"And They Were Both Naked"

[Skwim]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

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.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?


What's your conclusion:

1. God deliberately or by mistake planted the misconception that nakedness was alright in A&E's innocent minds at the beginning. (Good thing they ate the apple and discovered their mistake.)

2. God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful after the apple incident. ("Do you really have to wear that bra and pantie outfit, Eve?")


For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing as nakedness in the first place? Why not make eating fatty foods shameful? Or getting tattoos shameful?

.

.

 

[Shiranui117]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

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.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?


What's your conclusion:

1. God deliberately or by mistake planted the misconception that nakedness was alright in A&E's innocent minds at the beginning. (Good thing they ate the apple and discovered their mistake.)

2. God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful after the apple incident. ("Do you really have to wear that bra and pantie outfit, Eve?")


For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing as nakedness in the first place? Why not make eating fatty foods shameful? Or getting tattoos shameful?.

Neither nakedness nor wearing clothing is sinful. In the beginning, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of being naked, because according to St. John Chrysostom, they were both clothed in God's glory:

"You see, while sin and disobedience had not yet come on the scene, they were clad in that glory from above which caused them no shame; but after the breaking of the law, then entered the scene both shame and awareness of their nakedness . . . In the wake of these ineffable kindnesses he regaled him with the crown of them all, liberating him from all the concerns of the body, forestalling even the need for wearing clothes or any other necessity. On the contrary, as I said before, he intended man should pass his days on earth like some terrestrial angel. Accordingly, whenever I consider all these things, I am amazed by the Lord's loving kindness for our race and by man's lack of response, as well as the devil's envy; the evil spirit, after all, could not bear to see an angelic way of life in a human body."

And later in Homily 17: "Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need of shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind. It was not idly or to no purpose that Sacred Scripture indicated this to us; it was that we might learn of this carefree condition of theirs their trouble free life and angelic condition, as you might say, and that we might attribute it completely to their indifference when later we see them bereft of all these advantages and, as it were, reduced to the utmost indigence after the great abundance of their wealth."

In other words, because they sinned, they became ashamed of themselves at having sinned and lost the glory of God which had previously adorned them, and covered themselves up: "Have you discovered why it said, "Their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked"? Do you know why the tree is called the knowledge of good and evil? Consider, after all, how much shame they were eventually seized with after eating it and thus breaking the Lord's command: "They stitched fig leaves together, and made themselves skirts." See the depths of indignity into which they fell from a condition of such great glory. Those who previously passed their life like angels on earth contrive covering for themselves out of fig leaves. Such is the evil that sin is: not only does it deprive us of grace from above, but it also casts us into deep shame and abjection, strips us of goods already be longing to us, and deprives us of all confidence."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I find it possible that the tree doesn't so much grant knowledge of good and evil as it makes you think it does. God, also, makes rules about the pettiest things and calls them abominations, while supporting the most atrocious acts and beliefs. Hence, when Adam and Eve partook, the first thing out of their brains was inventing a sin no one mentioned as being an issue.

 

[Tumah]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

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.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?

Before they ate from the tree, they were more disconnected from their physical selves and saw their bodies as clothes for themselves ie. their souls. Once they ate from the tree, they become more connected to the physical and the body appeared to them as their selves, so now they were lacking clothes.

 

[RedDragon94]

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?

Maybe we made the decision to change it into something shameful. There was nothing shameful about it for A&E because it represented transparency with God. Their decision to eat the fruit changed or corrupted the meaning.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Being naked isn't shameful - never has been. Just look at every other animal species on Earth. Is one of the things that "sets us apart" the ability for us to feel shame about "being naked?" I don't think anyone could say that with a straight face. Therefore, "being naked" (as is every other creature on Earth) has no inherent shame.

Assuming the garden story is true (not sure exactly why one would do that, but for the sake of argument, I'll go there) God had to have put something very strange in that fruit. Something that takes incredibly common, natural things and somehow perverts them in the mind of the one who eats it.

