Nudity is shameful according to the Bible.

Please stick to the format in the future. No rebuttals in this round. In the religious study of Biblical texts, there are two primary methods of deriving an interpretation; exegesis, and eisegesis. [1] Exegesis: literally, "to lead out of. " To objectively draw conclusions from the text and historical context alone. Eisegesis: Literally, "To lead into. " To subjectively draw conclusions from the text by injecting one"s own biases and assumptions. Needless to say, exegesis is the preferred method of Biblical interpretation by all scholars and theologians. Though we all, to some degree, have biases that obfuscate undesirable conclusions, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss those conclusions as incorrect out of hand. ARGUMENTS: A full list of every utterance of "nudity" would be needlessly exhaustive, so instead, I will list important verses that set the standard for all others. Occasionally, I may need to reference entire stories, so I will assume that my opponent is familiar enough with them that I will not have to quote overly large sections of text. Perhaps the most seemingly indemnifying story for nudity is the very first one, the fall of humanity through Adam and Eve. However, it must be understood that there is a difference between prescriptive and descriptive text in the Bible. Prescriptive would be things like "Thou shalt not kill," and descriptive would be "Moses killed the Egyptian guard. " While prescriptive texts set standards of behavior, descriptive texts merely describe events, without assigning standards or expectations. I argue that the story of Adam and Eve is clearly lacking in prescriptive content, and so should not be used to determine standards of behavior. Gen 1:27-31 states that God created humankind in His image and that it was "good. " As they were created naked, we can only assume that nudity is part of God's image. God is unchanging, and so God's image is still, and always will be, GOOD! Gen. 2:25 Adam and Eve were "naked, but not ashamed. " This is odd for the author to include, as it had already been established that Adam and Eve were married and "one flesh," which typically has sexual connotations (see Matthew 19:5-6). Modern Jewish thought on the matter says that nudity among spouses is a normal, necessary, and certainly not shameful thing. [2] So why mention at all that they were not ashamed of their nudity, when Jews didn't believe that married couples should be ashamed of marital nudity in the first place? The purpose for this narrative detail becomes clear later on, when Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree. As they have gained knowledge of both evil AND good, they now know that their actions were wrong, yes, but also that their nudity was GOOD. Their desire to hide from God and to hide from their nudity, or God's image, is a classic case of repressing guilt. They didn't seek forgiveness, which is something they would do if they were seeking to deal with the problem. Instead, like children, they hid from God and everything that represented God. So while they indeed felt shame over their nudity, it wasn't because nudity suddenly became shameful in and of itself, but because they felt unworthy of expressing God's image through their bodies. Indeed, how can knowledge that nudity is good make nudity suddenly shameful? I argue that this is a more logical conclusion than the standard interpretation. If nudity is inherently shameful because of the fall, then this story would suggest that nudity within marriage is just as shameful as nudity outside of it, and that is an untenable conclusion. When God gave Adam and Eve animal skin clothing (Gen 3:21), this should be treated as a descriptive text because there are no commands or anything else to suggest that this is anything more than a description of events. Else, a proper prescriptive reading suggests that God does not approve of clothing made from plants at all, and that we should all be wearing animal skins. What we KNOW is that clothing made from leaves does not last long and does not protect from the elements, while animal skins do. Thus, we should interpret this minimally to be a gesture of goodwill from God, who wanted Adam and Eve to survive the harsh wild outside of the Garden of Eden. The tacit endorsement of clothing for practical and protective purposes does not equate to a condemnation of nudity. Gen 9:20-24 This passage directly states that Ham was cursed for seeing his father Noah's nudity. The "plain and simple" interpretation is that seeing your family members naked is wrong. However, that doesn't seem to add up, considering that family members see each other's nudity all the time by necessity: a parent much change their baby's diapers and bathe them when they are young. A child must change his parent's diapers and bathe them when they grow old. What I suggest is that the reason Ham was in