Nudism

[tgg]

When I see stilleto heels, I do not lust but wince as I think how much they do damage to the calf muscles. I'm surprised that women want to go to such extents to be 'sexy'.

A pair of sensible shoes like doc martens or thong sandals is far more appealing to my eye.


tgg

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

And, just a note about Jesus wearing clothes. It was quite common for both baptiser and baptised to be naked. Naked baptisms were part of some sections of the church for at least the first four centuries.
John
NZ

Could you provide some citations please?

 

[tgg]

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/MissingMarkVerses.html

 

[Natman]

this just in... people are attracted to and sometimes lust over other people.

And they do it whether they (the lustee) are clothed or not.



Nakedness in and of itself does not cause lust.

If you look at some of the people being photgraphed in a sea of nudes by Spencer Tunik, you see people standing around between shots, talking drinking tea or coffee, enjoying conversation, not an ocean of lust.

Anyone that has been in the company of others that are naked, quickly realizes that lust is not generally part of the equation, unless it existed before they were naked. Often if it was there before hand, it quickly discipates, when the "mystery" of what's beneath the clothing is revealed.

Nathan Powers

 

[Johnnz]

Could you provide some citations please?

Some information was recently published in Fig Leaf Forum Issue 105

Shame, Bodiliness And Salvation

An article by Michael P. Wilson, Cardiff WALES (Profile 1312)
​

This essay appears on the Web site of the Systematic Theology group of the 2002 Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies (where it was originally presented) at http://oxfordinstitute.org/pdfs/WorkingGroup4/Pap4Wilsonpaper.pdf

and is reproduced here with the author's permission.




Inevitably, Clement had to address the question of public bathing. He knew four reasons for bathing: cleanliness, heat, health and pleasure. "Unblushing pleasure must be cut out by the roots; and the bath is to be taken by women for cleanliness and health, by men for health alone." [18] The sheer luxuriousness of the bath house was itself a cause for deep suspicion. He believed it scandalously possible that women enjoyed stripping in front of total strangers, just as they enjoyed the food and wine that accompanied bathing.



It must be conceded that most of our evidence for Christians using the public baths comes either from those anxious to condemn it, or (like Clement) anxious to control it. However, we should note the delightful Bishop Sisinnus of Constantinople (ca. AD 400) who, on being asked why he continued to bathe twice daily in the public baths is reported to have replied that three times was inconvenient. [19]



1.4 Naked Baptism



The early Christians belonged to a cult which revered virginity, abhorred sexual lust even between married couples, and was at best indifferent to the body. Virginity aside, they were no different in this from the rest of society. It would seem that many Christians understood social nakedness exactly as their fellows. Just as they did not need a specific Christian theology to explain why they ate and drank, so too social nakedness at the baths. We have noted an implicit pagan theology of social nakedness to do with spiritual nobility which there is no reason to suppose Christians rejected. Amongst other Christians, this virtually non-theological ease was vulnerable to an aggressive alternative theology which obsessively linked sexuality to the coming of Christ and the end of the existing social order, such that the merest suggestion of bodiliness was sexualised and anathematised. Amongst these, social nakedness was utterly unacceptable. Yet, during the rite of baptism, nakedness became a cherished symbol amongst both groups of Christians.



It is hard to overstate how astonishing this is. We appear to have no contemporary texts opposing nakedness at baptism. We have plenty noting it with approval. We find Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 387-471) writing, "Immediately, then, upon entering, you removed your tunics. Having stripped, you were naked.... Marvellous! Youwere naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed." [20] And Theodore of Mopsuestia (pre-AD 428) says, "You draw near to the holy baptism and before all you take off your garments. As in the beginning when Adam was naked and was in nothing ashamed of himself...." Also John the Deacon (AD 500), "They are commanded to go in naked, even down to their feet, so that [they may show that] they have put off the earthly garments of mortality. The church has ordained these things for many years with watchful care, even though the old books may not reveal traces of them." Tatian (circa AD 160) remarks how initiates "stepped naked into the baptismal pool."



