God's take on nudity

[Skwim]

For some reason god makes a pretty big deal of nudity. In fact, he brings up the issue at the very outset of the Bible, devoting a whole 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? It 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 just a set-up for what follows. Seems this man and his wife crossed god, and were disciplined in part by the infliction of shame for being nude.

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 allows it to be regarded as absolutely shameless in one arena of humanity, but is convertible to one of shame in another arena? According to the story there is no connection to how one regards their physical self, and a mistake made in a totally other matter. 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 even be a bit more logical.

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 (not bad) thing, just like pine trees and tapioca pudding.
It's like god opened a dictionary at random and without looking plunked his finger down on the word "nudity" and said, "So it's going to be nudity. Okey Dokey."

To me, nudity just isn't that crucial to the human race and its ongoing operation to single it out as god has done. What has been accomplished by turning something once considered good into something now considered bad? Obviously, nudity wasn't originally destined to be bad, so intrinsically it isn't, yet god decided to change all that.

Some people do feel ashamed of their naked bodies (god's plan is working) but some---whole societies in a few cases---don't (god's plan has failed). So what is accomplished?


Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

 

[Ingledsva]

For some reason god makes a pretty big deal of nudity. In fact, he brings up the issue at the very outset of the Bible, devoting a whole 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? It 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 just a set-up for what follows. Seems this man and his wife crossed god, and were disciplined in part by the infliction of shame for being nude.

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 allows it to be regarded as absolutely shameless in one arena of humanity, but is convertible to one of shame in another arena? According to the story there is no connection to how one regards their physical self, and a mistake made in a totally other matter. 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 even be a bit more logical.

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 (not bad) thing, just like pine trees and tapioca pudding.
It's like god opened a dictionary at random and without looking plunked his finger down on the word "nudity" and said, "So it's going to be nudity. Okey Dokey."

To me, nudity just isn't that crucial to the human race and its ongoing operation to single it out as god has done. What has been accomplished by turning something once considered good into something now considered bad? Obviously, nudity wasn't originally destined to be bad, so intrinsically it isn't, yet god decided to change all that.

Some people do feel ashamed of their naked bodies (god's plan is working) but some---whole societies in a few cases---don't (god's plan has failed). So what is accomplished?


Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

Some Gnostic groups believed this incident was actually about sex. Partaking of the "tree in the center of the garden." Tree representing the penis, and the garden has always stood for female sex organs.

Some of them believe Eve had sex with the Serpent, conceiving Cain, then had sex with Adam conceiving Abel; thus fraternal twins.

*

 

[danieldemol]

Some Gnostic groups believed this incident was actually about sex. Partaking of the "tree in the center of the garden." Tree representing the penis, and the garden has always stood for female sex organs.

Some of them believe Eve had sex with the Serpent, conceiving Cain, then had sex with Adam conceiving Abel; thus fraternal twins.

*

They believe a snake can conceive with a human?

 

[Ingledsva]

They believe a snake can conceive with a human?

Actually it says "Nachash" - which in the Hebrew is also a Sorcerer.

*

 

[ChristineES]

First, it isn't God who said anything about nudity, but the person who wrote Genesis. Second, nakedness MIGHT be a symbol (I believe the story symbolic)of shame that they disobeyed God.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Asking the wrong person, but I think that....we're in the wrong forum. This is just going to be another one of those spaghetti threads full of contention where nobody agrees about things. Probably to get a really good view of this issue you'd have to launch multiple threads in multiple religion areas to get a general idea of where people stand on the issue.

 

[Skwim]

First, it isn't God who said anything about nudity, but the person who wrote Genesis. Second, nakedness MIGHT be a symbol (I believe the story symbolic)of shame that they disobeyed God.

I'm premising my post on the Christian contention that god is the author of the Bible, by proxy or otherwise.

Asking the wrong person, but I think that....we're in the wrong forum. This is just going to be another one of those spaghetti threads full of contention where nobody agrees about things.

