"And They Were Both Naked"

[Twilight Hue]

I find it possible that the tree doesn't so much grant knowledge of good and evil as it makes you think it does. God, also, makes rules about the pettiest things and calls them abominations, while supporting the most atrocious acts and beliefs. Hence, when Adam and Eve partook, the first thing out of their brains was inventing a sin no one mentioned as being an issue.

I'm kinda wondering what's good and evil about being naked that the tree had revealed.

Um, .. . don't know if pun was intended or not.

 

[Skwim]

Neither nakedness nor wearing clothing is sinful. In the beginning, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of being naked, because according to St. John Chrysostom, they were both clothed in God's glory:

(For the metaphor.)

In other words, because they sinned, they became ashamed of themselves at having sinned and lost the glory of God which had previously adorned them, and covered themselves up:

And why did this necessarily have to manifest itself as shame for nakedness? Seems about as arbitrary as making eating fatty foods shameful. In any case, I'm taking your response as opting for conclusion number 2, God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful [FOR THEM] after the apple incident."

.

 

[Skwim]

Maybe we made the decision to change it into something shameful. There was nothing shameful about it for A&E because it represented transparency with God. Their decision to eat the fruit changed or corrupted the meaning.

If nothing else Christians took up the idea and ran with it: A&E were ashamed of their nakedness so we should be ashamed of ours as well.
.

 

[Skwim]

Personally I have come to relate the nakedness as more of a loss of innocence and awareness of self manifested as lack of body covering. Up until that point there was no reason to decide the rightness or wrongness of a situation.

Perhaps because there was no wrongness.

This is the meaning of the tree being named the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now they had to make choices.

But they always had to make choices: what tree to nap under. What to eat for dinner. Whether or not to see what's on the other side of yonder hill.

.

 

[Skwim]

Its not inconsequential in the Jewish culture from which this document has been purloined.

So what are the consequences to the Jewish culture from Christianity using "this document"?

It is disrespectful to misrepresent that.

Misrepresent? A comparison of the verses as stated in the Bible and the Torah

Genesis 2:24-25

B 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
T 24Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

B 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
T 25Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.


Genesis 3:6-7

B 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
T 6And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise; so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

B 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
T 7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles.
Torah source
​

Of course if the misrepresentation is something else, please clue us in.

.

 

[Skwim]

My conclusion is that once again, you seek to make fun of God's word.

Hey, what about me hating the Bible/Christianity? What happened to that one? But as to your conclusion here, it's only because the Bible is once again embarrassing you with its difficulties. But never fear, I understand your dilemma.

.

.

 

[BSM1]

Perhaps because there was no wrongness.


But they always had to make choices: what tree to nap under. What to eat for dinner. Whether or not to see what's on the other side of yon hill.

.

Actually, again IMHO, there is nothing inherently good or evil in any thing and/or action. It is incumbent on man to make that judgement call. This why the tree was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; i.e., that now man has to decide what's good and what's evil.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The overall literary message is to teach the reader to be ashamed of nudity.

ha ha that is a laugh. People are naturally ashamed of nudity. The text is using that as an analogy for something else. Mainstream Christians do something similar when they talk about spiritual nudity.

There are plenty of those literary messages placed in the bible by the fallible human author pretending to have a connection with a godly figure in a place of authority to shame or scare other men into behaving according to how that author conceived humanity should behave.

You are cranking out a conspiracy theory about malicious intent, but you seem not to know what you are talking about.

 

[Shiranui117]

And why did this necessarily have to manifest itself as shame for nakedness? Seems about as arbitrary as making eating fatty foods shameful.

When you're ashamed, you want to hide yourself. Cover up and hide. We see children doing this all the time.

In any case, I'm taking your response as opting for conclusion number 2, God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful [FOR THEM] after the apple incident."

.

You're mistaken. I said that nakedness is neither shameless nor shameful, before or after the Fall (though we can all agree that clothing is practically useful). God didn't randomly decide to make nakedness sinful after Adam and Eve's Fall.

 

[Mister Silver]

People are naturally ashamed of nudity.

Not naturally. It's a shame taught by religion. Makes me wonder how many nudists are religious.

You are cranking out a conspiracy theory about malicious intent, but you seem not to know what you are talking about.

I have been informed by a few that I have no idea what I am talking about while others understand precisely what I am talking about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not naturally. It's a shame taught by religion. Makes me wonder how many nudists are religious.

Lets meet one some common ground. Its to everyone's benefit both atheist and Christian to come to a realistic understanding of what Genesis is really about. Sure, as you point out there are nudists; but even they wear clothes and get embarrassed about fashion. Even people who wear clothes get embarrassed if there's something wrong with their clothes. Its a common human experience. Also, sure some religionists try to make a big deal out of nudity. That doesn't mean they have any business commenting upon Genesis. In Genesis the embarrassment is what matters and what it represents. Genesis is against violence. Its not against physical nudity, but the shame you feel when you are poorly dressed represents the shame of humanity. Genesis is against the evil aspect of humanity which it associates with shame. Does this help? I'm not attacking atheism, and I'm not trying to put one over one you, nor am I trying to sponsor people who make a big deal about nudity. I'm not trying to take away your nudist colonies. I'm just trying to explain that just as you understand nudity is not such a big deal, so do the writers in Genesis. I don't think that should be so surprising. The confusion comes from pulling Genesis out of its culture, which is just like hearing part of a telephone conversation. Try to understand the people who write this and allow that they have intelligence.

