to learn."
     "Okay, you're on! I'll see you there."

One common policy with people with digital cameras in nudist venues is to require them to delete all the images on the memory card (physically confiscating the equipment begs for lawsuits). The error is the assumption that once the images are deleted, they are gone.

That perv that was caught shooting pics in a nudist venue smiles to himself as he is required to do a mass-delete before being booted out the door. He goes home, fires up the puter, and in a couple of minutes has every one of those images to do with as he sees fit. Security and privacy? They're bad jokes.

This is what nudists need to know about digital images.

==================================================

Digital photography has brought about the proverbial "sea change" in imaging. Nudists have adopted it enthusiastically, if for no other reason than that the days of taking that revealing roll of film to the local processor for developing, with the associated risk of prudists involving law enforcement, are now history.

And of course it's much easier to get rid of images that might push the envelope. Just go through the "Delete" sequence and they are gone forever from the hard drive, USB flash drive or camera memory card.

Izzatso? Digital Security 101 is in session.

Here's the cold, hard truth about deleting digital files that maybe one in a thousand users knows: no standard deletion routine removes them from the drive or card. The operation just deletes the file table reference to them and opens their locations on the drive to reuse. The actual file data remains untouched. Unless the system overwrites the data with new information, it can be recovered.

On my machine are two very effective file recovery programs. I bought them when a virus on a relative's machine forced him to use the system recovery function to get it running again. Because it restores the machine to its as-shipped condition, it started with a fresh desktop — minus a folder that had several hundred irreplaceable photos of his kids.

After everything else failed, I bought the programs as a last-ditch effort. By slaving his hard drive on my machine and using one of the programs, I recovered all but four of the photos intact. Two of the others were partially corrupted, but cropping made them usable. The scan also found a number of interesting Web images that he thought he had deleted months earlier.

The same software also found images on my camera's memory card from a shoot of weeks ago, after I ran the camera's file delete routine.

The point: just because the images don't show up by the standard methods does not mean that they are gone.

USB flash drives are especially nasty in terms of keeping data that one might not want preserved.

In research that has important findings for banks, businesses and security buffs everywhere, scientists have found that computer files stored on solid state drives are sometimes impossible to delete using traditional disk-erasure techniques.

Even when the next-generation storage devices show that files have been deleted, as much as 75 percent of the data contained in them may still reside on the flash-based drives, according to the research, which is being presented this week at the Usenix FAST 11 conference in California. In some cases, the SSDs, or sold-state drives, incorrectly indicate the files have been "securely erased" even though duplicate files remain in secondary locations.

The difficulty of reliably wiping SSDs stems from their radically different internal design. Traditional ATA and SCSI hard drives employ magnetizing materials to write contents to a physical location that's known as the LBA, or logical block address. SSDs, by contrast, use computer chips to store data digitally and employ an FTL, or flash translation layer, to manage the contents. When data is modified, the FTL frequently writes new files to a different location and updates its map to reflect the change.

In the process left-over data from the old file, which the authors refer to as digital remnants, remain.

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/21/flash_drive_erasing_peril/" target="_blank">Flash drives dangerously hard to purge of sensitive data</a>

==================================================

This is good information to know if one has decided to donate an older machine to an organization or charity. Even if the drive has been high-level reformatted, those files are still there. The recovery programs are available to the public, and there are geeks everywhere.

With hard drives, there are "shredder" programs that allow deletion of files or folders that includes total destruction of the file data by overwriting it. If one is paranoid, some of them can delete the data to Dept. of Defense standards.

As well, sensitive data should be encrypted using one of the readily available encryption programs. The saved data requires a passcode to access it. If the code is lost, the data is gone, period. Use a long enough passcode that it can't be guessed or brute-forced. Commit it to memory if possible, and in any case NEVER save it to the machine where it is used.

As for memory cards and flash drives, the safest approach when they are no longer needed is to destroy them physically. Given the low prices for new ones, donating them is meaningless, and it can be compromising.

Summary: digital imaging has made photography far simpler, but it can come back to bite the unwary folks in their arses. Know the security issues and deal with them.

Self-photography has a perhaps earned reputation as the venue of the bathroom-mirror crowd. However, it need not be so. Here are a few tips that can lift self-shots up a few notches.

• Avoid cell phone pics if other options are available. Phones aren't designed or intended to be digital cameras.

