What was shameful about Adam and Eve's nakedness?

[prodromos]

What's interesting is the fig leaves were inadequate as they fashioned their own. God then provides them animal skins. Thus giving us an image of God being sovereign in covering our sins. The Gospel on every page.

Blood was shed in order to clothe them.
Animals were sacrificed.

 

[redleghunter]

Blood was shed in order to clothe them.
Animals were sacrificed.

Indeed.

 

[SolomonVII]

You seem to think this is a good thing. Let me remind you that culture is subjective and not the arbitrator of truth. Most people live in a culture that is molded by idol worship, such as in China, Japan, Indonesia, Africa, and India. I think you'd agree that Hinduism and Buddhism are real concerns. Statistics show that the majority of the people born in these cultures stay faithful to their ancestral faith. This is due to cultural programming and pressures. We must be willing to change if we want to be open to the truth, even if this means bucking cultural norms.



Sure, exceptions exist, but my point still stands.

I do think it is a good thing. I am very much pro-culture. I am particularly pro-Western culture, which was molded on Jesus Christ.
An idol, he aint.

 

[SolomonVII]

Blood was shed in order to clothe them.
Animals were sacrificed.

I read an interesting discussion on this today. It went something like when Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed, it was because they were clothed in the glory of God.
The fact that they were naked only became visible to them when the Spirit of God abandoned them, or more accurately, when they abandoned the Spirit. They were no longer covered by the Glory of God.
What are we when we are bereft of the Spirit of God? Well, pretty much animals I suppose, who follow the spirit of the most magnificent of the beast of the field as our mentor.
But lower than the animals even, because we do not even have the fur that other mammals do to cover our nakedness. It was an act of mercy for God to give us at least what the other animals have.
It was Scott Hahn that once pointed out that the reason, or a reason, that the Hebrews ended up being directed to sacrifice animals in the desert for atonement is that in Egypt they were polytheists who worshiped animals as god-dieties. What we are doing in effect is offering up our gods to the Lord.
I suppose what we were doing too, in terms of foreshadowing, was being prepared to be clothed in the Blood of the Lamb.

Since it was an animal that led Eve astray, animal sacrifice was required to atone, to set us straight. Nature, red in tooth and claw-this could not be a suitable god for us to follow. It must be rejected. It must therefore be sacrificed, be offered up to the One, True God.

Perhaps that is one reason why Abel's offering was accepted by God, and Cain's was rejected? It was not a plant that we had chosen to follow, but an animal.

 

[Apex]

I do think it is a good thing. I am very much pro-culture. I am particularly pro-Western culture, which was molded on Jesus Christ.
An idol, he aint.

No, it was molded by the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. The most influential Early Church Fathers and even many of the Reformers were either directly or indirectly influenced by Greco-Roman thought.

For example:
Saint Thomas Aquinas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Saint Augustine (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[DamianWarS]

You seem to think this is a good thing. Let me remind you that culture is subjective and not the arbitrator of truth. Most people live in a culture that is molded by idol worship, such as in China, Japan, Indonesia, Africa, and India. I think you'd agree that Hinduism and Buddhism are real concerns. Statistics show that the majority of the people born in these cultures stay faithful to their ancestral faith. This is due to cultural programming and pressures. We must be willing to change if we want to be open to the truth, even if this means bucking cultural norms.

we should be slaves to our mission and this includes cultural forms. Most values found in culture are actually not about religion and may be redeemed to give glory to God. If nudity is regarded in our mission culture as indescence then by all means abstain. Thinking about these things abstractly is one thing but if we cannot give glory to God with them, which may be defined by the mission culture, then they are a disservice to the gospel.

Muslims don't eat pork but as Christians we are free to eat pork. Should I then identify a Muslim community and go to them eating pork and proclaiming the gospel? If I do it is not Christ that is glorified nor love that is communicated, most will be insulted, but if people do come they may come out of a rebellious spirit; Christ resecues the captive but his glory is still more important. Jesus calls us be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves... these are 2 animals deliberated contrasted and reversing their roles is counter-gospel.

 

[SolomonVII]

No, it was molded by the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. The most influential Early Church Fathers and even many of the Reformers were either directly or indirectly influenced by Greco-Roman thought.

