"And They Were Both Naked"

[DavidFirth]

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

I didn't until I was asked about it. It is obvious to me.

 

[Skwim]

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.

So the tree should have been called the "Tree of Knowledge of What Man Decides is Good and Evil." Truthfully, it doesn't have the commercial zing of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I didn't until I was asked about it. It is obvious to me.

And that's your mistake. Just because something is obvious to YOU does NOT mean that it's obvious to EVERYONE. Then you go a step further and conclude that people who claim it isn't obvious really understand that it is and are just 'pretending' like it isn't.

Or you could take a far less arrogant position and simply conclude that MAYBE what's so 'obvious' to you ISN'T necessarily so obvious to everyone else.

 

[Skwim]

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".

But how could mere fig leaves cover any sense of shame? The sense of shame for being naked would already have to be in place for their act of covering up to be meaningful. If there was no sense of shame attached to being naked why would covering up create it? So either they were mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened, or god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful.

.

 

[RedDragon94]

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.
.

Basically.

Question, should anyone be ashamed of their nakedness?

 

[Skwim]

Basically.

Question, should anyone be ashamed of their nakedness?

Aside from any embarrassment about how their naked body looks, no.

.

.

 

[idav]

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?

.

.

Having a tree of knowledge suggests Adam and Eve were living in ignorance. Before eating of the fruit they would be ignorant of sin as innocence. At some point adolescence kicked in and nakedness is no longer seen innocently. However I don't think there was a time humans lived in some immortal paradise so there is that. It is safe to say, from evolution standpoint, at some point we got preoccupied with clothes unlike the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[Skwim]

Having a tree of knowledge suggests Adam and Eve were living in ignorance. Before eating of the fruit they would be ignorant of sin as innocence. At some point adolescence kicked in and nakedness is no longer seen innocently. However I don't think there was a time humans lived in some immortal paradise so there is that. It is safe to say, from evolution standpoint, at some point we got preoccupied with clothes unlike the rest of the animal kingdom.

Well, clothing certainly serves a purpose in protecting the body from the elements, but where this is not a factor people often live their entire lives completely naked, and obviously without any shame.

.

 

[idav]

Well, clothing certainly serves a purpose in protecting the body from the elements, but where this is not a factor people often live their entire lives completely naked, and obviously without any shame.

.

The US is the worst about the shame thing, we can see it's a cultural thing. There is something to be said about attraction though, conservatives try to avoid it.

 

[roger1440]

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?

Maybe because Adam and Eve were not in the Garden long enough to get fat or a tattoo. There are verses in the Bible pertaining to gluttony and marking one’s body.

 

[roger1440]

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?

Maybe because the tree or knowledge introduced division into the world. Things are no longer as they once were. Now they are either good or evil. According to the Bible, God does not change.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Then you're not hearing God.

Yahweh/El changed His name to Paul? Did He get His birth certificate altered or is it just some informal thing? God told me specifically that humans wrote the bible and He didn't say half that stuff and if I wanted to know if something was true or not, I should look to nature, which must, by its nature, follow the "rules".

 

[BilliardsBall]

But how could mere fig leaves cover any sense of shame? The sense of shame for being naked would already have to be in place for their act of covering up to be meaningful. If there was no sense of shame attached to being naked why would covering up create it? So either they were mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened, or god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful.

.

I think you are missing the point. They went from nothing to be ashamed of to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command.

If you get caught looking at an inappropriate website or TV show, the first impulse you have is to switch the channel or cover yourself--to hide. The Garden is a place where God would appear in a bodily form to chat with Adam and Eve, and quickly. I think if there was a dark cave in this garden of light they would have run inside. There was no darkness in this place.

Their lusts and coveteousness and rebellion were exposed. They covered themselves.

 

[RedDragon94]

Aside from any embarrassment about how their naked body looks, no.

.

.

OK, right.

 

[Skwim]

I think you are missing the point. They went from nothing to be ashamed of to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command.

You're substituting "rebelling against God's expressed command" for "nakedness." In which case your statement above should read

"They went from [not being] ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command."
​

Is that what you want to say? Of course it is. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're substituting "rebelling against God's expressed command" for "nakedness." In which case your statement above should read

"They went from [not being] ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command."
​

Is that what you want to say? Of course it is. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

.

No, it is not what I want to say, for they 1) ate the forbidden fruit 2) sewed fig leaf costumes. It's like you've never read the account you are arguing with me about! Five-year-old children know Adam and Eve hid immediately after eating the fruit and never before!

Your interpolation was moot.

 

[Skwim]

No, it is not what I want to say, for they 1) ate the forbidden fruit 2) sewed fig leaf costumes. It's like you've never read the account you are arguing with me about! Five-year-old children know Adam and Eve hid immediately after eating the fruit and never before!

Your interpolation was moot.

Then what did you mean when you said, "They went from nothing to be ashamed of to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command"?

As I pointed out, if you insist on substituting "rebelling against God's expressed command" for "nakedness." then your statement above should read,

"They went from [not being] ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command."​

You can't have your cake and eat it too, BB. You can't change one side of an equation without changing the other.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then what did you mean when you said, "They went from nothing to be ashamed of to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command"?

As I pointed out, if you insist on substituting "rebelling against God's expressed command" for "nakedness." then your statement above should read,

"They went from [not being] ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command."​

You can't have your cake and eat it too, BB. You can't change one side of an equation without changing the other.

.

It's very simple. You and I need not be ashamed of those commandments of God which we follow.

The command wasn't "be ye clothed" but "don't eat of this tree." One outcome of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the desire to hide oneself not from one's naked body but from GOD when He appeared to them in the Garden.

For example, some of the language you use and movies you watch and etc. you would avoid if Jesus appeared before you in glory. (Not that Jesus doesn't know all things, but God's presence makes us feel dirty by comparison due to His holiness.)

 

[blü 2]

The command wasn't "be ye clothed" but "don't eat of this tree."

You're not reading your own text.

It wasn't a command, it was a warning:

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil BECAUSE if you do you'll die the same day.​

Not

BECAUSE I [expletive] SAID SO.​

Nor is disobedience, sin, original sin, the fall of man or death entering the world mentioned anywhere in the tale. Nor does the snake tell any lies.

If you disagree, specify the part of the tale that says so.

And of course Eve did an essentially good and necessary thing in bringing knowledge of good and evil to her partner. She and the snake deserve to be blessed (at least to the extent that any fictitious character deserves to be blessed).

 

[Skwim]

It's very simple. You and I need not be ashamed of those commandments of God which we follow.

The command wasn't "be ye clothed" but "don't eat of this tree." One outcome of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the desire to hide oneself not from one's naked body but from GOD when He appeared to them in the Garden.

For example, some of the language you use and movies you watch and etc. you would avoid if Jesus appeared before you in glory. (Not that Jesus doesn't know all things, but God's presence makes us feel dirty by comparison due to His holiness.)

In as much as you insist in substituting "rebelling against God's expressed command" for "nakedness," turning the sentence into

"They went from [not being] ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command."​

obviously before the apple incident they were rebelling against God's expressed command and were not ashamed of it. And this makes sense to you, which is fine with me; although, I doubt you'll find many who'll agree with you.

.