It will be what it will be.

Probably to get a really good view of this issue you'd have to launch multiple threads in multiple religion areas to get a general idea of where people stand on the issue.

And that ain't going to happen. This is it!

 

[ChristineES]

I'm premising my post on the Christian contention that god is the author of the Bible, by proxy or otherwise.

Most Christians I've known believe that the Bible is God inspired but written by men.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Nudity reminds us that we are very much animals. Clothes seperate us from the rest of the animal world. By being ashamed of our animal nature, we are acknowledging that we are no longer feeling (just feeling) in harmony with the Garden of Paradise. It takes a lot to get past that flaming sword and crucify ourselves on that other tree.

 

[Agnostic75]

Most Christians I've known believe that the Bible is God inspired but written by men.

The entire chapter of 2 Peter 1 seems to indicate that human interpretation was not involved when the Bible writers wrote the Bible. In other words, the Bible writers did not personally interpret what God told them, but God spoke directly through them.

 

[Skwim]

Nudity reminds us that we are very much animals.

Really!? Hmmmm . . . . never heard that one before.

I, for one, never doubted that I and all other humans were animals.

​

In any case, in what way does nudity remind you that we are animals?

Clothes seperate us from the rest of the animal world.

Well, that and thousands of other things.

By being ashamed of our animal nature, we are acknowledging that we are no longer feeling (just feeling) in harmony with the Garden of Paradise.

But we always have been animals; A&E certainly weren't vegetables. So why would anyone be ashamed of our animal nature?

 

[theosis]

The entire chapter of 2 Peter 1 seems to indicate that human interpretation was not involved when the Bible writers wrote the Bible. In other words, the Bible writers did not personally interpret what God told them, but God spoke directly through them.

And God also told Paul's followers to forge the pastoral epistles in his name, too?

 

[Falvlun]

Most religions seem to be a little obsessed about sex and bodies and such. I think that's likely because most people-- and males especially, if I may be so bold-- are a little obsessed about sex and bodies.

Since this is an natural and inherent infatuation, it makes sense that it would be an aspect that religions have something to say about.

But, this doesn't necessarily explain why so many religions have decided that their say about sex and bodies is to be negative (because it just as well could have been positive, after all.)

One explanation I have heard is that it is about power. Exerting control over such a fundamental drive would be an example of the power such a religion possesses.

But I suspect something deeper or different than that, though I'm not sure what it would be.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Most religions seem to be a little obsessed about sex and bodies and such. I think that's likely because most people-- and males especially, if I may be so bold-- are a little obsessed about sex and bodies.

Since this is an natural and inherent infatuation, it makes sense that it would be an aspect that religions have something to say about.

But, this doesn't necessarily explain why so many religions have decided that their say about sex and bodies is to be negative (because it just as well could have been positive, after all.)

One explanation I have heard is that it is about power. Exerting control over such a fundamental drive would be an example of the power such a religion possesses.

But I suspect something deeper or different than that, though I'm not sure what it would be.

Population control?

From what I've heard and read, the uptightness about clothing originates from that middle eastern region. Other world religions and cultures (especially in warm areas), had a more lax positive view of the body. I mean look how may statutes of buxomous women use to exist.

 

[Sunstone]

One explanation I have heard is that it is about power. Exerting control over such a fundamental drive would be an example of the power such a religion possesses.

I think there's a lot of truth to that notion, and a whole lot of evidence for it, but that it's not an explanation of how things truly got started down that path. That is, I don't think someone sat down one day and made the brilliant (and accurate) connection between how controlling people's sexuality makes it easier to control people in other ways, too.

But I suspect something deeper or different than that, though I'm not sure what it would be.

I believe your suspicions are spot on. Frazier, in his famous work, The Golden Bough, of which I've only read the 700 page summary (the original runs to 11 volumes), gives example upon example (hence, a goodly part of the 11 volumes) of taboos against free and frank sexual expression. Reading one after another example of such taboos eventually will give a person the impression that such things are not merely cultural, but are so deeply embedded in us that they must surely be instinctual, O Lemur of Many Profound Thoughts! Well, they either must give you that impression or else you fell asleep while reading.

