Let’s Make Nudity Legal!

We haven’t yet found a news item to blog about today, but until we do we can’t resist asking you a supremely important question. It comes from scripture — the only source of reliable information. Our quotes are all from the King James version, of course, and we added a bit of bold font for emphasis:

Genesis 2: 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


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

That’s how it begins — Adam and Eve are in paradise, and they were naked. Keep that in mind as the serpent persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit:

Genesis 3: 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Now here’s our question: Assuming a mild climate, so that protective clothing isn’t necessary, why do creationists wear clothes? Think about it. They are not deceived. They accept every word of the bible as The Truth. They reject the evil teachings of Darwin. They are truly saved and without sin. So like Adam & Eve in the garden, why aren’t creationists naked?

The reason is that the materialist Darwinists have conspired to make nudity illegal — but this is an outrage! Those who are without sin should be free to display their status, so we call upon all righteous people. Contact your legislators. Write letters to the editor. Get out there and demonstrate! Do not cease your efforts until the battle is won!

Remember: Clothes are the sign of the devil! If you reject the devil you should also reject clothes! Do it now!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

16 responses to “Let’s Make Nudity Legal!

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    Came across this about Parler app’s filtering (or not) of content for users. So even the live and let live free expression guys believe you can’t go around naked in public:
    “As our lives become more digital, it is easy to forget how the physical world works. In a town square we can talk about what we want with the people around us. But we can’t grab a microphone and force others to listen to what we have to say. We also can’t walk around naked.”

  2. Seriously, Curmie? You really want to look at all these pot-bellied politicians with no clothes hiding their hideousness?

    Heaven forbid! (Oh wait – heaven already did!)

  3. “We haven’t yet found a news item to blog about today”
    Fortunately Jeffrey Shallitt has. The IDiots from Seattle have a golden opportunity to demonstrate their subtle methods.


    From the link JeffS provides:

    “Was it aliens or some rare feat of mother nature?”
    Or perhaps some unspecified supernatural entity?

  4. Richard Andersen

    I have spent time in both the US and in Canada; there are “nude beaches” that are public in all the areas where i have lived. From this I conclude that nudity is not universally prohibited and is legal in some circumstances

  5. I believe all drugs should be legal and controlled at least as well as alcohol. And nudity is illegal because so many are ashamed of their own bodies and those that have good bodies will outshine them. Going nude is no big deal and I would go nude as often as there is good weather and don’t need pockets!

  6. @RichardA: “nudity is not universally prohibited”
    Not at all since decennia ago.


  7. Not here. We’re almost within the ozone hole, and we’ve already got the second-highest incidence of carcinoma on the planet. Queensland, I believe, has the highest. Outdoors, it’s a hat, long trousers and long-sleeved shirt for me, even now at the tail-end of a West Australian summer. Shame is, however, another reason. Seventy years of self-indulgence has that effect.

  8. Shirley, you can’t be serious.

    You’re making a shallow and simple-minded false equivalence between knowledge of Good and Evil, and sinlessness.

    Adam and Eve were not unashamed of their nudity because of their presumed sinlessness, but because they didn’t know any better.

    Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”


    ” . . . why do creationists wear clothes? . . . They are truly saved and without sin. So like Adam & Eve in the garden, why aren’t creationists naked?”

    Even if sinless, creationists still know the difference between Good and Evil, between naked and covered.

    Joking? A joke worthy of one with only a fifth of your years.

  9. Serious question, before Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, how could they possibly have known it was wrong to do so, since they did not have the knowledge of good and evil? I have heard this presented as a lawyer joke, with Adam as the first lawyer, but if so, then as is often the case, I am on the side of the lawyers

  10. I assume that the expression “good and evil” is a merism: that is, meaning “all things, the totality of things, including the good as well as the evil”, rather than meaning that Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil.
    There remains the question how there was anything evil before the Fall. We have been told that all that God had created was good.

