Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	I see naturism as a non issue. There is nothing bad about the human
	body. After all God designed it didn't he. Some people have a problem
	with the nude body because they can't look at one without lust and so
	assume that no one can. Projection I believe the shrinks call it.

	It's like so many other things. If you can handle it without its
	being a drain on your witness I see little problem with it. As long
	as done where it will not cause someone else to fall. So hide from
	those who can't look without lusting.

			Alfred

| I see naturism as a non issue. There is nothing bad about the human
| body. After all God designed it didn't he. 

	I agree with you Alfred. There is nothing wrong with the human body.

| Some people have a problem
| with the nude body because they can't look at one without lust and so
| assume that no one can. Projection I believe the shrinks call it.

	This was the reason I was given as to why it isn't going to be talked
about. It was stated that it was a suggestive topic. It was also stated that
because of this "suggestiveness" that the topic wouldn't edify others. My whole
point was if someone feels that it is wrong to do things naked, that it will
lead to sexual activity, then they label it a sin and the person doing it a
sinner, then the person who is judged to be a sinner is being wrongly accused. 



Glen

| I know you are much more libertarian than i andn seem to carry this
| torch for homosexual and any other "is good" movement.

	What does this have to do with homosexuals? Yes, they do participate,
but one doesn't have to be gay to be a naturalist. The majority of all
naturalists are NOT gay. How does this tie in with Richard carrying a torch for
homosexuals?

| this is one big problem of the latter 20th century; remove any
| teeth or power from Christianity make it so everyone is very touchy
| feely and warm and fuzzy; 

	Oh, you mean a bit more human? 

| Richard you play the members of Christian up to be a bunch of
| ogres, juast because they squelch a homo topic after 1000000 replies
| of circular arguement or they stop a topic that in a file that is
| for [my understanding] fundamentalists. 

	I have had talks with Richard. I don't think he feels that they are
ogres Ray. For however he feels is based on far more than just a topic on
homosexuality. Aren't we just being a bit overzelous with our remarks?




Glen

    Re: .2
    
    I also agree with you Alfred. Good points.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .5
    
    Doesn't bother me...my Mother and Aunts and Uncles are Southern
    Baptist. I bet that they would chuckle too.
    
    Marc H.

	RE: .6 I don't believe that what was in .5 derides anyones religion
	or beliefs. Otherwise I would not have entered it. However, rather
	than offend you over a triffle the note is gone. I do hope though that
	to be consistant you will complain about and be offended by every
	note that suggests that those who feel one way or the other about
	anything are wrong as well.


			Regards,
				Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    since you deleted .5, I also deleted .6.   I do not feel it is wrong to 
    take a position.  However I am offended by all religious, ethnic, and
    homophobic jokes.  They are all meant to put someone else down.
    
    
                                       Pat
    

    Should have keeped it....good joke!
    
    Marc H.

>I do not feel it is wrong to 
>    take a position.  However I am offended by all religious, ethnic, and
>    homophobic jokes.  They are all meant to put someone else down.

    In other words if you say someones belief is wrong seriously it's ok but if
    you do it with humor it's not? Thanks I'll remember that for the
    future.

    			Alfred

Re: .1

Ray,

	I see you've deleted your note.  I'm not in the habit of replying
to deleted notes, but I'm going to make an exception in this instance.

	I don't mind you taking exception to this note string.  I don't even
mind if you find me or my beliefs objectionable.

	I started this string for two reasons:

		1. I see part of the mission of C-P to serve as an
		   alternate forum for sharing Christian values and
		   beliefs.

		2. There are lots of misperceptions about naturists and
		   naturism.  I wanted to see truth prevail over doctrine.
		   "The truth shall make you free."
Peace,
Richard

>>	"Do people feel that there is a problem with being Christian and being
>> into naturism?"

As a naturist I figured I would respond.  I consider myself a Christian even
tho I do not attend a formalized church and I don't have some of the standard
beliefs of "Christians".  In fact, I don't like pigeon-holing people but 
sometimes its a necessary evil.  I do attend the greatest church of the Great 
Spirit's which is the "great outdoors"/nature.  I always figured how can you 
be close to God if you are closed up inside a building?  ;-)  When you touch 
Mother Earth with your bare feet, you can't get much closer unless.....it's 
your whole body while laying nude....with the four winds and Father Sky 
caressing your body with nature's love.  :-)  As you can probably tell, I am
Native American, tribe being Cherokee.

