The Naked Christ - Did Christians Visit the Roman Baths?

[NakedGary]

The Naked Christ - Did Christians Visit the Roman Baths?

http://www.tekline.co.uk/natjes3.htm

NakedGary

[NakedGary]

The Naked Christ - Did Christians Visit the Roman Baths?

http://www.tekline.co.uk/natjes3.htm

NakedGary

[tarsus]

christ preached to the jews,with a few exceptions' the jews tradtion at time [and still?] was never to be fully nude when bathing[where underwear came from?].when gentiles were invited [peter being the first to receive the command to go to the gentiles] everything changed so to speak,the expression"when in rome---" comes from this time. so very likly early christians did vist the roman baths,since it was the mission of early christians to preach the christ as savior
not to"put clothes on the heathens". really a lot of this stuff came when king james started the church and we got the kjv bible.the english simply did not bathe,and wore all these clothes to protect their outer garments.geetting windy here so---

[NuTex]

Yes Christians visted the Roman Baths. This is very well documented.

Bishop Sisinnius in 400 AD enjoyed the public baths so much he attended them twice a day. When asked why he went two times a day his reply was because three times a day would be inconvenient. The monk Jovinianus went on record approving ?baths in which men and women bathe?. Jovinianus came under attack after he began to develop a following. Yet with the exception of Jerome the main criticisms were that he did not hold celibacy as a higher calling and that Mary did not stay a virgin.
NuTex

[NuTex]

BTW, there was a very good article some time ago in the Fig Leaf Forum on this. If you don't already subscribe I highly recommend it. Cheef.com calls Fig Leaf Forum "The Foremost Christian Nudist Publication".

Email subscriptions are free.
Fig Leaf Forum (http://www.figleafforum.com/)

NuTex

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tarsus:
. . . . really a lot of this stuff came when king james started the church and we got the kjv bible. . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? What church did King James start?

King James authorized a group of scholars to produce a new translation of the Bible, but he didn't start any churches.

[DeweyND]

I guess I'm just curious....When God commanded the Jewish men of old to be circumsised, as an outward sign to other nations, how can the circumsission be "viewed", if it was under the wraps of a robe?

DeweyND /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Dewey, good question! How can something that is covered up be an "outward sign"? There are a lot of "signs" in the world that advertise, and not one of them is hidden. They have to be seen to be effective and to get their message across.

If there was a message that God wanted to get across to people by way of circumcision, didn't He mean for people--at least the men--to be nude?

Dewey and Jon-Marc ...Sure sounds like it to me...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Uurgu]

Actually the Catholic bishops almost universally condemned the baths. In the year 195, Clement of Alexandria said, "The baths are opened promiscuously to men and women. And there they strip for licentious indulgence (for from looking, men get to loving). It is as if their modesty had been washed away in the baths. Those who have not become utterly destitute of modesty shut out strangers."

[NuTex]

NakedGary?s question was ?Did Christians visit the Roman Baths?? and the answer to that is without a doubt ?Yes?.

According to ?Roman Bath Renaissance?, by John Kundert and printed in The Fig Leaf Forum issue 27, ?In 177 AD Christians in Lugdunum and Vienna in Gaul were undergoing persecution. They sent a letter to the churches in Asia and Pyrygia complaining that, among other things, they were not permitted to use the public baths.? In addition, according to Kundert, ?Many public baths bore Christian dedications, an example being: "I, Thomas, [acting] for the sake of all property owners, have given this bath, presenting this memory. What is the name of the bath? Health. Through this entering, Christ has opened for us the bath of healing.""

One must wonder if the Church universally condemned the baths why some would have been dedicated to Jesus.