  11. @Paul Braterman — my question as well.
    I have concluded that the only possible answer is that then, as now, as ever, God expected and demanded blind, unquestioning obedience of Man. Nothing has changed — God’s ultimate self-justification is always “Because I say so.”
    I also note again that the only dishonest character in the story of the Fall is God Himself, Who lied to Adam when He told him that he would die if he ate the Fruit. Adam ate, but did not die. (I reject any “metaphorical” interpretation of “die” in an “historical” (per ol’ Hambo) Origin story.)
    Additionally, God Himself confirmed the Serpent’s own veracity

    “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil”

    when He remarked to (presumably?) His fellow gods

    “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”

    (PS: What if Adam had eaten of “the tree of life . . . and live[d] for ever” BEFORE he ate of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”?
    What would God have done then?)

    “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

  12. Dave Luckett

    The passage Random quotes (Genesis 3:22-24) states that the humans had not eaten of the Tree of Life and were therefore mortal. Hence, they would die. By implication, unless they ate that fruit, they were always going to die.

    So what are we to make of the serpent’s assurance, “Of course you will not die”, Gen 3:4? God’s original injunction, Gen 2:16-17.is: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

    But that’s the KJV. Translations vary. The Revised English Bible, which is in my opinion the most scholarly and precise rendering of the ancient Hebrew into current English, has:

    “‘You may eat from any tree in the garden’, He told the man, ‘except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the day you eat from that, you are surely doomed to die'”.

    Now, this is equivocal, and the best I can make of it is that it was meant to be equivocal in the original. That is, it sounds like God is saying that on the very day they ate that fruit they would die; but God doesn’t actually say that. Rather, He says that they would be doomed to die sometime.

    But Genesis 3:22 implies that they were always mortal – they were always going to die. That is, by eating the fruit and disobeying God, they did not lose immortality, for they’d never had it. They lost only their innocence, and they gained the knowledge of good and evil – if that be accounted a gain.

    But if that is the case, then both God and the serpent misled them. The serpent told a direct lie “Of course you will not die”, when of course they would. But if that is “subtil”, God was far more so. He threatened them with a fate already prescribed for them: death. That is not a threat at all.

    So we are left to wonder what is the point. One of the things you learn as a narrativist is that not everything happens on-stage. A good story leaves people asking questions. Why set up the tree? Why create the serpent? It sounds very much to me like God meant this to happen in just the way that it did. But what then?

    It implies that God wanted humans to have the capacity to disobey. They had to have free will, and more, they had to express it by disobeying. Otherwise… what?

    Otherwise the cosmos that God had created would be nothing more than a perfect iteration of His will. Is it possible that God wanted something more… lively than that?

  13. @Dave Luckett
    Hat’s off to you.
    Mine, at least.

  14. @Dave Luckett, good job. My schoolboy Hebrew at your service. The original Hebrew is “death you will die”. The NRSV bible translates this, like the KJV, as “you will die”. The Revised English Bible is inserting an interpretation, one that goes back as much as 2000 years, I believe, in Jewish traditions of interpretation.

    A tangled tale. I recommend the NRSV, with its scholarly notes, lengthier than the text for this passage, which, incidentally, take the opportunity to challenge the entire notion of Original Sin.

    There is also a near pun between the word for subtle or crafty, used to describe the serpent, ‘arwm, and the word for naked, ‘ayrom. And of course the serpent was as he was because the Lord God had made him so.

    One further side issue. In the Hebrew the serpent is unequivocally male, but in Christian art the serpent is commonly depicted with breasts.”Blame the woman” taken to a yet higher level?

  15. @Paul Braterman
    “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”
    NRSV Genesis 1:31
    Where does the evil in the pair “good and evil” come from?

  16. @TomS, Good point. The answer of course is that Genesis 3 is part of a different narrative, different authorship, perspective, and even vocabulary, from Genesis 1, so consistency is not to be looked for. And I have come to think that much of the emotional appeal of the Bible comes precisely from the tension between conflicting narratives.

    Putting on my Biblical Literalist Preacher disguise, let me explain that being very good precludes the exclusion of possibilities, even the possibility of evil. So (these things always sound better with a bit of Latin) evil must have been present in posse, otherwise creation would not have been complete, albeit not in esse until The Fall.

    I would not be surprised to learn that some noted theologian or other really did say that