The problem is to know exactly how baptismal nakedness was being understood. Associations with Adam, guilt, shame and the Fall are unavoidable. John the Deacon sees stripping in terms of the stripping away of mortality and the putting on of immortality. The broadly Gnostic Gospel of Thomas says, "Miriham said to Jesus: What are your disciples like? He said: They are like little children who dwell in a field which is not theirs. When the masters of the field come, they will say, Leave our field to us! they (sic) are naked before their eyes, as they leave it to them and give them their field." [21] Here, as in John the Deacon, nakedness is associated with the stripping away of the body which imprisons the soul, so that the soul may be free to go to its true home. Jerome writes of our being "naked to follow a naked Christ" [22] -- this from a man who was under other circumstances paranoid about the mere proximity of women.



Margaret Miles lists the kinds of imagery that supported baptismal nakedness. She enumerates "stripping off the old self with its practices," (Colossians 3.9, taken up by Cyril of Jerusalem) and the imitation of a Christ naked on the cross (Cyril again). Or, as one was baptised, one could be thought of as putting off the old world (punning on the Greek "kosmos" which means equally "world" or "garment"). Cyril also invites us to consider it in terms of death and rebirth. Augustine likens baptismal birth to our coming naked into the world. Then there is the theme we have explored above, of being naked and unashamed (Genesis 2.25), and the undoing in baptism of the damage of the Fall. Indeed, the setting aside of shame is a constant theme. Tertullian understood baptism as a dying for Christ in the same terms as martyrdom, observing that as martyrs die naked, so we are baptised naked. Gnostic texts speak of stripping off the old body to enter into the Kingdom of God.


The author gives us something to think about. It is important to try and distinguish between biblical principles and our own encapsulation of them. We are a society 2000 years removed from NT days, and we must not read back our western culture into the biblical texts, but rather first determine their original meaning and apply that to us today. Americans are far more reserved about nakedness than some other western cultures for example. We must never assume that Jesus taught the 'American way of life' as His gospel. George Bush has not quite made that distinction yet.

John
NZ

 

[Natman]

Also, nudity during early Christian baptisms was a carry-over from traditional Jewish baptisms, or "mikvehs".

In an article that appeared in a past The Tree of Life Magazine,
"THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM" BY Ron Moseley, Ph. D.,




Dr. Moseley describe in detail the practice of Jewish mikvehs and the signifance of being nude to the point of not even wearing a hair bow or jewelry that might prevent full contact of the sanctifying water against every single part of the body.

"4. The immersion candidate was not touched by the baptizer in Jesus' day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," Judaism stresses that the entire body must come in contact with the water of the mikveh. To insure the immersion was valid, no clothing or individuals could touch the candidate. Any such intervention that prevented the water from reaching a part of the body was known as Chatzitzah and rendered the immersion invalid. Although the mikveh was more spiritual than physical, often the bath had two sets of steps, one entering and another leaving so as not to defile what had been purified."




​

Nor were the baptisms conducted in private.

"6. Jewish law requires at least three witnesses made up of qualified leaders to be present for certain immersions (Yebam 47b). Ordinarily a member of the Sanhedrin performed the act of observing the proselytes immersion, but in case of necessity others could do it. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. "




​

Salvation through the acceptance of Jesus' shed blood on the cross and obedience through believers baptism should return us "spiritually" to the condition once held by Adam and Eve. So, although we are still "practically" sinners residing in a fallen world, "positionally" we have been justified are are constantly being sanctified toward the complete restoration that will occur at our own resurections.


In other words, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, their awareness or their sins caused them to try to hide from God by fabricating a "camouflage" covering of leaves. Obviously our omniscient Father could see through the ruse. But, instead of acknowledging their transgression and asking forgiveness, they accused each other, and ultimately God Himself for their calamity. God, being "just", had no choice but to evict them from the safe environment of the Garden, into a less hospitable fallen world. And, God, being "merciful", recognized their need for physical protection, fashioned garments of animal skin, more rugged than leaves. This became celebrated as an example of God's protection and provision through the annual Jewish practice of the blood sacrifice as payment and covering for our sins. But it had to be repeated every year.

