Friday, August 15, 2014

Jesus the Catalyst


Gen. 2:9 “Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

Gen 2:16-17 “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."  (NASB)

When man was told by God that he (Humanity) can eat of ANY tree in the Garden EXCEPT for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I would have to make the assumption that he could eat of the tree of life that was also planted there.  I would think that the tree of life would have been a more “tempting” tree and Adam would have gone there first.

However, we know how that went.  See Genesis 3:1-7 for that story.

But we always had a “what if” going on in the back of our minds: What if Adam took of the tree of life first?  I’m not asking the obvious question asked by nudists, “would man be naked now?”  I’m going the other direction…for now.

The tree of life was not for man, at least, in this setting.  So the next question would be obvious:  Why was it there?  Why did it seem good, taste good, and look good to eat?  Why all this “temptation” in front of man?  Was God teasing man?  Was God trying to find out if man was going to obey Him?  Was it a test?

I don’t think so.  I don’t think God would deliberately put temptation in front of man that way.  Men have blamed women for being a “temptation”.  So would that imply that Eve was a temptation God put in front of Adam?  No, I don’t think God works that way. You have a desert on the table.  It is meant for after dinner.  The kids were told (and the husband too) to leave it alone until after dinner.  Eat your dinner first and then you may have some.  Is it a temptation?  Maybe to the kids, but not mom who said “Don’t eat of it or touch or you will go to bed with out dinner and be grounded for a week!”  Does the cake actually cause this?  No, but it is the result of you don’t follow instructions.  But was that her intent?  Was that God’s intention?  To make someone follow instructions?  To see if they will obey a divine rule?

There is a good reason for this.  Mom knows the reason, God knows the reason. Man does not have to know.

So, back to the tree.  Man is physical.  God is spiritual.  They are incompatible or, worlds apart.   I hear theories that man had a spiritual essence (a glow?) that was present until man sinned.  That is not an option the way the original writing proposes.  Man was just without clothing, or “naked” if you will.  At least it seems so from our perspective.  I propose it was not God’s perspective.  See this article for more on that.  However, that tree with the fruit on it, was there for a reason. Was it a desert? Was it a reward for obedience? Or was it something else? The tree of life, before we forget, was also attributed to Jesus Christ later. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. We go to Jesus for everything, especially spiritual knowledge and life.  We know what is truly good and evil through Christ.  And HE gives us that knowledge.  And I think that is where this would have fit in.  You see, this fruit is not compatible with man until a Catalyst is put into place.  Like water and oil, which cannot mix, you will need a catalyst, or another chemical or substance that can help mix oil and water.

Lye is a catalyst used to mix oil (fat, grease) and water to make soap.  By itself, lye is a very harsh ingredient, but with the right mixture with oil, it can be mixed into water to wash out dirt and oily grime.

The tree of life is that catalyst, which, had Adam and Eve went to that first (Going to Christ first), then God would have given them the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.  I think the forbidden tree was the second part of what man needed once he went to the tree of life.  Like the serpent (Satan) who stood by the tree of knowledge, God (Future Jesus) may have been standing by the tree of life ready to give them what they needed.  Then Satan would have been dislodged from the other tree so God can give them the knowledge they needed when they needed it.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a bad tree. It was not a killer except for the fact that it was incompatible to man as man was physical in this way.  Once the tree of LIFE, ever lasting life, was introduced INTO man, man changes, his character, his nature changes, so that the tree of knowledge is now compatible to man, to do good, no harm.

The Catalyst for humanity is Jesus Christ.  When Jesus became flesh, man became compatible.  Before, we could not approach God and His throne.  Now we can!  What changed?  Man changed when God (Jesus, or Emanuel, God with us, God in the flesh) became flesh!  God is already everlasting, so nothing (other than a physical and temporary death by a cross) can cause Gods’ demise.  When the Word (Jesus) came to earth, it is like leavening, which leavens the whole lump, and changed mans relationship with God.  Yes, we are still physical, we still sin and can still die and suffer eternal death. But we now have that option to go to that Tree of Life and live. Then we can now take of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil by that living Tree, Jesus Christ and live!  But it is by Gods’ grace, love and encouragement, not by Satans’ hatred, selfish and miserable reasons.


Since God made all things and all that God does is always good, therefore, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a good tree, but not good for man outside of Christ, or in this case, the Tree of Life!