the wrong was NOT merely for seeing his father's nudity, but for deliberately going into his father's tent in order to look at his nude father. In other words, Ham was a peeping tom. It is worth noting that Noah is not described as having done anything wrong by being seen naked. Regardless, this passage must also be read with descriptive interpretation, rather than prescriptive, else we must logically conclude that we must not see our family members naked ever, regardless of the circumstance. Good luck changing those diapers with your eyes closed! Incest laws, Lev. 18:6-23 Notice every law says "uncover the nakedness of"" this is typically understood as a euphemism for sexual intercourse by scholars, and so should not be considered as a prohibition against non-sexual nudity amongst family members. It would be weird to ban nudity amongst family but not amongst strangers, would it not? Job 24:7-10 Job is describing the behavior of godless men in this chapter, and he states that "they spend the night naked, because they have no clothing: they have no covering against the cold. " So should we take this and say "only godless men would walk around naked! "? No, because 1) this is a descriptive text, and 2) this is not describing nudity as shameful at all. In fact, if anything, it shows that people did walk around naked and that was a relatively common occurrence, for poor people. What this and several similar passages describe is the stigma against the poor: clothing was much more expensive and valuable for most of ancient history, so if you didn't have any, you had to have been extremely poor. In effect, to HAVE to walk about nude is something of a forced choice, and I argue that forced nudity is considered shameful in the Bible, but not the nude body itself. When the Bible says "cloth the poor," (see Isaiah 50:7) they are talking about literally putting clothes on a naked person who has none for themselves. And why? Not to cover up their "icky" genitals, but to give them warmth, as the passage states above! Clothing is seen as a practical, but not mandatory, measure in the Jewish and Christian Bible. Thus, when the Bible refers to being spiritually clothed in holy garments (Psa 93:1, Eze 16:10-13, 1 Cor 12:23, Rev 7:13), what they are actually signifying is our spiritual richness, and spiritually naked people are spiritually poor (Isa 47:1-15, Rev 16:15). It is a figurative analogy based on their real world experience, and certainly not a literal, prescriptive command to feel shame in bodily nudity. Isaiah 20 God explicitly commands the prophet Isaiah, a holy man, to walk around naked for three years as a symbol for the future captivity of Egypt and their forced nudity. Of note is that 1) God cannot command someone to sin, so public nudity cannot be sinful, and 2) while Isaiah's nudity was a "sign and a wonder/portent," Egypt's forced nudity is directly stated to be shameful for them. Yet more evidence that nudity in and of itself is not shameful. Of note is that this is is the first prescriptive text regarding nudity, and God prescribed nudity for three years! 1 Sam 19:20-24, 2 Sam 6:14 In both these stories, Both Saul and David worship or prophecy naked. This suggests that we feel closest to God when we remove our clothing! Of course, neither of these stories are prescriptive, so we shouldn't conclude that one MUST take off their clothing. 1 Tim 2:9-10 Paul talks about modesty, but notice that what he prohibits the women from doing isn't what we would consider immodest; baring too much skin. No, he warns them against dressing UP too much in flashy clothing. And even considering that we would consider nudity to be immodest today, our own cultural biases have nothing to do with what the Bible says is or is not shameful. Perhaps one could say that we shouldn't dress immodestly in church, but that is not the same as saying that what we find as immodest today is inherently shameful. 1 Tim 4:8 Paul states that "exercise" has some value. The root word for exercise in Greek, "gymnasia," is "gymnos," meaning naked. Exercise was typically done in gymnasiums, or naked schools for exercise, so Paul is tacitly endorsing the public, social nudity found in gymnasiums in ancient Greece. Having gone through the Biblical evidence, I would like to point out that the Christians and Jews of the 1st century were certainly not ashamed of nudity. They baptized in the nude,[3] they exercised in the nude,[4] they fished/worked in the nude (John 21:7), and all of these activities were social in nature. If it was impractical to be clothed, then they simply didn't wear clothing. In conclusion, the overwhelming evidence is that nudity is never condemned in the Bible as a sin, nor was it considered inherently shameful when not forced upon oneself. [1] . https://gotquestions.org... [2] . http://mobile.jewishvaluesonline.org... [3] . http://ccgathering.com... [4] . https://www.britannica.com...