We have met many people while at some hot-springs we go to.  Some are professed
Christians, some you just don't know.  You get a good cross-section of people
and no one can be a fake when nude.  I've never lusted after anyone except my
husband when we've been nude with others.  We have nuded with friends, family,
and people we don't even know their names.  We have a common bond of enjoying
being nude when the moments strikes you.  And if you don't want to nude you 
don't have to.  That's what makes naturists different from nudists.  IMO, 
naturists are a more congenial group, letting nudity happen when a person wants 
to.  Since I don't hang around with `nudists' per se and have read plenty about 
them, I've heard nudists are more apt to pressure a person into being nude even 
if they don't want to be.  I don't feel this is the attitude to have.  It is
not the `right' way.  

We've met a few `men of cloth' and their families while at the hot-springs.  
They may be more apt to be aware they might offend someone with nudity than 
others.  They appear to be more self-conscious not because its wrong in their 
minds but for fear of offending someone.  We have noticed that they are also 
less apt to talk about their occupations because of some peoples preconcieved 
ideas about nudity being wrong certain people (such as role models of the
community) and what people might think of them for participating.  And when
people find out they are ministers (or whatever) and are accepting of it, the 
best conversations transpire regarding religion and nudity.

The Great Spirit has blessed us with the human body and we should be proud of
this gift, no matter what humanly shape it has taken on.  As one who has lost
a breast to cancer and still was able to join others while nuding and missing 
a major part of the body, I felt I was accepted for who I was inside and not
judged by the way my body looked.  In my book, true Christians allow that to 
happen, people capable of unconditional love.

I'd like to share something with you regarding Native Americans love of nature:

    "He loved the Earth and all things of the Earth, the attachment growing
    with age. The old people came literally to love the soil and they
    sat or reclined on the ground with a feeling of being close to a
    mothering power. It was good for the skin to touch the Earth and
    the old people liked to remove their moccasins and walk with bare
    feet on the sacred earth. Their tipis were built upon the Earth
    and their Alters were made of Earth. The birds that flew in the
    air came to rest upon the Earth and it was the final abiding place
    of all things that lived and grew. The soil was soothing,
    strengthening, cleansing and healing."

    "That is why the old Indian still sits upon the Earth instead of
    propping himself up and away from its life-giving forces. For him,
    to sit or lie upon the ground is to be able to think more deeply
    and to feel more keenly; he can see more clearly into the mysteries
    of life and come closer in kinship to other lives about him...."

    "Kinship with all creatures of the Earth, Sky and Water was a real
    and active principle. For the animal and bird world there existed
    a brotherly feeling that kept the Lakota safe among them and so
    close did some of the Lakotas come to their feathered and furred
    friends that in true brotherhood they spoke a common tongue."

    "The old Lakota was wise. He knew that man's heart away from nature
    becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things
    soon led to lack of respect for humans too. So he kept his youth
    close to its softening influence."
                            
				---  Chief Luther Standing Bear, 1868

Hope you have a great Turkey Day weekend.  Sorry for rambling.  Just had
to put in my 2 cents in.

Judy

    Welcome Judy!  Nice to see you. :-)  
    I found your thoughts very edifying, especially to hear there
    is a distinction between naturists and nudists.  Never knew that.
    
    I've always known I am closest to God while in nature though, and have
    always felt it appropriate (whether I actually do or don't) to remove 
    my clothing as part of this sacred communion.  I remember occasionally
    shocking other youngsters with this behavior, and of course, be punished 
    as a result.  It was difficult to squelch this part of my being.  Over
    the last few years I've opened up to it again, and it feels like coming
    home.  Ahhhhhh.
    
    Thanks,
    Karen                                        

It is hard to know what the difference is between a Naturist and a Nudist.  
Probably just as hard to define what is a Christian.  And what I described 
earlier is the closest I can come to knowing what the difference is between
the two.  I have heard of nudist organizations, when you visit them you have
to check in your clothes at the door.  Even I didn't feel like being nude
that day, I'd have to be nude.  I guess they feel that people that have 
clothes on are more apt to be thought of as leering at others and not really
participating in the `lifestyle'.  Listen folks, I'm me whether I have my
clothes on or not.  It is not the clothes that make a person, it is what's
inside in the heart.

Judy

P.S.  If you are interested in learning more about Naturism, there is a 
notesfile available.  Contact me for info on how to access it.  BTW, I'm
one of the co-moderators of it.