Uugru wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Actually the Catholic bishops almost universally condemned the baths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While Clement of Alexandria may have been against the baths that doesn?t mean the bishops were universally against them. Again according to Kundert, ?A sense of ambivalence concerning the Roman baths seems to best sum up the attitude of Church leadership after the time of the Bible writers. Little appears to have been written on the subject, and the opinions expressed in what was written varied widely. Little evidence exists that would indicate either substantial support or substantial condemnation of public bathing during the first several centuries of the Church's existence.? He goes on to write, ?There was never anything like a universal ban leveled against public bathing by the Church.?

Uugru, do you have a source that states it was universally condemned? I've never seen one and would be interested in reading it.
NuTex

[Uurgu]

I'd say it is reasonable that Christians used the baths. Of course they were not doing it for naturist motives. It was the way people cleaned themselves. But it was not looked upon favorably by Christian leadership of the time. Cyprian, in the year 250, said, "What of those unmarried women who partonize indecent baths? They who disgracefully look at naked men and are seen naked by men do they not themselves afford enticement to vice?"

He also says, "Do we believe that a man is lamenting with his whole heard...who from the first day of his sin daily frequents the bathing places with women?"

From the Apostolic Constitutions, year 390, it says, "Women should also avoid that disorderly practice of bathing in the same place with men."

Dont get your panties in a bunch over this because it does not condemn mixed nudity, just that of the public baths. John Kundert--is he a Christian--must be equating the use of baths as nudism. But early Christians were not free to do it. There are other writings that show that church baptisms were done nude but that was not in the public baths I do not think.

[Trailscout]

Roman baths were used for five centuries and the behavior of the bathers varied from place to place and varied over the course of time.

I am most familiar with Aquae Sulis, the Roman resort in what is now Bath, England. It had a long history before the Romans, but I will save that for another day. The Emperor Claudius commissioned the construction of a public bath there about the year 43 A.D.)

Originally (first century A.D.) women and children bathed at separate times, but the restrictions relaxed and everyone bathed together. The baths were not a place of open sexual activity, it was a place for family nudity. It was a shrine to the goddess Minerva as well.

The baths had what amounted to a police detachment to supervise behavior there. The regimen of the baths at Aquae Sulis would tend to discourage sexual activity. A quick dip in the icy waters of the frigidarium would calm things down right away.

Aquae Sulis was a public bath until the Romans left Britain and the baths were abandoned in the social chaos of the dark ages.

It was not until the 300's that body shame became rampant in the Christian community.

Clement was from Alexandria Egypt, a man of patrician citizenship in a city where many Christians were found among the aristocracy. His remarks about the baths should not be universally applied. He obviously criticized licentious behavior at the baths in Alexandria, but he was not a Stoic and he did not say that Christians should not go to the public baths, merely use them in moderation and modesty.
It would be unfair to characterize all Roman baths as licentious throughout their entire history.

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Dont get your panties in a bunch over this because it does not condemn mixed nudity, just that of the public baths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uugru,
First, a simple disagreement is not the same as getting my "panties in a bunch". I simply expanded on my position and asked for sources to support yours.

Second, I never said that the baths had anything to do with supporting modern mixed nudity. Whether the Early Church did or didn't advocate the baths is simply a historical curiosity. IMHO, it has no "baring" /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif on whether social nudism is morally acceptable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> John Kundert--is he a Christian--must be equating the use of baths as nudism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>John Kundert is indeed a Christian and is the editor of the Fig Leaf Forum.
Fig Leaf Forum Web Site (http://www.figleafforum.com/)

Trailscout, you made very good points your post.
NuTex

[Uurgu]

All good points. Are you saying that Clement's views were not relevant? What about the other examples I provided?

[Trailscout]

Clement's opinions are interesting, but are meaningless without proper context.

Those familiar with the discussion about the entrance of extreme body shame into the early church are aware that some of the philosophy of Plato crept into the church, largely through Greek converts to Christianity. Although the Gnostic cult was most influenced by the concept, even orthodox Christians were increasingly led into a very negative view of the physical world, including the human body.

Although Clement lectured against the Gnostics, he is well-known for being one of the first Christians to begin incorporating elements of Platonism into Christian teaching.