Again, I have read biologists and other scientists who, noting how ubiquitous such taboos are, feel that there must be an instinctual explanation for them.

So, the brilliant insight that it is easier to control someone if you first approach it as a matter of controlling his or her sexuality, might not have been something anyone came up with out of the blue, but rather stumbled upon.

Make any sense?

 

[Falvlun]

Population control?

I doubt it, since many of the same religions promote rampant baby-making. "Be fruitful and multiply" and all that.

From what I've heard and read, the uptightness about clothing originates from that middle eastern region. Other world religions and cultures (especially in warm areas), had a more lax positive view of the body. I mean look how may statutes of buxomous women use to exist.

The concept of what constitutes modesty certainly changes from culture to culture.

But as long as there is some standard of modesty-- ie, you can show these bits but not those bits-- I think the argument still stands.

In cultures that celebrated the body, like the Romans and Greeks, I wonder what their religious views were. Promiscuity also seemed to be more acceptable.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I doubt it, since many of the same religions promote rampant baby-making. "Be fruitful and multiply" and all that.


The concept of what constitutes modesty certainly changes from culture to culture.

But as long as there is some standard of modesty-- ie, you can show these bits but not those bits-- I think the argument still stands.

In cultures that celebrated the body, like the Romans and Greeks, I wonder what their religious views were. Promiscuity also seemed to be more acceptable.

It may have started out as more practical. Clothes protects you from blistering heat and cold, sand, wind, rain. Certain clothes also marked you as someone more important than others.

But I've heard certain tribes in Africa and in South America have no issue with the nudity thing. That there isn't some standard of modesty in regards to clothes.

 

[Skwim]

But I've heard certain tribes in Africa and in South America have no issue with the nudity thing. That there isn't some standard of modesty in regards to clothes.

Wait until Christians get a hold of these heathens and give them god's gift of shame. They won't be happy-go-lucky swingers for long. And good enough for 'em.

 

[Sunstone]

Lemur! Calling the Lemur! I'd like your opinion on this: I once read an evolutionary primatologist (Alison Jolly) who advanced an interesting hypothesis that attempted to explain the universal human taboo against blatant public displays of sex (especially, intercourse).

Apparently, it turns out if you study these things, that you will not find a culture on earth in which people fully accept public displays of human sexuality. Some are more stringent about it than others, but that's the best you can say.

So that raises to many minds the question of why such taboos are so ubiquitous. And there seems only one logical explanation: They must be in some sense instinctual.

Hence, the need to explain how such instincts might have arisen in our favorite super-ape, us. Jolly and others posit this: At some time during the course of our evolution, we shifted from a relatively promiscuous species that did not bond with its mates, to a relatively non-promiscuous species that tended to have a limited number of sex partners during an individual's life.

This shift came about because it facilitated male bonding. Yes, you heard it right, male to male -- not male to female -- bonding.

You see, the scientists who posit this hypothesis argue that males are naturally prone to compete with each other for the same females. OF course, this can cause dangerous conflicts (and it still does to this day) between one male and another male over which one of them gets the lady-ape.

An evolutionary solution (if only a partial solution) was to evolve into a species that had a strong instinctual aversion to public displays of sex because such displays could so easily cause males to fight each other.

Make any sense to you, O Wicked Wit of the Prairie State?

If it does, then perhaps it also makes sense that the taboo against public displays of affection, so to speak, might be extended by folks to displays of nudity. For nudity and sex are associated in many people's minds.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An evolutionary solution (if only a partial solution) was to evolve into a species that had a strong instinctual aversion to public displays of sex because such displays could so easily cause males to fight each other.

Did they put forth a hypothesis or model of the evolutionary process which would have brought this about?