Nudity is shameful according to the Bible.

>>First of all, I want to point out to my opponent that this verse saying humans were made in the image of G-d is not referring to the *literal* visage of G-d since G-d is not corporeal. Since G-d is not a man<< And I would first like to point out that my opponent has, once again, failed to follow the debate format. There should have been no refutations in the 2nd round. Secondly, while I don't disagree that God is not a corporeal being, according to the Bible, I see no reason why the Image of God could not include physical appearance and design. I believe, in this case, the burden of proof lies with my opponent as to why the physical human form would not be part of the Image of God. If I made a drawing in the image of my dog, would you not assume that the drawing represents my dog's appearance? And although my dog is not made of paint and canvas, it is still an image of him, is it not? Similarly, though God may be corporeal, in some way we are a representation of him, and I see no indication Biblically that that wouldn't include our natural, nude, physical form. After all, the author of this book deliberately chose the word "Image," rather than "likeness," or "form." Following the analogy, if I declare that the drawing of my dog is good, and if I, as God, cannot change my mind, how could that drawing ever possibly become bad or shameful? Sure, sin changed some things, but not our physical form. Therefore, I argue nudity is still good in God's mind, even though humans have been corrupted through sin. >>Before Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they didn't know good or evil, so it wasn't wrong for them to be naked in public since morally they weren't separate from animals.<< Adam and Eve were not "in public," seeing as how they were the only two humans on earth in this story. Not only that, but they were married. I guarantee that if you put a married couple alone on a deserted island, they'll ditch their clothes to beat the heat with no shame whatsoever. So the fact that they "weren't ashamed" in the Garden of Eden is a bit of a redundant statement. Now, as far as being morally the same as the animals, I disagree for several reasons. First, do animals even have morality? If so, can they sin? Animals break every one of God's laws: they sleep around, they commit incest, they murder, they steal, etc. I argue that animals aren't morally culpable for their actions. However, Adam and Eve were clearly capable of sin, and so ARE morally culpable for their actions. Therefore, Adam and Eve were very different from the animals. The Bible says as much here: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28 NET Humans were not the same as animals. Humans ruled over animals. >>If what my opponent says is true, and nudity is a good thing, then when Adam and Eve were able to tell good from evil and they noticed that they were naked, then they would have embraced this nudity, rather than being ashamed and clothing themselves.<< First, nudity IS good according to the Bible. EVERYTHING pre-fall was declared good by God himself, and that includes the beauty of the unadorned human form. Second of all, Adam and Eve ran away from the most good thing of all, God! So in fact, you've proven my point: Adam and Eve were running away from all things that were good, out of guilt, and that included their own physical form. Sin didn't make nudity shameful. Sin made us ashamed of what is good. >>Third of all, when G-d sent Adam and Eve out of the garden, he gave them clothing made of sheep skin, which means that he meant for them to be clothed. If nudity was a good thing, then G-d would have just told them to embrace being naked rather than putting some cloths on them.<< I could just as easily say "God commanded Isaiah to prophecy naked, so he must have meant for everyone to prophecy naked." I could also say "if clothing was so necessary, then God would have told them to never take it off, even when alone." The problem is, this is a descriptive text, and not every descriptive text tells us how we are supposed to behave! Eden must have been a nice 75 degrees for Adam and Eve to be comfortable walking around naked, with plenty of shade to avoid suburn. This would not be the case in the wild to which they were sent! Clothing is a necessity to live in a harsher environment, and while Adam and Eve procured plant-based clothing to cover themselves, God provided animal skins to protect them. We're not here to argue whether clothing is a necessity or not, but whether nudity is shameful, and this passage inadequately establishes God's motive for clothing Adam and Eve as anything more than protection from the weather. If God had given them an umbrella, you would assume it's because it was going to rain, not that a lack of umbrellas is shameful. >>So while people back in the day could run around naked, just like before the Torah incest was permissible, now they can't since moral law had been introduced.<< Jewish belief states that only Jews are under the law of the Mosaic code (what you call the "moral law"). Everyone else is merely held to the seven commandments given to Noah.[1] None of those laws include bans on nudity or on incest. So it's not that incest was okay until the Mosaic code and suddenly it wasn't: it's that only Jews were banned from committing it. And you're wrong about there not being a moral code before even Noah: the Bible states that humanity was wicked (Gen 6:5), which is why God flooded the Earth in the first place! Clearly, they had some sort of morality in place. Regardless, nudity was never banned or declared shameful in any of these codes. >>Nudity is synonymous shame in the Tanakh, let me show you some examples of this, Isaiah 47:3: "Your nakedness shall be uncovered, Yes, your shame will be seen;<< You accuse me of taking verses out of context, yet you do the same thing here. First of all, you can't cherry pick one verse and call it a day. Saul and David worshipped naked and God approved. God approves of marital nudity and nudity when alone. Explain this contradiction. Secondly, as I stated previously, to "uncover the nakedness" of someone is a Hebrew euphemism for having sex (see Lev 18). Isaiah is talking to "Virgin" Babylon, who was holding Israel captive at this time. This chapter is a prophecy of the nation's downfall. So what Isaiah is saying is that she will have metaphorical sex, and not by choice. Rape symbolizes Babylon's downfall, and as I stated before, forced nudity, and by extension, forced sex is indeed considered shameful. But the nudity itself is not shameful. So I argue that your substitution ignores both the context and the use of euphemism. >>So this is a figurative thing that Isaiah did in the middle of freaking nowhere where noone could see him<< "At that time the Lord announced through Isaiah son of Amoz: "Go, remove the sackcloth from your waist and take your sandals off your feet." He did as instructed and walked around in undergarments and barefoot." Isaiah 20:2 NET What makes you think Isaiah was in the middle of nowhere? God announced this message THROUGH Isaiah, meaning Isaiah was talking to someone. Ipso Facto, public nudity was commanded by God and cannot be a sin at the least. I question whether a good god can command someone to shame themselves either. >>later in Isaiah 20:4 it says: "so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the"shame"of Egypt." So this is a figurative thing that Isaiah did in the middle of freaking nowhere where noone could see him, and it was used to represent how Egypt would be naked, and this would be shameful.<< The shame of Egypt could be referring also to their captivity. It was common practice to force captives to march naked out of their homeland, and indeed this was done to shame them! But again, Isaiah volunteered to go naked, while Egypt did not. The broader question I ask my opponent is: Can any command by God be shameful? Can God command one to commit something that is wrong or foolish? >>I believe that there are laws for modesty somewhere in the Tanakh, I'm going to have to read up and get ack to you on that, but in Rabbinic Judaism they believe anything above the knees or further than the shoulder should be covered.<< Without sources, this means nothing in a debate. Plus, we're not arguing from the Tanakh. We're arguing whether the Bible says nudity is inherently shameful. RonPaulConservative, as a reminder, this round is a rebuttal of round 2, not this round. You may not use any of the arguments in round three in your next statement.