Shame and nudity

[Clare73]

Anything to get away from the Lord, is my guess. Plus the need to be disguised, hidden. I don't think it was the demons' plan for the pigs to drown. But even that was at some distance from him.

I've always thought the demons destroyed the pigs just as they seek to kill and destroy the sheep (Jn 10:10), maybe even a metaphor for such.

 

[BeyondET]

I've always thought the demons destroyed the pigs just as they seek to kill and destroy the sheep (Jn 10:10), maybe even a metaphor for such.

The pigs wasn't having any of that, their natural instinct kicked in lol... their known to fight to the death fearless, they can be vicious.

 

[Larniavc]

God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and he created them nude... He declared his work good.

After eating from the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve felt shame at their nudity.... Why? What was wrong with nudity? Clothes were contrary to God's plan for humanity...
I don't understand why Adam and Eve decided nudity was shameful when it was God's wish for us to be nude... how can it be sin?

I also wonder if God created himself with clothes on or off.

 

[Lost4words]

Simply because A&E became aware of themselves and were no longer indifferent like your dog or cat appear to be. Couple that with their new knowledge of good and evil and right aware they judged themselves and were ashamed. Man of course took this a step further judging each other while trying to shame.

Please, dont bring dogs into the discussion! Woof!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I also wonder if God created himself with clothes on or off.

God did not create himself. He was not created. He is self-existent.

 

[Larniavc]

God did not create himself. He was not created. He is self-existent.

Who initiated his self existence?

 

[Grafted In]

Eve wasn't Eve until after being thrown out of The Garden, was she?
Weren't the couple referred to as Adam?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Who initiated his self existence?

Existence itself comes FROM HIM. There is no brute fact, but God. Reality and fact itself is based on God. He doesn't answer to them but they to him.

But look at the simple fact that for anything to create itself, it must first exist to be able to create at all.

 

[Larniavc]

But look at the simple fact that for anything to create itself, it must first exist to be able to create at all.

If it already existed it did not need to create itself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it already existed it did not need to create itself.

Exactly. Self-existent first cause. Even existence itself derives from him.

 

[timothyu]

God, although part of, lives outside what we perceive as existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God, although part of, lives outside what we perceive as existence.

Yes, very much so, and I am thoroughly pleased to hear someone besides myself say it for once, though I have to say, it can be misleading to say that God is "part of existence". The fact that he exists is obvious; but to then assume he is exists by the principle of existence in the same way we do, is false. Existence is what it is, because it proceeds FROM him. He is not defined by it. He is not like us!

The same thing can be seen in a quote I wish I could find to quote it accurately, and so much more aptly than my version of it. Some old writer, theologian, said something to effect that it is not because it is 'good', that God does what is good —rather, 'good' is what it is, because God is good.

 

[timothyu]

The fact that he exists is obvious; but to then assume he is exists by the principle of existence in the same way we do, is false. Existence is what it is, because it proceeds FROM him. He is not defined by it. He is not like us!

Agreed. When we say it proceeds from Him does that not make it a part of Him?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Agreed. When we say it proceeds from Him does that not make it a part of Him?

I tend to think that way, yes. But even saying that causes us to think we know what THAT means! There are several good theological philosophical results of thinking about the Nature of God. My favorite, of course, is the Aseity of God. But probably my next favorite is Divine Simplicity, which says (among other things) that all the things we consider God's attributes are not separate in God, not parts of God. Yet, we don't know how to deal with them all together at once —we are bound to consider each separately due to our small minds— yet we must recognize that none of them is without all the others. For eg. when "his anger carries him along" it does not mean he is not also merciful; it doesn't mean he has lost his temper, even if it does mean that there is more imminent danger than we can even conceive of.

Haha, believe me this is a favorite subject of mine! I could go on and on. But now I feel compelled to at least mention that most of his attributes directly either imply, or can be drawn from, the fact of his being outside time, and like we said, 'outside of' or of a different sort (degree?) of 'existence' from our own. To my thinking, it is ludicrous to hold him to our notions of 'existence'.

But.... we are stuck with having to use words, I guess.

 

[timothyu]

To my thinking, it is ludicrous to hold him to our notions of 'existence'.

Most people would find it difficult to accept that we may be a mere thought

 

[Mark Quayle]

Most people would find it difficult to accept that we may be a mere thought

Yep. We have reason to think that God's mere thought has more substance than the things we consider real. Tough one to get your mind around. Abstract upon abstract.

 

[timothyu]

We have reason to think that God's mere thought has more substance than the things we consider real

Like a digital virtual reality these day trying to understand analogue, let alone the human creator behind itself.

 

[Larniavc]

Exactly. Self-existent first cause. Even existence itself derives from him.

But that contradicts what you just said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who initiated his self existence?

Playing with language and semantics is fun, isn't it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and he created them nude... He declared his work good.

After eating from the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve felt shame at their nudity.... Why? What was wrong with nudity? Clothes were contrary to God's plan for humanity...
I don't understand why Adam and Eve decided nudity was shameful when it was God's wish for us to be nude... how can it be sin?

The feeling of shame is because of sin, they felt ashamed because they had lost their innocence. It's not nudity that was the problem, it was that they were now disobedient and experienced guilt over their sin.

They used fig leaves, but God then gave them clothes made of animal skins as a covering. The theological implication points to the idea of a "covering" for sin. When God made His covenant with Israel, it included the Ark of the Covenant located in the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle (and later the Temple in Jerusalem). The space between the cherubim on the Ark was known as the kaporet, "covering" (translated often into English as "mercy seat" based on Luther's German translation as gnudenstahl, "seat of grace"). When the Jewish high priest entered into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, blood was sprinkled on the kaporet for the sins of the nation.

In the New Testament the word hilasterion, the word used in the Septuagint to translate kaporet, is used to speak of Christ's atoning work, it is often translated as "propitiation" or "atonement" in English. The point is that, in Christianity, Jesus' work is the "covering" for sin, the He is and His work is the atonement and reconciliation that restores the wounded relationship between God and man.

Man, due to sin, bears a guilty conscience before God; the relationship between God and man is wounded because of sin--we are "naked and ashamed" before God. When we confront the honest reality that we don't do as we ought, and we do what we ought not, we are ashamed. In Christ, that shame is removed, in Christ our guilt is mended because Christ has reconciled man to God, made peace, and become the covering for sin, as it were.

So, from a Christian theological understanding, the shame of nakedness and the covering with clothes in Genesis is speaking of man's spiritual nakedness because of sin, and ultimately the need for reconciliation which is pre-figured in the ancient systems of sacrifice, but made full in the Incarnation, in Jesus.

It's not about nudity itself being shameful, but nakedness as indicative of an awareness of shame and guilt because of sin.

-CryptoLutheran