God's Take On Nudity

[sojourner]

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?

.

There is no “God’s reason.” It’s an explanation for “why things are the way they are.”

“Daddy, why is it wrong for me to look up Susie’s loincloth?”
“Because, son, let me tell you story about that...”

 

[Valjean]

Shame and embarrassment are not natural, but cultural constructs.
Through 99% of our history people happily lived naked or semi-naked. In a few tropical societies today -- and in many a century ago -- people go about their lives naked with no sense of embarrassment or sexual arousal.

 

[metis]

Shame and embarrassment are not natural, but cultural constructs.
Through 99% of our history people happily lived naked or semi-naked. In a few tropical societies today -- and in many a century ago -- people go about their lives naked with no sense of embarrassment or sexual arousal.

I remember a true story that took place in the 1960's whereas there were Peace Corp workers that went to Bali to help with the population, but they were having trouble connecting with the "natives". As it turned out, one snag was that all the Peace Corp women wore tops whereas the indigenous didn't, and the latter thought it was kinda stupid to do so. The Peace Corp women got together, kicked the guys to a different part of the island, and only then "went native". However, anytime a white guy showed up they immediately ran to get their tops to put back on.

 

[Valjean]

However, anytime a white guy showed up they immediately ran to get their tops to put back on.

Why?

 

[metis]

Why?

Good question, but next time be a wee bit less wordy, OK?

Apparently being seen topless by their own male peers was too much. Nowadays, they might be a bit more free to do so-- I don't know. Americans really do have hangups with nudity whereas most Europeans tend not to anywhere near as much. Even when staying in Canada, especially Quebec, they're much freer about this than most Americans.

 

[Skwim]

There is no “God’s reason.” It’s an explanation for “why things are the way they are.”

Are you saying that god had no reason for choosing nudity to be shameful, or are you simply saying the Bible doesn't give any, which is already quite apparent?

.

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that god had no reason for choosing nudity to be shameful, or are you simply saying the Bible doesn't give any, which is already quite apparent?

.

Both.

 

[Skwim]

Both.

So it was just a random act. He could just as well have given them palsy, or jumped up and down. Interesting.

.

 

[sojourner]

So it was just a random act. He could just as well have given them palsy, or jumped up and down. Interesting.

.

The whole shame thing is a human contrivance.

 

[Skwim]

The whole shame thing is a human contrivance.

So when we read in Genesis 3:6-7 that:

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.​

Moses or one of the translators along the way contrived it all? Curious as to how you know this. Care to share?

.

 

[sojourner]

So when we read in Genesis 3:6-7 that:

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.​

Moses or one of the translators along the way contrived it all? Curious as to how you know this. Care to share?

.

Sure. It’s a story. It’s metaphorical. It’s a way of explaining why we are the way we are, feeling shame. It’s a theological waynof looking at modesty

 

[outlawState]

Moses or one of the translators along the way contrived it all?

Shame is directly related to the knowledge of good and evil. After becoming aware of their vulnerability to evil, they covered their bodies, as injury to the body, or by reason of the body, is a source of great evil. The more evil one's neighbour, the more one protects oneself.

The sorts of clothes we wear are related to the perceived threat level. They are also related to the way we evaluate and honour our bodies. In the bible pagans are noted for degrading their bodies. A Christian believes his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and there accords great honour to his/her body. A demon possessed person may not feel the need to wear clothes because they do not feel a need to honour their body. cf Bedlam

 

[Skwim]

Shame is directly related to the knowledge of good and evil.

That's the way the Genesis story goes anyway, but in real life, not at all.

.

 

[Thief]

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?

.

sorry to get here soooo late......

did anyone mention?.....God Himself gave Adam and Eve .....animal skins for cover

 

[Segev Moran]

Pardon me Segev, but were they not aware of their appearance before each other? I understand from the Bible that they could both see physically.

They could physically see but were unaware of their nudity.

The term "Know" in Hebrew means to have an understanding.

Same as the tree of knowing good and bad.
Once they eat it, they knew how to distinguish good from bad as they acquired the understanding of what good and bad are.

so they were naked, but had no understanding of what being naked is (like animals for example, a monkey can see it is naked but have no understanding what it means).

Once they ate the fruit, they became aware of the concept of nudity which caused them to hide it from one another.

 

[Segev Moran]

Don't know what Bible you read but all of those I checked said no such thing:
The first 15:

KJ21
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
ASV
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
AMP
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed or embarrassed.
AMPC
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not embarrassed or ashamed in each other’s presence.
BRG
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
CSB
Both the man and his wife were naked, yet felt no shame.
CEB
The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they weren’t embarrassed.
CJB
They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.
CEV
Although the man and his wife were both naked, they were not ashamed.
DARBY
And they were both naked, Man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
DRA
And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.
ERV
The man and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed.
ESV
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
ESVUK
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
EXB
The man and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed.​

Not a one says anything about not knowing they were naked.

