is nudity more in line with living as god intended than covering up is?

I don't think nudity is inherently pornographic, but an artist drawing anime girls fully clothed but with their breasts out is pornographic.

i argued that since the photo would not be considered pornographic in any other context besides the breasts being out that it’s silly to call it pornographic

In what context would real women in the west or Japan wear clothes but have their breasts out? And why would someone draw them that way?

could an argument be made that nudity is a sort of spiritual symbolic shedding of the state of original sin?

I don't think that was the intention of the artist.

Father's intention was to live free, as in being nude. A big ass (pun intended) nudist colony. Until Adam and Eve brought shame upon themselves by eating the forbidden fruit. We are not sure if the weather would have been livable without clothes due to our current seasons. We never found out.

With that said, what would have life been like? My assumption would be, we would have still developed clothes, too damn many purists out there.

if nudity is inherently pornographic, was he abusing his child every time he changed his diaper or dressed him? 2. if breasts are only sexual organs meant to inspire arousal, is breastfeeding a child attempting to arouse that child?

Babies/children are (and should be) at the antipodes of ANY sexual discourse or context (despite they come to existence by non family-friendly means, lol).

the one i’m most interested in: given that Adam and Eve were forced to cover up in shame after betraying god by intaking the knowledge of the tree, could an argument be made that nudity is a sort of spiritual symbolic shedding of the state of original sin? and if not then wouldn’t the non starter stance against nudity be counterproductive towards living for gods kingdom? or is there specific scripture regarding this that i’m unfamiliar with?

There was also an (heretical) Christian sect called "Adamites" on the 1st century who lived naked as they deemed themselves "freed from sin" or something like that, although they were...short lived. Perhaps that's the reason nudity is rarely associated with godliness.

However, In the first stages of Christianity, people used to be baptized naked (that's also why there were "deaconesses" to guide the female catechumen to the Sacrament). Furthermore, some medieval depictions of the virgin Mary do not always cover her breast.

You may not know this, but there's something called "purity culture" in Christendom that has conflated what God made into something vulgar. This is particularly true in the United States. It's what happens when "I'm lying to you because I'm afraid you won't do what I want you to do if you knew the truth" gets out of hand for generation after generation.

given that Adam and Eve were forced to cover up in shame after betraying god by intaking the knowledge of the tree,

They actually did that on their own. I think Adam and Eve are mostly just a creation story that tries to understand why we have a selfish nature, and our relationship to God.

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate…”

…And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. (Gen 3:7-12,21)

The historical teaching of the Church is that we, living on this side of the Fall, are always susceptible to temptation and incapable of fully pure thought, word, or action.

Christ teaches:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

Looking at someone with lustful intent was not possible for mankind before the Fall. Our sinful, fallen natures will be purged of this to reveal the perfect creation we are before we enter heaven but not until then.

So, to answer t your questions:

1)      Nudity is not inherently pornographic but can subjectively be so through the eyes of a sinful person. Changing a diaper, dressing, or bathing a child are basic tasks that need to be done. But, to a pedophile, this may be pornographic, induce lust, and present temptation.

2)      My wife breastfed all of our children up until they were each weaned, that is not a sexual act nor is watching my children be fed a sexual thing for me. Doesn’t mean that, outside of this context, breast are not, for lack of a better word, titillating, or that there are not lactation fetishes out there.

3)      We cannot symbolically or spiritually shed our sin. Sin has been grafted onto our natures perverting the original intentions of God. Even if one chooses to be naked and is not tempted, they must consider others and not be a cause for them to stumble (Matt 18:5-7; 1 Cor 6 & 8 concerning Christian liberty). We do not exist in our world or in faith, alone. Our relationship with God is in and through the Body of Christ, the Church. We live to the glory of God and for others, not ourselves.

Some prefer to take a Pharisaic approach and make a hard law to avoid exposing themselves to nudity. I don't believe in such things as it would put too much art out of reach and it simply goes too far. But I would never insist they "get over it" because I do not know their weaknesses, what tempts them, and I would not be responsible for leading them into temptation. In return, I expect them not brag about their "holiness". Perhaps, that's what troubles you?

From a Christian perspective nudity is not always pornographic in nature. I’d say most Christian scholars and theologians would make a distinction between something like the statue of David and a pornographic film.

Scripture itself is very concerned with sex and sexuality. Largely in the context of the ancient near east all of these topics are intertwined with tribal and patrilineal heritage. To have sex outside of a covenant could create challenges for inheritance and tribal alliances are formed or broken in light of sex outside of societal (for the time) norms.

When Jesus comes on the scene he elevates the sexual and mora ethic of his followers. He says that if you have anger in your heart that is equal to killing someone or if you look at someone lustfully you’ve already committed adultery.

With that in mind is a naked body inherently sinful? I’d say no. I would say that it would be the responsibility of the Christian to avoid those images if they were going to cause them to sin. I do think that pornography is always sinful and it twists the gift of sex into something lustful. It’s also show to be incredible misogynistic as over 70% of porn features some element of physical abuse towards women.

To speak to Adam and Eve some of this is going to depend on the Christian’s interpretation of those events. I personally hold to a mytho-historical approach and would recognize the clothing element not as a literal event but as metaphorical. That whole section of scripture has to do with hiding from God in shame. Clothing in that context is another element of hiding points to the grand meta narrative of scripture. That is our sin separates us from God and we need a savior to rescue us.

Hope this helps!