Naturism (Nudism)               MOIRA::NATURISM                             1675
Naturism (Nudism)               easynote.confs.valuing_diffs.naturism       1675

Re: .14 & .16

Judy,

	Thank you for de-mything us about the nature of naturism.

	Any thoughts about why so many consider the undraped human
figure shameful?

	I personally consider the human body a work of art, a work
of the Hand of a Master Artist.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: basenote and replies,
    
                               Most of you know that I am "Southern
    Baptist" and have even preached and been a deacon.  To me there is
    *NOTHING* wrong with being nude.  Yes, even in public.  I love nature
    and being naked in it.  Too many of our prejudices are from our
    up-bringing.  We are taught, from an early age, to regarde the human
    body as evil and dirty.  Think about it....its all in your mind and if
    you think about it you were born naked.  King David danced naked before
    all Isreal.  To me, the abhorrance of nudity is a "traditional" value
    and one which we would be better off without.  IMHO...of course.
    
    
    Dave

    Well, I think there is a time and a place for everything. Walking down
    Fifth Ave. in N.Y. nude is not the place to be doing so. However, at
    hot springs or other areas it may be legit. The major problem I see is that
    there are extremist in just about everything, and those extremist tend
    to try and run a guilt trip on anyone who would think differently than
    themselves. Last week on Phil Donahue, there were a group of woman who
    represent a organization called "Top Free." This organization is
    fighting to abolish a N.Y. state law which prohibits women from going
    topless in public places. Now, I can agree to a point on this, however,
    they got into implying that if the sight of female breast arouses you,
    you must be a pervert or something. Well, I spent time in the orient,
    and I don't care how much nudity you see, as a westerner, the naked female
    body will arouse most males if they don't suppress their feelings. I resent
    anyone telling me that I'm evil because I'm aroused by the sight of a
    naked woman. My arousal is as natural as your nakedness, and there's
    nothing wrong with that. However, lust is sinful, and sexual arousal
    can and often does lead to lust. Even Gandhi admitted to that.
    So the purpose for covering up in western culture is no more wrong
    than going naked in another culture. It's the time and place that really
    matters. 


    Peace
    Jim

Why is it any more right for men to go topless than women?  I can get `turned
on' by a naked male chest.  Are we also going to outlaw men's butts in tight
pants?  You know most of the time I get more turned on by what a person is 
wearing than the nude body.  Clothes heighten the imagination.  Intices the
mind.  Makes you wonder what is beneath.  Once the clothes are off, nothing
is left to the imagination.  What a bummer.  :-)

It is no fun to try to breast feed a child in a public restroom where there
are no seats.  It is a lot more comfortable on a park bench.  Most women
are discreet when breast feeding and sometimes `tit' is seen.  By having
these laws repealed would allow a woman the freedom to not worry about
showing something that today is against the law.

In Denver, women play frisbee in the city park topless.  You can tell who
has seen this before and who is new to seeing it.  Most of the time, the 
gawkers are the new ones in shock of it happening.  Those that have seen it 
before, it has become `old hat' and `normal', nothing to write home about.

Judy

    re:21
    Judy,
    	gee ! I just can't button my shirt all the way up my neck, it's
    too uncomfortable. ;)

     Topless Frisbee ?
     Isn't it unhealthy for women to run without a athletic bra on ?
     
    Even if it seems normal, I bet the guys that play aren't totally
    oblivious to the ladies top-less-ness. Heck, when I was in Japan, 
    the strip joints where loaded with Japanese men. How come ? They
    bath with naked women all the time from infancy. Why are they gawking
    at stripers ? 

    The point is that you'll never remove lust by allowing nakedness,
    if anything it just becomes more perverted.

    Jim

>>     Isn't it unhealthy for women to run without a athletic bra on ?
     
That's a myth!  It's amazing how many of those things are around.  It is 
recommended if a person is not comfortable without a bra to wear one. 
Otherwise they are not necessary.  

IMO, the brassiere was originally created to enhance a woman's breast, to make
them more prominent.  And for whom?  Men.  They sure aren't comfortable for 
most women.

Sorry for the tangent!

Judy

re:23
    Judy,

>IMO, the brassiere was originally created to enhance a woman's breast, to make
>them more prominent.  And for whom?  Men.  

