Christians and Cleavage

[Neophyte]

When you peer into a woman's cleavage, you're peering into the gates of hell. Repent!

:bow:

 

[Neophyte]

Actually sexual desire comes after eating the apple,
your not taking everything into consideration.

evidence:
If I buy nice cloths to look cool, or pretty, or a suit to get a job, I'm sinning with my clothing because of pride.
the sexual reasons are self explanatory,
and the shame part is a level of disgrace we show towards God.

..
will that do?

There is a little more evidence as to what you think, but the main purpose of my post is to see where the Bible says "breasts, cleavage, etc." is a sin to show. I can find where "showing of the thigh is nakedness" and butt, however nowhere is the a standard for the upper half of the body. It drives me nuts when people claim cleavage is a sin and critisize someone else who is comfortable showing them even if it is ever-so-slightly. When I was in a Christian cult (no, not a Christians are cultists...I was in one that was though...it is a ssmall fundamentalist group) they taugh a dress top could not come more that 2 fingers (held horizontal) under the neck. They were hardcore on this and no Bible verses to back it up. Then I read these FB posts and thought I would ask it here.

 

[Pegg]

OK, I understand your reasoning here, but what does not make sense to me is that God gave us our sexual desire. Grant it, each culture is somewhat different in what is a "turn-on" to them, but overall (for the most part) we still all want the same thing. If it were so evil the why would God give it to us? That seems like a mistake on his part if he is going to call it sin.

he gave us a 'perfect' sexual desire, he told us to multiply which would mean we would naturally use that desire to bring forth children.

But he did not give us a lustful desire, or a desire to crave sensual pleasure. Its really for that reason that Adam and eve felt ashamed and proceeded to cover their genitals....they had developed an improper view of their sexual organs.

And thats what we as christians must strive to avoid... that improper view of ourselves. A man is not a penis and a woman is not a vagina... we are man and woman. But if we only see each other, or ourselves, in a sexual context, then we are taking the improper view of ourselves.

If you want to know how God sees us, he does not see us as male or female, just as the angels are genderless.
"there is neither male nor female...you are all one in union with Christ"

So we need not link our sexuality with who we are because we are more then our sexuality. We are not 'sexual beings' as some like to say...we are spiritual beings who happen to have the ability to reproduce using sexual organs.

 

[Pegg]

any perversion of nakedness was not a conscious act of A&E, but a self-recognition thrust upon them by god. One that was waiting in the wings, so to speak, should they happen to violate god's command. To me it seems a rather odd penalty for such a transgression; a penalty hardly related to the nature of the prohibition.

if you continue reading the account in vs10 it says "Finally he said: “Your voice I heard in the garden, but I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid myself.” 11 At that he said: “Who told you that you were naked? From the tree from which I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?"

So it is not logical that God gave them the self recognition...it was a consequence of disobeying Gods command. The direct result of using ones own reasoning, rather then the perfect reasoning of God, is why they looked at each other differently.

God never viewed their nakedness as bad...and they didnt view it as bad for a long time either. It was was only when they used their own reasoning that they viewed it differently.

I don't know about you or anyone else, but when I look at my nakedness I don't think about it sexually. It just doesn't turn me on.

im sure when you look at the nakedness of the opposite sex, you think differently.

But wasn't it god who generated this very reaction when he invested A&E with a shame that had people hiding certain parts of their body, and thus turning them into an enticement they otherwise wouldn't have?

No. A&E were the first ones to cover themselves. They had already sewn fig leaves together to hid their genitals. Later when God came looking for them, he asked why they were hiding and the man said "because i am naked"

God only made proper clothing for them after they were expelled from the garden...i guess he felt pity for them sitting around in fig leaves and thought they would be more comfortable in soft animal furs.

 

[Neophyte]

he gave us a 'perfect' sexual desire, he told us to multiply which would mean we would naturally use that desire to bring forth children.

But he did not give us a lustful desire, or a desire to crave sensual pleasure. Its really for that reason that Adam and eve felt ashamed and proceeded to cover their genitals....they had developed an improper view of their sexual organs.

And thats what we as christians must strive to avoid... that improper view of ourselves. A man is not a penis and a woman is not a vagina... we are man and woman. But if we only see each other, or ourselves, in a sexual context, then we are taking the improper view of ourselves.