For example:
Saint Thomas Aquinas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Saint Augustine (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I would say that Jesus Christ was the most influential person in Western history. There are myriads of social media forum dedicated specfically to Christianity, and those dedicated to Plato are few and far between.

The great influence of Christ does not mean that Christians throughout history were willfully ignorant and had not sought out the best of what the world has to offer.

I get it though. I am pro-Western culture, and think it is a good idea that women keep their shirts on, or men their pants, and just generally conform to rules that are at least not obscenely oppressive. The anarchy of no rules is the worst kind of oppression that has ever existed in human societies

And, you have no use for culture and want people to prance around naked, if that is what they want to do.

Fine. At least now we have clarity.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Natural law would actually say the opposite IMO.

Which natural law is that? Do you understand that the laws of nature have been changed over time, at least three times?

God made everything and everything He made was good-including the human body in its natural state.

You are correct, at creation there was one set of laws where it was natural for everyone to run around naked all the time.

Only our "falleness" has twisted that good into an evil.

This is what you don't acknowledge. At sin nature changed. Before, everything good. After, hardship, thorns, pestilence. Understand that everything bad in the world after sin, was not a direct effect of what man eating fruit. God placed a curse on both man and the world after sin. That means a new set of natural laws was instituted. It is so obvious that there was a change in the nature of man after sinning and no one has responded to what I said here.

First think about the words, their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. Understand this is an analogy. Their eyes were not shut before they sinned and they certainly were smart enough to realize they were not wearing clothes before they sinned. But when they sinned a change happened. It was not a physical change. It was not an intellectual change. It was a "moral" change. Before sin it was normal for them to be naked. After sin it was not normal to be naked. It became immoral to be naked all the time.

 

[fhansen]

Which natural law is that? Do you understand that the laws of nature have been changed over time, at least three times?

Guess not, at least here in this world. All creation operates under laws proper to the nature of the created being involved. Men and angels, possessing free will, are the only beings in creation as far as we know that can override or otherwise oppose and break those laws, at least the moral law, aka "natural law".

This is what you don't acknowledge. At sin nature changed. Before, everything good. After, hardship, thorns, pestilence. Understand that everything bad in the world after sin, was not a direct effect of what man eating fruit. God placed a curse on both man and the world after sin. That means a new set of natural laws was instituted. It is so obvious that there was a change in the nature of man after sinning and no one has responded to what I said here.

Man changed; by losing his innocence. What he once looked at as perfectly good and normal became evil to him in some manner, not because God changed anything, but because man had changed.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Guess not, at least here in this world. All creation operates under laws proper to the nature of the created being involved. Men and angels, possessing free will, are the only beings in creation as far as we know that can override or otherwise oppose and break those laws, at least the moral law, aka "natural law".

Natural law is not moral law. There are many natural laws. It takes a male and female to reproduce is one. I do believe our moral law is also a natural law. Now you need to learn that natural laws have changed since creation. They have been changed by God at least three times.

1) When man sinned, nature changed to include a "cursed ground", by God.

Genesis 3:17 “Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

Romans 8:19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.​

2) Flood, God said you could eat meat, the sky/atmosphere changed such that rainbows appeared. This resulted in people living much shorter lives.

3) Tower of Babel, the one race became many with multiple languages.

You acknowledge our moral law to be a natural law. How one responds to nakedness is part of our morality, moral law. Scripture is quite clear that how man responds to nakedness changed after sinning. Therefore man's moral law was changed at sinning. It is quite simple when you think it through.

Man changed; by losing his innocence. What he once looked at as perfectly good and normal became evil to him in some manner, not because God changed anything, but because man had changed.

I quoted scripture that says God cursed the earth. Explain to me how man eating fruit directly caused thorns to appear.

 

[fhansen]

Natural law is not moral law. There are many natural laws. It takes a male and female to reproduce is one. I do believe our moral law is also a natural law. Now you need to learn that natural laws have changed since creation. They have been changed by God at least three times.

1) When man sinned, nature changed to include a "cursed ground", by God.

Genesis 3:17 “Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

Romans 8:19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.​

2) Flood, God said you could eat meat, the sky/atmosphere changed such that rainbows appeared. This resulted in people living much shorter lives.

