God's Take On Nudity

[Valjean]

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

So it was the fruit.
So where did all this nudity poppycock come from?

 

[osgart]

So it was the fruit.
So where did all this nudity poppycock come from?

It was their hearts rebellion. The fruit just made them know good and evil.

They at the time could have chose the tree of life or any other tree. They violated gods command to them. They failed the test of trusting god, and recognizing that god was truthful, and deserving of trust.

So they had all of life and death to choose from. They could have chose to live forever. But that option taken away from them after they sinned. Thats the way believers interpret it.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I figured as much in post #17, but I'm still scratching my head about all this nudity stuff. Why did they cover themselves? A fig leaf won't hide the sin of disobedience.

 

[Jumi]

You sure love the American version(c) God of the Bible, @Skwim for always exclusively pointing to a literalist Bible God to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[Tumah]

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.

.

I don't understand. The shame of being naked is implied, not explicit. Maybe they were ashamed at all the other things as well. At the point in the story in 2:25 where it talks about being ashamed, it wasn't relevant to discuss their shame of other things.

Also, the other things that they did were things that had already ended. The lust that they would now feel as a result of having eaten from the tree was current. So I'd think that would be a more pressing concern.

 

[stvdv]

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?

They ate from the tree that was off limits and their eyes were opened. Meaning their eyes were closed before. They were dead after, meaning they were alive before. It's as easy as math. A few equations and a few unkown. It's about the tree of "Good and Evil" is another clue.

The answer is quite obvious I think. They were alive before with physical eyes closed. This obvious means they had their spiritual eye (3rd eye) open = alive. [Compare this with ancient Hindu wisdom "The wise is asleep when others are awake, the wise is awake when others sleep". Meaning the wise is awake to the truth, and asleep to the worldly distractions.] First Physical eyes were closed afterwards open, and they were dead, meaning spiritual eye was closed.

This all happened because they did not listen to their conscience. Then eyes open for "Good and Evil" [judgement]. Spiritual eye is closed.

So your question can be answered simple. When spiritual eye is open there is no shame/judgement. When material eyes are open there is shame/judgement.

 

[Kenny]

I don't understand. The shame of being naked is implied, not explicit. .

Or could it be that it was written withiin the framework of the people that were existing in the time of Moses were ashamed?

In other words, "They were not ashamed as you are today (as in the day of Moses)"?

 

[sealchan]

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?

.

My way of reading this is to understand that when you choose to not obey God there is a personal experience of that. It is not just that you have broken a rule but that you have changed inside in what you understand is the truth.

I suspect that the topic of nakedness was somewhat arbitrary but also not. This story managed to address several "origins" of human experience including the shame of being naked (that was assumed among the original audience for this story). Nakedness can be seen as a marker of one's social status as well as the strength of one's group to keep its own safe and provided for.

There is also the literary aspect of the later account of Noahs son Ham witnessing his father's nakedness which turned into a curse...a shared motif that creates a mutual significance between the two stories reinforcing the appropriateness, to some extent, of what takes place.

 

[stvdv]

There is also the literary aspect of the later account of Noahs son Ham witnessing his father's nakedness which turned into a curse

What you think is the reason Noah got mad?

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

.

Since God always wears white robes,
it's safe to presume He abhors nudity.

You might wonder about what happens when he showers or changes clothing.
No need. He never gets dirty or funky.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

I do have a question. When Adam and Eve were ordered out of the Garden, were they marched out by an angel, bell in hand, saying "shame.....shame.....shame *ding* *ding* shame....shame...."

 

[sealchan]

What you think is the reason Noah got mad?

I think Noah drank too much because the outer flood and all that was destroyed got to him...he had an inner flood of feeling as a result and so he self-medicated. When he woke up again his inner crisis had abated and he felt ashamed. Then he found out his loss of control was witnessed by his son and he lost it again...how could his son have known that his father would be naked without first seeing him so? His brothers had the advantage of his warning. But Ham was cursed.

This and the earlier story both speak to what it is like to acquire knowledge and how one is determined (cursed) by it before one can be rightfully held accountable for it.

 

[stvdv]

I think Noah drank too much because the outer flood and all that was destroyed got to him...he had an inner flood of feeling as a result and so he self-medicated. When he woke up again his inner crisis had abated and he felt ashamed. Then he found out his loss of control was witnessed by his son and he lost it again...how could his son have known that his father would be naked without first seeing him so? His brothers had the advantage of his warning. But Ham was cursed.

