Co-sleeping and child nudity: Why skin-to-skin closeness is optimal

Many parents think children should be clothed in the home, and that such is to keep away predators. This is seen as commonsense in most homes. The rush is to cover up children "let they inflame the passions of adults". I myself hold Anabaptist beliefs, and part of my theology is what is called commonly as infant nudity, which I extend in my beliefs to any child under age 18, to the degree that they want to.

Infant nudity means not dressing the baby, and if they wear anything, they wear cloths around their body to keep them warm in winter. Why is this? It goes back to the story of Adam and Eve, and how they were shamed for their nudity. The concept is to reverse the body shaming of Adam and Eve and allow children to go in the nude, as they please, within the confines of the home.

It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure, warm rest and trust in the love and grace of parents, just as adult believers rest securely and warmly in Lord Jesus Christ. Respect for parents is closeness, and this was facilitated in the Early Christian church by co-sleeping in the nude. Nudity is not exactly prohibited in the Bible apart from the law of the land, but the tradition repeated in the Greek root word for fornication (GRK: πορνεία, porneia) calls for fencing nudity in one's own dwelling-home, and wearing clothing when leaving the door. Children were not required to wear clothing anywhere, and this was because of mothers using skin-to-skin closeness to form a parent-child bond. 

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers literally to "stirring up" children, as in the Jewish idiom "stirring the pot" in regards to your child's emotional welfare. This refers to offenses against children, meaning the slightest of offense perceived by the child, including, but not limited to, corporal or other forms of punishment, meaning any punishment regardless, according to the intent of the pen of the Apostle Paul, as received in context. Spanking children for not wearing clothes is not acceptable due to the punitive nature of it. Most of the time, parents in such situations don't want their children to be devoured by predators, whereas you'd need to put a burka over them to fully "protect" them from abuse, and that would simply lead to mystery as to what lies underneath. 

Why not just let them dress in as little or as much as they want to wear, at least while in the house? Some children would choose to wear nothing, and as long as they are in the house, why not? Children are the boss of their own body. God gave it to them, but as a gift for them to own, with the only conditions being avoidance of fornication, or else turning away from such as an adult offender. That means the child isn't defiled for a lack of clothing, but the adult who takes advantage of it.

A child can be naked wherever they want, whenever they want, and no adult has the right to rape, sexually assault, or otherwise punish her for her nudity. If it bothers a pedophilic parent, just deal with it accordingly, away from the child in afterthought. Children have the right to wear as much or as little as they want, and adults should stop sexually offending against children. So, do not judge a child's wardrobe choices, apart from the secular law. A pedophile can simply choose not to abuse children.

The depraved and entitled parents who shame children for their wardrobe will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn and suffer in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death, which is Satan's tomb! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!