Alexandria, where Clement taught, is often viewed as the center of much heretical doctrine. In ancient times, the theologians in Antioch (now in Syria) were much more orthodox and authoritative, that is until the time of Constantine.

Unfortunately, the hostility to the human body grew worse and found its way into the official teachings of the church in Rome.

So rather than being authoritative, Clement's prudishness about nudity is important because it helps us understand how an alien body-hostile philosophy was patched (rather badly) onto the Christian faith.

It was another 200 years before prudishness came to dominate the church, so a student of ancient Rome, early Christianity, etc. will find accounts of nude baptisms and Christian participation in mixed gender bathing at the Roman baths until approximately the time of Constantine.

Now, some 1800 years later, Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic nudists are beginning the long task of undoing centuries of misinformation and the consequent damage resulting from body-shame.

Here's a short bio:
Clement of Alexandria (The Columbia Encyclopedia) (http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/ClementA.html)

[Uurgu]

Modern day nudists are doing nothing to undo these perceptions. Your comments about Clement are interesting but not entirely accurate. Apostolic authority looked very dimly on the baths and it was not isolated. Nudity was very common in those times but it did not do well in the baths. Thanks for the link.

[Trailscout]

Newton,

I must differ with you on several points you made.

It is intemperate of you to make sweeping condemnation of modern nudists. My previous post referred to Christian nudists, with whom you seem totally unacquainted, but it is also true that secular traditional family nudist resorts are remarkably well-behaved and it is quite unfair of you to say otherwise. I have no doubt you can find a swinger who claims to be a nudist, but if I search the Internet long enough I will certainly find a man who claims that he is a poached egg.

I think I have provided sufficient evidence that Clement was merely a prudish neo-Platonic theologian of the disreputable Alexandrian school, certainly not one who could speak "ex-cathedra".

I doubt that you can provide proof that any of the pre-Constantinian church fathers condemned non-sexual social nudity. If an individual Roman bath became the scene of debauchery I can understand the need to urge caution or even avoidance in that specific instance, but it should be obvious that overall, nudity at public baths of good repute were a non-issue with the church before the corrupting influence of Platonic body shame was introduced.

[Uurgu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Newton,

I must differ with you on several points you made.

It is intemperate of you to make sweeping condemnation of modern nudists. My previous post referred to Christian nudists, with whom you seem totally unacquainted, but it is also true that secular traditional family nudist resorts are remarkably well-behaved and it is quite unfair of you to say otherwise. I have no doubt you can find a swinger who claims to be a nudist, but if I search the Internet long enough I will certainly find a man who claims that he is a poached egg.

I think I have provided sufficient evidence that Clement was merely a prudish neo-Platonic theologian of the disreputable Alexandrian school, certainly not one who could speak "ex-cathedra".

I doubt that you can provide proof that any of the pre-Constantinian church fathers condemned non-sexual social nudity. If an individual Roman bath became the scene of debauchery I can understand the need to urge caution or even avoidance in that specific instance, but it should be obvious that overall, nudity at public baths of good repute were a non-issue with the church before the corrupting influence of Platonic body shame was introduced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>--not too sure what all of that meant--

Uh, getting back to the original topic, I'd say it is pretty clear in history that Christians used the baths. It was the culture they lived in. Just as we go to public swimming pools today dressed in basically nothing--really, the gals there might as well be naked by how little even conservative suits cover--we as Christians accept this. The folks back then accepted nakedness because it was part of their culture despite the fact that nudism was nonexistent.

The implication that is being made here is that if Christians used the baths then:
1) They must have been naturist and therefore Christian naturism has a long legitimate history.
2) Christians now who do not accept mixed nudity must be missing something.

There is not really much difference between the public swimming pool and the baths, because fabrics being what they are do not hide anything. Just the other day at the local aquatic center that we frequent, I noticed a young teenage girl with a light colored swim suit and it did not mask her well cultivated pubic hair. I suspect she was not a nudist even though she was quite well exposed and not to concerned about it. My point is that we have become accustomed to a certain amount of body exposure, even what would have been scandalous decades ago, but that does not prove naturism; nor does Christians in the baths prove naturism.

