Nude is the NORMAL CONDITION for the Human

[nacktman]

I have read and posted on other threads about the fact that the human condition is nude and the vitrol and venom that some of the clothed obessed have responded is misplaced on those threads. This topic is for the discussion of the facts and evidence for the truth concerning the human condition.

First as cutesy as it sounds "if you were meant to be nude, you'd be born that way!", we are all born or at least I would hope so and we are born nude (ok so we are born with an extremely fine coat of fur or hair as we like to call it...and ladies please inform your men in your life that is one of the reasons you have indigestion while with child the more hair the more indigestion.)

Clothing was and is for protection and ornamental purposes.
Hides, woven grasses, woven fibers have all been used to provide warmth and cooling for the regulation of body temprature in various environments. But were removed from the body when their purposed was accomplished.
The materials have been used to provide extra layers to provide protection from injury along with metals and plastics in more modern times. But, again they were removed when there purpose was no longer needed.
Also, the materials have been used for "showing off" the wealth of the wearer. Clothing was and is expensive and to please the gods and dazzle your friends and subdue your enemies you adorned yourself with coverings and dodads. but agaon removed them when their purpose was met.

Only vainity keeps one wearing clothing. The one upmanship of the past, present and future will always play a role. The person secure in themselves will see no reason to puff, primp and parade to impress and shall be around long after the others have destroyed themselves trying to "outdo" each other as they have done so for all of known and unknown time.

Thoughts and ideas on this topic will make for a good discussion. We shall just ignore the vitrol and venom that is sure to come from those that cannot accept an open debate and accuse others of their shortcomings.

[Guest]

Clothing, like fancy cars and expensive houses, are a status symbol. "Look at me, I've arrived!" People are looking for respect and recognition through material posessions, and clothes are a part of that.

[Kenny G]

I've posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. In this day, we've even gone to war over what are called "human rights", yet the right to "BE" human, in it's natural form, is outlawed! ....Curious indeed...

[nacktman]

I have been accued of creating offense on other threads by those whom I pointed out the flaws within their logic, have been accused of not knowing from where I speak and of being an "all around not a nice guy" so to speak.

Well, if that is what those with illogicial clothed obessed minds "get their jollies off on" so be it.

You cannot create offense where is no defense.

You cannot speak from nowhere unless the listener is lost.

You cannot be "not a nice guy" until met by one who is also "not a nice guy".

Humans are animals

...all animals are nude in that they do not wear manfuactured clothing to exclusion of all else...

ergo, humans are nude within the natural order.

BE NUDE, BE FREE

[Stevedaoust]

Well, here's something to think about and let's stay away from the definitions of religions for a time, huh?
Let's say that the story af Adam and Eve were remotely true; that they were nude since day zero. Then Satan comes along and tells them that they were nude and should cover up in hopes to smudge/cover Gods' creation (remember God is Satans' distaste).
So, these forth-right-do-gooders that claim that "nudity" is bad; are THEY following what Satan decided long ago and aren't they observing his/satans' wishes??? And aren't nudists going BACK to what God wanted in the first place?
{FOOD FOR THOUGHT}

[averagejoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stevedaoust:
[qb] Well, here's something to think about and let's stay away from the definitions of religions for a time, huh?
Let's say that the story af Adam and Eve were remotely true; that they were nude since day zero. Then Satan comes along and tells them that they were nude and should cover up in hopes to smudge/cover Gods' creation (remember God is Satans' distaste).
So, these forth-right-do-gooders that claim that "nudity" is bad; are THEY following what Satan decided long ago and aren't they observing his/satans' wishes??? And aren't nudists going BACK to what God wanted in the first place?
{FOOD FOR THOUGHT} [/qb]

---

I have always thouhgt that we insult God each time we put on clothing. We essentially say that what God has created is ugly and must be covered by something we made. How egotistical is that of the human race?

[Outlaw]

Hello everyone--

Here is a bunch of one-liners that are pro-nudism--most of which are originally mine. Use if you wish and enjoy!

WHY CAN A GAY COME OUT OF THE CLOSET, BUT A NUDIST CAN?T ??

WHY IS IT WRONG TO RETURN TO THE GARDEN OF EDEN ??

I LOVE MY NUDIST LIFESTYLE!!

IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

NUDISM IS SKINNY-DIPPING WITHOUT WATER

NUDISTS ARE NORMAL PEOPLE. . . . .BARELY

TO BE NAKED IN ALL WAYS IS TO ADHERE TO GOD?S PLAN

WEARING CLOTHES IS UN-NATURAL

IF GOD MADE ME IN HIS IMAGE, GOD IS A NUDIST!

I?M NOT NAKED; I?M NATURAL: YOU?RE CLOTHED!


Mike

[Trailscout]

That's it Steve! Whenever God said, "It is good", it meant that that phase of creation was complete. The human body was created nude and God said, "It is good". We were created complete, perfect in our nudity, no clothes needed! Our corporeal nudity was to teach us a spiritual reality: our spiritual openess to God and each other. (Most other mammals were covered with dense fur).

It's a little more subtle, but God's rhetorical question, "Who told you that you were naked?" has the implied answer: "Not God".

By logical extension God is saying, "Since I have never told you that your bodies needed covering, then your skin is not 'naked', no matter how ashamed you feel right now; I meant for it to be exposed to the sun and the air!".

Adam and Eve's shame was misdirected. They had a spiritual problem: their sin needed covering and they sought a physical solution for it by covering their loins with leafy aprons.

Follow closely, because here's where nudists part ways with textile pastors.
Nudists contend that God's next step, dressing Adam and Eve with garments of skin does not reflect a true need for us to wear clothing to please God. God seemed to take advantage of their perceived need for covering in order to redirect their misconceptions back toward the truth.
God rejected their leafy covering (Man's efforts to save himself) and used some animal hides to dress them instead. The hide cannot be provided without the death of at least one animal. That initiated the blood atonement, in which is embedded the concept that sin constitutes spiritual death in the same way that sin atonement involves the physical substitutionary death of a "clean" animal. One time and one time only, God also used the hides to cover Adam and Eve's bodies, showing that their sin was covered by God in the spirit realm, just as God alone could provide acceptable covering for their physical bodies. Nudists are quick to point out that never again was a hide used from an atonement sacrifice to dress the one making the sin offering. There was no clothing covenant established. All future sin offerings involved the ritual sacrifice only and in the Torah, the book of Leviticus formalized this commandment in writing several thousand years later. The Bible is full of examples of nudity that God did not forbid and even one or two instances where he commanded nudity, so that should fairly definitively prove that there is NOT some biblical mandate to cover our nudity because of sin.

Textile preachers and Bible teachers often assert that Adam and Eve's shame over their nudity was not in error and that they and all their sinful descendants must wear clothing at all times. These preachers have the momentum of hundreds of years of church traditional interpretation of this passage of scripture, but it reflects their cultural bias. In fact, as Steve observed, preachers that condemn nudity are making the same mistake that Adam and Eve made, following Satan's suggestion that the nudity God created us with is not enough and the second fallacy of trying to cover sin (spiritual problem) by covering their bodies (attempted physical solution).

[OZJames]

We have all descended from HAIRY Homo Erectus. Evolution has caused the hair that kept Homo warm, to mainly disappear.

In evolution the strongest, fittest and most successful type of animal/human survives and breeds. If the early man - Neanderthal man, Cro- Magnon etc started wearing animal skins for warmth perhaps for some reason that caused the less hairy human types to survive better and over the last few million years the less hairy people have survived better- perhaps because a large part of the world is hot.

If hairy nudity was the "normal condition" for pre Neanderthal man does the wearing of clothes (for warmth) make it not the "normal condition" for current humans.

A "condition" must be stipulated or set by something. So in cold places clothes are the "normal condition" and in warm places other conditions may be set. We need to know what is meant by the word "condition"

JAMES [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[nacktman]

The word condition is meant to be the physical state of the body on this thread.
Thank you for your question asking for a clarification, it is what an open discussion takes for it to truly take place.
Coverings or the lack thereof are indeed used to assist survival but are not a part of the "basic model" of the human anatomy. Also, all humans are still covered with hair from head to toe, while it may be invisible to the unassisted eye it is there...with the possible exceptions of those who remove it by varying means.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OZJames:
[qb] We have all descended from HAIRY Homo Erectus. Evolution has caused the hair that kept Homo warm, to mainly disappear.

JAMES [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [/qb]

---

You can believe you descended from hairy animals if you want, but I choose to believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.

They weren't covered with thick hair and didn't walk on their knuckles or swing from trees or have tails. Well, Adam did in a way, but on the front, and I assume it was too short to use for swinging. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Trailscout]

Homo erectus fossils are of bones only. It is anyone's guess as to how hairy they were.