• Unless dark images are for artistic purposes, e.g., silhouette shots, they detract from the subject of the pic. If you can't be seen, why post it?

• Digital cameras are like computers: they don't do what you want them to do, but only what you tell them them to do. Here are two things to consider.

• • Shooting against a bright background, such as a window on a sunny day, may result in a dark foreground object. Digicams ordinarily adjust for brightness based on the average of the entire image, and the bright areas tend to dominate. Many cameras have a metering method setting for using center-weighted or spot metering rather than the whole image, to allow concentrating on the brightness of your subject rather than the window.

• • Although the light that you are in might be considerably less than the brightness of the background, the automatic flash might not fire because of the background light. The camera may have a setting to fire the flash every time. If not, move to another position to avoid the background's effect.

• For flash photography, the average digital camera's flash is useful to about ten feet. Beyond that, consider investing in a "slave flash" that responds to the camera's flash and adds its own far brighter light. To eliminate the starkness of a flash, a layer or two of tissue over the flash will soften and diffuse the light. The light source of slave flashes (or hot-shoe mounted units) can often be tilted and swivelled in order to provide "bounce" lighting, which gives a much more even and softer light. OTOH, the crispness and starkness of a direct flash can be used to good effect. Experimentation is the keyword.

Be aware that point-and-shoot digital cameras don't work with most optical slave flashes. The problem is that the built-in flashes on point-and-shoots typically fire twice (note: NOT the "red eye" flash). There is a preflash that allows the camera to set white balance and other parameters, and then the second flash creates the image. However, most optical slaves will trigger on the preflash, resulting in its light adding nothing to the picture. To test that, photograph the slave unit using the camera's flash. If the slave triggers but the image doesn't show the light from it, you have the preflash issue.

There is no easy way to adapt the slave to ignore the preflash. However, there are slave units that include the option to ignore the preflash. Amazon carries the Zeikos ZE-DS12 flash for under $15. There's a "Slave Mode" slide switch on the back that allows ignoring up to 3 preflashes. For the usual P&S cameras, S2 would be the setting. The way to be sure is to photograph the unit four time, once per switch setting. Whichever setting shows the light from the flash is the one to use with the camera.

The downside of slave flashes is that for close subjects, the flashes will overexpose the image. Use them for shots of subjects beyond the maximum range of the built-in flash. If one likes to control exposures and the camera allows it in Manual mode, play with the F-stop, shutter speed and ISO settings to get good results from the slave.

• A cheap tripod can make a world of difference in image quality, since it avoids degradation caused by "camera shake", involuntary muscle activity when hand-holding the camera. This effect is more pronounced in telephoto and low-light, slow shutter shots. Cameras with image stabilization can correct some of it, but don't rely on it.

• Another major advantage of using a tripod is that it eliminates the need for shooting full-body shots using a mirror. That last-resort option has several strikes against it, not the least of which are flash flare washing out the face and upper torso, autofocus zeroing in on the mirror surface rather than the reflected person's body, and the image being reversed.

• A tripod also allows using the timer function that delays the shot for at least a couple of seconds, thus eliminating the camera shake caused by pressing the shutter button. On a ten-second delay, you can move away from it and arrange yourself for maximum effect.

• The delay function often includes the ability to take multiple shots. With that function, you can get a series of shots from which to select the best one(s). Be aware that if the shots require the flash, the time between exposures will be increased substantially.

• Many digital cameras have a cable that connects it to the A/V input (red, white and yellow jacks — yellow is always video) of TVs, older monitors, etc. Connecting the camera to a TV or display allows seeing from any position a large view of what the camera "sees". It's great for framing, lighting adjustments, pose tweaking, etc.

• Autofocus is imperfect. If you're not within the AF zone, you'll get a perfectly-focused background and a fuzzy foreground, especially if you are fairly close to the lens. Best bet: experiment to see where you have to be in the image to have yourself in focus rather than whatever is in the background.

• When you have your prized photos safely transferred to the computer, it would be worth examining them and maximizing them for posting. An excellent program is Irfanview ( www.irfanview.com ), the Swiss Army knife of non-pro freeware image manipulation and processing utilities. You can correct brightness, contrast, saturation, color balance, gamma and sharpness (corrects slightly-out-of-focus shots). You can add effects if desired. You can resize the image, crop it, rotate it, do horizontal and vertical flips, and save it in a lot of different formats.