If you want to know how God sees us, he does not see us as male or female, just as the angels are genderless.
"there is neither male nor female...you are all one in union with Christ"

So we need not link our sexuality with who we are because we are more then our sexuality. We are not 'sexual beings' as some like to say...we are spiritual beings who happen to have the ability to reproduce using sexual organs.

OK...but like you pointed out in another post that VS.10 says they hid from God becuase they were naked. They had no sexual desire toward God nor did God have any sexual esire toward them. This would debunk your theory of "perfect" sexual desire being the reason, don't you think?

 

[Pegg]

OK...but like you pointed out in another post that VS.10 says they hid from God becuase they were naked. They had no sexual desire toward God nor did God have any sexual esire toward them. This would debunk your theory of "perfect" sexual desire being the reason, don't you think?

Well they lived for a long time completely naked and never viewed it as bad, their view of it only changed after they had disobeyed God

I think what is often misunderstood is that when they disobeyed God, they began to decide the standards of good and bad for themselves. Previously they had accepted Gods view as good and normal...thats why they had no issue with their nakedness. But when they disobeyed, it was as if they had cut themselves off from Gods perfect standards and began to take a different direction.

Disobedience caused them to become alienated from Gods perfection. Thats why there was a change in their perception....it was their own imperfect perception of things that had changed. You see, you can't live with Godly wisdom when you are independent from him.

 

[Looncall]

It is amazing to see all this furor over things that never happened. Adam and Eve are just an ancient campfire tale.

The reason religions make people uptight about sexuality is to gain control over those people. Plain and simple.

 

[horizon_mj1]

MIlk sack?
milk sack!
If I was lost in the forest with my wife, and we had a child who somehow isn't in the situation, I can give her all the food and drink the milk,
loving breasts is a survival instinct!

LOL!! You got a good point there

 

[Neophyte]

Well they lived for a long time completely naked and never viewed it as bad, their view of it only changed after they had disobeyed God

I think what is often misunderstood is that when they disobeyed God, they began to decide the standards of good and bad for themselves. Previously they had accepted Gods view as good and normal...thats why they had no issue with their nakedness. But when they disobeyed, it was as if they had cut themselves off from Gods perfect standards and began to take a different direction.

Disobedience caused them to become alienated from Gods perfection. Thats why there was a change in their perception....it was their own imperfect perception of things that had changed. You see, you can't live with Godly wisdom when you are independent from him.

What I find even more ironic (this is somewhat off topic but rather closely related) is that God even put the tree in the garden to begin with. It was if he set them up for failure to begin with. If he knew they would partake of it...why?

Back to the topic, the tree simply gave them the "knowledge" of good and evil. Yes, they did not follow what they were told, but how did their thoughts instantly change. It was sin or was not...before or after the fruit was eaten. If not, then it is simply a perception.

I appreciate all you answers Pegg. You always make a good arguement even if I disagree. Also, you do it respectfully. Thanks!

 

[Neophyte]

It is amazing to see all this furor over things that never happened. Adam and Eve are just an ancient campfire tale.

The reason religions make people uptight about sexuality is to gain control over those people. Plain and simple.

Campfire story or not this stuff makes a huge difference in our culture. Also, people do follow their beliefs and some believe in this. I would refrain from calling it a campfire story as it is unkind to others beliefs. Everyone has their own beliefs and we should repsect them unless they somehow take away our rights.

 

[crocusj]

Campfire story or not this stuff makes a huge difference in our culture. Also, people do follow their beliefs and some believe in this. I would refrain from calling it a campfire story as it is unkind to others beliefs. Everyone has their own beliefs and we should repsect them unless they somehow take away our rights.

Is this statement not contradictory?

 

[Skwim]

if you continue reading the account in vs10 it says "Finally he said: “Your voice I heard in the garden, but I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid myself.” 11 At that he said: “Who told you that you were naked? From the tree from which I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?"

So it is not logical that God gave them the self recognition...it was a consequence of disobeying Gods command. The direct result of using ones own reasoning, rather then the perfect reasoning of God, is why they looked at each other differently.

Right. Up until they ate the apple their nakedness was not shameful, but after they took a bite and violated god's order they felt ashamed. My point is that had they obeyed god they would have never known what shame was. Not even an inkling of it. So evidently god had made this sense of shame a part of the consequence of disobedience.

God never viewed their nakedness as bad...and they didnt view it as bad for a long time either. It was was only when they used their own reasoning that they viewed it differently.