    Yeah, and so what's wrong with that ? To me  it seems natural for males and
    females to do things to attract each other. Even the birds and bees
    do things to make themselves attractive to one another.

    Peace
    Jim

Aesthetically speaking, the breasts of women are to me sort of like apples;
no matter the size, shape or color, I suspect there are very few I would
determine to be less than beautiful.

Sexually speaking, I find the uncovered breasts of most women, well,
titillating. ;-} <no groans, please>  Of course, it all depends on the
context.  An infant being breast fed is not arousing to me.  Rather, the
sight is one of serenity.

I've never considered a date's breasts to be "first base" as some men do,
I'm told.

Speaking as a Christian, it's really the person dwelling within the skin
who really matters most to me.  According to Samuel, so it is with God.

Peace,
Richard

>>  Yeah, and so what's wrong with that ? To me  it seems natural for males and
>>  females to do things to attract each other. Even the birds and bees
>>  do things to make themselves attractive to one another.

RE: -2

There is plenty wrong when women are expected to wear them all the time.  To
me that means being alluring all the time FOR men.  And there is a time and
place for being alluring.  Not in the workplace, not in the grocery store,
not on the street corner.  The place to be sensuous is in private.  

Now I suppose someone will say, `but you have to be attracted to get to the
private session so we need this alluring clothing'.  If breasts are the only
thing someone is looking at, that to me to being pretty shallow.  The person, 
inside and out, fat, thin and in-between, with breasts or no breasts, is what 
is sensuous.  After I lost a breast to cancer and was (according to some 
people's standards) mutilated, I still felt sensuous.  And my husband found 
me sensuous.  My sensuality had nothing to do with my breasts.  I am me and 
after 20 years of marriage, I know it is me that he finds attractive, not my 
shell that we use on Mother Earth.

And for naturists, you are accepted for whatever shell you use.  Whether it be
perfect or not so perfect.  IMO, I haven't seen a perfect body yet in any of 
the naturist environments we've been in.  Some people thought they had the 
perfect bod but they were far from being perfect.  :-)  

Judy

Re: .22 Jim

>    The point is that you'll never remove lust by allowing nakedness,
>    if anything it just becomes more perverted.

Re: .24 Jim

>>IMO, the brassiere was originally created to enhance a woman's breast, to make
>>them more prominent.  And for whom?  Men.  
>
>    Yeah, and so what's wrong with that ? To me  it seems natural for males and
>    females to do things to attract each other. Even the birds and bees
>    do things to make themselves attractive to one another.

Don't you think breasts made more prominent by a brassiere might inspire lust
in some men, Jim?  Unless everyone, men and women, were dressed in heavy
robes and wore veils I don't think you can "remove lust", and even then
people can always *imagine* what's underneath each other's robes.

In general I think people should be free to be naked if that's what they want
to do.  Yes, it will inspire lust in some people, but lust exists anyway.  As
long as people are civilized in the way they act on that lust there should
be no need for the law to step in and make nudity illegal.  And even if the
sight of a woman's naked breasts makes some men more likely to commit rape,
it should be the woman's choice as to whether she wants to take that chance
(naturally anyone who does commit rape in such circumstances should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law).

Re: .25 Richard

>I've never considered a date's breasts to be "first base" as some men do,
>I'm told.

That's second base.  First base is a kiss.

				-- Bob

    Actually the brassiere was created to free women from corsetts and
    it was invented by a woman. (Didn't any of you read the infamous
    Life Magazine cover article on the anniversary of the invention
    of the bra a few years ago?  :-) ).
    
    Bonnie

Note 352.27

>Re: .25 Richard

>>I've never considered a date's breasts to be "first base" as some men do,
>>I'm told.

>That's second base.  First base is a kiss.

Thanks for that info, Bob.  8-}

Richard

RE:26
    
>There is plenty wrong when women are expected to wear them all the time.  To
>me that means being alluring all the time FOR men.  And there is a time and
>place for being alluring.  Not in the workplace, not in the grocery store,
>not on the street corner.  The place to be sensuous is in private.  

    Well, of course it's for men! What's wrong with that ? Are men suppose
    to turn themselves off so that they no longer feel ? Besides it's women who 
    choose to dress the way that's alluring. Men don't force them. In fact, 
    to me some women get a little ridiculous about it and many are even
    married so who are they trying to attract ?

    But men do alluring things as well. Macho and chivalry were  luring at 
    one time for women. Today many men aren't sure what is alluring to women. 