Because of what Jesus did, came to earth, to recreate man in his own image and likeness, be baptized into that relationship, and take of that Tree of Life, and Jesus will give you what you need and it will be an abundant life!  John 10:10

What are these fruits that Jesus will give?  One hint is "by their fruit you shall know them"  Matt. 7:16 and 20.

The holy spirit is a giver of fruit, which includes love, joy, peace, patience, etc.  Once the holy spirit is in you, you have that fruit within you.  It is the power you can trust in, believe in.  Oh, it doesn't do Harry Potter stuff, but you can't get better power than love.   Galatians 5:22, and the holy spirit gives you wisdom, understanding and knowledge of God.   Adam and Eve could not touch that tree because they were not ready for this fruit. You have to be baptized into Jesus Christ, go to him first, go to the tree of life, then receive the power of the holy spirit.  You cannot receive the holy spirit by Satan the devil.  Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7

Now you can come to God without fear, come naked before God, free from sin and receive the power of the holy spirit.


Thursday, June 5, 2014

It Was A Warning, Not A Threat

When we read the bible, we often have lenses that distort what we see.. Just like Adam did when he first took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His view of God changed, was distorted. It wasn't nudity he was afraid of, it was God. God did not change, God stayed the same. It was man who changed and when God came out to the garden, he was calm, normal, enjoying the cool of the day. It was man who saw God as an angry being out for revenge. You see, Adam thought God threatened him with death if he took of the forbidden fruit. No. God did not threaten man with death. He warned man that he would die.
Here is the difference: If I told you that if you played with snakes and it bit you, that you would die, is that a warning or a threat? It is a warning, out of love and concern.

God warned man that he would die. Don't think God was an angry being out for revenge to a rule that was broken. It was not a law, except a law much like gravity. Gravity is a law of nature and if you jump off a cliff, that law is fulfilled by you dying or getting seriously injured. The tree, which God said to not eat, was God's tree, not mans. It is incompatible to physical man. The only way that man can eat of that fruit is when his nature changes. That comes from the Tree of Life. If you eat of that tree (Jesus Christ), you will never die. Then eating of the Tree of Knowledge would not kill you because you have already eaten of the Tree of Life. Make sense? But man took of the wrong tree first. It was not just disobedience, it was out of necessity that man be warned of what can happen if he took of what is dangerous to him.
Oh...the clothing part? That was because man was so scared that he trusted the clothing and no longer trusted God. Do you trust God now? Or do you still need the clothing? God is waiting.  You can also eat of the Tree of Life now, and God will give you the tree of knowledge and you will live.

Friday, January 17, 2014

What is Naked?


What is Naked?

Since Merriam-Webster has such a long definition, I'll just let you read the "text book" definition via the link.
I also like the Redneck or Urban definition: Naked: "Being without clothes." Nekid: "Being without clothes and up to no good."

But aside from that, what about the bible?

If I were to ask God what is naked, he would most likely ask me right back "You tell me!  What is naked to you?" (Jesus was famous for answering a question with a question)   Why would God ask me that?  Would God know what naked is? Or was that a word that really needs redefinition and we have the wrong one?

Let me pose this thought in a different way:

You walk in on your ten year old daughter and she is assaulting her face with her mothers makeup. 

You may find it humorous and decided she was trying to look like mommy, but after asking what she is doing she replies with "I am ugly!  I don't look pretty. I am trying to look pretty!"

How would you answer that?

One answer could be "You are right! I never knew that until you pointed it out! We need to take you to a plastic surgeon and get some work done right away!" Of course, you are probably being sarcastic and trying to psych the poor kid out. (and she may need therapy if that happened)

Another response could be "What makes you think you are ugly?"
 or "Who TOLD you that you were ugly?"

The child may answer, "Well, the reason I think I am is because several kids at school told me" or "I saw pictures in a teen magazine and I am afraid I won't look like that when I become a teenager".

We can go on with potential answers and responses and even antidotes to the problem,

But the REALITY is: The CHILD IS NOT UGLY! Period!  (Did I emphasize that enough?)

The awful idea that you would describe your child as "ugly" would have never crossed your mind!

God asking "Who told you that you were naked", (Genesis 3:11) was not a confirmation that they were naked, any more than us asking "Who told you that you were ugly" is a confirmation that our child is ugly. It is only a question to find the source of this horrific LIE!