This and the earlier story both speak to what it is like to acquire knowledge and how one is determined (cursed) by it before one can be rightfully held accountable for it.

Thanks for sharing. Interesting idea; I never thought of it this way.

My first thought was that Ham judged his father being naked on the bed + he told his brothers. 2 mistakes. He could have just covered the body or even leave it as it was. I compared 5 Bibles and 3 of them said "Noah awoke and knew what had happened". So this could mean He was clearvoyant or in contact with God [had vision or dream showing Him what had happened]. Even while "passed out". And that makes sense, because He was one of the greatest in the Bible. So I see this story as a lesson how to act proper in this situation. But as all parables there could be plenty other lessons.

 

[sealchan]

Thanks for sharing. I never thought of it this way.

My first thought was that Ham judged his father being naked on the bed + he told his brothers. 2 mistakes. He could have just covered the body or even leave it as it was. I compared 5 Bibles and 3 of them said "Noah awoke and knew what had happened". So this could mean He was clearvoyant or in contact with God [had vision or dream showing Him what had happened]. Even while "passed out". And that makes sense, because He was one of the greatest in the Bible. So I see this story as a lesson how to act proper in this situation.

Well the story leaves things open to interpretation...

We don't know the full mind of Ham or Noah, only what the story-teller gives us. The listener comes away with much to discuss...maybe Ham wanted to re-expose his father...maybe he was also in shock and ashamed and went to his brothers to process the experience. The brothers not having witnessed the event felt a need to correct the situation...might they have simply let Noahs tent continue to cover Noah?

I always thought that Noah could deduce from the fact that he didn't cover himself...i like Noah over-reacted and made Ham his scapegoat. I assume that when Noah came out of his tent He knew (like God) that something had happened...but it was likely his willing sons who spilt the beans about who saw what. Sounds more and more like this story and Adam and eve reflect one another...consider also how both God and Noah moved across the waters...

 

[metis]

Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

Traditional Jewish culture.

 

[suncowiam]

I wasn't born with a onesie, so there...

 

[Tumah]

Or could it be that it was written withiin the framework of the people that were existing in the time of Moses were ashamed?

In other words, "They were not ashamed as you are today (as in the day of Moses)"?

I have no idea what you're talking about and frankly, I don't respect you enough to care.

 

[Kenny]

I have no idea what you're talking about and frankly, I don't respect you enough to care.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Politesse]

I can't answer for God, but if you look at ancient near eastern literature in general, not just the Bible, the same theme emerges. I think for people of that region clothing, though more optional socially for they than for us, was a major symbol of the particularly human. "Wild" men are always nude, and their acceptance of clothing at some point in the story is a symbol of their acceptance of civilization and all of its requirements. The legend preserved in Genesis 2-3 makes sense as part of this general trope. Adam and Eve are "like animals" at the start of the story, unclothed and not concerned with where their next meal comes from. By the end of the story they are "like humans", having acquired speech, clothing, and agriculture. Wisdom both enlightens and enslaves; if survival is now down to strategy rather than providence, this binds you to other humans and their desires if you are to survive. To society.

 

[Segev Moran]

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?

you need to look at nudity in several aspects:

Physical nudity
Spiritual nudity

both can generate several insights from different POV.

The idea of spiritual based on the Hebraic religion, is stronger than the physical yet is directly affected by it.
The same goes the other way around.

The case of Adam and Eve represents the literal feeling of shame in their exposure. this was not a punishment, rather a consequence of eating from the tree.

It also represents them become mortals and "Naked" of their perfection. In their form prior to eating the "fruit", they were a whole united with everything.

Nudity btw, is not mentioned as being good or bad, rather something they were not aware of.

This is a crucial thing to point as this is one of the things that separates us from the animals. the ability to be aware to such things. (as far as we know so far ) [so far only several species has been found to be self aware, none of them cared about exposing their gentiles ]

once eating the fruit, it was the real choice to be a "free willed" entity that is not a "robot".

The separation from perfection is the only way a "free will" could be manifested.

From a more "social evolution" POV, one can assume that nudity was common when we were ancient homos, once humans had the understanding of clothing, they used it to cover their bodies as protection from the weather and such.
It is assumable that with the years, clothing became a socially accepted way to behave until eventually nudity was considered not an accepted way of hanging around with others. (many people would disagree about this social decision, but they have nudist communities and a likes.

An evidence to that can be the ancient tribes we can find even today that have a very different POV regarding nudity.
Its not a bad thing nor a good thing. it is just an accepted way of appearance.