[Trailscout]

Newton,

Perhaps we are closer to agreement than I originally surmised.

Nudism is only about 100 years old.

If Jesus or the apostles condemned non-sexual nudity, nudism would not have arisen among Christians.

If the early church fathers had condemned it, we would have to decide if their writings were authoritative before we say, "Tertullian, Origen, or Polycarp hated social nudity, therefore I must too".

Some writers, both before and after the time of the apostles have been rejected by the church for false doctrine and we need not obey their doctrine. For instance, Flavius Josephus did a fairly good job of reporting history and Christians find his accounts useful, but Josephus was NOT an apostle and I don't care if he liked or hated nudity.

I am glad that you recognize that what we see on the beaches today is pretty close to nudity. Nudity would be more modest because it calls less attention to any one part of the body than a bikini does.

Beach and poolside nudity is much more comfortable than wearing swimwear, but other than that it is a nonissue and it annoys me to see so much opposition to it from government officials and some religious groups.

There is no need to consider whether or not naturism existed in the time of the apostles. It didn't.

But it is useful to have an answer for those who try to say that all nudity is sinful all the time.
Jesus and the apostles, the prophet Isaiah and King Saul were nude on occasion and it was not sexual or shameful.

I would further insist that there is nothing about nudism or naturism that would prevent a Christian from participating.

As a matter of fact, taking your children regularly to a wholesome family nudist resort may be the best way to provide numerous role models to help them avoid body shame and sexual promiscuity.

[tarsus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luvnaturism:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tarsus:
. . . . really a lot of this stuff came when king james started the church and we got the kjv bible. . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? What church did King James start?

King James authorized a group of scholars to produce a new translation of the Bible, but he didn't start any churches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>he was a baptist,went across the road and built one because he got in a fight with his brother. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
sometimes my thoughts and what i want to say just do not come together properly,and like my life there is a blank area.several bible translations were floating around and this one became the"offical"[and still is for many] bible.
the church of england was started by the king,so he could divorce and marry another.[well i forgot his name,someone help]. anyway my point was a lot of this sillness got started 400-1600 years after the christ walked on the earth as a man,and nudity
was not an issue,but rather the salvation of man; that message has been lost long ago it seems in the poltical and moral arena the churches created.

[Uurgu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Newton,

Perhaps we are closer to agreement than I originally surmised.

Nudism is only about 100 years old.

If Jesus or the apostles condemned non-sexual nudity, nudism would not have arisen among Christians.

If the early church fathers had condemned it, we would have to decide if their writings were authoritative before we say, "Tertullian, Origen, or Polycarp hated social nudity, therefore I must too".

Some writers, both before and after the time of the apostles have been rejected by the church for false doctrine and we need not obey their doctrine. For instance, Flavius Josephus did a fairly good job of reporting history and Christians find his accounts useful, but Josephus was NOT an apostle and I don't care if he liked or hated nudity.

I am glad that you recognize that what we see on the beaches today is pretty close to nudity. Nudity would be more modest because it calls less attention to any one part of the body than a bikini does.

Beach and poolside nudity is much more comfortable than wearing swimwear, but other than that it is a nonissue and it annoys me to see so much opposition to it from government officials and some religious groups.

There is no need to consider whether or not naturism existed in the time of the apostles. It didn't.

But it is useful to have an answer for those who try to say that all nudity is sinful all the time.
Jesus and the apostles, the prophet Isaiah and King Saul were nude on occasion and it was not sexual or shameful.

I would further insist that there is nothing about nudism or naturism that would prevent a Christian from participating.

As a matter of fact, taking your children regularly to a wholesome family nudist resort may be the best way to provide numerous role models to help them avoid body shame and sexual promiscuity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When I show that church fathers condemned Christians in the baths, it is not a condemnation of mixed nudity, only that in the baths. There are many examples from early church history of mixed nudity.