• For the inveterate tweakers without the bucks for Photoshop, Gimp and Paint.net provide an enormous resource of image editing and manipulation power. Be aware that they are not "user friendly" for newcomers. They assume that the users are already familiar with the basics and are looking for more horsepower.

• Note that Paint.net requires Microsoft's .NET (aka DOTNET) Framework (Version 3.5 SP1 minimum) on the computer. The program's download is small because it uses the routines in .NET rather than include them in a much larger file. It will automatically install the framework if it's not on the machine.

• When you're satisfied, post your pics with confidence.

You might be a dedicated nudist if…

• The hardest part of the day is getting dressed to go home from the beach or resort.
• Your idea of a horror movie is one in which everyone is clothed.
• You park outside the gates of the resort in December and cry.
• When you`re raging mad, your only cussword is "TEXTILE!"
• Santa and the elves in your Christmas display are naked.
• Your picture is in the dictionary next to the definition of "nudist".
• Your resort has a day in your honor.
• Your mate has to button your shirts because you`ve forgotten how.
• You select your ensemble for the day by the color of the towel.
• You leave a butt print in the snow angels.
• Your only tan lines are on your face, where the sunglasses rest.
• Your GoogleEarth favorite places include every resort and CO beach within 500 miles.
• You drive by a textile beach and shake your head in disbelief.
• When your kids see you arrive home from work, they ask, "Mommy, who`s that man?"
• You spend hours finding phrases for "n-u-d-e" and "A-A-N-R".
• Your reason for your nude-only hot tub is that clothing fibers clog the filter.
• The thought of the local community swimming pool full of unshowered bodies and unwashed swimsuits causes you to cringe in horror.
• You spend more on sunscreen than on laundry detergent.
• You feel indecent when you're dressed.
• You wonder if that sunny day in January will be warm enough for sunbathing.
• You chop the ice on your pool for one more dip.
• Your pen pal asks for a picture, and you have to search for one where you're clothed.
• You have personal knowledge of what black vinyl car seats do to a butt in August.
• You have a reserved seat in the resort hot tub.
• You call the motor vehicle registry and ask if "IMNUDE" is taken.
• When you drive your RV out of the northern club when it closes, your destination is a Florida club.
• When you're seated next to a 10 at the pool bar, you admire her eyes.
• You have a poster on your wall asking, "If you were on trial for being a nudist, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"
• Your textile neighbors look toward the other side of the street when they walk by your home.
• You're on the "Do not visit!" list at the local JW and Mormon churches.
• You know that there has been a prowler outside of your home because there are shoeprints.
• Your mailman automatically throws out any ads from clothing stores.
• The UPS and FedEx drivers are surprised when you answer the door clothed.
• You head for your mailbox across the road, realize that you're nude… and return with the mail.
• You feel oppressed when you have to wear shorts to mow the lawn.
• You nod knowingly at a dozen or more of these.

This is directed to all the guys of Naktiv. It's a couple of years old, but wise counsel has no expiration date.

==================================================

Here's a sobering statistic: according to the American Cancer Society estimates for prostate cancer in the United States for 2012, about 241,740 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed, and about 28,170 men will die of prostate cancer.

An appalling reality: a lot of those deaths are of big, tough, macho men who refuse the screening because it's embarassing or uncomfortable. All those manly men cringe and get squeamish about the thought of a gloved finger inserted in the aft portal to palpate the prostate. What they don't grasp is that by the time the cancer reveals itself symptomatically, the available treatments will be far more invasive than a doctor's gloved index finger.

By the way, the gloved finger is a breeze compared to the probe used for prostate biopsy. The sensation is of being in the prison shower room with the Jolly Green Giant, and then being repeatedly shot by a staple gun.

==================================================

Sobering statistic No. 2: according to ACS' most recent estimates for testicular cancer in the United States for 2012, about 8,590 new cases of testicular cancer will be diagnosed and about 360 men will die of testicular cancer.

Unlike prostate cancer, which is generally found in men over 40, testicular cancer is a young man's disease, with half of the cases being in men in the 20 to 34 range. Yep, all those immortal young guys who think they're immune to everything.

If the embarassment factor is high for prostate cancer, the examination for testicular cancer is over the top. You're standing there in front of the doctor, who is sitting on a stool staring intently at your genitalia and feeling your nads for abnormalities. If the doc happens to be a young, attractive lady…

There is little wonder that it kills so many men despite its being the most curable form of cancer. They apparently would rather die than have the family jewels handled.