Jesus, the "perfect" lamb of God, came and shed His own blood on the cross as the COMPLETE and FINAL sacrifice for ALL of the sins of mankind, past, present and future. If we accept that free gift, we immediately become covered in the Glory of God. Acknowledging that we still reside in a fallen world, with thorns, venomous creatures and temperature extremes, requiring periodic coverings for protection, ALL other coverings become redundant, unnecesary, impractical, and in my opinion, repugnant to the efficiency of the blood that freed us.

Son-cerely,
Nathan Powers
"Naked and Unashamed... once again, and covered only in the Glory which is in Christ Jesus, forever and ever. Amen."

 

[JimfromOhio]

In my previous posts in other threads regarding "Nudism":

It's a common experience among those who practice nudity that people are much more open and friendly in that environment. The positive words "modesty" and "decency" have been corrupted to mean "shame over one's body." Nudity is labeled immodest and indecent only because somebody said it should be that way. In different families or cultures, different things are labeled immodest. Within a family or culture where nudity is accepted, nudity is modest.

Is public breastfeeding not modest?

Finding what is sin and what is not sin in the bible:

Regarding "direct sin". In the Old Testament, it mentioned what foods we can and cannot eat and how those foods must be prepared and eaten. In the New Testament, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." This mean that the meats formerly considered unclean were now cleansed. (Read Acts, Chapter 10). Under the old testament LAW cannot eat certain food (example: pork) however under the new testament GRACE, we can eat pork.

The New Testament (Reference: Book of Galatians, Chapter 5) speaks about the believer’s freedom or liberty in Christ, but what exactly does this mean biblically speaking for the Christian? Christian liberty means the power to do as we ought by God’s enablement in accordance with the way Christians have been recreated in Christ. True liberty means the freedom to be all that we were designed to be, but this is not a freedom that is without restrictions or responsibilities. Plainly speaking, without law, there could be no freedom.

"One of the marks of maturity is the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. It takes grace. In fact, handling disagreements with tact is one of the crowning achievements of grace." Chuck Swindoll

Charles Swindoll paraphrases the main points of Romans 14 in his book "The Grace Awakening:"

"Nothing that is not specifically designated as evil in Scripture is evil — but rather a matter of one's personal preference or taste. So let it be. Even if you personally would not do what another is doing, let it be. And you who feel the freedom to do so, don't flaunt it or mock those who disagree. We are in the construction business, not destruction. And let's all remember that God's big-picture kingdom plan is not being shaped by small things like what one person prefers over another, but by large things, like righteousness and peace and joy."

My thoughts are this: those who are Christians who are in this lifestyle can do so and those who are Christians who choose not to be in this lifestyle can also not do this. This is between God and believers.

I am a swimmer and I remember back in the 70's when I was competiting for the best spot, I was wearing speedos and Christians often frowned on that. I was not wearing it for fashion but to avoid obstructions in the water.

Nudism is acceptable before sin came. After sin, nudism is shame however under grace, we can accept nudism as shame or blessing.

Each individual Christians should accept however they personally feel regardless how others are doing it. This is grace rather than legalism. Legalism means what is not in the bible and our law. Nudism is a no no which I do not see it in the bible.


While studying about Nudism:
People simplay enjoy being nude. Some people will argue that nudism is about sex. Nudism is not about sex but simply accepted the fact that my body are beautiful and created by God. I believe that we should not be ashamed of my body. I ask myself, should a Christian be involved in a nude lifestyle? Is nudity sin?

Christians also look into the history of mankind dating way before Christ to guide them. That includes the creation account in Genesis, the first book of the Holy Bible. In this account, man was found to be created in the image of God. He was left in a beautiful Garden created by God in an area called Eden. The man, Adam, was given a woman whom Adam named Eve. They were both created by God, in Gods image and were both naked, that is, had no need of clothing. But because of sin, mans mind became corrupted and he thought that if he hid from God, he wouldn't have to face punishment. One of the ways he hid was to put on fig leaves over parts of his body. It didn't really say what part of his and her body, but we assume that it was the groin area.

When God returned to the Garden and found them hiding, he was very displeased. "Who told you that you were naked"? He asked. God did not sound pleased at all. So as part of the sacrifice that was needed for sin, God came up with the skin of animals.