Now if the child insists on trying to resolve her dilemma by putting on makeup to cover her face, even after our reassurance and outgoing love for them, then sometimes all we can do is teach her that globs of blue eye shadow is not really all that great and teach her how to use it "modestly". Being modest about using makeup is not a command to use makeup any more than being modest about clothing is a command to wear them (1 Timothy 2:9) . Just be modest about it if you insist on wearing it and believing you are "ugly" or "naked" without it.  It is noted that many women say they feel naked if they don't wear makeup even though they look beautiful to everyone else around them.  Is there a connection to this self referential conclusion with Adam and Eve?  "Who told you that you were naked without makeup?" This is usually how we feel (subjectively speaking) even though it is not true (objectively) from Gods or the parents perspective.

So God had a choice. Should he just right out and kill Adam and Eve? After all, he did say "On the day you eat of it you shall die".  What is death?  What was it before the "fall"?  Did it have a different meaning to what we apply it today?

What language is this?

Death, Fear, Naked, Suffering, Pain, War, Hunger, Hell, Loneliness, Divorce, Shame, Hate (you get the idea), are these all words that came from the result of the fall? Was it in the original language of Adam and Eve before the fall?  It seems our whole language changed when the wrong choice was made.   Words such as Arom (Naked) or Eyrom (Nekid and up to no good) were introduced when Adam sinned.  Even though the prefall explanation of Adam and Eve was that they were naked (Arom), does not mean that they were from God's perspective.  This was written by clothed people to a clothed people about the original state of Adam and Eve by comparison to their current state.  The writer could just as easily have wrote "They were free and happy with no shame or fear or need of clothing because God created them that way and wanted them to live that way".

Then again, maybe those words were in the original language because God did warn them of "death" if they took from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  But one thing we must always remember and KNOW within our hearts and spirit as well as our minds, is that everything, and I do mean everything that God says and does, is always, always, always, out of love. Outgoing concern for the welfare of others. That is God's nature. Threats, anger, selfish reasons, are never a part of God's language.  It is always love. God's perspective of death, sin, and even naked, is different from our perspective because God views those out of love, not from anger, shame or fear.

But God chose in his mercy (love) to let them live and their children live (though they tempted him many times to finish them off. See Noah and the flood, Moses and Israel).  God sent Jesus to resolve this issue by fulfilling the "death" part. We still want to think we are naked (Eyrom) when in reality, we were just in no need of clothing, and Jesus restored us to our previous "non issue" status with God. 

On a related note, as Christians, we tend to glorify the cross, which is considered as foolishness (or even shame) to the Greeks (1Cor. 1:18-25), yet we vilify Christ on the cross by covering him in shame!  After all, he was naked on that cross!  (See this interesting article on another site) What is this blasphemy? Who are we to cover Jesus' body because he was naked, and then expose the very tool of shame?    Jesus did endure shame, but that shame was not because of his physical state as nude, but because it is considered shame to be crucified on a cross.  See Hebrews 12:2 and Galatians 3:13 Is Jesus ashamed of his own body as if he were the sinful Adam himself?  In fact who told Adam that he was naked in the first place?  Satan?  Are we to listen to THAT perverse character from hell? What has Satan got that we need to hear?

Listen to God and his pure language of love.  There is no "naked" in God's love language. For we are not without!  God called on Adam and Eve when he walked in the garden in the cool of the day. What a beautiful scene!  That was not an angry God coming for vengeance for a divine rule that was broken!  God, taking a nice walk in the cool of the day calling out for his children to come visit him and talk to him!  Again, what a beautiful scene! What do you think God would have done had Adam and Eve come out still starkers, totally naked?  I'm sure the same thing he did before when he left them there naked in the first place! For he never said they were naked!  Again, was that even in his language?  Naked, without, lacking, incomplete, unfinished, not whole, missing something.  Like telling an artist he missed a spot on his beautiful painting.  Was that how God left them?   And God saw the work that he had done and said it was very good.  Gen. 1:31 and Gen 2:1 says "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them". Finished, complete, whole, satisfying, a wonder to look at, free of missing spots. This was not his original language.

Here is the original language or thought:
Gen. 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
While they were still naked?

God saw all that he created (emphasis on ALL), and pronounced it "very good".   Adam and Eve was still naked (using our broken sinful language) and had already been given the command to spread humanity across the globe! They were to take care of God's "very good" creation!  While they were naked! Now up to the point during the creation process, he said what he created was "good". Now, he left with a thumbs up and a wink saying ALL is VERY good!  See the difference?  So what changed?  God?  Did God suddenly realize he forgot something?  Did he miss a spot? Did God think Adam and Eve were naked? I can almost hear God ask "Naked? What is this naked?  What are you talking about? Who told you this nonsense?...just a minute here...did you eat of that tree I told you not to eat of?"