==================================================

Sobering statistic No. 3: the ACS estimated that in 2012, there would be 103,170 new cases of colon cancer and 40,290 new cases of rectal cancer, and that they would cause 51,690 deaths of men and women.

And then there's the colonoscopy snake. You're lying on your side with your knees pulled up while the colonoscopy probe — all five feet of it — slides into your exposed butt looking for polyps and other undesirable growths. Embarassment Central.

==================================================

I'm a survivor of all those procedures, including the biopsy. The point of the above can be summed up as follows;

• Deaths from prostate cancer: 28,170
• Deaths from testicular cancer: 360
• Deaths from colorectal cancer: 51,690
• Deaths from being embarassed: 0

Over the years I have concluded that I have absolutely nothing that the medical professionals have not seen thousands of times. When I disrobe, it's with the awareness that no one who sees me will be in the slightest interested in the dimensions of my pubic paraphernalia or the tightness of my butt (thankfully). I'm there for a service that they can provide, and since the service involves a human body, it must be exposed for the duration.

What's a life worth? Is it worth the embarassment of being the only one nude and the discomfort and invasiveness of the procedures? The simple answer: absolutely!

Embarassment lasts a few minutes. Cancer can last for the rest of your life. If you're one of those all-too-common guys who avoid the screenings because the thought makes you uneasy, swallow the pride and the hesitation, and have the tests. Whatever the outcomes, you will know. That's infinitely better than ignorance that can kill.

Nudists have a distinct advantage over the textiles when it comes to being "undraped" in front of others, but the same apprehensions can surface. As the awesome Brits say, keep a stiff upper lip and do it. REAL men care for themselves and their loved ones and suffer the indignities gladly.

Christians, The Bible and Nudity Part 2

In part 1, we cited the treatise, <a href="http://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf" target="_blank">205 Arguments and Observations In Support of Naturism</a> , from TNS. In this part, other arguments will be made in the defense of Christian naturism.

As part 1 indicates, there is no Old Testament condemnation of innocent, non-sexual nudity. But what of the New Testament? If one reads it in context, understanding the culture of the NT times, it can be seen that non-sexual nudity was common then.

For instance, simple logic dictates that working men of the NT era usually labored in the nude. Cloth-making was a tedious, time-consuming manual process. Fine linens were quite expensive and unavailable to the common man. Their garments were coarse and most likely fairly heavy. As a result, with the exertion of working in the heat of the middle-eastern day, the garments would be very hot to wear. As well, it is highly unlikely that laborers, fisherman or other manual-labor fellows had a closet full of tunics. They thus had two incentives to shed their garments: midday heat and preservation of the clothing.

As an example, we have Peter out in the boat plying his fishing trade.

John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

No doubt all of them were nude. Only Peter is recorded as having gotten dressed.

And what of Jesus? He was a laborer, a carpenter by trade, and a member of the working class ergo not wealthy. For the above reasons, it is quite likely that He worked in the nude, as Joseph did. And being sinless, He had no shame that He should want to hide His natural being.

First instance of the Lord's nudity.

Matt 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:

Baptism was always done in the nude, with men and women together. There would have been no reason at all for Jesus to have broken the tradition.

Next example:

John 13:4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

When He "laid aside his garments", he was nude. There was no underwear in the NT world.

When He was crucified, He was nude, the religious icons notwithstanding. That's the way the Romans did it. The evidence:

Matt 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

After He died, they wrapped His nude, battered body in gravecloths and laid Him in a borrowed tomb. Fast forward to Resurrection Day. The stone has been rolled away and He is longer in there.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

The linen cloths in which He had been wrapped were lying there. What is the inescapable conclusion, given that there were no hangars and garment bags? A: when He exited the tomb, He was nude. That is supported a few verses later.

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Why would she suppose that He was the gardener? The reasonable answer is that gardeners were commonly seen working in the nude, and Mary was there with a nude man.

Moving on several more verses:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Jesus told Thomas to put his hand into the sword wound on his side. How would Thomas have seen the wound, let alone touched it, had Jesus not exposed it to him. Given the nature of the garments of the time, He would have lifted it to the point where the wound was visible and touchable, ergo well above the waist.

