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.

[ysgawen]

It's nothing personal. I challenge anyone who posts bigotry or claims divine authority for their prejudices.

I don't hate Jews or Americans. I don't hate anyone. I don't even hate you. Disagreement is not hatred. That's your problem. Anyone who doesn't tell you how wonderful and holy you are is attacking you and must hate you. All ego, no love.

I freely confess, I am the least loving of people, but at least I see that as a fault, not as something to be proud of.

Maybe you just hate Pelagians, or Brits, or people who use the brains God gave them instead of letting you do their thinking for them.

[pastorlenny]

Well Brits do tend to be a bit ... British. :)

[ysgawen]

Well, being fair, someone has to be. ;)

[pastorlenny]

Pelagian and a monarchist? You're asking way too much of me!

[ysgawen]

Pelagian, monarchist and druid! Almost a Catholic, at one point, too.

[pastorlenny]

Well catholic is a good thing. :) Sorry I'm only replying now. Needed to get my rest before preaching wrath and judgment this morning!

[ysgawen]

Exactly! And the doctrine of inerrancy is a prime example, one that actually makes people worship a book instead of God.

[ysgawen]

Science cannot disprove God, since God is real. Therefore, we have nothing to fear from science. You sound like you're saying, "If we think too much, we'll realise God doesn't exist." I know of one preacher near here who became a Christian because his work as a physicist led him to believe that there must be a God.

If what we believe is true, it has nothing to fear from questions. If it's not true, why protect it from them?

Jesus never said a word against science, nor did he ask people not to think. Indeed, God invented our brains. I suspect He intended them for use.

[ysgawen]

Well, on this side of the Atlantic, evolution is not seen as any threat to God. On the contrary, to me, evolution is the proof of the existence of God, but if you have something against having apes as ancestors, then you have to reject all of science, because science keeps on pointing out the facts.

[pastorlenny]

I have a bigger problem having my parents as ancestors. :(

[ysgawen]

So you missed the part where Adam named the animals? For someone so hung-up on the book, you don't actually seem to have read much of it.

[pastorlenny]

You may have missed my point. Adam definitely had language, and he may already have had tools (since he was told to tend the garden). So, yes, tools and "naming" (i.e. signs and language) predate clothing. But animals can use tools and "name," too. This is why I was zeroing in on clothing as the marker of some shift in human consciousness.