The only reason God covered us is not because we are "naked", but that we are afraid and about to face a big world while living in that fear. They are no longer living in the peace and love enjoyed previously.  And that is how we accept that love from God, (though it was a showing of love and compassion, but not THE Love of God himself which we hid from).  We hid from God's true nature which is love.  The only love we were willing to accept were "gifts" and "physical blessings" until the Christ.

Just because God clothed us, does not mean we MUST wear clothing.  It is not a law, there is no threat of hell or damnation, not part of the ten commandments, and even if we use God clothing us as a reason that we must wear clothing at all times, then when God put "clothing of skin" on us, why are we wearing plants again?  Cotton is a plant just like fig leaves are plants.  And if you believe apples are what Adam and Eve ate, the fruit which was forbidden by penalty of death, then why do we eat apples?  Why are we applying a penalty to something God didn't apply a penalty to?

Even Jesus said "Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son"  So why do we judge people to hell for something God created and called "very good"?

Are we naked? Are we ugly? Are we judging God's creation as bad, ugly, evil, missing something, lacking? All words related to our sin. Or, from God's perspective and language of love, are we just created in His image and His likeness?

One final question: Just what part of God are you ashamed of anyway?

Friday, January 3, 2014

Were We Really Naked? An Objective View

 
I wonder why God asked "Who told you that you were naked?" to Adam when Adam said they were naked and afraid?

One theory was that man had an "aura" about him and lost that aura when he took of the fruit.  But how can they be "clothed with an aura" if they were "naked and not ashamed"? If they were clothed with something (such as light) that was removed, then technically, they were not naked. But they were "naked" according the story.

But then if we make the assumption that "lack of man made clothing" equates to nudity (naked), then I suppose in that light (pun intended), they were naked, that is, they were not wearing man made clothing from the writers perspective. From that perspective, they must be naked, right? But in reality, were they naked in God's sight, even though they look just like us when we are not wearing man made clothing?
God asked "Who told you that you were naked?" Why? Was it because they were NOT naked to God?
Maybe we were not wearing external clothing (cloth, leather, plants, light), but from God's perspective, neither were we naked! So in that sense, even though I am sitting here without any external clothes on, I am not really naked from God's perspective.
Adam and Eve

We have these self referential and subjective ideas that we push on God, which God says "NO" to. So when God saw Adam and Eve thinking outside of God's perspective, he made clothing for them to alleviate their fears. But that is only a temporary fix until the Christ, who came to make all things new again. He restored us, we are born again, made new and no longer under Adams' sin. I can think from God's perspective again!

As for our spiritual nakedness, God is much more concerned about that than he is about our physical nudity.  But Jesus came into our flesh, our humanity and redeemed it and gave us spiritual clothing so we are neither naked physically or spiritually in Christ.  The song "Christ the Solid Rock" says it simply "Dressed in His righteousness alone,  Faultless to stand before the throne."

One time I wrote "I am not naked, I'm just not wearing any clothes". Now I may need to bring back that thought with God's view of my "subjectively nude" body.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

May This Circle Be Unbroken

One of the things we need to question in our evangelical quest to “save as many souls as possible before all hell breaks loose" is, who, how and why.

But I keep going back to what Jesus said about himself and the Father. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:44

Well, that’s fine and dandy, except, what if the Father never calls this person?  What do we do then?  I suppose we tell them “Tough luck kid, I guess you’re going to be punished in hell for the next zillion years even though you didn’t have a chance to begin with!” (There is a Christian denomination that thinks this way)

That doesn’t seem to be fair, especially from a loving God and for such a short, miserable life this person had. And how would we ever know if God is calling them later or not?  Should we give up? Try to save them ourselves?  Wait on the Lord as some would say? (Waiting is not a bad idea by the way)

But we are still in panic mode trying our best and hope to God that all these otherwise nice people don’t go to hell.

What work we do! What love for these people we must have!  What commitment, zeal…and full of ourselves!  What a waste of time! And God seems to be doing absolutely nothing unless we act!  We say "We are doing the work for the Lord" as if the Lord asked us to do the work for him.

Seems foolish to me, considering how weak and broken I am.  So I am reminded of the foolishness of God which is still far wiser than mans wisdom. 1Cor. 1:25  Maybe we are missing something here.