Right again. There would be no reason for god to view nakedness as wrong because that's the way he created them. But I disagree that their sense of shame would have been a result of reasoning. Emotional reactions rarely, if at all, arise out of reason. And even if they did, such reasoning could only have come about if god had directed them toward such a conclusion, because normally, in their pre-dining state, they would have never come to it. They would have reasoned that nakedness is fine and dandy. So this change in how they viewed nakedness had to come from without and not from within. And the without here happens to be god.

im sure when you look at the nakedness of the opposite sex, you think differently.

That's a pretty bankable notion.

No. A&E were the first ones to cover themselves. They had already sewn fig leaves together to hid their genitals. Later when God came looking for them, he asked why they were hiding and the man said "because i am naked"

God only made proper clothing for them after they were expelled from the garden...i guess he felt pity for them sitting around in fig leaves and thought they would be more comfortable in soft animal furs.

Yes I know, but my point is, as I've explained here, that the whole shame thing was initiated by god. Without his input A&E would have never known shame. God had made it a consequence of disobeying him. So my argument here is:

1. God serves notice not to do X

2. To do X would invite all kinds of consequences, one of which is a sense of shame of one's nakedness.

3. A&E do X

4. God lowers the boom and A&E and all their descendants are saddled with these consequences.

5. To deal with the shameful part people cover those areas that shame them.

6. Because of our human nature these particular areas become objects of interest and desire.

7. So, were it not for god's decision to make these areas shameful they would have never acquired their enticing mystique.

​

God didn't have to pick shame as a consequence of disobedience, but he did, so he has to bear the responsibility for it and all its after effects. Want to put a pile of logs on a railroad track, then you' would be to blame for the miscarriage of the pregnant woman who was riding the train when it hit the logs, and was seriously injured when thrown against the ceiling after her car was derailed. The culprit here is Not the railroad. Not the train. Not the conductor. But you.

 

[Pegg]

Right. Up until they ate the apple their nakedness was not shameful, but after they took a bite and violated god's order they felt ashamed. My point is that had they obeyed god they would have never known what shame was. Not even an inkling of it. So evidently god had made this sense of shame a part of the consequence of disobedience.

Yes I know, but my point is, as I've explained here, that the whole shame thing was initiated by god. Without his input A&E would have never known shame. God had made it a consequence of disobeying him. So my argument here is:

1. God serves notice not to do X

2. To do X would invite all kinds of consequences, one of which is a sense of shame of one's nakedness.

3. A&E do X

4. God lowers the boom and A&E and all their descendants are saddled with these consequences.

5. To deal with the shameful part people cover those areas that shame them.

6. Because of our human nature these particular areas become objects of interest and desire.

7. So, were it not for god's decision to make these areas shameful they would have never acquired their enticing mystique.

​

God didn't have to pick shame as a consequence of disobedience, but he did, so he has to bear the responsibility for it and all its after effects. Want to put a pile of logs on a railroad track, then you' would be to blame for the miscarriage of the pregnant woman who was riding the train when it hit the logs, and was seriously injured when thrown against the ceiling after her car was derailed. The culprit here is Not the railroad. Not the train. Not the conductor. But you.

I really dont agree with this notion for the reason that God himself does not view our bodies as shameful, so why would he implant such an idea into A&E? Its not reasonable. And to push the blame onto him really only shows a lack of responsibility on the part of man to get his mind out of the gutter.

The real consequences of disobedience was alienation from Gods wisdom. You think about it, we have to learn everything...we have very little instinctual knowledge...we have to learn by our mistakes because we are disconnected from God. And it was this disconnection from God that caused A&E to think differently too. Imperfection was the result of disobedience. An imperfect view of the world and of ourselves.

The first thing to be viewed improperly was the most obvious...our own bodies because A&E were both naked. The shame they felt came from themselves and in the improper way they now viewed each other. They were ashamed of their own thoughts and like a child who has done something bad, they hid from their parent.

 

[Pegg]

What I find even more ironic (this is somewhat off topic but rather closely related) is that God even put the tree in the garden to begin with. It was if he set them up for failure to begin with. If he knew they would partake of it...why?

I've often thought myself how much easier would it have been to simply not have the tree in the first place....then we might all still be living in Eden

but the point of the tree was two fold. It was to give A&E the ability to have a choice. And by giving them a choice, God was giving them free will.
And it was also to show mankind that God was the sovereign law maker. That he was the one to whom mankind must answer to. So it established Gods position as the ultimate authority.