These skins only covered Adam and Eve. They did not cover the sin. The skin was like a reminder that they tried to cover their bodies to cover sin. It was only until the messiah, Jesus Christ came and died for our sins that we finally became cleansed. If we accepted Jesus Christ as our savior and we no longer depend on the Old Testament Laws and Covenants to live by, then why are we depending on it for our dress? Either the Old Testament and its laws are no longer in effect, or we must keep the whole law. And if we depend on the sacrifice of animals and their skin to cover us, then we deny the sacrifice of Jesus. There is no law in the New Testament (NT) that says we must be nude. However, there is no law in NT that says a nude person is sinning either. But does being nude and associating it with evil alone make it evil? There is no where in the whole bible that says, "Nudity is sin".

Nudists must go to the heart of the individual. Is that person really going nude for the sexual pleasure?

I didn't know history stated that Christian families in the early church were baptized nude? This went on for several hundred years!

The Apostle Paul wrote that we should run the race by throwing off that which slows us down. Now of course he wasn't talking about clothing literally, but he was alluding to the runners of the Olympics that ran nude. Now if Paul were offended by nudity, then he would have accused them instead of using them as examples. They also talked about the use of exercise. Exercises in those days were done nude. To exercise, to put off or remove clothing.

Exercise in this context in Greek according to Strong's Concordance of the Bible is:
1128. Gumnazo, goom-nad'-zo; ('g' has a soft sound like "j" in June) from 1131; to practice naked (in the games), i.e. train. ("The games" is referring to the Olympics. Imagine us in the Olympics nude.)

1129. Gumnasia, goom-nas-ee-ah; from 1128; training, exercise. Gumnasia (1129) sounds a lot like "gymnasium".

1131. Gumnos, goom-nos; nude, naked.

Another interesting view....
There are some denominations that believe Jesus Christ died for our sins that he REMOVED sins from our bodies. Since our sins have been removed.... we should healed and perfect as Adam and Eve.

If that was the case... since some say that our sins are removed and we are cleaned... just as Adam and Eve... should'nt we feel comfortable being "nude" around people?

What do you think?

 

[WhiteWolf76]

Because it can cause others to lust after you or may cause you to lust after others, I believe being in a nudist area is a sin, I believe the only person that should see you naked is you wife or husband (a same sex doctor is fine imo).

After a while you become used to the nudity and it no longer causes lust.

 

[Doug45]

I'm new here and have taken the time to review this thread from the first to the last post. I have noticed that most people seem to be firmly planted on one side or the other of this fence. It is interesting because I have learned and appreciated posts from both sides of this argument. But many are shortsighted and reactionary.

I am realatively new to the idea of Christians being nudists, but have ventured on two social adventures and practice regularly at home with my wife. She accepts and participates at home but draws the line socially.

The original post presents the question of whether public nudity is in fact sinful? From it this thread has discussed the morality of public, social, and private nudity. The argument rages at a higher temperature in the public arena than the social arena because public nudity has two hurdles to be overcome. The issue of moral acceptance and the issue of cultural acceptance.

Public nudity carries with it the implication that my freedom as a nudist supercedes any other persons freedom and therefore I can go nude wherever and whenever I please. Surely, I am not imposing my nudity upon them because I am not forcing others to be nude. But I am demanding that they suffer the indignation of viewing my nudity against their will and desire. That imposition is hardly Christian and consequently sinful since sin is simply a violation of the nature of God. Our nation as a venue may never come to an agreement upon the moral question of public nudity or to a majority acceptance culturally making room for gross legal change.

Social nudity on the other hand gathers people who have similar interests and desires to a place(s) where they are free to express without imposing upon others. Yes, there is an opportunity for lust. Their is also a responsibility not to. My experiences included meeting people who were openly seeking complicity and others who were simply seeking openness.

Every one of us present others with the opportunity to lust for something. We, as human beings, crave knowledge, recognition, power, success, money, good bodies, acceptance and love among an endless list of personal desires. Every desire that is realized in one of our lives and is common to man can become a target for another man's lust. Cain killed Abel because he lusted for acceptance. It is simply not possible to elliminate lust through censure because legislation can only define the offence.

There are questions being presented by each side that are ignored by the other side and both sides are judging the other on the basis of their own successes. The motivations seem to be 'winning' the argument. It is unwinnable from either perspective. Surely the pharisees have a sound basis for condemning the adulterers among us, yet Jesus said 'He that has no sin, cast the first stone'. You who oppose it cannot win and you who endorse it cannot win.