==================================================

In the rest of the NT, the references to naked and nakedness never condemn non-sexual nudity. "Naked" and "nakedness" appear 18 times in the NT (KJV).

In Matt 25:36, 38, 43-44, the terms were applied to people in need.

In Mark 14:51-52, the naked person was a young man who was following Jesus. When they came for Jesus to arrest him, they grabbed the young man, who eluded them by leaving them holding the linen cloth that he was wearing.

In John 21:7, Peter was at work fishing in the nude.

In Acts, the nakedness was associated with sin.

Acts 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

In this case, the offenders had the words but not the power of God, and the demon whupped their butts, sending them running sans their garments. Their nakedness was a symbol of their total defeat. It was a consequence of sin, not a sin of itself.

In Romans 8:35, nakedness was listed along with other states of peril or need that could not separate man from God.

In 1 Cor 4:11, Paul was describing his tribulations as a preacher of the Gospel. Nakedness was listed along with hunger and thirst as a state of deprivation.

In 2 Cor 5:1-3, nakedness was described in terms of spiritual need, not of physical nudity.

In 2 Cor 11:23-27, Paul listed nakedness along with other trials and tribulations resulting from his ordeals as a traveling evangelist.

In Heb 4:13, the word "naked" is applied to how we appear to God, who can see through our "clothing" of pretense and deception.

In James 2:15, the word was applied to Christian brothers and sisters in need.

In Rev 3:17-18, Jesus was thoroughly rebuking the church of the Laodiceans for its self-satisfaction and contentment. Nakedness was cited as a condemnation of the church's delusion that it was well-off. It had nothing to do with physical nudity.

In Rev 16:15, Jesus issued a warning not to be found "naked", i.e., unprepared for His coming.

In Rev 17:16, the whore of Babylon is described as being rendered naked by the horns of the beast, an allegory that has nothing to do with nudity.

In no case is it even intimated that nakedness was itself a sin. Ergo, Christian religionists have no NT justification for condemning social, non-sexual nudity. Such a condemnation is for the sake of power and control, not for any moral purpose.

The OT has 86 occurences of "naked" and "nakedness". Objective reading of the verses, combined with an understanding of the culture of the times, cannot find any equation of nudity with sin. Indeed, in the first occurence of "naked" …

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

… nudity was described as their natural state, and not a cause for shame. When in verse 3:7 they felt the need to cover themselves, it followed the sin that opened their eyes to evil. Their fig-leaf loincloths were a pathetic attempt to conceal their shame for disobeying God. Was God impressed?

Gen 3:9 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, <b>Who told thee that thou wast naked?</b> Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

The question makes very clear that God was not the origin of their shame and fear. Their shame was of their own making.

It is also arguable from passages that don't use the words that nudity was an accepted part of their lives. Ergo, there is no biblical or doctrinal argument that Christians can use against social nudism.

Live free and nude in the service of God.

<b>Christians, The Bible and Nudity Part 1</b>

This text is from <b><a href="http://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf" target="_blank">205 Arguments and Observations In Support of Naturism</a></b>, from TNS (PDF file).

<b>Christianity supports Naturism.277</b>

180. Genesis 1:27–The (naked) human body, created by God, in God's own image, is basically decent, not inherently impure or sinful. The human body was created by God, and God can create no evil. It is made in God's image, and the image of God is entirely pure and good.

181. Genesis 1:31–God saw that everything, including naked Adam and Eve, was good.

182. Genesis 3:7–Many scholars interpret the wearing of fig leaves as a continuation and expansion of the original sin, not a positive moral reaction to it.

Hugh Kilmer explains: "Man wanted to put his life within his own control rather than God's, so first he took the power of self-determination (knowledge of good and evil). Next, finding his body was not within his control, he controlled it artificially by hiding it. After he was expelled from paradise, he began to hunt and eat animals; then to gain complete control over other people, by killing them (the story of Cain and Abel)." 278

183. Genesis 3:10–Many scholars believe that Adam and Eve's sense of shame came not from their nakedness, which God had created and called good, but from their knowledge of having disobeyed God.

184. An innate, God-given sense of shame related to nakedness is contradicted by the existence of numerous indigenous societies in which nudity is the rule and a sense of shame is totally absent, and by the lack of shame felt by naked children.

