• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's Ruse

Skwim

Veteran Member
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple

Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness was quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason he would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.
And God curse them that sorry lot. Adam and Eve, Adam who begat Eve by the ribbith from his side.

Henceforth, you will have to toil in the bed, and bear offspring by your labors, as it displeased the Lord for which to do all the work what's solely at his pleasure, yey but no more, what's this to be at the hand of the Lord but is now the burden by which Adam and Eve doeth fourth as commanded.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.


It is pretty clear that by the time someone thought up the Adam and Eve story.

They were already well into smut, porn, incest,and voyeurism.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.

I always thought this always something to do with sex. Originally, Adam and Eve didn't have a sexuality, so they were naked and didn't know it.

When the ate the fruits, "knowledge" means that they suddenly see each other as attractive. They start bumping uglys and determined that nakedness = sex.

God, who sees everything, is like "Whoa kids, get a room." Because, God is weird about the human body and thinks that sexual acts are gross.

So he kicks them out, and heads to his office in Heaven, Suite 400. . . And while the humans keep multiplying like bunnies, he scribes up all rules. a few thousand years later, he hands them off to Moses.

And that, kids, is the story of how religion can produce sexual repression.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I always thought this always something to do with sex. Originally, Adam and Eve didn't have a sexuality, so they were naked and didn't know it.

When the ate the fruits, "knowledge" means that they suddenly see each other as attractive. They start bumping uglys and determined that nakedness = sex.

God, who sees everything, is like "Whoa kids, get a room." Because, God is weird about the human body and thinks that sexual acts are gross.

So he kicks them out, and heads to his office in Heaven, Suite 400. . . And while the humans keep multiplying like bunnies, he scribes up all rules. a few thousand years later, he hands them off to Moses.

And that, kids, is the story of how religion can produce sexual repression.

I like it pretty much my understanding of the christian God is against sex other than for reproduction.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.

I can sort of understand it to some extent. However, it may not have necessarily been about sex. After all, humans are rather "messy," as we have certain waste products which flow out of the orifices that we're supposed to keep covered. I imagine back when Cain and Abel were little guys, Eve might have thought "This is disgusting! Poop and pee everywhere! Fig leaf diapers for both of you!"

Even dogs learned that greatest of all commandments: "Thou shalt not poop where thou eateth."
 

Tmac

Active Member
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.

WOW, I think when you come down off your high and you read this post you're going to say, WOW.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I recommend watching the PBS production called The Story of the Jews. It should help put the OP into perspective with its discussion of various archaeological sites and the presentation of the diverse approaches to the texts in question. Genesis should be read as a story that is a part of a curriculum, never as a modern historical text.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I always thought this always something to do with sex. Originally, Adam and Eve didn't have a sexuality, so they were naked and didn't know it.

When the ate the fruits, "knowledge" means that they suddenly see each other as attractive. They start bumping uglys and determined that nakedness = sex.

God, who sees everything, is like "Whoa kids, get a room." Because, God is weird about the human body and thinks that sexual acts are gross.

So he kicks them out, and heads to his office in Heaven, Suite 400. . . And while the humans keep multiplying like bunnies, he scribes up all rules. a few thousand years later, he hands them off to Moses.

And that, kids, is the story of how religion can produce sexual repression.
Sex is far too much of a stretch. The Bible has no compunctions about talking about sex so I don't see any need for a euphemism such as "nakedness" to be used here. "Nakedness" means nakedness.



I like it pretty much my understanding of the christian God is against sex other than for reproduction.
Well, he certainly does seem interested in it, most often expressing a lot of "do nots." One would think he would have planned it better and not have to rely on a lot of "do-not" band-aids to make it work right.



WOW, I think when you come down off your high and you read this post you're going to say, WOW.
Read it, but fail to see any reason to say "wow"? Want to try again?

.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Sex is far too much of a stretch. The Bible has no compunctions about talking about sex so I don't see any need for a euphemism such as "nakedness" to be used here. "Nakedness" means nakedness.
.

I interpreted it that way even when I was a kid and took the story seriously. Now, I'm just messing around.

But who can say? The Bible was written by a whole bunch of different dudes. . . Stuffy old scholars with. Othjg to go in but Bronze/Iron Age mentalities and a belief in blood magic. Bits and pieces are gonna get stolen from different traditions, because one stuffy old guy ain't that creative on his own.

I figure the "fall from grace" section of Genesis was taken from a myth where they used that particular language to mean "bumpin' uglys."

Maybe some of those OCD peeps here on RF can do a super deep analysis of the work "nakedness," and then we'll both discover it means "sack lunch" in Hebrew.

As in, Adam and Eve became aware of the contents of their "sack lunch."

*shrug*

I maybe kind of sorta don't care.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Actually, I took the whole "who told you you were naked" question to mean "I never said anything about it. Why are you making this up?". In other words, the tree doesn't actually give you knowledge, just the feeling you have it. This is why they invent the sin of nudity and start passing the buck/lying when it comes to answering God's questions.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
TIME: Before A&E ate the apple

Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

At this time in their lives A&E are considered righteous souls, uncorrupted, and pure, and because they weren't ashamed of their nakedness it's fair to assume their nakedness was quite acceptable. But . . . . cue ominous music. . . . . were they duped into thinking so?


Consider:

TIME: After A&E ate the apple.

Genesis 3:7
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.

Saying "the eyes of them both were opened" implies that they now saw the truth of the situation, which, in this case, is that their nakedness is NOT acceptable as they had been led to believe, and they should have been ashamed of it all along.

So I think it's safe to conclude that god has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of, but for whatever reason he would have been content to let A&E to go through life naked and unaware of its shamefulness (and perhaps all of humanity that followed?) But why? Why create two souls and then fool them about their true state of being, the shame of being naked? Kind of goofy if you ask me. And why make nakedness shameful in the first place? He certainly didn't imbue the other animals with such a silliness, but said to himself, "I'm going to create the greatest of all animals. Even create them in my image, but make them feel bad about the way they look. So bad in fact that they will feel ashamed if others see them uncovered."

Make sense to You?

.

Can you give the book and Chapter and verse as to where it is written that A&E ate an apple?

If to what you say to be right, That God has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of.
Then why didn't God put clothes on A&E at the start.Instead of letting them walk around naked?
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
First let's consider, that way before Eve came, Adam was already naked and the Tree of knowledge was also already there way before Eve came.

So how many times do you suppose Adam pass by the Tree of knowledge and did not partake of it ?

It was only after Eve came, That Eve took of the Tree of knowledge and Then Eve gave unto Adam.

And then Adam and Eve heard the voice of God in the garden and they hid themselves.

And then Adam said to God, I hid myself because I was naked.
And God said to Adam, Who told you that you was naked and then God said, unto Adam have you eaten of the tree , Whereof I commanded you that you shouldn't not eat?
In the way naked is being used in this sentence. That in the Strong's Concordance 6544, means = to loosen, dismiss, absolve, avoid.

Therefore God asking Adam, Who told you that you was ( loosen ) (dismiss )
(absolve ) Whereof I commanded you that you shouldn't not eat?
Genesis 3:11

There are times in bible that words such as Naked means other than being Literally Naked.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Can you give the book and Chapter and verse as to where it is written that A&E ate an apple?
C'mon. :rolleyes: Obviously, or perhaps not, it's just an euphemism.

If to what you say to be right, That God has always felt nakedness is something to be ashamed of.
Then why didn't God put clothes on A&E at the start.Instead of letting them walk around naked?
Good question in light of the fact that "the eyes of them both were opened." Why the charade god?

.
 
Top