Now he could have chosen to look into Adams future to see if the man would remain obedient, but God doesnt work like that. For him to allow free will to exist, means that he must allow us to make choices without his prior knowledge. So while he can if he chooses to (and he has done so on occasion), he chooses not to look into our futures. This is evident in the scriptures where we are told that God wants us to 'choose life'...it means we have a choice and we must take responsibility for the choices we make.

Back to the topic, the tree simply gave them the "knowledge" of good and evil. Yes, they did not follow what they were told, but how did their thoughts instantly change. It was sin or was not...before or after the fruit was eaten. If not, then it is simply a perception.

I appreciate all you answers Pegg. You always make a good arguement even if I disagree. Also, you do it respectfully. Thanks!

It comes down to what the tree represented, because it didnt have magical powers to imbue them with real knowledge.
The tree represented Gods sovereignty which is linked to his standards and rules and wisdom. While they remained obedient, they were completely dependent on God for knowledge of themselves and life and the earth... all their knowledge would have been based on Gods knowledge prior to eating.

But after they disobeyed, they became cut off from God. That means they were also cut off from his knowledge and wisdom too. From that point on, they had to create their own knowledge which is why the tree was called the tree of 'knowledge of good and bad'
Eating from it would mean they would have to make their own determination of what was good and bad rather then be linked in with Gods knowledge of what is good and bad. And the evidence is that mankind is still struggle to determine what is right and wrong. But this struggle exists because of our independence from God...not because A&E became magically imbued with knowledge.


And TY, I try my best

 

[Skwim]

I really dont agree with this notion for the reason that God himself does not view our bodies as shameful, so why would he implant such an idea into A&E?

Why indeed.

Its not reasonable. And to push the blame onto him really only shows a lack of responsibility on the part of man to get his mind out of the gutter.

As I see it, it comes down to logic. Had A&E never taken the apple would they have known the shame of their nakedness. No.

So, if shame arose because of having eaten the apple then there must be something intrinsic in the deed to bring it about. And who is responsible for investing the deed with its consequences? A&E? certainly not. God? Obviously because he's the only other player here and he's the one who created all the consequences of the deed. So, although he doesn't think the naked body is shameful, he made A&E shameful of it.

This is pretty straightforward deduction. Three players involved with the deed and its consequences. Adam, Eve, and god. A&E are eliminated because they certainly wouldn't figure it would be good to feel shame. Shame is simply one of those distasteful emotions that we avoid if possible. So this leaves god as the source.

The real consequences of disobedience was alienation from Gods wisdom. You think about it, we have to learn everything...we have very little instinctual knowledge...we have to learn by our mistakes because we are disconnected from God.

Are you saying that had A&E not eaten the apple that they and all their descendants would have perfect knowledge of everything? Interesting idea, but I don't remember reading anything of the sort in the Bible.

And it was this disconnection from God that caused A&E to think differently too. Imperfection was the result of disobedience. An imperfect view of the world and of ourselves.

Well, this sounds nice, but what has it to do with a sense of shame? Shame isn't a conclusion arrived at by thinking, imperfect or otherwise, but rather a naked emotion that hit A&E immediately after disobeying god's command. They gave it no thought: "Gee Eve, how do you think we should regard our nakedness?"

The first thing to be viewed improperly was the most obvious...our own bodies because A&E were both naked.

But why did they view it improperly? They obviously didn't mull it over and think "We should have a negative emotional response of disgrace and embarrassment to our nakedness." No, this "improper" view was a part of gods plan for the consequences.
It makes no difference what route god used to instill this sense of shame, be it an additional primary consequence or a secondary consequence. God in his omniscience knew shame would befall the two, and, at the very least, gave it the go-ahead. So whether he purposely singled out shame as one of the consequences or permitted it to occur, he is ultimately responsible for it being a part of the consequences of the deed.

God guaranteed that A&E would feel shame for their naked bodies, and that they would not be the last to feel this way. God insured this shame would be passed along to all subsequent generations.

 

[Pegg]

Are you saying that had A&E not eaten the apple that they and all their descendants would have perfect knowledge of everything? Interesting idea, but I don't remember reading anything of the sort in the Bible.

Let me ask you this, Did God give A&E a bible with his instructions and guidance when he created them?

If we had access to God in the way they had access to God, then we wouldnt need a bible either. We could simply ask God a question, and he would provide us with an answer or direction.