Yes I recognize that what we see at the beach or at swimming pools is pretty close to nudity, and I am glad you agree. That is one reason I am not a naturist. People who wear bathing suits are not necessarily ashamed of their bodies. They wear bathing suits because it it the accepted mode of attire in our society at such places. They even wear rather sheer bathing suits because that is what is available in the stores. People are aware that these suits conform to their figures in a way that leaves nothing to the imagination, but they wear them any way, not because they are ashamed of showing their bodies, but because they are NOT ashamed of showing their bodies.

Christians went naked in the baths because that was the norm of the day. It was also because people were regularly naked in sight of each other in other daily activities, so being naked in the baths was logical. This was not nudism, as you agree.

I would disagree that there is nothing about nudism that would keep a Christian from participating. Just like the baths, elements of impurity can exist that would make it wrong to participate.

If nudity called attention to parts of the body in the same way that a bikini did, then it would be no better in this regard. If a person did things to his or her genitals that drew attention, that would be just as attention getting as a bikini. I am against bikini's and only let my family wear one piece suits. If a nudist puts jewlry or tatoos or shaves their genitals, that is no better than a bathing suit in this regard. One piece suits are actually better than this kind of stuff. But that is my opinion. I do not want my children to see people doing this to their genitals for sure.

Taking my children regularly to a nudist resort could actually increase their body shame because of this--it is a fashion statement no less than seen in the mall--but also because at a nudist resort there are very few children and teens around so my children would actually wonder why, and this would show them that it is shameful to be naked. Better I say to take them places where nakedness is not so much a factor in their understanding.

You know, kids do not automacially become ashamed of their bodies by seeing other fully dressed people. Being in the clothed world does not cause kids to not want to be seen naked. Being around naked people who wear their nakedness on their sleeve can cause kids to become too awar of their bodies and that brings shame too.

Just being at the aquatic center is an acceptance of nakedness to some degree.

[Trailscout]

Newton,

I am not suggesting that you take your family to all nudist resorts.

I know of one where many children attend and the poolside is well-chaperoned. I have never seen genital jewelry or any other ornaments at that same nudist resort. I think they frown on that sort of thing. Surely you must be aware that I have been preaching against those disgusting things for close to two years now.

I too wear swim trunks when I must. Whether the wearer intends it or not, a brightly colored string bikini does draw the eye to the hidden parts. Our pubic hair draws some attention, but it is much more subdued a visual cue.

I do not understand why you are not a naturist. Bathing suits are not as comfortable as nudity. I have always thought that the nude is more esthetically appealing that a clothed person.

I would argue that a Christian might also do well to avoid the grocery store, the doctor's office, the hardware store, and the KOA campground. Just like the baths, elements of impurity can exist at these places that would make it wrong to go there.

[Uurgu]

Since as we agree bathing suits are basically no different that nudity why bother with nudism especially with all that I said...

[Uurgu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:

It was not until the 300's that body shame became rampant in the Christian community.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

You dont think shame was around before then? You think Christ came to save a shameless generation? Do you really think the early church was without shame? Have you not read Corinthians? If that was a picture of unrampant shame then maybe rampant shame was in order. I doubt it. The early church, evidenced by the immorality condemned by Paul and those who came after (see my previous examples) was not so pure as you might think.

[Trailscout]

Newton,

I did not say that body shame did not exist in the days of the early church . Your point about Corinth is well taken.

What I did say is that extreme shame about nudity was not taught by Jesus or the disciples, nor was it taught by the apostles. Under the influence of the apostles and their immediate successors (such as Polycarp), the church was overall doctrinely pure for a time. There were notable exceptions. Paul described the Galatians as "bewitched". Paul hated the deeds of the Nicolatians, and expressed his anger with a couple of his subordinates The apostle John described a couple of problem churches in the book of Revelation.
Despite these problems, the churches had to answer to the bishops and the apostles and was faced with either correction or expulsion.

