Shame therefore must not be the default position regarding our bodies (a massive challenge to the body beautiful industry is needed here) especially related to human sexuality
There is a huge difference between sexual provocation and merely being attractive. Nudists are not overtly provocative just by being naked.
This is why the context that is important. You could talk about sexual details of a man and wife in court and it would seem shameful. It wouldn't be, but it's not intended for public approval.There is no biblical basis for this position, common as it is. If the clothing of skin is a divine mandate for humanity not to be naked then God clothed the couple ie it was wrong for married people to see each other naked.
Man was restored to fellowship in the NT, but we still have the knowledge of good and evil. We also still have our sinful flesh nature. Our carnal man is in opposition to God. Consequently, we don't have the innocent depiction of the garden of Eden that we had in Genesis.But it also ignores the NT Theme of a restored creation which has begun and will finally be fulfilled in wondrous measure when Jesus returns.
This is the world. Intercourse was never intended to be public. Even in OT days, you were not supposed to look upon the nakedness of your father, mother, sister, etc.Intercourse could be public during after diner sexual activity amongst the better off, and with large families living in one or two rooms intercourse could not have been that private either.
We are only this way "in Him". We can go in and out of walking in the Spirit or the flesh depending on how you live.Thus, Jesus salvation reaches back to undo the effects of the fall.
True. We're to be found clothed. It's a constant throughout the NT.Shame belongs to unredeemed humanity as a consequence of sin. As new creations we are freed from that yoke.
Nakedness out of proper context is a shame. It's no shame to bathe or shower nude. It's expected for the union of man and woman to be that way. That's where God intended it to be. Outside of that, it is a shame.Nakedness is used to express shame.
I believe the nakedness was a statement made by God to His people. It wasn't a freedom or liberty. If there is a mystery in there somewhere it's not mentioned. It IS mentioned in the NT, that we are to be found clothed. It's possible to not know you're unclothed in the spirit, and it is shameful.The naked prophets (in Saul's time and later as commanded for Isaiah) show that God is not always opposed to nakedness.
This was a punishment.Yes nothing in the NT condemns what must have been regular exposure to the sight of the unclothed human body.
Intercourse could be public during after diner sexual activity amongst the better off, and with large families living in one or two rooms intercourse could not have been that private either.
Sorry but I don't get your point.
My point was that if God clothed the couple because nakedness was wrong post fall, then its wrong for a married couple to see each other naked, as they could only have been ashamed of being naked with each other at that time.
That is assumption only from within a post fall mindset.
Again, that is just not true. Jesus is our access to His Father through the Holy Spirit.
That replaces our previous state of 'flesh'.
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."We do not have a sinful flesh nature as you stated - Yes I have read Romans 7.
But we must live in the clear understanding that the initial paradigms of Eden form the basis of what we are being restored to.
Peter put on his outer garment because he had to swim, not because he was ashamed. You try swimming holding a heavy garment in one hand.
And, we don't walk in and out of the Spirit.
You have also made statements that would involve doctrinal debate (what are the meanings of flesh in the NT and which one is relevant to your main argument, what is the scope of salvation, do we have two natures, and can we see Jesus as offering us the tree of life from which to draw.) That's far way off topic and scope of this thread.
I think a woman's mouth is holy, and should be covered up at all times.Here is another way of looking at this issue. The naked human body is not something to be ashamed of. The reason we cover it up is not because it is shameful, but because certain parts are holy. The holier they are, the more they are covered.
In this context, the uncovering of that which is holy is more understandable. A father's nakedness ought to be holy to his children, because they were procreated from it. Therefore, in honour of that holiness, they should refrain from looking at their father's naked body.
This is consistent with man not being able to look upon God. The reason for this is not that God is shameful, but that he is too holy to look upon.
Women must decide for themselves which parts of their body are 'ordinary' and can be seen, and which parts are 'holy' and set apart for their husband or close relatives. There is no definitive answer to this, because cultures vary, but to regard this as an issue of shame is, I think, a huge mistake. The reason Adam and Eve felt shame at their nakedness was because they realised for the first time that it was inappropriate. This does not mean that the nakedness itself was actually shameful.
I think a woman's mouth is holy, and should be covered up at all times.
Interesting perspective. We are bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh.Here is another way of looking at this issue. The naked human body is not something to be ashamed of. The reason we cover it up is not because it is shameful, but because certain parts are holy. The holier they are, the more they are covered.
Women must decide for themselves which parts of their body are 'ordinary' and can be seen, and which parts are 'holy' and set apart for their husband or close relatives.
...but to regard this as an issue of shame is, I think, a huge mistake. The reason Adam and Eve felt shame at their nakedness was because it was inappropriate. Not because it was actually shameful.
1 Cor 14:34:There is more than one way to disclose the profane. As Our Lord says, it is not that which enters into a man that defileth a man, but that which issues from his mouth. His words, that is.
Good luck with that.
1 Cor 14:34:
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak;"
Shut your holy hole.
Interesting perspective. We are bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh.
What do you mean by this? That's not there in Genesis applying to God.
Within most cultures it is pretty obvious. Only in the more "primitive" cultures do women go topless. Those are cultures where Christianity is rare or nonexistant.
What a cultural mindset you come from. That harks back to the days of colonialism. In our country that would be deemed racially offensive.
Let me appoligize, I'm being needlessly mean.Nice try, but I am not in church, I am in my own home.
There is no injunction to prevent me speaking in my own home.
I suggest you get over it, therefore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?