From: ba2cs252@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Leonidas Hepis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nudity - Why be ashamed?
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:54:53 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Summary:  I had claimed that nudity per se is not wrong.  I said that I find
it strange that right after the fall A&E covered their genitals and not their
palms or elbows.  My message was that if God was not ashamed to create each
and every detail of the human body, then we shouldn't be ashamed of those
(details) either, and that nudity per se is not bad.  Rex (if I understood
his post well) said that A&E weren't in fact naked; that they were actually
clothed in some way with the glory of God.  Here I argue that I don't see
why that was the case, and that it also doesn't matter if it was or not: A&E
treated the area around the waist in a manner different than they treated
other parts of their body.  This is what I still don't understand.  Why? (I
believe that 2 other people posted, who addressed that more specifically,
and I will comment on those posts soon.)

-----
Rex says:

[... Rex mentions a book/paper on 2 Corinthians 4:7 - 5:21 ]
>It is our belief, based on the exegesis of noted text,
>that Adam and Eve were clothed in the shekinah glory of God before the fall. 
>They were beings of light and their flesh was only exposed after the moment of
>sin. 

Huh?  :)

This is far from being obvious to me.  Are you talking in particular about
2 Corinthians 5:1-6 ? I don't see any mentioning of *physical* bodies being
clothed in "shekinah glory of God".  I also don't see any reference to the
pre-fall situation in that passage.  You say "they were beings of light and
their flesh was only exposed after the moment of sin."  I don't think
Genesis supports any suggestions that *anything* covered the body before the
fall: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed".
It doesn't say "...both covered with God's glory and were, of course, not
ashamed since they were unable to see each other's physical body anyway!"  
The very presense of Genesis 2:25 says to me that the writers of Genesis had
nudity in mind - nudity as we know it today.

also:

" 7  And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they 
             ^^^^                                    ^^^^
were naked."

I don't see any glory-clothings dissolving away - just them understanding that
they have been naked.

"10  And he [ Adam ] said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself"   [hide himself from an
omnipresent, omniscient being?! ]
 11  And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?  Hast thou eaten
of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"  [Again,
wouldn't God see that there was no 'light' covering them?  Genesis has an
omniscient, omnipresent Spirit WALKING in the garden, and ASKING questions,
and Adam and Eve hiding from it, like they didn't know who they were dealing
with.  Isn't all this too anthropomorphic?  ]

>Adam was not duped in his decision to eat of the fruit.  He had already
>seen what the effects were on Eve, 

Please tell me where in Genesis you find that Adam had an understanding
of Eve's fall.  Not in Genesis 3:6. Maybe somewhere else in the Bible?

>but he made a choice to follow his wife and
>to suffer the death that God had promised in the "day" that you eat there of.

Apparently he didn't die, physically or spiritually.  Or did he?  (I'm
not talking about a spiritual fall, but about spiritual death).  Did the
spirit of Adam die on that day, and does Genesis 2:17 seems to you it talks
about that?

>Eve was deceived, Adam made a willful decision.

If Eve was deceived but Adam sinned willfully (Adam being worse than Eve),
why did Paul say in 1Timothy2:11-14 that the woman should obey the man as a
result of the events of the fall?  Who took worst blame for the fall?  It
seems to me that the one who knows what he's doing should be held more
responsible than the one who was deceived.

From reading Genesis, it seems to me that there is no distinction between
the acts of Adam and those of Eve (deceived vs. willful).  I see no beings
of lights. Instead, I see beings that were naked and not ashamed, who right
after they sinned "the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew they
were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
Again, eyes opening - no bright covers dissolving.  Are you reluctant to
accept that God had them in the garden with no clothes?  It seems to me that
you are dressing that which God was not ashamed to have naked!  Let's not
forget Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold,
it was very good."

My basic question in my original posting was more or less "Are people ashamed
of their naked bodies because of the Fall?  Or is it some acquired attitude
that we get in childhood when (on warm summer days, age3) our parents send us
back in the house  to "get dressed! shame! people don't do that!"

Why the GENITALS?!?!?!  Did they put fig leaves over the ears, the elbows
and mouth and feet?  Was there something special about the genitals?

Rex continues
>   So what you say.  Well, actually this leads us to Paul's mention of
>nakedness and his views on the restoration of that original glory.

I guess I understand everything about the pre-fall glory that people should
achieve.  Part of that, though, was lack of shame for the hands, genitals,
elbows, fingers, belly button, chest etc.  It doesn't look to me like
they cared to cover their hands right after the sin.  My question was: What
prompted them to cover some parts of their body but not others?

And Rex says:

>So, physical nakedness out side of the marriage, is outside of God's original
>will for us.

But had there been no fall, and A&E multiplied as instructed, there would
have been many people "naked and not ashamed".  How can you say that physical
nakedness outside of marriage is outside of God's *original* will for us?
It seems to me that it actually was in the original plan.  I also don't think
that nudity per se is bad (if one grows up associating nudity and sexuality
then there may be a problem among some people but a look into the animal
kingdom should convince you that nudity and sexuality get associated only
when a species makes it necessary to *become naked* in order to have sex -
it is not a natural association but an artificial one).  After all, if God
intended me to wear clothes, he would have delivered me with at least some
kind of underwear - not naked.

But even if you are right (about no nudity outside of marriage), one must be
against physical nakedness in the locker rooms.  And one must also refuse to
change the diapers of his/her neighbor's newborn (extreme? yes, but it
follows from your restriction).  And one must never be naked in front of their
daughter or son even after he/she takes a shower or at an empty beach.  One
would discuss a pain in his hands in front of his daughter or in front of his
female Christian neighbor - should he not do the same about a medical problem
that involves the genitals?  Does a picture (picture not drawing) of the
naked male and female bodies in your biology textbook embarass or annoy you?
Should they have not been there?  Would you forbid your son or daughter to be
observers to actual childbirth at the hospital on the basis that the genitals
are not covered?  (these are not personal questions, but just food for
thought).

And finally Rex says:

>Just yesterday I heard on the news that at Berkeley U, that there
>was an individual that was coming to class nude.  The courts ruled that it was
>NOT lewd and that the University could only regulate it via trespassing laws.
>Such is our age.

I saw that on TV.  I thought it was interesting that the other students
passing by were not interested to look at the student anymore.  You want
him and the people around him to cover THAT WHICH GOD WAS NOT ASHAMED
TO CREATE!  Such is our age!  :-)  (People at nudist beaches say that
they go there because it makes them feel really relaxed about themselves.
Nudity and Sexuality have been linked way too much.  And I think Sexuality
is what you have in mind when you wanted the courts to rule it was lewd.
But it wasn't.  It was nudity.  And it seems that after a couple of days,
people realized that).

"And he [Saul] stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel
in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night."
1Samuel 19:24

There is nothing wrong or ungodly about our bodies Rex.  Nudity per se is not
wrong.  "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good."

-leo