Being naked and human

[pastorlenny]

This is just a thought for those who struggle with the authority (which we can distinguish from the literalism) of Genesis.

Let's assume, for the moment, that humankind indeed evolved from some species of ape.  Let us therefore further assume that the account in the opening chapters of Genesis does not literally describe the origins of humankind,

Comments

[mlfoley]

I don't think nakedness is wrong, to be honest. My misshapen, scarred up body notwithstanding. ;D I wear clothes for a more utilitarian reason - it's the law and to keep my body covered up from any possible injury that can be avoided. And, of course, in the winter to keep warm.

But then, I tend to see Genesis as basically 'explanatory mythology.' In other words, it answers questions that the individuals who wrote it had. "Why do we wear clothes?" is one of them. "Why do we fear, yet revere snakes?" and "Why are we clearly more intelligent than animals - more "God-like" as it were?" (Genesis 3:22)

I'm not so sure that the taboo about wearing clothes was universal - the other Middle Eastern countries were more loose in their sexual activities, so I can't imagine they were hung up on clothes. Even today, there are plenty of people who are nudists (and there were constant uprisings of such groups in the Medieval era) so the taboo is not really as universal as one might think.

[pastorlenny]

My point is not the universality of the taboo. I already noted this in the OP. Nor is it modern social and cultural attitudes towards clothing. My point is to raise the issue of whether the first behavioral marker to differentiate a hominid from a human was the donning of a loincloth -- as opposed to the conventional academic markers of language and tool-making.

[mlfoley]

I suppose from a Biblical POV that's true. But it would be impossible to tell. It is more likely that mankind wore loincloths or other articles of clothing after shedding much of its hair and seeking a form of protection, rather than the shame idea that is central to the Genesis account.

[pastorlenny]

Not sure I'd buy the hair thing -- considering we're still doing pretty good in that department around the very area we conceal. Also, if the issue was just physical protection, footwear would precede loincloths. Based on current anthropological observation, that's not the case.

And when you use the term "more likely," are you speaking mathematically? How would you go about calculating the probability of one conjecture compared with another? Have you interviewed any neanderthals about their shame issues? Any other clinical basis for your assertion? Sources?

[mlfoley]

No, but then, neither have you or anyone else. The entire subject is speculation as we have no idea why the Neanderthals created clothing. It simply, to me, makes more sense that they'd create and wear clothing to protect themselves from the elements, not due to metaphysical consequences from a "fall."

[pastorlenny]

Ah, OK. I understand that some things make more sense to you than others. It's just that when you use a phrase like "more likely," there is an implication that you have some empirical source of knowledge that enables you to calculate probabilities. You may want to avoid confusing subjective and objective language. After all, you don't want to jeopardize your Internet privileges! :)

[mintogrubb]

Your point is taken

[pastorlenny]

You're still missing the point by dwelling on either evolutionary biology or morality. There is a third issue: the actual phenomenology of humanness. Forget about the various speculations concerning how environmental factors and incremental mutation led to that "tipping point" of self-awareness we consider humanity. What do you make of the fact that the Gensis account highlights "awareness of nakedness" as the marker for this tipping point? What does this tell you about who you are?

If you only think of yourself in terms of biology, you will always be less than human. If you only think of yourself as a moral actor, you will only have the options of self-righteousness or condemnation. There is something about you that is neither biological or moral. What is it?

[mintogrubb]

Is it the fact that I have a "soul"? Do i get the cookie?

Seriously, I am the product of a long tradition. i speak english because I was born in England, not France or Italy.

Yet if you want to know why I go to Trinty Church in Upminster, nothing , not even psychology, will be able to answer that. I would say that i felt God call me there.

There isn't any other expanation . Like this soul I believe I have, God cannot be put in a test tube or pushed under a microscope or studied by mass spectroscopy to determine his exact nature.

I think that science, Like Politics, is distinct from religion. My faith certainly informs my political stance,and not the other way about. But it is two way traffic sometimes with faith and science. The two talk to each other on equal terms, and try no to tread on each others toes.

My Faith does not try to tell my Reason that it has to believe that which can be shown to be impossible, but then, Reason does not say that because it cannot see what Faith alone percieves, that Faith must be at fault here.

[pastorlenny]

Hehe. You get half a cookie. "Soul" is a good answer to start with. You also have a spirit. You also have an identity. And you are also a relational being. That is, who you are is not just determined by the attributes you possess as an independent "unit" -- but also by how you relate to the various other players on the stage of life. These include your spouse, God, me, other believers, the world system, etc.

In fact, this soul/spirit/identity/relationship thing may be much more important to you and to God than biology or morality. So we need to somehow get you less hung up on the mechanics of life (biology) and the rules of life (morality) and more focused on the nature, purpose, story, and esthetics of life.

More specifically, what did Jesus preach? Did He preach biology? Did He preach morality? According to Jesus Himself, what was He called to preach?

[ysgawen]

Jesus preached love. Not inerrancy, not mere salvation and certainly not "reject science and sneer at anyone who doesn't" but love. Why is it that you don't see that?

[arago_sama]

Because his love was based on the authority and factuality of the Law.

(By the way, it always seems I end up finding and replying to your comments. It's not on purpose! hehe)

[ysgawen]

I think we tend to be online at the same times.

That's the difference between your theology and mine. You see love as based on everything else, I see everything else as based on love.

[pastorlenny]

But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.” -Luke 4:43

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God. This is not just about "love" as the term is commonly used -- but also repentance, holiness, salvation, ecclesiology, and eschatology. You make many presumptions about my person and my preaching, simply because I defend the faith. Someday, perhaps, you will judge the tree by its fruit.

[ysgawen]

That's precisely what I am doing. What is your fruit? I look at everything you post and I see not one word of love, compassion, honour, respect or faith. The Kingdom of God is love. All else is just window-dressing. You are so caught up in the trivialities that you miss the fact that the Creator of the universe loves us and wants us to love each other.

[pastorlenny]

1) Ask around.
2) LJ is not real life. It's words about real life.
3) You're not exactly a little ray of sunshine around here yourself.
4) You jumped down my throat the first time I ever posted here. So your problem with me has nothing to do with my history of posts. It has to do with some prejudice you have. You see everything through a veil of hate, and then talk about love. Who knows? Maybe you just hate Americans. Or Jews. Or pastors. Yes, I think that's it. You really have something against pastors. Ah well. Hope you get over that.