Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
...I am suggesting that we shouldn't be so concerned with nakedness as to make exposure (accidental or not) an inherent immoral act...
Your thoughts?
Is is known that clothing actually increases sexual arousal. Groups of people
Is is known that clothing actually increases sexual arousal. Groups of people
in warmer climates do not wear clothes. It doesn't foster constant sex.
A show on TV , Naked and Afraid, brings together two naked strangers
in a remote location. There is no evidence of arousal on the show.
Like Adam and Eve they are focused on survival, not sex.
I've noticed some troubling Christian theological positions on nudity (such as this one), so I wanted to investigate the most cited passage when this topic comes up.
We read in Genesis 2:25 after Eve is created and becomes "one flesh" with Adam:
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Later, in Genesis 3:7 and immediately after the couple sins, we read:
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
After they made coverings out of the fig leaves, we read:
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."
____________________________________________
My thoughts:
1. Adam and Eve were never ashamed to see themselves naked. Shame here comes from God discovering them naked.
2. Even though Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, they still hid from God when they heard Him coming. They claimed they did not want God to find them naked. It appears they thought their makeshift fig leaf coverings were inadequate. The fig leaves did not fully satiate their need.
Note: Shame in the OT world was connected to public reputation. Shame is the public exposure of guilt. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were attempting to prevent God from shaming them by fulfilling their own needs themselves. They were guilty, not of being naked openly (no one was there to see them besides God!), but of violating God's command and fracturing themselves from his gracious provisions.
3. Nakedness is seen throughout Scripture as neediness and/or weakness. This new awareness of their nakedness on the part of Adam and Eve suggests their boarder awareness of their total dependence on God - who had provided for them in the garden for all their needs.
4. In this sense, nudity is being communicated as nonmoral. It is soley being used to communicate what they were lacking. As Job states eloquently, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return."
5. For clarity, I'm not suggesting we should walk around naked. I believing clothing has an important purpose; however, I am suggesting that we shouldn't be so concerned with nakedness as to make exposure (accidental or not) an inherent immoral act. Context and intentions matter. We live under the New Covenant of Grace.
Your thoughts?
That would be because you always look for ways for what I say to be confirmed with what the world says. What I say is based on what scripture says.I'm confused about your position.
I have explained my position with few words and more words. You have ignored half my post in my initial argument. Your arguments do not address why Adam and Eve clothed themselves immediately after sinning. Mine, that you ignore, does yet you claim no one can show how nudity is intrinsically immoral.In one sense, it seems that you are supporting Utilitarianism. "Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong." Source
And in another sense, you seemed to have argued for Natural Law Theory. "Natural law theory is a theory about the relationship between morality and human nature, the theory that who we are determines how we ought to act. There is way of living that is in accordance with human nature, this kind of natural law theory holds, and morality prescribes that we live such a life." Source
However, each of these theories are contradictory to one another. Can you please explain which philosophical position you subscribe to? It will help with this discussion.
So you opine. I disagree. Who was the wisest man to live? Did he say there is nothing new under the sun? Learn that the Holy Spirit led the writers of scripture what to record.Most of what you believe has secular foundations, you just don't know it because Christians in the past have utilized these foundations and gave them a decidedly Christian flavor. For example, you'd be surprised just how much Christian theology and theological language was influenced by Plato and Aristotle.
I take the same position as scripture.I take the same position as Augustine on these issues:
Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it.
What I am doing is explaining why it was that Adam and Eve felt shame in the wake of the Fall.
I have answered what you haven't. You just don't like my answer.These questions still have not been answered:
If the purpose of clothing was to lessen sexual arousal, why did God make clothes for Adam and Eve before there was anyone else around to see them?
At creation, clothes hid "perfection", in flesh.If the purpose of clothing was to lessen sexual arousal, why are we clothed on the New Earth? If we are freed from our sin nature, why would we need to implement measures to lessen potential sin?
My thoughts are that this is a lot of theological hemming and hawing to get to such a vanilla thesis. Do you have anything more interesting or consequential to say about the subject?
