- Dec 22, 2017
- 2,355
- 2,915
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
You make a lot of good points, and those articles you shared are excellent. I'm not used to being on the losing side of a discussion, but here I am!Thanks, Alex. I look forward to our continued discussion.
I appreciate being "realistic," but there is a very important place for pondering the "ideal" even in a messed-up world!
If we don't know what the ideal actually is, how can we make any good decisions about realistically pursuing the ideal in a less-than-ideal world?
We all know that humankind lost a lot at the fall, but the "pre-fall" reality is still the "after-the-fall" ideal. Think about it...
- Before the fall, we (humans) lives in perfect relationship with God. That's the ideal that we were created for. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to live in relationship with God anyway... pursuing that "ideal" with all our hearts. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.
- Before the fall, we lived in perfect harmony with other humans, and most highly expressed in the marriage relationship. That's the ideal God intended for human relationships and marriage. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to live in harmony with others anyway, particularly in the marriage relationship. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.
Oddly enough, however, that notion on the third point is so foreign to most Christians today as to evoke a quick and urgent reminder that we can never be "naked and unashamed" now because, "WE CAN'T GO BACK TO EDEN!!" and "IT'S AFTER THE FALL NOW... SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!"
- Before the fall, we lived "naked and unashamed"... that's a perfect relationship with ourselves. That's the ideal we were created to be. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to have the capacity to live naked and unashamed anyway. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.
But those same two objections apply equally to the first two points. No... we'll never regain it to the very level of pre-fall Eden, but shouldn't we still TRY???
Should we ever just "accept" the results of the fall and the curse and make no effort to combat those difficulties they brought to us?
NO! We actively fight and use every means at our disposal to overcome and compensate for those curses... and we still try to make post-fall life as much as possible like pre-fall life. We actively seek to stave off death (an enemy) as long as we possibly can.
- Should we tell women that because God cursed childbirth with pain, that they just have to deal with it? No epidurals, sorry. The pain is "God's Will" for you!
- Should we tell farmers that because God cursed the ground, they shouldn't attempt to irrigate or weed their gardens? Do NOT use week-killer! Why? Because thorns and thistles are now "God's Will" for you!
- Should we tell everyone that because disease and death are just part of the curse, that they are going to die someday, so if they get sick, it's just God telling them that "You're Time's up." You just have to live--and die--with the curse exactly as God handed it down to us all.
The pre-fall reality is still the post-fall ideal. Jesus even affirmed this when asked about marriage and divorce by the Pharisees... and He literally quoted Genesis 2:24 (pre-fall) as the answer to their post-fall question about marriage.
And that begs the question... would Jesus affirm pre-fall Genesis 2:24 as the ideal for a post-fall world, but reject pre-fall Genesis 2:25 (naked and unashamed) for the post-fall world? I don't think He would!
But, hey... we're talking "ideals" here rather than "realistic." I get that. But if we are going to make decisions about how to live in a post-fall world, shouldn't we first acknowledge what the "ideal" is that we need to pursue? We may not hit the target in the middle, but if we don't even know which direction to shoot, we will always miss it... and not just by a little.
David
My thoughts so far:
--God made the body good; inappropriate contentographic exploitation of the body by our culture does no one any favors.
--If this wasn't a fallen world, none of this would be an issue; ultimately, sin is to blame for the unnecessarily complicated & sexualized views of the beautiful human body.
--We often operate with the potential of other people's sin in mind. Churches lock their doors & out their money in a safe to protect against others' greed, and this is not seen as a bad thing.
--Yet list is largely a conditioned response, and as such, the body must be seen in a non-sexual light to undo the damage of a inappropriate contentographic culture.
--I found a good example of how some British women are doing this: Women from tiny village pose nude to teach others about body image
I suppose the best way to continue this discussion, to more directly address my viewpoint, is this question: How would you want your daughter to dress? I'm unmarried, but I plan on having kids one day (if God permits; James 1:14), so this question rose in my own mind as how this whole discussion could be applied.
I was very impressed with both articles you shared, but what they did not address was different modes of dress. I agree with everything they said, but the implications of leggings, low-cut shirts, those muscle shirts for men (like tank-tops, but cut down the side a lot more), and any clothing that is more provocative were not addressed. Perhaps more acceptance & exposure to the human body would make such questions irrelevant, as people would stop dressing to attract attention to themselves if the body was seen more respectfully. Perhaps this also comes down to a question of the spiritually weak & spiritually strong, as Paul discusses throughout 1 Corinthians. What do you think?
Upvote
0