If we are carefull enough and humble enough, maybe Jesus will write some things in all of our hearts for the real truth probably resides somewhere between the two opposing positions.

Thank you Shane, Eph 3:20, Natman, Clarity, John Z and the rest of you for your time and passion. Let's all seek His kingdom come.

doug

God is good all the time.

 

[Doug45]

Just an afterthought and a separate post so that I can gain those precious blessings.

In the first Adam we have all eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In the Last Adam, the second man, all who have accepted the work of Jesus on the cross and through His ressurection have eaten of the tree of life.

What fruit makes up our diet? Right and wrong or Life in the Spirit?

Just a question.

God is good all the time. Good God; bad devil.

Doug

 

[Natman]

Doug,

Thanks for you insightful post.

One of the reasons that I have enjoyed this particular thread is the hope that through open communication on this topic, that we can make some serious changes to society in general and particular to the laws that govern our ability to be truly "naked and unashamed".

For me, the worship benefits of acknowledging that I am now covered in the Rightiousness of Christ, and that other coverings are not necessary (never really were) in the sight of God have been awesome and inspiring. It is amazing how honest you become when you find you really have nothing you can hide, and how that honesty builds stronger relationships, in this case, with the Creator of the Universe Himself.

For me, it's all about Christ and what He has done for me, in that He has freed me the affect of sin, the same affect that sent Adam and Eve under cover in the first place. But even that is only temporary. Because of what He has done, I can also look forward to a day after His scond coming when I will have a new, uncorruptable body, not only free from the affect of sin, but free from sin itself.

However, Christianity, Salvation and spiritual cleanliness aside, there are many social advantages to our society becoming acustomed to being dressed when necessary and naked when practical.

I believe I (or someone) has already mentioned reports that link naturist/nudist families with declines in rape, incest and teenage sexual experimentation, as well as transmissions of STDs, not to mention other crimes against society. I believe this is primarily due to the fact that the mystery of the opposite sex is removed at a much earlier age, while children's minds are open and easily trained, instead of at puberty, when they become raging hormone factories with barely the mental reasoning capacity to come in out of the rain (I know. I have three sons of my own in and beyond their teens. Been there, done that, bought the "T" shirt... and the hat.)

Particularly in warmer climates, as public nudity became more commonplace, it would become harder for people to carry weapons, and only those that are heavily clothed would be probable suspects. People would be far less concerned about full-body-scanners for boarding public transportation (not to mention that many scans would be unnecessary because there nowhere to hide anything).

Because body language is even more telling than facial expressions, it would be more difficult to be dishonest, so overall level of trust, trustworthiness and integrity would probably increase.

Also, think of the environmental issues. Think about how many fewer phosphates, dryer sheets and chemicals would be needed to wash the clothes that are worn for fewer hours per day or not at all. Or how about the fact that the clothes we do wear would last longer, requiring fewer resources, allowing us to clothe the rest of the world. The only negative here is that the fashion industry would probably suffer some, or probably need to downsize (play on words... )

I know there are more. So let's keep this dicussion going.

Public nudity carries with it the implication that my freedom as a nudist supercedes any other persons freedom and therefore I can go nude wherever and whenever I please. Surely, I am not imposing my nudity upon them because I am not forcing others to be nude. But I am demanding that they suffer the indignation of viewing my nudity against their will and desire. That imposition is hardly Christian and consequently sinful since sin is simply a violation of the nature of God. Our nation as a venue may never come to an agreement upon the moral question of public nudity or to a majority acceptance culturally making room for gross legal change.

I would tend to equate what you are saying here to forcing people to look at my gray hair, my balding head, my pot-belly, my black, red or pale-white skin or maybe my bulbous nose. These are parts of me that, despite the fact that some people think they are not pleasant to look at, are generally acceptable because we are accustomed to seeing these parts. You and I both force others to look at these "parts", somtimes "against their will or desire", almost every day. (Ask your kids, when your are reprimanding them, if they want to look at your angry face. I can remember saying "LOOK AT ME WHEN I"M TALKING TO YOU!" )

In all Son-cerity,
Nathan Powers

 

[Doug45]

Natman,

Years ago I had a Christian friend who had disparaging remarks to make about obese people having no right to be on the beaches flaunting their extra pounds. I cannot remember the exact words and have probably soft-soaped her statements to some degree. There is a sense in which we all challenge other people by who we are and what we believe in.