185. Genesis 3:11–It was disobedience that came between Adam and Eve and God, not nakedness. The scriptures themselves treat Adam and Eve's nudity as an incidental issue. Robert Bahr observes that "when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they grew ashamed of what they had done and attempted to hide themselves from God, who was not the least bit concerned with their nakedness but was mightily unhappy with their disobedience." 279 Herb Seal notes that God provided a covering by slaying an innocent animal: the first prototype of the innocent one slain to act as a "covering" for sinners.280

186. Genesis 3:21–God made garments of skins for Adam, but the Bible does not say the state of nakedness is being condemned. Because of the Fall, Adam and Eve were no longer in Eden and were thus subject to the varieties of weather and climate, and God knew they would need clothes. God loved and cared for them even after they had sinned.

187. To assume that because God made garments He was condemning nudity makes as much sense as concluding that because God made clouds which blot out the sun He was condemning sunshine.

188. Genesis 9:22-24–Noah was both drunk and naked, but Ham was the one who was cursed–when he dishonored his father, by calling attention to Noah's state, and making light of it. The shame of Noah's "nakedness" was much more than just being undressed. It was his dehumanized, drunken stupor which was shameful. Ham's offense was not merely seeing his father in this shameful state, but gossiping about it, effectively destroying Noah's reputation, cultural status, and authority as a father figure. In the story, Shem and Japheth were blessed for coming to the defense of their father's honor. Rather than joining Ham in his boasting, they reverently covered their father's shame.281

189. Exodus 20:26–The Priest's nakedness was not to be exposed because it would create dissonance between his social role, in which he was to be seen as sexually neutral, and his biological status as a sexual being. The Priest's costume represented his social role; to be exposed in that context would be inappropriate and distracting.282

Rita Poretsky writes: "Personhood, original sexual energy, and physical nakedness may be either in synchrony with social institutions or in disharmony. . . . Nakedness is a nakedness of self in a social context, not just a nakedness of body." 283 On the other hand, it was quite appropriate for David to dance essentially naked in public to celebrate the return of the Ark of the Covenant (II Samuel 6:14-23).

190. Leviticus 18:6-19–Here and throughout the Old Testament and Torah, the expression "uncover the nakedness of" (as it is literally translated in the King James Version) is a euphemism for "have sexual relations with." The prohibitions do not refer to nudity per se.284

191. I Samuel 19:23-24–Jewish prophets were commonly naked–so commonly that when Saul stripped off his clothes and prophesied, no one considered his nakedness remarkable, but everyone immediately assumed that he must be a prophet also.

192. II Samuel 6:14-23–King David danced nearly naked in the City of David to celebrate the return of the ark, in full view of all the citizens of the city. Michal criticized his public nudity and was rebuffed. King David was not strictly naked–he wore a "linen ephod," a sort of short apron or close-fitting, armless, outer vest, extending at the most down to the hips. Ephods were part of the vestments worn by Jewish priests. They hid nothing.285

193. Isaiah 20:2-3–God directly commanded Isaiah to loose the sackcloth from his hips, and he went naked and barefoot for three years. The prophet Micah may have done the same thing (see Micah 1:8).

194. Song of Solomon repeatedly expresses appreciation for the naked body.

195. Every Biblical association of nakedness with shame is in reference to a sin already committed. One cannot hide from God behind literal or figurative clothing. All stand naked before God.286

196. Nakedness cannot automatically be equated with sexual sin. Linking nudity with sexual sin, to the exclusion of all else, makes as much sense as insisting that fire can only be connected to the destruction of property and life, and is therefore immoral. Sin comes not from nakedness, but from how the state of nakedness is used. Ian Barbour writes: "No aspect of man is evil in itself, but only in its misuse. The inherent goodness of the material order, in which man's being fully participates, is, as we shall see, a corollary of the doctrine of creation." 287 Pope John Paul II agrees that nudity, in and of itself, is not sinful. "The human body in itself always has its own inalienable human dignity," he says. It is only obscene when it is reduced to "an object of 'enjoyment,' meant for the gratification of concupiscence itself." 288

