Great post and well stated argument. I could not agree more.
One small error that I note, not for the purpose of disagreeing with you, but only to assure complete accuracty from the naturist/nudist community, is that the Saul referred to in I Samuel is King Saul, not the Saul who was renamed Paul in the New Testament. This doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the underlying truth of what you have to say, but certain groups have a way of grabbing the slightest error and blowing the whole message out of proportion. It really doesn't matter whether it was King Saul, who God had annointed as the first king of Isreal, the Apostle Paul, whose letters form the essential basis for the understanding of Christianity, or Saul the plumber - The important thing is what he did and how the people regarded him for doing it. There can be no question that the people of his time did not regard his nudity as a sin but as a sign that he was a man of God.