I have read new evidence that Homo erectus was simply an extinct race of human with a brain case that was big enough to accomodate a person as intelligent as any of us on this forum.

Regardless, I believe that humans are a special creation; our design was based upon the great ape's design, but with numerous physiological differences and a different number of chromosomes.

Even if macro-evolution could occur, it would not have sufficient time to produce a human from the great apes based on the time span indicated by the fossil record.

Chimps and bonobos (a chimp-like ape) do not have enough body hair to survive outside the tropics. Humans, although not aquatic, seem to be designed to spend more time in the water than apes. Our hairless bodies are streamlined by subcutaneous fat, a trait we have in common with other semi-aquatic animals. Our skins produce more oils to protect us from water and what little hair we have is also streamlined for swimming (unlike the apes). All this is by God's design.

[Guest]

I have no idea if it's true, but I heard that chimps cannot swim due to the lack of body fat, and we're supposed to be descended from them? Yeah, RIGHT!

[Kari P]

No, Jon-Marc, humans haven't descended from chimps according to modern scientific evolution theories. They simply have common ancestors that have been in being many millions of years ago.

I am not going into a creation contra evolution debate, and don't wish it to start here - keep it in the Nudity & Religion section. I only stated briefly what the science says.

[Mountain Goat]

I hope no-one minds me nosing in...

This isn't the religion or science forum but I suppose being miscellaneous, anything can go. I hope this is not carrying the discussion further down a tangent. And I know some people aren't interested in science, if so, ignore this I do go on once I am in the mood.

"I" am scientifically interested so I will just make a few comments just to properly convey some parts of the other side of the argument (that for evolution). I will do so, without naming my beliefs or faith (which is unimportant to the 'evidence'). I don't wish to get into a discussion, unless someone directly wants me to reply publicly.

Jon-Marc, according to current science (and logic), we didn't descend from chimps, we evolved parallel to them from a common ancestor. Also, body fat is just one small aspect of physique. If we had harder lifestyles, our body-fat ratio might be low and might struggle to float too!

Trailscout, if God did create us specifically, he did so giving us DNA that was 97.6% identical to another species, the chimp. Yes, chimps do have 2 more chromosomes than us though. However, the second human chromosome could be a combination of two smaller chromosomes found in chimps (a mutation that has been observed to occur in other species).

Why would God give us such an essential similarity with the apes by design? (Yes, I know we cannot know what God had in mind).

Our common ancestor (with the chimps), provided there were one, would have existed about 5 million years ago. To know what kind of dissimilarities could be generated in this time, no-one can be sure of as no-one (except God) would be able to observe.

But even for the general creationist hypothesis, two people formed several thousand years ago lead to the great diversity of people today... in only 0.1% of that time (the postulated 5 million years). Can you really say that the time is insufficient? I would struggle to declare any length of time to be "insufficient" simply because my experience of time is so short (compared to 5 million years).

I am struggling to lay my hands on the exact mutation rate but it is reasonably high per generation. Mutations are generally maladaptive, but natural selection offers a method for not maladaptive genes to be eliminated (to a certain extent) and mutations that result in beneficial genes to be retained. What changes could occur in 5 million years is hard to say. I will look for another two species that diverged 5 million years ago and then we could consider the differences there if you like.

Re: Brain cases, human brains are between 1200-1700cc. The lower limit being for children. Homo erectus skulls are between 750-1250cc, the upper limits describing the adult skulls. But yes, maybe with the same reasoning as other forum members ;-) H. erectus is estimated to have lived between 0.3 - 1.8 million years ago. For reference, a chimpanzees is between 400 - 500cc. This is similar to a possible ancestor (though not a common ancestor with the chimp), Australopithecus afarensis (2.5 - 4 million years ago).

The extremes of the creationist and evolutionist sides of the discussion will never meet and the issue never proven. Some people do fuse the two together to a certain extent, which is for them a good compromise.

Well, the creationists could say that there side is the only possible method of proving, with the Second Coming, or judgement by God, evolutionists would have to hold out for a time machine ;-)

Anyway, I hope I haven't appeared too patronising or saying I am right. I don't think any of the evidence, providing it is accurate, says anything about the existence of God. It is merely some of what we have to think about to find out about our own genetic heritage.

Take care, y'all!
Mountain Goat