197. Nakedness cannot automatically be associated with lust. It is not reasonable to cover the apples in the marketplace just because someone might may be tempted by gluttony, nor is it necessary to ban money because someone might be overcome by greed. Nor is it reasonable to ban nudity, simply because an individual might be tempted to lust. Furthermore, appreciation for the beauty of a member of the other sex, nude or otherwise, cannot be equated automatically with lust. Only if desire is added does appreciation become lust, and therefore sin. Even then, it is the one who lusts, not the object of lust, who has sinned. Bathesheba was never rebuked for bathing, but David for lusting (II Samuel 11:2-12:12). Pope John Paul II writes: "There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment (even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness . . . not the other." 289 Margaret Miles observes that "Nakedness and sexuality or lust were seldom associated in patristic writings." 290

198. Many historical church leaders have disassociated nudity with sexual immodesty. St. Thomas Aquinus, for example, defined an immodest act as one done with a lustful intention.291 Therefore, someone who disrobes for the sole purpose of bathing or recreating cannot be accused of immodesty. Pope John Paul II writes: "Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. . . . Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment. . . . There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest." 292

199. Through Christ, the Christian is returned spiritually to the same sinless, shameless state Adam and Eve enjoyed in Eden (Genesis 2:25). There is no question that their nakedness was not sinful. When God creates, nakedness is good. It follows that when God re-creates, nakedness is also good.

200. The Bible says plainly that sexual immorality is sin. Healthy Naturism, however, is entirely consistent for the Christian, who has "crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:24)

201. The Bible calls for purity of heart. Anyone who thinks it is impossible to be pure of heart while nude is ignorant of the realities of nudism, and anyone who believes that it is wrong even for the pure of heart to be nude has fallen into legalism, a vice which St. Paul repeatedly denounces.293 St. Paul writes: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. . . . Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!'? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. . . . Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience." (Colossians 2:8, 20-23; 3:12)

202. Clothes-compulsiveness creates an unwholesome schism between one's spirit and body. A Christian morality should deal with the person as a whole, healing both spirit and body.

203. Nudity has often been used in the Christian tradition as symbolic of renouncing the world to follow Christ. Margaret Miles writes: "In the thirteenth century, Saint Bernard of Clairvoux popularized the idea of nudity as symbolic imitation of Christ; it took Saint Francis to act out this metaphor. Francis announced his betrothal to Lady Poverty {i.e. his renunciation of material possessions} by publicly stripping off his clothing and flinging it at the feet of his protesting father" and the local bishop.294 Several Christian sects have practiced nudity as part of their faith, including the German Brethren of the Free Spirit, in the thirteenth century; the Picards, in fifteenth century France; and, most famously, the Adamites, in the early fifteenth century Netherlands.295

What is a nudist?

• A nudist is a person who is aware that the human body is the most marvelous and incredible biological machine in creation, and who understands that there is absolutely nothing shameful, indecent or offensive about it.

• A nudist is at one with nature in a way that the clothed cannot grasp. Humans are the only creatures on Earth that find it necessary to conceal their natural beings within an artificial exoskin, and nudists reject that cultural imposition.

• A nudist understands that clothing no more makes the man than fur makes the dog or feathers make the bird.

• A nudist enjoys the wonderful freedom of living without the illusion that layers of cloth somehow make life moral and worthwhile.

• A nudist does not embrace the pretense and the vanity of garments, nor the divisive imagery of class, status, wealth, rank, power and authority that clothing projects.

• A nudist condemns the egregious lie that nudity is synonymous with sexuality.

• A nudist understands that the nude human body is in fact far less exciting and stimulating than a body that is erotically clothed in garments that give free rein to the imagination.

• A nudist is appalled at the equation of nudists with sex offenders when with very few (if any) exceptions the real offenders are textiles.

• A nudist shakes his head sadly at the arrant, repugnant hypocrisy of a deviant culture that is monomaniacally obsessed with raw, naked sex, and yet condemns people for choosing to share a lifestyle of non-sexual nudity.

• A nudist is one who sees other people solely as people and understands that human bodies are biological shells in which the people live.

• A nudist knows that the familar acronymn, "WYSIWYG" (What You See Is What You Get), was a philosophy in nudism long before computer geeks adapted it.

• A nudist understands that when one is nude, that person has nothing but his or her personality to show to others.

• A nudist knows that a smile, eye contact and a friendly word say much more about a person than a thousand-dollar wardrobe.

• A nudist lives with the reality that the textile world will continue to practice its false religion of lies and illusions and degeneracy and evil, while seeking to destroy the simple, natural lifestyle of people who don't share their self-deception.

• And a nudist is one whether he or she is nude or clothed. Nudism is a philosophy and a way of life, not a state of dress.