Because there is another verse which seems to contradict the first one, where Jesus said, “No one can come unto the Father except through me" John 14:6

Stop the car! Pull over! Let’s pull the map out and read it again!  First, we can’t go to Jesus unless the Father draws us to him, and we cannot go to the Father except through Jesus, whom we cannot go to unless the Father, (which we cannot access without Jesus) draws us to Jesus!! What gives?


If the only way we can access the Father is through Jesus and the only way we can access Jesus is from the Fathers invitation, then we can only assume we are already in contact with both, Father and Son!  Or, we have no chance at either one!  How then, can we we resolve this circular puzzle? By the Holy Spirit that was sent by the Father through the Son!!  NOW we see the connection!   Because the Holy Spirit was sent to earth (and by default, to humanity) by Jesus on the day of Pentecost, we are complete in Jesus if you understand that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity as God, (Emanuel; God with us).  This was done already a long time ago!  There is nothing we can do!  If we try to save people thinking they have no access, then we are bypassing what Jesus AND the Father AND the Holy Spirit has done already!  We were not told that we can come to Jesus through evangelism, though by evangelism, we come into the knowledge of our existence in Christ. 

Either we are already in Jesus because of what he did, or there is absolutely no hope for humanity: saints and sinners!

Now what is the evangelist to do? Or have we misunderstood what we are to do?  We think we are called to save souls.  Well, to a limited understanding, yes, but for what, and for whom?  It isn’t a matter of saving people from, but for.  Isn’t our main priority to announce the Good News (Gospel) of God’s Kingdom which, if I’m not too far mistaken, Jesus is King of right now?  If Jesus is the King of a Kingdom, then we can only assume there are subjects (citizens) of that Kingdom. And Jesus’ Kingdom includes all of who the Father called unto Himself through Jesus. So the real question is, what are we “saving” them, or better yet, leading to them understanding, for

All we are called to do is to announce the Good News of this Kingdom and teach all nations to observe and learn their role in this Kingdom! To be disciples. And to help people see who Jesus is, who they are in Jesus, and to help them receive (not get) salvation with understanding (via Holy Spirit) and accept the “already done” into their daily lives.

John 4:35 "Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest."

Either we are going round and round trying to save people (just in case Jesus missed a few), or God has already resolved this circular puzzle.

May this circle be unbroken.

“Lord, please open our eyes to your Kingdom already at hand”

Thursday, May 31, 2012

As Goes The Catholic

As goes the Catholic, so goes America. If the Catholics are forced to do anything (birth control or not), then so will our Churches be forced.

Be watchful of what the government is doing to the Catholics. Whether or not you think The Catholic Church is such a great church, it is still recognized as a powerful voice to all Churches and any thing that happens to them will have an affect on the rest of the western churches.

Pray for the "wisdom" of the Government to realize that they may cause great harm and to put our freedom we enjoy as U.S. Citizens at jeopardy.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Ecologically Sound


How much of your Valuable Time, Money and Earth Diminishing Resources are spent on hot, dirty, uncomfortable clothing? Could clothing cause and spread pollution, germs and sickness? Is clothing really worth all of that trouble?


Ecologically speaking, Naturism (living nude) Is Better.

 Why?

Someone once told me that I go through a lot of trouble to go nude.

Well, here is my answer: What does it take to go nude? Nothing! Just don't wear anything. Then what does it take to wear clothes? Just put some on.

Right?

Are we sure?

Then where does a lot of our clothing come from? How much time, money and other resources does this consume? What financial, physical and emotional effort do we put in just to keep clothes on our bodies? What trouble do we go into just to keep someone else from seeing our bodies? How does this effect our ecology? How does this affect our well being?

We plow hundreds of thousands of acres of land of grain, grass and trees under for cotton. We have worked and literally enslaved people to work these cotton fields for cotton. Why? For clothing. Cotton, because of it not being raised for food, is one of the most highly insecticide laden fields we have. Chemical fertilizers and other pollutants are added to cotton. Then we gather it with huge cotton pickin' machines that were created by farm machine companies who also plowed up land for their manufacturing companies to build and sell farm machines. Sale lots also take up land. That's a lot of trouble for clothing.

But wait, there's more! Behind curtain number two, (which was made of cotton) are the cotton mills. Yes, cotton must be turned into yarn and thread. From which is made into cloth. It is also cleaned and dyed as well. That takes lots of water and energy. (Ooops, I forgot the millions of gallons of water to raise the cotton and cause a top soil run-off didn't I?) The water is then run back into our streams and waterways. These mills are large. They take up many acres of land as well. Don't forget the "free parking" the employees are blessed with. That takes up a few acres. And we are talking about a LOT of manufacturers and mills and farms around the world. Accumulate that for acreage!