>Now I suppose someone will say, `but you have to be attracted to get to the
>private session so we need this alluring clothing'.  If breasts are the only
>thing someone is looking at, that to me to being pretty shallow.  

    See, there you go again, telling men what should be alluring. Men are
    attracted in many ways to a women. Often, physical appearance is the 
    first way to get a man's attention. The rest follows and when a
    relationship evolves, the physical attraction takes less importance.


    >The person, 
>inside and out, fat, thin and in-between, with breasts or no breasts, is what 
>is sensuous.  

    True, but if you don't have something that attracts a man, you could
    end up lonely as many do.

    >After I lost a breast to cancer and was (according to some 
>people's standards) mutilated, I still felt sensuous.  And my husband found 
>me sensuous.  My sensuality had nothing to do with my breasts.  I am me and 
>after 20 years of marriage, I know it is me that he finds attractive, not my 
>shell that we use on Mother Earth.

    This is because your husband loves you. Love is giving, and your
    husband chooses to give to you because he loves you. This of course
    is probably different than what attracted him to you in the first place. 
    Whether it was your smile, your eyes, your breast or whatever, something
    physically about you caught his attention. From that point he wanted to
    get to know you  more. As he did, your inner beauty became more
    relevant. 

>And for naturists, you are accepted for whatever shell you use.  Whether it be
>perfect or not so perfect.  IMO, I haven't seen a perfect body yet in any of 
>the naturist environments we've been in.  Some people thought they had the 
>perfect bod but they were far from being perfect.  :-)  

    But, that's the problem. The shell we have does dictate how we are
    accepted. I'm not saying it's right believe me, but it's a fact.
    Clothing helps the shell to look more attractive and acceptable in
    our culture. To me, there'd be nothing more uglier than a single naked 
    person in a room full of people with cloths on.


    Peace

     Jim

    Jim,
    
    > To me, there'd be nothing more uglier than a single naked person
    > in a room full of people with cloths on.
    
    Don't ever decide to go to school to be an artist then.
    
    ;-)
    
    Karen

    RE:31
    
    Karen,
    	  errr....uhm, well yeah that's true, but not what I had in mind.
    
    
    Peace
    Jim

   Just some thoughts.

   Actually there is a germ of a point in the last few.  Lest we forget
   clothes are for a specific purpose that does not seem obvious
   anymore... (ok some weak humor).

   We get dressed every day mostly for a specific purpose.
   	
   	We lack sufficient body hair to protect us from the cold.

   	We work out doors where is gets cold.

   	We need protective clothes to protect us from hazards like
   	chemicals, burns, vinyl seats, and the sun.

   The fact that we tend to be individuals clothing is an reasonable
   expression of our uniqueness.  Unless whe work in jobs that require
   a uniform... then again even uniforms will have the persons name.

   Now if my job was a tour guide on a tropical island a simple sari
   in bright colors or a topless wrap skirt would be appropriate.

   Allison
   	

re: .33

>>   Now if my job was a tour guide on a tropical island a simple sari
>>   in bright colors or a topless wrap skirt would be appropriate.

Where can I apply?!?  ;-)   

Judy

    I remember learning in an anthropology course I took many years ago
    that modesty is universal, that is, evident in every known culture.
    
    One society we learned about customarily wears nothing beyond a plug
    inserted in the lower lip.  Observed with that lip plug removed, however,
    a member of this society will experience the embarrassment of immodesty.
    To them, it is being caught "naked."
    
    According to Genesis, God asked Adam and Eve, "How do you know you are
    naked?"  Surely God knew something was amiss as soon as Adam and Eve
    exhibited shame in their nakedness.  To me, this is a very telling
    allegory.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: .35 I remember reading of a culture in the Pacific where
    little was warn above the waist but thighs, of both men and women,
    were always covered in public.
    
    			Alfred

Certainly this points made in .33 are valid.  Clothing serves a protective
function.

But to what degree does clothing serve as a costume or disguise?  How often
is social status reflected in one's wardrobe?  How often do we adorn our
bodies to separate ourselves from others?  How often do we dress to protect
ourselves from social vulnerability rather than climatic vulnerability?

Richard

<But to what degree does clothing serve as a costume or disguise?  How often
<is social status reflected in one's wardrobe?  How often do we adorn our
<bodies to separate ourselves from others?  How often do we dress to protect
<ourselves from social vulnerability rather than climatic vulnerability?