And just where does the Bible say this? Bible version, and chapter and verse please.

.

.

Hebrew bible,

Gensis (בראשית), chapter 3 (ג), verse 7 (ז).

The verse is: "וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה, עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּדְעוּ, כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם; וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת"
The literal translation is:

וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה, עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם
And both eyes opened,

וַיֵּדְעוּ
and they knew

כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם
that they are naked.

וַיִּתְפְּרוּ
and they sew

עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה
carica (hope i am not mistaken in the name of the tree) leaf

וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת
and made themselves a cloth that wraps on their waist.

Also note, that nowhere does it say they saw they are naked until this verse. it says they were naked but not that they saw they are naked.

Another thing to notice is that when describing the snake, it is also mentioned it was the only naked animal.

(this is obviously not a physical state as most reptiles can be considered naked)

It hints of the non literal meaning of the word "naked" in the story.
Chapter 3, opening verse.

here is a link to the full Tanach in hebrew:

תנ"ך מנוקד - בראשית פרק א

 

[Skwim]

sorry to get here soooo late......

did anyone mention?.....God Himself gave Adam and Eve .....animal skins for cover

I don't think so. This evidently happened because they needed something more substantial and permanent than the fig leaves they had previously sewn together in Gen. 3:7.


.

 

[Skwim]

Hebrew bible,

Gensis (בראשית), chapter 3 (ג), verse 7 (ז).

The verse is: "וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה, עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּדְעוּ, כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם; וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת"
The literal translation is:

וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה, עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם
And both eyes opened,

וַיֵּדְעוּ
and they knew

כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם
that they are naked.

וַיִּתְפְּרוּ
and they sew

עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה
carica (hope i am not mistaken in the name of the tree) leaf

וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת
and made themselves a cloth that wraps on their waist.

Also note, that nowhere does it say they saw they are naked until this verse. it says they were naked but not that they saw they are naked.

Another thing to notice is that when describing the snake, it is also mentioned it was the only naked animal.

(this is obviously not a physical state as most reptiles can be considered naked)

It hints of the non literal meaning of the word "naked" in the story.
Chapter 3, opening verse.

here is a link to the full Tanach in hebrew:

תנ"ך מנוקד - בראשית פרק א

If you go back to Gen. 2:25 we read

"The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame."
​

Or words to that effect in other versions of the verse. Heck, even the Hebrew Bible says the same thing.

כהוַיִּֽהְי֤וּ שְׁנֵיהֶם֙ עֲרוּמִּ֔ים הָֽאָדָ֖ם וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֖א יִתְבּשָֽׁשׁוּ:
"Now they were both naked, the man and his
wife, but they were not ashamed."​

"Yet" in Gen. 2:25 is used as a conjunction. From a Wiki page explaining this usage.

"Put “yet” in a sentence to expand or add to the content. “Yet” can help you provide more information about a subject or event that may be contradictory or ironic. It is often used in negative sentences, similar to how you might use the conjunction “nevertheless.”
​

The "yet" and "but" recognize the existence of what precedes them.

​

There would be absolutely no reason to expect A&E to be ashamed of being naked unless they knew they were naked. To suggest they didn't know they were naked, "yet they felt no shame" One can only reasonably reply,

"Of course they wouldn't. Why would they? They wouldn't, so why even bring it up?"​

Why indeed. BUT god does bring it up, which can only mean that any potential shame would have had a valid genesis., It would first be necessary for there to nakedness to be ashamed of in order to make any sense in mentioning shame. So, it's quite obvious that A&E knew they were naked . . . but had yet to be ashamed of it.

.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think the nudity part is to show the true effects of the Tree. They don't become more moral or immoral. They simply learn to label everything as such. God asks them who told them nudity was bad. The answer is no one did. It's not established that it's a sin. Yet they now consider it one because of their own decision to make it so.

 

[Thief]

I think the nudity part is to show the true effects of the Tree. They don't become more moral or immoral. They simply learn to label everything as such. God asks them who told them nudity was bad. The answer is no one did. It's not established that it's a sin. Yet they now consider it one because of their own decision to make it so.

there it is.......thank you

the fig leaf trick was a reflex

realizing the situation....they hid
when brought out of hiding....they were still grasping the cover

as for God giving them animal skins for cover.....
that statement is likely ....allowance
and they were about to be released into the environment

they would need the protection
and how to apply it