God's Take On Nudity

[Skwim]

For some reason god makes a pretty big deal out of nudity. In fact, he brings up the issue at the very outset of the Bible, devoting a verse to it.

Genesis 2:25 (NLT)
25 Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame.
​

Okay, but so what? This appears to be no bigger of a deal than saying

"Now the man and his wife both pooped, but they felt no shame."
​

As it turns out this is simply a set-up for what's to follow. As the story goes, this man and his wife crossed god, and were disciplined in part by being inflicted with the shame of being naked.

Genesis 3:6-7 (NLT)
6 The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. 7 At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.
​

So my question is, what is it in the nature of nudity that enables it to be regarded as absolutely shameless in one arena of humanity, but deserving of shame in another arena?

According to the story, there's no connection between how the two regarded their physical selves and the mistake made in a wholly other matter---their state of dress or undress was immaterial to the dining incident. It makes no more sense than if, after the two had taken a bite of the apple, god made man and his wife feel ashamed of eating food in front of one another---actually, this might be a bit more logical.

I would think that all the other woes god heaped upon the two and the generations to follow were certainly enough to make his point: "Don't cross me." So why add this little innocuous "punishment"---"I'll invest them with the sense of shame for their unclothed bodies"--- and make such a big deal out of it? After all, before the apple incident nudity was a good (at least not bad) thing, just like pine trees and tapioca pudding.
It's as if god opened a dictionary at random and without looking plunked his finger down on the word "nudity" and said, "So my frivolous retribution is going to be nudity. Okey dokey."

To me, nudity just isn't that crucial to the human race, nor meaningful enough to have been singled out as god has done. So, what has been accomplished by turning something once considered acceptable into something considered bad? Obviously, nudity wasn't originally destined to be shameful, so intrinsically it isn't, yet god decided to change all that.

And while some people do feel ashamed of their naked bodies (god's plan is working), some---whole societies in a few cases---don't (god's plan has failed). So what is accomplished? For god, is it enough that not everyone feel ashamed of being naked, just most? And what of those who have no sense of shame for nudity? Is there a special ring in Hell for them?


Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

.

 

[outlawState]

Nudity is associated in the bible with demon possession. Luk 8:27 When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs

Those who feel no shame at nudity are probably demon possessed, or just too ignorant / underdeveloped to be aware of it - like the animals, like infants, like uncivilized tribes.

Public nudity is associated with sin and shame. So if you don't feel it, you certainly have a demon, or more likely a multitude. cf the demon possessed man of Gerasenes.

The "punishment" is simply the knowledge of good and evil. Those who have it realize that nudity can be exploited by the devil to cause sin, and harm to oneself. Those who value their reputations keep their clothes on. To be a cause of sin is be condemned by Christ. To degrade one's own body is a sin against our creator.

Demon possession inhibits awareness of good and evil. So if you want to proclaim to the world, "I am demon possessed like the man of Gerasenes" then go be a nudist. I'll happily credit you with it too.

 

[Skwim]

Nudity is associated in the bible with demon possession. Luk 8:27 When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs

Those who feel no shame at nudity are probably demon possessed, or just too ignorant / underdeveloped to be aware of it - like the animals, like infants, like uncivilized tribes.

Public nudity is associated with sin and shame. So if you don't feel it, you certainly have a demon, or more likely a multitude. cf the demon possessed man of Gerasenes.

The "punishment" is simply the knowledge of good and evil. Those who have it realize that nudity can be exploited by the devil to cause sin, and harm to oneself. Those who value their reputations keep their clothes on. To be a cause of sin is be condemned by Christ. To degrade one's own body is a sin against our creator.

Demon possession inhibits awareness of good and evil. So if you want to proclaim to the world, "I am demon possessed like the man of Gerasenes" then go be a nudist. I'll happily credit you with it too.

Okay, but "Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?"

.

 

[Valjean]

So is nudity intrinsically shameful, but the first humans were just ignorant of this?

Why would God produce a shameful work?

Isn't clothing ourselves an implicit criticism of God's work? Wouldn't this be blasphemy or heresy or something?

Should we be equally alarmed about the shameful display if nakedness in our pets and livestock? Should we clothe them, as well?

The Biblical explanations of this issue leave a lot of questions unanswered.

 

[Tumah]

Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

Shame is not specific to nudity.

Shame is a painful, social emotion [further explanation needed] that can be seen as resulting "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...".[1]
-Wikipedia​

I don't understand why you understand their shame here as specially inflicted.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

God hates nudity so much that he created it.


Logic!

 

[Altfish]

God hates nudity so much that he created it.


Logic!

Exactly!! Why didn't he create us with fur, like the other animals?

 

[Valjean]

Shame is not specific to nudity.

Shame is a painful, social emotion [further explanation needed] that can be seen as resulting "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...".[1]
-Wikipedia​

I don't understand why you understand their shame here as specially inflicted.

Where did Adam and Eve get these 'standards" from? How do you develop a 'social emotion' in the absence of a society?

 

[Tumah]

Where did Adam and Eve get these 'standards" from? How do you develop a 'social emotion' in the absence of a society?

I was looking more to the quoted part within that quotation.

 

[Skwim]

Shame is not specific to nudity.

Shame is a painful, social emotion [further explanation needed] that can be seen as resulting "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...".[1]
-Wikipedia​

Yup.