I just don't accept that nudity somehow changed physical/emotional meaning as some others are stating. Why nudity? Why would that, among all other things that actually matter when facing the disappointment of one you care about, why would nudity even matter? What sense could that possibly make? Does God wear clothes? Where would Adam or Eve ever even get the idea for "clothes?" Or even just covering oneself? Not from anything they had seen in the garden, certainly. And with always hearing the tired and tried "nothing comes but by the grace of God", it means God gave them the idea. or God put the idea in the fruit, and then Adam and Eve got it from there. Wouldn't it also be true that God literally invented shame?

 

[BSM1]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

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.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?


What's your conclusion:

1. God deliberately or by mistake planted the misconception that nakedness was alright in A&E's innocent minds at the beginning. (Good thing they ate the apple and discovered their mistake.)

2. God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful after the apple incident. ("Do you really have to wear that bra and pantie outfit, Eve?")


For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing as nakedness in the first place? Why not make eating fatty foods shameful? Or getting tattoos shameful?

.

.

Personally I have come to relate the nakedness as more of a loss of innocence and awareness of self manifested as lack of body covering. Up until that point there was no reason to decide the rightness or wrongness of a situation. This is the meaning of the tree being named the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now they had to make choices.

 

[Windwalker]

So if sin entering the world results in humans knowing shame of being naked, then are other animals now ashamed of their nakedness? Should we start a Clothe the Animals movement out of compassion for their shame?

If you argue that the sin only affected humans, then why say that before the Fall, there was no death in the world? Animals dying is seen as a result of the Fall, and since being ashamed of being naked is a result of the fall, then what we feel about being naked in public shames and humiliates us because of that sin, then the same applies to animals. Clothe the Animals, now! They need our compassion!

 

[BSM1]

So if sin entering the world results in humans knowing shame of being naked, then are other animals now ashamed of their nakedness? Should we start a Clothe the Animals movement out of compassion for their shame?


If you argue that the sin only affected humans, then why say that before the Fall, there was no death in the world? Animals dying is seen as a result of the Fall, and since being ashamed of being naked is a result of the fall, then what we feel about being naked in public shames and humiliates us because of that sin, then the same applies to animals. Clothe the Animals, now! They need our compassion!

View attachment 18645

Well, there goes my Mohair and Sharkskin ensembles...

 

[metis]

Before they ate from the tree, they were more disconnected from their physical selves and saw their bodies as clothes for themselves ie. their souls. Once they ate from the tree, they become more connected to the physical and the body appeared to them as their selves, so now they were lacking clothes.

IMO, it would be better stated as a commentary or a personal opinion than as a fact.

 

[Brickjectivity]

For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing...

Its not inconsequential in the Jewish culture from which this document has been purloined. It is disrespectful to misrepresent that.

Neither nakedness nor wearing clothing is sinful. In the beginning, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of being naked, because according to St. John Chrysostom, they were both clothed in God's glory:

I was not able to follow all of this. It seemed like he got very deep into an allegory from which he never returned.

I notice humans are fur-less but animals have fur. This has some kind of meaning for Jews which is not explained in the story. Can we demand an explanation? Apostle Paul refers to a woman's hair as her glory in one place. That is about the only clue, but its enough to make a guess about Genesis and nudity. So putting it together, the animals have fur; but Adam does not. Eve does not. The animals have glory, but the people do not except for on our heads and faces. Jews wear hats in the presence of the Torah and Paul says women should cover their heads in the meeting. The Glory is what matters. Hence the problem with nudity in Genesis is not physical nudity but that it represents an inglorious state. The next question is what is glory which I am hardly prepared to discuss in such a bizarre antagonistic environment. Let us say, however that glory is the opposite of some kind of shameful state. I am going to say it refers, among other things, to our violent nature. What should we do then? We should cover that up like something we are embarrassed about. We should erase it. Best guess is that for Jews and hence for Christians, keeping clothed is supposed to be a symbolic gesture or constant reminder of an end goal of peace. All of the symbols and unknowns make it complicated though, and then you've got marriage in there as part of it. I suppose it might be good to make a chart and work out a system to check for inconsistencies, but I think it is a pretty good guess.