3) Tower of Babel, the one race became many with multiple languages.

You acknowledge our moral law to be a natural law. How one responds to nakedness is part of our morality, moral law. Scripture is quite clear that how man responds to nakedness changed after sinning. Therefore man's moral law was changed at sinning. It is quite simple when you think it through.

I quoted scripture that says God cursed the earth. Explain to me how man eating fruit directly caused thorns to appear.

Well, your post is all quite speculative. Anyway, the term and concept "natural law" was developed centuries ago in philosophy and theology to describe that objective morality instilled into man that is intended to govern his moral behavior. This understanding has been hugely influential in serving as the backbone for civil law in many countries. In common usage, depending on language, the term is also used by some to refer to the laws of nature.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Well, your post is all quite speculative.

No, it is not.
Sin changed nature.
After the flood there was another change in nature.
God changed nature to prevent another Tower of Babel.

According to your own words morality is part of natural law. It is not speculative to say how we react while being naked changed when Adam sinned. This is morality that changed when we sinned.

I guess when you fail to come up with a way to refute an argument, you just give it labels, speculative.

Anyway, the term and concept "natural law" was developed centuries ago in philosophy and theology to describe that objective morality instilled into man that is intended to govern his moral behavior. This understanding has been hugely influential in serving as the backbone for civil law in many countries. In common usage, depending on language, the term is also used by some to refer to the laws of nature.

In a generic sense a natural law is a law of nature. I gave the example: it takes a man and a woman to make children. Understand that your "Natural Law" was only a theory concocted from observation of nature with a little introspection thrown in. Learn the meaning of the two words to appreciate how they fit this thread.

Nature: physical and characteristic qualities of what populates the world.
Law: rules that govern.

Understand that the law exists from God in how creation was made and changed. Writing some theory down trying to note how we were made has no control over the workings of the law, nature sees to the law being enforced. That is why it is called a natural law and not Plato's law or Aristotle's law. Of course Apex wants me to call it Utilitarianism or Aquinas' Natural Law Theory of morality.

 

[fhansen]

No, it is not.
Sin changed nature.
After the flood there was another change in nature.
God changed nature to prevent another Tower of Babel.

According to your own words morality is part of natural law. It is not speculative to say how we react while being naked changed when Adam sinned. This is morality that changed when we sinned.

I guess when you fail to come up with a way to refute an argument, you just give it labels, speculative.

In a generic sense a natural law is a law of nature. I gave the example: it takes a man and a woman to make children. Understand that your "Natural Law" was only a theory concocted from observation of nature with a little introspection thrown in. Learn the meaning of the two words to appreciate how they fit this thread.

Nature: physical and characteristic qualities of what populates the world.
Law: rules that govern.

Understand that the law exists from God in how creation was made and changed. Writing some theory down trying to note how we were made has no control over the workings of the law, nature sees to the law being enforced. That is why it is called a natural law and not Plato's law or Aristotle's law. Of course Apex wants me to call it Utilitarianism or Aquinas' Natural Law Theory of morality.

No, the term was coined only in relation to morality. Common usage hijacked it. And like i said, morality didn't change with the Fall, rather man changed, by being spiritually separated from His Creator. From then on man would create his own rules when he saw fit, twisting right into wrong, and vice versa. Innocence lost, not a change in nature.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Innocence lost, not a change in nature.

I have asked you now three times to explain how Adam and Eve eating fruit would cause corruption of earth/nature/thorns to grow. I have showed you God's word where God placed a curse on man and nature as a result of man's sin. You can't answer a question, defend your position, but continue to insist some human owns the laws of nature.

 

[fhansen]

I have asked you now three times to explain how Adam and Eve eating fruit would cause corruption of earth/nature/thorns to grow. I have showed you God's word where God placed a curse on man and nature as a result of man's sin. You can't answer a question, defend your position, but continue to insist some human owns the laws of nature.

I defended the position that "natural law" applies to morality, as I first used the term in this thread. And as it pertains to the shame that ensued immediately after eating of the fruit. Man's nature was already in place. It would be consistent with his nature to be ashamed after breaking God's command.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I defended the position that "natural law" applies to morality, as I first used the term in this thread. And as it pertains to the shame that ensued immediately after eating of the fruit.

