I don’t call it junk, but if me and my wife were the only humans, of course I would go outside, on warm enough days with no clothes on. It’s illegal in most places, so I don’t. I have done it where it is legal, gone skinny dipping. I have in other contexts. I never, ever worry about God or animals experiencing my body as sinful or shameful. And presumably God can see through clothes and further is not offended by what he created. Is it the trees they should have been ashamed in front of?
If I get undressed in a locker room, am I sinning because other people are changing also?
I actually think they would answer as I do, were they real individuals.
Under no definition of either love or hate in my dictionary is a mention of the Eden story.
I agree with Phyllo that this story is about dualism as a human perspective.
To see how this sense of dualism emerges in the human psyche, read the first chapter in the book of James KJV.
I find the shame and hatred of the human body to be strange. It’s not just in Christianity, it’s in a lot of religions and philosophies. Why is the mind-body dualism so appealing?
If things worked well for God and as he said, they have become as gods, you might remember that god has cloths on and the right thing to do for A & E would be to emulate him.
You’re saying that covering up is the right thing to do. But why is it the right thing to do? What is wrong about being uncovered?
I suspect that the typical answer is that if women are uncovered, then men won’t be able to control themselves and they will start masturbating in public.
Or worse, men won’t be able to control themselves and they will be raping women all over that place.
I don’t think that would happen.
In the 80s, if you went to a beach in France, practically all the women were topless. I don’t recall seeing any guys masturbating. “Topless” was just normal and ordinary. If you some guy was excited by it, he saved it for when he got home.
Even as a Gnostic Christian who hates Christians for their Inquisitions against us, I cannot agree with your views of Christians hating or being ashamed of their bodies. Muslims on the other hand sure dress like they do.
If you look at all ancient tribes and the new ones we are discovering, they almost all wear something over their junk.
The reasons why are obvious. Ever had a wasp prick your poker or have a twig snap back on it?
Women do not have that problem but that once a month thing is sure dirty and messy.
At the right time and place, nothing. Here we have A & E’ father popping up and that is not an appropriate time.
Even if you are a nudist, when the family comes to call, you will likely cover up unless they are there for a nude gathering, which was not the case with A & E as their good manners and couth told them to hide their junk.
A foolish answer.
Another foolish thought.
Ah. Reality again.
[/quote]
I agree. But he would have to be some hard up as an average group of people nude is not the most exciting thing to see. It is rather funny in fact. By todays standard, anyone over 16 years old starts to look like gravity is 5 times the norm. Be it breasts or junk, the knees get a lot closer. Yuk.
You do not seem to want to think like the ancients did when they created all the taboos.
Religions in question were created in areas where there were finite resources and baby sacrifices if the people did not control themselves. Religions tried to sanctify sex so as to not have to sacrifice so many babies. It is also why Temple prostitutes were used and were a well respected and venerated part of the temple stall.
This link speaks to much of that but unfortunately it is long and the facts I speak of are closer to the end.
So, you decided not to respond to what I wrote. Now you are arguing that God wears clothing. I don’t know how you know this. God was clothed, metaphorically, with things like majesty and splendor, but garments, nah. And you are also sounding rather God as a kind of big guy in the sky like non-gnostic Christians here.
LOL. We can all add that our posts are right, or perfect arguments, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
That is true but most of the iconography shows god dressed while only those around him are naked.
Since god made them cloths right away, my assumption is likely correct because if God was naked, as you indicate, A ^ E should not have been ashamed or afraid as they would have been right at home in a naked world. It makes more sense to have god dressed.
[/quote]
Most myths have things that do not fit logic and reason. That is why they are called myths and why Christians have such a hard time explaining Eden in a literal way.
To explain the fear etc., you might imagine you walking in on a couple of what, 3 or 4 year olds who have just played touche P P.
My bet is that they will stop on the spot because they might have a clue that they were being naughty without really knowing why adults say it is naughty to play touche P P.
That is a French expression. What do you English call it?
And then here did not respond to my objection to the God was clothed argument. Which is a bizzare argument for a Gnostic, I repeat.
I mentioned that you chose not to respond. I made no demand that you agree. So this is a implicit strawman type question.
As far as what I said about you choosing not to repond, I raised some issues, you two posts ago. You did not respond to them, brought up the idea that God is clothed, and now here did not respond to my objection to that.