 

[DavidFirth]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

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.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?


What's your conclusion:

1. God deliberately or by mistake planted the misconception that nakedness was alright in A&E's innocent minds at the beginning. (Good thing they ate the apple and discovered their mistake.)

2. God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful after the apple incident. ("Do you really have to wear that bra and pantie outfit, Eve?")


For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing as nakedness in the first place? Why not make eating fatty foods shameful? Or getting tattoos shameful?

.

.

My conclusion is that once again, you seek to make fun of God's word.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My conclusion is that once again, you seek to make fun of God's word.

I think you should ask why God made that so easy to do.

 

[DavidFirth]

I think you should ask why God made that so easy to do.

He gave you a mouth and free will. However, He also gave certain commandments and sent His Son into the world because we could not obey them. If you wish to make fun of the God who sacrificed His only Son for you, then the sin is yours and yours alone and you will bear it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

He gave you a mouth and free will. However, He also gave certain commandments and sent His Son into the world because we could not obey them. If you wish to make fun of the God who sacrificed His only Son for you, then the sin is yours and yours alone and you will bear it.

I do not believe He exists. To me it is no different than making fun of unicorns. There is no actual subject to the jabs, and so no one is hurt.

If you allow your feelings to be hurt due to the words someone has to say about imaginary things, then that foolishness is on you, and you alone will bear it.

 

[Shiranui117]

I was not able to follow all of this. It seemed like he got very deep into an allegory from which he never returned.

tl;dr, God gave Adam and Eve innocence, and while they were in Paradise, they didn't have to worry about any bodily concerns, because God took care of them and they were clothed with His grace, rather than any material clothing. But when they sinned, they lost God's glory and grace which had covered them, and they became ashamed of themselves. Now that they had sinned against God, lost His grace which had previously covered them and no longer trusted in Him, they started to worry about their earthly bodies.

 

[DavidFirth]

I do not believe He exists. To me it is no different than making fun of unicorns. There is no actual subject to the jabs, and so no one is hurt.

If you allow your feelings to be hurt due to the words someone has to say about imaginary things, then that foolishness is on you, and you alone will bear it.

Very well. Romans 1:20 says it is obvious that He exists. However, you have been given free will to choose whatsoever you will.

 

[Brickjectivity]

tl;dr, God gave Adam and Eve innocence, and while they were in Paradise, they didn't have to worry about any bodily concerns, because God took care of them and they were clothed with His grace, rather than any material clothing. But when they sinned, they lost God's glory and grace which had covered them, and they became ashamed of themselves. Now that they had sinned against God, lost His grace which had previously covered them and no longer trusted in Him, they started to worry about their earthly bodies.

Thanks.

 

[Shiranui117]

So if sin entering the world results in humans knowing shame of being naked, then are other animals now ashamed of their nakedness? Should we start a Clothe the Animals movement out of compassion for their shame?

Dogs wearing sweaters is the really shameful thing in this situation. Let's keep them naked for their own decency.

Plus, only humans commit sin, so only humans feel shame. Animals only feel shame when we make them feel shame.

If you argue that the sin only affected humans, then why say that before the Fall, there was no death in the world? Animals dying is seen as a result of the Fall, and since being ashamed of being naked is a result of the fall, then what we feel about being naked in public shames and humiliates us because of that sin, then the same applies to animals. Clothe the Animals, now! They need our compassion!

The creation stories in Genesis weren't written to be a science textbook about natural history. They were written for spiritual instruction, not science class. Trying to fit the narrative of Genesis overtop natural history just doesn't work, which is why creationists fail so epicly in their efforts to push a science-based narrative of Genesis, or a Genesis-based narrative of science.

 

[Mister Silver]

The overall literary message is to teach the reader to be ashamed of nudity. There are plenty of those literary messages placed in the bible by the fallible human author pretending to have a connection with a godly figure in a place of authority to shame or scare other men into behaving according to how that author conceived humanity should behave.