I understand your purpose and motivation. I can understand some of the benefits of being free of clothes and don't find it particularly offensive to see nudity by the obese. I have learned to appreciate nudity in both sexes and have experienced no lust for wrongful encounters or contacts. I have been offended by a few because of their braxenness.

Part of the transition in my perspective came about as I discovered that sense of openness and acceptance about who I am which was a direct result of exploring social nudism. I carry an extra 50+ lbs, but looking out of my eyes I could still separate myself from the 'obese'. Certainly I would not lable myself as obese. Yet in reality I am just that. Having come to the place of admitting that fact to myself, I am now free to appreaciate those whom I viewed as undesirable. I still am in the process of conquering my waist line.

But, I am a peace maker at heart and I live with my dear wife who is offended by public nudity and praying for my change of heart. We have an understanding and God has assured her that He walks with me in the journey upon which I am walking, Because of my love for her and the other people that share her perspective of whom there are numbers on the thread, I believe it unchristian and sinful to get in their face with our freedom.

Furthering His kingdom with temperance in an issue like this certainly rates as a higher objective than creating division by insisting on our individual 'rights'. We will never all agree on every point so we must learn to be agreeable in our differences. Most who have posted, including yourself, have been respectful and thoughtful. In your zeal to further your cause, you seem to overlook some of the arguments that have been brought.

I think the thread began with the wrong question. I think it should have begun with the question of whether social nudism is a sin. With public nudism, to insist on the freedom to be nude everywhere at all times at our own discretion is untenable. But isolated to a culture that accepts nudity either ethnic or social is tenable because those who are offended simply do not have to be there. In reality, if we do not like the present culture that repulses at public nudity we also have the option to go elsewhere.

We have a higher calling. We are to 'passionately desire' after God's manifest presence in order to see His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. A now thing in a prayer of now requests.

I see your points, but am not at all ready to do battle to see them become manifest. I would rather respect my opponents views for what they are in order to gain some respect for my personal views.

God is good, all the time. Good God; bad devil.

Again, I appreciate the passion of all of you who have posted here.

Doug

 

[Doug45]

Just a side note. Can anyone explain what affects my reputation and health on this site? I am not familiar with the concepts and have been unable to find the answers anywhere?

 

[psychedelicist]

Rep increases when people give it to you. For some reason even if I rep you you will not increase in rep points, but when other peopel (assumably with higher rep themselves) give it to you it might increase.

Health I think has to do with how many times you post every day. The more you post the more health you get back.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I've still never seen any rationale for why somebody's right not to see nudity in public is more important than somebody else's right to be nude in public.

 

[Madcoil]

I guess it's because there's 50 people in the street executing their right not to see nudity in public and 1 guy executing his right to be nude. 50/1.

 

[Doug45]

Right on Madcoil,

That's the entire cultural issue. Culture is defined by the majority.

God is good, all the time. Good God; bad devil.

Doug

 

[tgg]

The problem is that the majority don't always know what's good for them.

Check out: http://geocities.com/thehumanmind


tgg

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Just a side note. Can anyone explain what affects my reputation and health on this site? I am not familiar with the concepts and have been unable to find the answers anywhere?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17434854&postcount=2

 

[Doug45]

tgg,

So right you are. Never meant to imply that the majority was always right or moral in their decisions. But a republic or a democracy is based upon the concept of self rule rather than the concept of a dictator or king who knows 'best' for all. And a theocracy that puts religion in charge is usually narrow-minded and controlling basing its government on the views of a minority.

A true Theocracy based upon the living God, Jesus, is of course, our desire and His Lordship is best in all cases whether we understand, agree, or embrace it.

The choices we have are democracy, republic, dictatorship, or worldly kingdom. For me, our republic offers the best option in our current situation and for the most part, majority still could rule if we were truly involved.

God is good, all the time. Good God; bad devil.

Doug