 

[Mister Silver]

The confusion comes from pulling Genesis out of its culture, which is just like hearing part of a telephone conversation. Try to understand the people who write this and allow that they have intelligence.

I suppose that's why there are numerous denominations of christianity since christians cannot seem to agree on how to interpret scripture. If christians cannot agree on how to "properly" interpret scripture, then there's no reason atheists cannot also have a shot at it. Granted, though, that the atheistic interpretation will come from a place that is more centered on critical thinking. After all, a literary interpretation of one fictional work is no different than another, as is taught in relation to one's education.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I suppose that's why there are numerous denominations of christianity since christians cannot seem to agree on how to interpret scripture.

The reasons for numerous denominations is unrelated. Genesis doesn't make denominations of Christians.

If christians cannot agree on how to "properly" interpret scripture, then there's no reason atheists cannot also have a shot at it. Granted, though, that the atheistic interpretation will come from a place that is more centered on critical thinking. After all, a literary interpretation of one fictional work is no different than another, as is taught in relation to one's education.

You don't represent an 'Atheist' point of view, but a Lutheran point of view or perhaps Calvinist. Anyways Genesis is a Jewish book, and its meaning is commonly agreed upon by them, regardless of what various Christian sects say.

 

[Deidre]

I've been reading the Bible again, for my own edification, and it's a study Bible - complete with thorough footnotes from some serious Harvard scholars. So, the people commenting were familiar with other religions of the time period, and how Christianity took shape. I think to look at Genesis objectively, you have to understand that time period, the culture, and so on. But, just at face value, from what I've come to think about Genesis, is that it's really more than just ''God forbade this'' and ''A & E didn't listen'' and now ''this terrible thing happened.'' From a believer's perspective, the idea is really more that these two people experienced what disobeying God might feel like. And I suppose if an almighty God wishes to create such a contract, he can. You don't have to believe the story, or the Bible stories at all, but for believers...there is a belief that God knows what he's doing, always has a master plan, and if you disobey, you'll fall short of seeing the beauty of his plan for your life. That's how I've come to see the totality of Genesis, now that I'm reading the Bible, again. I'm not approaching the Bible with bias, scorn and prejudice, because then I won't take it all in. What is the message that is being driven across to believers? I'm trying to see it through that lens, too.

I've also come to terms with the fact that there are two types of believers...those who believe out of fear, but those who really fervently believe the Bible as a beautiful master plan for their lives. I think that many people try to imagine a god void of anything bad, like he is a magical genie in the sky, and if he lets us experience pain, he must not be a god. Or what kind of god would let this story unfold, anyways?

Likely a god who wants a relationship with his creation, not a god of drones. So, there's different ways to objectively look at the Bible, without believing. It is easy for sure to say it's all BS, and if we don't follow it, we don't see the faith value from it. But, you can read a story at face value, and see the point trying to be made. The point of Genesis is to not only begin a story, but to help tie in the ending of the story which was Jesus' birth...Jesus spoke about Genesis, which is pretty interesting, and the Bible wasn't put together in one sitting. Far from it. So, whether people imagined this all to be true, I do happen to think that there were ancient Hebrews and people of middle eastern origins, who wrote this stuff down, whether they thought it was from God or not, I don't think that these writings in and of themselves are forgeries. So, if nothing else, the Bible can be a pretty cool archaeological 'find,' if you view it objectively.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Very well. Romans 1:20 says it is obvious that He exists. However, you have been given free will to choose whatsoever you will.

If it's 'obvious that He exists' why would anyone need Romans 1:20 to tell them so?

 

[DavidFirth]

If it's 'obvious that He exists' why would anyone need Romans 1:20 to tell them so?

They don't. Or rather shouldn't. The purpose of the verse is to make it clear that unbelievers will have no excuse come Judgement Day. "I didn't know" won't cut the mustard.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What if God tells me not to trust Paul?

 

[DavidFirth]

What if God tells me not to trust Paul?

Then you're not hearing God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?


What's your conclusion:

1. God deliberately or by mistake planted the misconception that nakedness was alright in A&E's innocent minds at the beginning. (Good thing they ate the apple and discovered their mistake.)

2. God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful after the apple incident. ("Do you really have to wear that bra and pantie outfit, Eve?")


For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing as nakedness in the first place? Why not make eating fatty foods shameful? Or getting tattoos shameful?

.

.

Your answers were close, but it was that Adam and Eve felt exposed and their attitude became "religious". "We will cover our own shame with our own found leaves" rather than "we can cover our sin by trusting God".

 

[QuestioningMind]

They don't. Or rather shouldn't. The purpose of the verse is to make it clear that unbelievers will have no excuse come Judgement Day. "I didn't know" won't cut the mustard.

If you have to point out that something is obvious then it clearly isn't.