You argue over one person's legalistic definition of "natural law". You admit to a broader use of the word. It should be obvious that there are multiple laws of nature. What point does it serve to bicker over which accepted use of "natural law" can be used?

Man's nature was already in place. It would be consistent with his nature to be ashamed after breaking God's command.

You repeat, and defend not your statement that man's nature did not change when he sinned. It would also be "consistent" that Adam did not sin. But, Adam did sin and was cursed along with nature.

I gave three examples where the laws that govern nature where changed. You ignore them all, but repeat it is "consistent" that the laws don't change. You are correct it would be consistent, but that is not what scripture teaches us. We know the laws of nature are from God. Are you saying that God can not and never did change the laws of nature because it would not be "consistent"?

Lastly, I will ask you a fourth time if you can acknowledge that God changed the rules over nature when Adam sinned as exhibited by the corruption of earth/thorns?

 

[fhansen]

You argue over one person's legalistic definition of "natural law". You admit to a broader use of the word. It should be obvious that there are multiple laws of nature. What point does it serve to bicker over which accepted use of "natural law" can be used?

I've been wondering that myself- probably because you like to bicker?

You repeat, and defend not your statement that man's nature did not change when he sinned. It would also be "consistent" that Adam did not sin. But, Adam did sin and was cursed along with nature.

Obviously it was consistent with Adam's nature that he could sin-because he had the freedom to. Otherwise God either made Adam to sin, while commanding him not to, or God changed Adam's nature in order to make him sin. Both nonsense either way.

I gave three examples where the laws that govern nature where changed. You ignore them all, but repeat it is "consistent" that the laws don't change. You are correct it would be consistent, but that is not what scripture teaches us. We know the laws of nature are from God. Are you saying that God can not and never did change the laws of nature because it would not be "consistent"?

Lastly, I will ask you a fourth time if you can acknowledge that God changed the rules over nature when Adam sinned as exhibited by the corruption of earth/thorns?

No. I doubt the laws of nature changed. But, unlike yourself with your personal interpretations of Scripture and insistence on the use of a term that was never even intended to be used as you do, I simply don't know if God changed the laws of nature. And it's irrelevant to my points anyway. Go bicker with someone else now; I'm tired of pointless and nonsensical debate.

 

[Apex]

I would say that Jesus Christ was the most influential person in Western history. There are myriads of social media forum dedicated specfically to Christianity, and those dedicated to Plato are few and far between.

The great influence of Christ does not mean that Christians throughout history were willfully ignorant and had not sought out the best of what the world has to offer.

I get it though. I am pro-Western culture, and think it is a good idea that women keep their shirts on, or men their pants, and just generally conform to rules that are at least not obscenely oppressive. The anarchy of no rules is the worst kind of oppression that has ever existed in human societies

And, you have no use for culture and want people to prance around naked, if that is what they want to do.

Fine. At least now we have clarity.

I wish this was true. The Jesus of Western culture is like the Jesus of Mormon faith - a mere caricature of the real thing. The "worldly church" throughout history has been heavily corrupted by bad theology. The Reformers saw this, but didn't do enough to fix it. They fail trap to many of the same errors.

For example, most people don't know that monogamy was originally a Greco-Roman ideal, not a Jewish one.

Source article: Why We Think Monogamy Is Normal

 

[SolomonVII]

I wish this was true. The Jesus of Western culture is like the Jesus of Mormon faith - a mere caricature of the real thing.

People have been cutting away at the roots of meaning in the West for a hundred years now, hundreds of years really, and then wonder why they are left in a sea of disbelievers, nihilists, Marxists and post-modernists who scoff at the very idea of truth. Those who hate the church, hate Jesus himself.

The Jesus of Western culture is a real person, as real as any person who has ever existed.

 

[Apex]

People have been cutting away at the roots of meaning in the West for a hundred years now, hundreds of years really, and then wonder why they are left in a sea of disbelievers, nihilists, Marxists and post-modernists who scoff at the very idea of truth. Those who hate the church, hate Jesus himself.

The Jesus of Western culture is a real person, as real as any person who has ever existed.

Jesus of Western culture < Jesus of the Bible