   Richard,

   My guess is somewhere near 100% of the time most of the time.  Really!
   I'm not trivializing your questions, but ask yourself why your wearing
   what you are at work today.  We are socialized that way and society
   enforces it.  Are we digressing from the naturism topic talking about
   this?

   Allison

Richard

<But to what degree does clothing serve as a costume or disguise?  How often
<is social status reflected in one's wardrobe?  How often do we adorn our
<bodies to separate ourselves from others?  How often do we dress to protect
<ourselves from social vulnerability rather than climatic vulnerability?

    Now your talking about vanity which is really a different issue. I think
    most of us dress to fit in, not stand out, but there are the
    exceptions.

    Jim

    .39
    
    I agree with what you've said, Jim.  At the same time, I would augment
    it by saying that much of the psychology behind wearing clothing is a
    kind of 'hiding' or 'concealing' ourselves from each other.
    
    I'm wondering if it would beneficial for us to occasionally strip away
    the barriers that psychologically keep us apart and if that effort might
    logically include social nudity.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re: Note 352.40 by Richard "Peace: the Final Frontier" 

>    I agree with what you've said, Jim [Richards].  At the same time, I 
>    would augment it by saying that much of the psychology behind wearing 
>    clothing is a kind of 'hiding' or 'concealing' ourselves from each other.

Hi Richard,

For some reason, this brought to mind the day I first got a contact lense.
Without glasses, which I'd worn nearly every waking hour since I was 4, my
face felt positively naked and free.  I felt the chilly February wind on my
face as if for the first time.  Amazing. 

I'm also reminded of one hot summer night after a meeting, some friends and I
went "skinny-dipping" at our local beach.  Being a spur of the moment idea, we
had no towels, so to dry off I ran nude Eiko along the beach. (Eiko is one of
the basic forms of Shintaido, basically meaning "running to your future".) 

It was an intensely spiritual experience.  As my whole body was caressed by the 
breeze, I felt the interplay of physical, mental, and spiritual awareness 
inextricably entwine.

Peace,

Jim, naked under these clothes

    .40
    
>    I agree with what you've said, Jim.  At the same time, I would augment
>    it by saying that much of the psychology behind wearing clothing is a
>    kind of 'hiding' or 'concealing' ourselves from each other.
    
>    I'm wondering if it would beneficial for us to occasionally strip away
>    the barriers that psychologically keep us apart and if that effort might
>    logically include social nudity.

    The psychology behind wearing clothing isn't the total reason for wearing
    clothing. Clothing is mostly a necessity in many climates. 
    The psychological barriers that keep us apart will be there
    weather we're naked or not. In fact we may even create new ones if
    you've haven't eliminated the cause of the barriers in the first place.    

    I don't see nudity as a solution to the problem, in fact I would dare
    say  it would create a whole new set of problems if the people who
    are naked have not eradicated pride and self-centeredness in
    themselves.

    The things that separate us have to do with pride. The mask we wear
    are the result of ego protecting the false identity we have in ourselves. 
    To some, nudity may be away of being humble, but unless  the pride
    of the ego is eliminated, nudity will not eliminate the false mask we
    wear to hide our true selves. Nudity only reveals the physical side of
    the person and perhaps a boldness on the ego side. It is not the
    true self being revealed. The ego will protect the itself regardless 
    of the environment the person lives in.

    The only true way in removing the barriers that separate us, is
    through the love of Jesus Christ. To surrender all that is in us
    to him, eliminates pride and egotism, and leaves us with only our
    true selves, which must humbly rely on Christ graces which often come 
    through others in order to survive. "Love one another" means to love 
    the truest part of each other, not the false part. Nudity doesn't reveal 
    the truest part of the human being. 


    Peace
    Jim

Note 352.42

Jim,

>    The psychology behind wearing clothing isn't the total reason for wearing
>    clothing. Clothing is mostly a necessity in many climates. 

Yes.  In fact, in 352.37 I agreed with 352.33, who made the same point.

>    I don't see nudity as a solution to the problem, in fact I would dare
>    say  it would create a whole new set of problems if the people who
>    are naked have not eradicated pride and self-centeredness in
>    themselves.

I don't see nudity (or naturism) as a solution either, merely a consideration.

>    Nudity doesn't reveal 
>    the truest part of the human being. 

True enough.

Peace,
Richard