'No' to Nudity?

Some wacko pseudo-theologians contend that when in Revelation chapter 12 it speaks of the Devil and his demons fighting against Michael and his angels and Satan being thrown out, that only refers to a future event like the second coming of Christ at Armageddon, or when Christ rose from the dead.

But - logically - Lucifer had to have become Satan long before that, because not only do we read that Satan both lied (to God) about what Job would do under persecution and then injustly afflicted Job with troubles, but also (as the Bible states) that the Tempter, in the form of a "serpent," lied about God's Word and intentions to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Speaking of the latter event, Satan dishonestly and deceptively gave lying and heretic insinuations, misinterpretve exaggeration, and misrendition against (and not of) God's then-simplistic Word:

"....you shall not eat of the tree which is in the center of the garden...lest you die."

The Snake instead asked Eve: "Did God say that you shall not eat of ANY tree in the garden?" - a rhetorical answer to such a ridiculously-put question of course being: "No - He did NOT say that."

Now, either Satan was hard of hearing so as to not correctly relate to Eve precisely what God did command, or he was trying to be comically funny, or he lacked sufficient intelligence to accurately relay messages to others, or he was concocting his own heretic mistranslation of God's Word as a diabolical means to his devious ends. I personally think the main motive was the latter.

Let's apply Satan's misreasoning to exposing human nudity.

Did God say, and does He want, absolutely NO display of human nudity EVER - whether privately or publicly? Should people keep all their clothes on when they bathe, when they urinate and defecate, and when they have sex?

For the answer to those bizarre questions, we turn to The HOLY BIBLE.

In it, we discover that God created both Adam and especially Eve totally naked (or as the expression goes: "birthday-suit naked"), and though He later clothed them Himself (whether or not they assisted Him), Scripture indicates that people are still born totally naked, which of course is congruent with the wordless manifestation of ALL-nude babes already having emerged and yet emerging from the nude vaginal birth canals of their at-least-then-partially-naked birthing mothers. Thus we have a reminder of God's original desire to have all-nude humans on the planet.

In the Pentateuch, God never forbids husbands from denuding their wives, nor wives denuding their husbands. It does forbid incestual disrobing with reference to fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and inlaws. The Old Testament contains many references to prophets going around naked without shame nor condemnation from God (see Isaiah 20, for example), and although Scripture never relates any incidence of women legitimately stripping to nudity (Isaiah 47 comes close), it does refer to indecent exposure of harlots and retaliational punishments of revenge for such sinful deviancy (read Ezekel 16 and 23). Holy Writ also tells us of saints and especially the LORD intending to strip women to complete nudity (see Isaiah 3, Ezekiel 23, and the opening chapters of Hosea) for retribution, plus viewing and then clothing totally nude women (see the opening verses of Ezekiel chapter 16). There are Scriptural references of women's nakedness non-erotically described (though obviously not graphically pictured with paintings, sculptures, or photos) as being illegimately exposed (Ezekiel 16 and 23, Jeremiah 2, and so on). Solomon would have had to have been psychic (not psycho) to inform us as he did about the various parts of his bride's body in Song of Solomon chapter 7 if her thighs, belly, navel, and more weren't exposed to his view as an observable inspiration for him to author what he did. The New Testament never once cites any examples of women being nude, getting nude, wanting to get nude....nor of men getting nor wanting to get the weaker-sex inferior gender nude.

It is not correct thinking to presume that manufactured items fabricated and/or assembled by women who have brushed their loose long hair within their own bathrooms and bedrooms, and/or have exposed their nude arms, naked legs, bare feet, and more when bathing or showering in their own apartments.....are pornographic.

Regarding appropriate censorship, there are two ways to keep a secret. The best is to never tell anyone that one has a secret, so that - for all intents and purposes - no one ever even imagines that there is a secret being kept secret. The worst is to tell people that one has a secret, because - like Samson's strength-thru-noncut-hair secret - someone will coax the secretkeeper intensely and frequently enough to get it out of him or her eventually....and there are always truth serum and lie detectors. Only God Himself has the power and resources to tell us that He has secrets we cannot find out, which secrets we would simply disregard and ignore if we had not been, are not, nor will be involved with such - and therefore always wanting to discover what He won't presently divulge.

If a porn model never tells anyone that she poses for the porn of mopheadedness, sleeveslessness, slackslessness, and sockslessness....who will ever find out? If one does not know that a TV show is being aired which shows high-school or collegiate, summer or winter olympic gymnasts, runners, swimmers, and divers misattired as previously mentioned....will they then ever encounter that degree of porno immodesty from that particular source of licentuousness? If one goes to a shopping center during summer, and naiively walks into the sexually-harassing barrage of mopheaded, arms-exposing, legs-baring, sockless-sandaled female machine-gun bullets, is such partially-indecent lasciviousness being kept a personal secret any more? Secretive censorship definitely has its holy place, and must be respected and promoted. Thank God for the censorhip warning labels on radioactive substances, poisons, explosives, high voltage, and roads under construction. Men would seriously appreciate prior cellphone calls or mailed-warning postcards to them from summertime exhibitionists intended to roam around within the potential view of shopping-center males who do not want to accidently view such lurid incitation to immorality alluded to within this paragraph.

So, in the spirit of the sensuous but not pornographic nor lewd Old-Testament, plus the non-graphic but sexuality-enhancing New Testament, the following imaginary narrative is given, in which a busy corporate Executive (E) with his biological clock in motion phones MarryMaids (M) for a business inquiry:

E: Hello, who am I speaking with?
M: This is the receptionist for MarryMaids. How can I help you?
E: I need a housekeeper to clean up around here. She should be a KJV/RSV-Bible-reading, never-before-married younger woman desiring a husband, which woman is slender and shapely, facially attractive, Caucasian, and less than 140 pounds, and in good health without visiting male doctors. I want her to work around here top-of-head to soles-of-feet naked when inside the house.
M: If you like the employee we send over, you will both fill out a Mate-Selection Questionnaire to analyze before you hire her, and then mutually sign a Concubinal Certification Form if you both desire to commence permanent customer/client partnership?
E: Exactly.
M: We have several possibilities for you. The first of them should be there in less than half an hour.