Well, this sounds nice, but what has it to do with a sense of shame? Shame isn't a conclusion arrived at by thinking, imperfect or otherwise, but rather a naked emotion that hit A&E immediately after disobeying god's command. They gave it no thought: "Gee Eve, how do you think we should regard our nakedness?"

they had a God given conscience. That conscience is designed to warn us when we've done wrong. So when they did wrong, their conscience came into play and the shame they felt was their conscience telling them they were wrong.

God guaranteed that A&E would feel shame for their naked bodies, and that they would not be the last to feel this way. God insured this shame would be passed along to all subsequent generations.

im sure you'd agree that when a woman covers herself modestly, she is not viewed quite as sexually exciting as when a woman wears a short skirt and low cut top to reveal herself. In the minds of men, one woman is easy, the other is not.

You tell me, why do men look at a woman in revealing/'sexy' clothing and think of sex?

 

[Otherright]

God guaranteed that A&E would feel shame for their naked bodies, and that they would not be the last to feel this way. God insured this shame would be passed along to all subsequent generations.

How did God guarantee this? Wasn't he curious as to why the had hidden their nakedness? I feel they felt the embarassment on their own.

Remember, Noah cursed Hamm for covering his nakedness in the sight of God.

God himself was naked when with Moses in the Tabernacle.

I don't think God has a problem with nakedness, we do, and it seems to be counter to his original plans.

 

[blackout]

In an allegorical story,
nakedness could point to vulnerability
or
"the exposed (or bare/raw) truth" about somebody.

If you are comfortable in/with your "nakedness"
you are comfortable "in your skin"/with who you are.
This would be Self Acceptance, without concern.
If you are not comfortable in/with your "nakedness",
or if someone else is out to "shame you",
(or punish you, for BEing 'You')
you will likely feel there are things you want/need to hide/conceal about yourself
from others.
Thus "covering your nakedness".

 

[blackout]

In an allegorical story,
nakedness could point to vulnerability
or
"the exposed (or bare/raw) truth" about somebody.

If you are comfortable in/with your "nakedness"
you are comfortable "in your skin"/with who you are.
This would be Self Acceptance, without concern.
If you are not comfortable in/with your "nakedness",
or if someone else is out to "shame you",
(or punish you, for BEing 'You')
you will likely feel there are things you want/need to hide/conceal about yourself
from others.
Thus "covering your nakedness".

The saddest scenario of all though,
is when the control and judgement issues of others/an Other
makes you TRULY a'shamed of Who You Are.
(truly ashamed of your own nakedness)
Shame closes the gates of YOUR OWN Garden on you,
casting you out from the fullness of your Own Glory.
We are integrated mind/body/emotion(spirit),
so this of course includes the shame of your own nakedness
literally, as well as figuratively, or symbolically.

Shame and Self loathing cannot exist in the Glory Garden of the Nakedness of Self.

 

[Skwim]

Let me ask you this, Did God give A&E a bible with his instructions and guidance when he created them?

If we had access to God in the way they had access to God, then we wouldnt need a bible either. We could simply ask God a question, and he would provide us with an answer or direction.

???? I was simply asking you how you know such things.

they had a God given conscience. That conscience is designed to warn us when we've done wrong. So when they did wrong, their conscience came into play and the shame they felt was their conscience telling them they were wrong.

But why was the shame directed at their own nakedness, something wholly unrelated to eating the apple? If anything, I think it would make more sense if god made them ashamed of eating an apple, or maybe all fruit. But our nakedness?????? What's with that??

im sure you'd agree that when a woman covers herself modestly, she is not viewed quite as sexually exciting as when a woman wears a short skirt and low cut top to reveal herself. In the minds of men, one woman is easy, the other is not.

You tell me, why do men look at a woman in revealing/'sexy' clothing and think of sex?

I fail to see how this is relevant to your argument that god was not behind the shame of nakedness. However, to answer: I think most men find sexy women alluring because it sets our hormones a-stir, and we're at their mercy.

How did God guarantee this? Wasn't he curious as to why the had hidden their nakedness? I feel they felt the embarassment on their own.

I have no idea of how the Christian god works, and being omniscient, I doubt if he is ever curious about anything. He simply knows everything.

Remember, Noah cursed Hamm for covering his nakedness in the sight of God.

God himself was naked when with Moses in the Tabernacle.

I don't think God has a problem with nakedness, we do, and it seems to be counter to his original plans.

As I understand this god I doubt he has any trouble with nakedness either.