Clothed or Naked?
If that doesn't work, click on the Home button within the Toolbar menu at the top of the browser monitor screen. That frequently overrides everything, and the benign homepage will return on the screen. Keep in mind, however, that that does not delete the little icons representing popups on the bottom of the screen, some of which are waiting like little time bombs to popup and dismay the surfer again.
The intolerant/discriminatory ABHORRENCE some Christians show against PARTIAL, especially-summertime, PORN-in-motion PERVERTESSES [with LOOSE-long-haired MOPHEADEDNESS, nude-armed SLEEVELESSNESS, legs exposed by SHORTS, SHORTENED skirts, BATHING suits, and/or toes bared by SOCKLESS sandals].....as contrasted with Christian harlots-will-get-into-the-kingdom-of-heaven-before-you indifference concerning (not "regarding") female teens and slightly older young women posing birthdaysuit-like TOTALLY naked in videos, magazines, and internet websites......is that the partially-indecent PERVERTESSES presume their "half-az" partial immodesty is OK, decent, legal, not at all partially shameful, and legitimate for general heterosexual public view and reasonably-potential general heterosexual public view.
But as Revelation 3:16 states [with paraphrase added]:
"So then, because you are lukewarm [indecent, not lukewarm
decent), and neither [islamic/nun/puritan-like decently-dressed] cold nor [birth-like TOTALLY naked] hot, I will spew you out of my mouth!"
..........GOD IS NOT SATISFIED WITH P A R T I A L MODESTY...........
A snapshot webshot of "the good old days" is at http://publiclypublic.tripod.com
Did the Lord originally intend that men and women, boys and girls (of any and every age and race) roam around NUDE PUBLICLY? After all, He DID create Adam and Eve TOTALLY NAKED (Genesis 2:25). Moreover, He did NOT - at THAT time - give them the Sacred-66 HOLY BIBLE to inform them how WICKEDLY naughty is was to appear PUBLICLY pornographic without any clothes on (whether for "doctor's exam," nude-dance-stripping exhibitionism, sunbathing, swimming, gymnastics, or whatever).
The ONE act of disobedience (relating to eating that forbidden fruit from "that tree") indeed brought DEATH - both initial and more permanent - contrary to the Serpent's irrationalized LIE. Part of that "death" involved a SEPARATION AWAY from INNOCENT PERCEPTION both regarding and concerning PUBLIC human nudity.
It is difficult for this author to imagine what it would have been like had Eve and Adam (in THAT GENDER order, by the way, per I Timothy 2:14) not sinned. I myself (like other humans) - in all honesty and frankness - react EROTICALLY (covertly and overtly) when encountered by (besides when aggressively encountering by myself) the NAKED opposite sex.
Apparently, however, the word "naked" was at FIRST never intended to be a part of human vocabulary. God asked forbidden-fruit-filled Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" (Genesis chapter 3) Furthermore, as the Lord intended (by Genesis 1:28 command) for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e. have sexual connections and reproduce offspring), one wonders if there wasn't some pre-Fall factor which was involved with some at least temporary and occasional "desire" or state of mind resulting in temporary and occasional sexual conjugation among those who would have always been casually nude publicly.
Whatever there was, disobedience-caused 'death' of a most misfortunate kind completely obliterated that. Since then, up to now, and to the ages of the ages, PUBLIC nudity was, is, and eternally will be either EROTICALLY ENTICING or PORNOGRAPHICALLY repulsive, defiling, and expensive (think about the myriad pricey fashions and styles for all sorts of clothes....and with the harsh climactic weather changes since the Garden of Eden, some clothes are VITAL for SURVIVAL).
After Adam and Eve transgressed, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves "aprons" (Genesis 3:7). Go ahead and guess what body parts of theirs were still exposed for shame by such primative insufficiency! When the Lord saw them and their genital underwear, did He reprimand them and promptly demand that they remove such needlessness to once again go totally naked? He did NOT, but instead "made for [them] garments of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21). [Incidently, for you spiritist and vegetarian animal worshippers: "skins" of WHAT]?
Following all that, God gave general-public humans the Holy Bible - which is in complete and understandable accord with the shame-about-being-PUBLICLY-naked mentality of everyone from our ancestral parents to us modern folk on....along with Scriptural inferences and insinuations to desire and need to COMPLETELY (but PRIVATELY) temporally and occasionally EXPOSE our ENTIRE bodies to CERTAIN of the opposite sex we are PRESENTLY MARRIED with, for ALL sorts of SEXUAL positioning and copulations. But gone forever is the innocent, wholesome, healthy, benign, GENERAL-public and CONSISTENT display of sensual phenomena such as:
(1) LOOSE long hair (Numbers 5:18, Song 7:5, I Cor. 11:14)
(2) naked ARMS (II Samuel 13:18 - RSV and NASV)
(3) bare BACK and BREASTS (Proverbs 5:19 - NASV, not RSV)
(4) bare CROTCH (Isaiah 3:16-17 - KJV and RSV, not NASV)
(5) bare BUTTOCKS (Isaiah 20:4)
(6) nude THIGHS and LEGS (Isaiah 47:1-4 - KJV and NASV)
(7) bare FEET (Jeremiah 2:25 - not NIV nor TEV)
A host of Scripture verses reiterate the UN-acceptability (not "non"-acceptability) of PUBLIC nudity (e.g. Leviticus 18, Ezekiel 16 and 23, Jeremiah 2, Hosea 1, 1st Timothy 2:8-9, and many more).
Yet, NON-pictoral (i.e. NON-illustrated) and non-titillating descriptions and admiration of PRIVATE SPOUSAL body-part beauty are profusely and LEGITIMATELY portrayed in the (obviously NON-pornographic) Old-Testament Song of Solomon [PUBLICLY-readable AUDIBLY!] and elsewhere (though SPARSELY) throughout the rest of the entire HOLY BIBLE.
Need a GOOD night's rest without tossing and turning in discomfort? Get a NASA-technology, pin-core, memory-foam mattress by logging into