I don't understand why you understand their shame here as specially inflicted.

Well, first we have this apparent irrelevancy.

Gen. 2:25
25 Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame.​

Then in Gen 3:6-7 we are told:

6 The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. 7 At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.
​

In as much as immediately after having eaten the apple they felt shame it's logical to conclude that their shame was due to the special circumstance of having eaten the apple. Moreover, it explains Gen 2:25.
It's like mentioning that your thumb felt just fine, but after banging it with a hammer it no longer felt fine. How would you understand your change in feeling? Would you attribute it to a change in the positions of the stars in the sky?

.

 

[Tumah]

Yup.


Well, first we have this apparent irrelevancy.

Gen. 2:25
25 Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame.​

Then in Gen 3:6-7 we are told:

6 The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. 7 At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.
​

In as much as immediately after having eaten the apple they felt shame it's logical to conclude that their shame was due to the special circumstance of having eaten the apple. Moreover, it explains Gen 2:25.
It's like mentioning that your thumb felt just fine, but after banging it with a hammer it no longer felt fine. How would you understand your change in feeling? Would you attribute it to a change in the positions of the stars in the sky?

.

But you ask for G-d's reasoning. I don't understand why don't you attribute their shame to something caused by eating from the tree instead of something [directly] inflicted by G-d.

 

[Skwim]

But you ask for G-d's reasoning. I don't understand why don't you attribute their shame to something caused by eating from the tree instead of something [directly] inflicted by G-d.

But it was caused by eating from the tree. God set a trap for them: Don't eat from the tree and he would make sure you would never feel shame for being naked. Eat from the tree and god would make sure you feel such shame. Or do you believe the apple was a little too green and gave them indigestion, which in turn gave them a sense of shame for being naked?

.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Exactly!! Why didn't he create us with fur, like the other animals?

That is always a mystery, but then......there wouldn't be much to see if we did have fur....


I think it's more sane and reasonable to see sexuality in eyes of Hinduism, as it's just a natural (but spiritual) part of our experience in life that should be embraced not shunned. Catholicism and Christianity are very guilty of creating the 'sexuality is guilt and shame' mindset that practically created pornography and heightened the over-importance we as a species has given to sex.


Not that I hate Christianity but it's influence on Western culture is clear and obvious.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

While I like contradiction, in a literary sense. Sexuality in the western mindset, is a contradiction I do not like - but it is really interesting. Being shameful of the very core of your psychology as a human being is a great (as in, massive) curse that we still haven't recovered from.

As a man, this is something that has confronted my psychology many many times and is one of the things that unintentionally led me initially into study of psychology, philosophy and religion etc.

 

[Tumah]

But it was caused by eating from the tree. God set a trap for them: Don't eat from the tree and he would make sure you would never feel shame for being naked. Eat from the tree and god would make sure you feel such shame. Or do you believe the apple was a little too green and gave them indigestion, which in turn gave them a sense of shame for being naked?

.

I guess my belief follows more closely with the latter option. I understand that the direct effect of eating from the tree of good and evil was that evil would become integrated into man's nature. I have previously defined good and evil as that which G-d wants and that which G-d doesn't want (in relation to where free-will is manifest). Whereas previously when Adam was intimate with his wife, he did so solely for altruistic reasons (such as perpetuation of the species). After having eaten from the tree, he now has the urge to do so for selfish reasons. The conflict between his understanding of the ideal (that is, his state prior to having eaten from the tree) and his current base urge, leads to shame.

Shame is ... "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...".​

 

[Skwim]

I guess my belief follows more closely with the latter option. I understand that the direct effect of eating from the tree of good and evil was that evil would become integrated into man's nature. I have previously defined good and evil as that which G-d wants and that which G-d doesn't want (in relation to where free-will is manifest). Whereas previously when Adam was intimate with his wife, he did so solely for altruistic reasons (such as perpetuation of the species). After having eaten from the tree, he now has the urge to do so for selfish reasons. The conflict between his understanding of the ideal (that is, his state prior to having eaten from the tree) and his current base urge, leads to shame.

Shame is ... "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...".​

But why the shame of being naked? Why not the shame of something else, like the shame of talking to the serpent, or the shame of not listening to god's admonition. At least something relevant to what they did instead of something totally irrelevant.

.

 

[Valjean]

Yup.


In as much as immediately after having eaten the apple they felt shame it's logical to conclude that their shame was due to the special circumstance of having eaten the apple. Moreover, it explains Gen 2:25.
It's like mentioning that your thumb felt just fine, but after banging it with a hammer it no longer felt fine. How would you understand your change in feeling? Would you attribute it to a change in the positions of the stars in the sky?

So it was eating the apple and knowingly breaking God's commandment they were ashamed of? OK, that makes sense, I can see that.

But where's the nakedness come in? They were never concerned about it before, there was no social opprobrium attached. God had never made any mention of it, He seemed perfectly fine with their nudity.
So where did they suddenly get this notion to be ashamed, and why about the nudity? Why not shame about not wearing hats or painting their nails?
Somebody please explain.

 

[Rival]

So it was eating the apple

What apple tho?

 

[Valjean]

I heard it was a pomegranate...

 

[osgart]

Their shame was due to sin. Otherwise it was perfectly fine.