Now for the clothing manufacturers. Do the mill thing again only replace it with making clothes and using up land in other areas. These manufactures are all around the world, and many countries practically enslave their workers and children to make these clothes cheap! We like that because it gives us more clothing cheaply so we can feel justified and proper! Warehouse these items. More buildings and land.

By the way, all of these items previously and after this are being hauled by large transfer trucks across the country and by ship around the world. Add that to the fuel consumption and pollution.

Now to sell these clothes. Uh-oh! I am afraid that this will step on a few toes of those people who just love to go shopping. In fact, that love has inspired more stores and parking lots and malls than there are manufacturers and cotton fields combined! Everywhere from Large malls with parking lots that are larger than the malls themselves, to yard sales and used clothing stores, people are buying and selling clothes. Expensive clothes. Underwear averages to about three to four dollars each. Multiply that by God knows how many people in the United States alone, not to mention the rest of the world, and that is only underwear (made with cotton).

Whew! Tired yet? Now we got to buy it! But wait! That stuff was not just lying around in a big store just any-ol'-way! It was packaged and labeled and yes, advertised by million dollar advertising agencies that use magazines and newspapers and TV for ads, but we won't go there this time. I'll just let you use your imagination. OK, I'll give you a hint. Trees. Back to the stores. Packaging, more package and boxing companies who use trees and plastics to package these things and bag them. The plastic bags, as tree saving as they are, are also manufactured, using oil products and causing more pollution. (See above for manufacturers.)

Now I am getting tired. But continue we must!

Now we spend hours of our precious family time going to these stores in our big cars (see manufacturers and pollutants), to buy these expensive under, and not yet mentioned, outer wear. Styles. We gotta have today's styles. More hours of buying. (Try getting your kids to re-wear your styles. Good luck.) More hundreds of dollars a year per family. Then next year, all this is out of style again! (Warning: You will find yourself repeating this paragraph for the rest of your life!)

Then we ruin our clothes at our manufacturing jobs, playing, wear and tear, and at the local laundry. Oh yeah! We got to buy clothes for different reasons. Clothes for work, play, church, casual, dress up, dancing, sleeping, vegetating in front of the TV, and swimming! Have you seen the prices of swimwear??? GASP! They are smaller than underwear and tens times as expensive! And we got to watch our weight so we can fit into these miserable sand traps. Weight programs ($$$) to fit into clothes. And if we do lose weight, we have to go back to the store and buy clothes that do fit (more time and $$$). See link to article at bottom of this page.

Now to take care of these clothes. Wash and wear. How simple. If we don't have a washing machine at home, we go to a laundry mat. (Building, parking lot, yada yada.) These machines (see manufacturers and stores that sells washing machines and dryers) use lots and lots of water. Precious drinking water. And that is only one machine of many in one laundry mat of many in one town! Not to mention homes with the same machines. Billions of gallons of polluted water. And of course we all just LOVE to go to a laundry mat and spend hours of quality time there and spend more money! What do towns that are going through water shortages do? Wear dirty clothes? Or allow nudity? Don't water your lawn or garden, but go ahead and wash clothes, we must have them!

How many hours of our time do we spend a year deciding what to wear that day, then iron these "wash and wear" outfits? (they had better match). Now of course, we want to impress our neighbors and friends with our clothing too. Yeah, right. They're too busy trying to impress us!

I'm sure you can think of more to add to this. Now I am tired!

Naturists, however, just get up and do whatever it is people do through out the day and none of the above matters. And you say that WE go through a lot of trouble??? Now don't get me wrong here, I realize that I just gave a good economically sound reason to wear clothes. Job's and money. (We do spend $billions on cleaning up pollution, great job creator here) And cotton is used for more than just clothes. Clothing in itself is not wrong. It is needed for warmth and protection in the winter and for jobs that require safety standards and yes, I realize that some are allergic to the sun and need the protection. However to do all this just to hide our bodies and force others against their will to comply (as if we were slaves), is to say at the least, a lot of trouble and aggravation! Nude is so simple, so clean, so non-polluting and so very cheap.

God had it right the first time!

This original article, which I wrote back in 1997-1999 is posted at http://bacn.bravehost.com/naturism_ecological.html but with some editing by original author for this blog.
For additional reading:
 Nudity is Healthy for Brain and Body