Of course my thesis is vanilla. It is a straightforward understanding of only what the text provides us. It is the legalistic position on nudity that is convoluted and contrived. Part of the reason I started this thread was to bring clarity to this mess. I believe legalism is damaging to the church.
women may also go topless in CanadaNot in Canada --- depending on the season we contend with cold, black flies and mosquitoes. Thank God just one at a time.
Of course my thesis is vanilla. It is a straightforward understanding of only what the text provides us. It is the legalistic position on nudity that is convoluted and contrived. Part of the reason I started this thread was to bring clarity to this mess. I believe legalism is damaging to the church.
But they don't.women may also go topless in Canada
It' way too cold most of the timeBut they don't.
Oh, we have central heating in Canada. The colder it is on the outside, the warmer it is on the inside.It' way too cold most of the time
But they don't.
It should be difficult to strip away cultural programming. Our cultures have taken thousands of years to develop, and they are what define us as a people. It is the presence of a culture that makes us human, and helps separate us from animals.Most Christians that take a legalistic stance on nudity aren't doing it because of American (or any other) culture.
The reasons behind this are multifaceted. It is difficult to strip away cultural programming, e.. With breastfeeding being so commonplace in ancient society, if God didn't want female nipples to be exposed in public, you'd think God would issue an explicit command to cover up breasts. I see no such command.
It should be difficult to strip away cultural programming. Our cultures have taken thousands of years to develop, and they are what define us as a people. It is the presence of a culture that makes us human, and helps separate us from animals.
It is very common for women in Canada to breastfeed in public. Most are very comfortable in doing so, and tend to be discreet, as most women are wont to do.
Natural law would actually say the opposite IMO. God made everything and everything He made was good-including the human body in its natural state. Only our "falleness" has twisted that good into an evil. And, working with man to save him, ultimately to restore him to innocence and something even greater yet, perhaps, God acknowledges and accommodates that fallen state for now, that shame, by fashioning clothes for them Himself. In the end truth will reign again, man will be transparent, fully himself as God created him to be. For now He and we deal with the reality of human life on this earth, as it is, for better or worse.You don't need a Bible verse to prove it is immoral for everyone to run around naked all the time. Why because it is a natural law. Just like it takes a man and woman to make babies. Just like it is a natural law that God exists.
The shame was a result of obtaining the knowledge of good and evil which was a result of their disobedience. We don't know why this was but we know the cause.I've noticed some troubling Christian theological positions on nudity (such as this one), so I wanted to investigate the most cited passage when this topic comes up.
We read in Genesis 2:25 after Eve is created and becomes "one flesh" with Adam:
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Later, in Genesis 3:7 and immediately after the couple sins, we read:
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
After they made coverings out of the fig leaves, we read:
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."
____________________________________________
My thoughts:
1. Adam and Eve were never ashamed to see themselves naked. Shame here comes from God discovering them naked.
2. Even though Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, they still hid from God when they heard Him coming. They claimed they did not want God to find them naked. It appears they thought their makeshift fig leaf coverings were inadequate. The fig leaves did not fully satiate their need.
Note: Shame in the OT world was connected to public reputation. Shame is the public exposure of guilt. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were attempting to prevent God from shaming them by fulfilling their own needs themselves. They were guilty, not of being naked openly (no one was there to see them besides God!), but of violating God's command and fracturing themselves from his gracious provisions.
3. Nakedness is seen throughout Scripture as neediness and/or weakness. This new awareness of their nakedness on the part of Adam and Eve suggests their boarder awareness of their total dependence on God - who had provided for them in the garden for all their needs.
4. In this sense, nudity is being communicated as nonmoral. It is soley being used to communicate what they were lacking. As Job states eloquently, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return."
5. For clarity, I'm not suggesting we should walk around naked. I believing clothing has an important purpose; however, I am suggesting that we shouldn't be so concerned with nakedness as to make exposure (accidental or not) an inherent immoral act. Context and intentions matter. We live under the New Covenant of Grace.
Your thoughts?
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?