The top leadership of the Church had sound doctrine until roughly the time of Emperor Constantine. "In Hoc Signo Vinces" was probably the worst thing that has happened to Christendom.

Until that time, the church fathers did not condemn nudity per se.

Clement's opinion is not authoritative. He was part of the beginning of the corruption of the Church's doctrinal purity.

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uurgu:
Since as we agree bathing suits are basically no different that nudity why bother with nudism especially with all that I said... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Newton,
The logic of nudity is staring you in the face.
If you are attempting to clean your body, why pray tell would you leave any portion covered and presumably inaccessible to soap, brush, sponge, etc..?

If you are talking about recreational bathing, INA has a wonderful page that explains all of the benefits of nudity quite well:

The World's Best Swimsuit (http://www.clothesfree.com/swimsuit.html)

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tarsus:
the church of england was started by the king,so he could divorce and marry another.[well i forgot his name,someone help]. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was Henry VIII, who eventually had nearly as many wives as Elizabeth Taylor had husbands. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW, the King James Bible was commissioned in deliberate opposition to the Geneva Bible, produced by the Reformed church. Even so, it's a remarkable piece of scholarship. Aside from a few rather egregious errors, it's as literal a translation as is commonly available. When I was seriously studying nudity in the Bible, I used the KJV.

[Uurgu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Newton,
The logic of nudity is staring you in the face.
If you are attempting to clean your body, why pray tell would you leave any portion covered and presumably inaccessible to soap, brush, sponge, etc..?

If you are talking about recreational bathing, INA has a wonderful page that explains all of the benefits of nudity quite well:

The World's Best Swimsuit (http://www.clothesfree.com/swimsuit.html) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Staring me in the face? This is about whether or not Christians used the Roman baths. They did, but not without getting themselves tangled up in disrespectful behaviors. See my examples posted previously in case you did not notice all of them.

I find it interesting that every time the subject of nudity and Christianity is discussed, it is always assumed by naturists that because Christians may find naturism uncomfortable that it is because they find nudity uncomfortable. In my life there have been many times that I have been naked around others and they in front of me, for whatever reason, usually due to temporary circumstances. Sometimes it was just because we were having fun. One time several years back I went with a fellow and three of our long time female (non-romantic) friends from school to a hot tub rental place in the city where we all grew up. First we went in with suits, then we agreed to all strip and we did. I am sure the idea of naturism was not in any of our minds.

Christians do not deplore nudity like you may think. It occurs quite a lot in the home I am sure. Chrildren using the bathroom see eath other sometimes naked. It is accepted. What is not accepted is an -ism that makes an everyday activity into a lifestyle. Christians do not necessarily hate nudity, just naturism. They used the Roman baths but it was not an -ism. Same with me. Staring you in tyhe face is this!

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uurgu:
Christians do not deplore nudity like you may think. . . What is not accepted is an -ism that makes an everyday activity into a lifestyle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That happens a lot with "ism's". Many who believe in some of the feminist ideals balk at being called feminists. And many who are comfortable with nudity in various contexts do not call themselves nudists.

But, if it weren't for feminism, many women might still be virtual slaves, working at slave wages. (Some still are, but their bosses, husbands, etc., are now recognized as criminals.) And if it weren't for nudism, many fewer people might be comfortable with their own naked bodies. Ism's raise consciousness and provoke thought.

[Trailscout]

Good point, Jochanaan!

Nudism probably wouldn't exist if we hadn't been forced into organizing to defend ourselves.

If the whole world accepted social nudity, Frei Korper Kultur would simply have been a "back to nature" health movement.

But we were forced to organize to protect the right to live as God intended and millions of people who don't think of themselves as nudists can go to any number of several nude beaches and enjoy the simple pleasure of skinnydipping and basking in the warm sun, not knowing what a high price was paid for their moment in the sun.