5 ms·

What do you make of Adam being ashamed of being naked in the presence of God? To me, that seems to be just something a clothed adult in a pudic society would t

by raducu 7y ago

What do you make of Adam being ashamed of being naked in the presence of God? To me, that seems to be just something a clothed adult in a pudic society would think, not something the first man would actually feel.

elwell 7y ago
The transition from being unashamed to ashamed is a big part of the Garden story. First: "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Then, later: "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." I don't know, or care to focus on, how literal or figurative the story is. Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here.
- anthk 7y ago
  More like "shit and pee attracts predators". Also, boobs, the vagina, the nuts and the penis are pretty sensitive to the sun/branches/grass and so on.
  - raducu 7y ago
    It takes children yeara to develop nakedness shame, and they develop it because of their peers, not something biological.
    - mcv 7y ago
      Shame is definitely learned. In that sense, the biblical story makes sense: shame is the product of sin there.
- omarchowdhury 7y ago
  Adam fell into the duality of the subject object relationship when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this much is implied in the very name of the tree which relates two opposing and irreconcilable terms. After eating from this tree, Adam began to see himself as seperate from God. This led to the absursity of his shame, since putting on clothes is not going to hide what's underneath from the all knowing being. For man, it is absurd that he sees himself as seperate from God, whose existence man depends on for his own being. Seeing his nakedness after having not seen it previously also speaks to man's mode of being shifting from the inward to the outward, with the surface of the body being the limit of outward development and the preoccupation with it being exposed pointing to this shift and fall. The two eyes of the two individuals, again signifying duality, being opened also attests to this shift since the eyes that see the nakedness can only see outwardly. And finally, recall that this shift from the inward to the outward is precisely the fall of man, since the "Kingdom of God is within you."
- tikwidd 7y ago
  > Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here. This is something I think about sometimes. We now know that anatomically modern humans shared a timeline and even bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, probably others. So there was a period when anatomically modern humans, probably cognitively modern (thus capable of language) or close to it, were interacting with these other archaic homo sapiens and probably became aware of their cognitive differences. Maybe these ancient stories reflect an early rationalisation of how human-neanderthal or human-denisovan physical and cultural practices differed. Of course the stories would have to be transmitted for thousands of generations... Bonus armchair biblical hermeneutics: the Nephilim [1] are the biblical reflex of older stories about one or more archaic homo sapiens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
  - mcv 7y ago
    That could certainly explain how Cain, son of allegedly the first man and woman, was afraid of what other people might do to him when he was exiled. Clearly his family wasn't the only people on Earth. Though I don't think that's really about Denisovans and Neanderthals. It's just a transition from creation myth to other kinds of myth, and not reflective of any real events. I'm a Christian, and I'm firmly convinced that the first half of Genesis (possibly all of it, but definitely the first part) is just a collection of older mythological stories shaped into a somewhat cohesive whole, with some mention of God shoehorned in, whether it makes sense or not. It's certainly not meant to be taken literally in any way. There might be a kernel of truth to some of them (there probably was a big flood where someone saved a lot of animals), but that kernel is small. From Abraham onward, it starts to look more like it might be based on real events.
tenpies 7y ago
You are free to take it as literally as you want, but it seems like it would allude to milestones in evolution: * As we get closer to the modern human, we lose body hair to better suit our hunting style. The trade off is we're much more vulnerable since our skin is pretty bad compared to almost every animal out there. * We make up for this by literally taking other animals' skins and putting it on top of our own. * Hunting societies begin to emerge in parallel to this change, and shame is a key element of the social interaction that allows that. Shame allows reinforcement and communication of expectations, all without violence or even language. Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself, so you have to be able to show you are ashamed otherwise it means you're absolutely clueless and why would the group want you around if you're clueless?
- eesmith 7y ago
  That's not universal. Only some hunter-gathers use animal's skins. Some use, eg, gourds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka .
  - eesmith 7y ago
    The modern Sentinelese are hunter-gathers and also essentially naked, wearing only "bark strings", says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese . These observations support my view that the statement "Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself" is not universally correct.
    - raducu 7y ago
      I'm genuinely curious as to why do they even bother with those strings then? Is it shame? Is it something else?
      - eesmith 7y ago
        I am no anthropologist. A quick search on the topic (not specific to those people) suggests decoration, identity, and "perception of how to live life" are possible reasons. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-c... comments that it might be decoration. > Gilligan points out that humans were probably decorating themselves long before clothes even existed. "When you look at contemporary hunter-gatherers who don't use clothing, they decorate themselves brilliantly with body painting. You don't need clothing in order to do that." https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial-myth-naked-bushman/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial... points to several "contexts and situations where elements of dress [broadly speaking] seem to have been of particular relevance." One example is: > a hunter, before he tracks his prey, must cut himself and rub the cuts with a root called ssho /oa. And he must rub his body with it and wear ssho /oa in a band around his shoulders. This is to get the game to “run foolishly”, not knowing that it is afraid, and to approach the hunter as an equal. ... > Far from being naked, or nearly naked, the Bushmen of colonial southern Africa had a complex and meaningful practice of dress. It was intimately related to subsistence, identity and their perception of how to live life in the world as they knew it. The author's book is at http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ .

by raducu 7y ago

elwell 7y ago

The transition from being unashamed to ashamed is a big part of the Garden story. First: "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Then, later: "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." I don't know, or care to focus on, how literal or figurative the story is. Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here.

anthk 7y ago
More like "shit and pee attracts predators". Also, boobs, the vagina, the nuts and the penis are pretty sensitive to the sun/branches/grass and so on.
- raducu 7y ago
  It takes children yeara to develop nakedness shame, and they develop it because of their peers, not something biological.
  - mcv 7y ago
    Shame is definitely learned. In that sense, the biblical story makes sense: shame is the product of sin there.
omarchowdhury 7y ago
Adam fell into the duality of the subject object relationship when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this much is implied in the very name of the tree which relates two opposing and irreconcilable terms. After eating from this tree, Adam began to see himself as seperate from God. This led to the absursity of his shame, since putting on clothes is not going to hide what's underneath from the all knowing being. For man, it is absurd that he sees himself as seperate from God, whose existence man depends on for his own being. Seeing his nakedness after having not seen it previously also speaks to man's mode of being shifting from the inward to the outward, with the surface of the body being the limit of outward development and the preoccupation with it being exposed pointing to this shift and fall. The two eyes of the two individuals, again signifying duality, being opened also attests to this shift since the eyes that see the nakedness can only see outwardly. And finally, recall that this shift from the inward to the outward is precisely the fall of man, since the "Kingdom of God is within you."
tikwidd 7y ago
> Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here. This is something I think about sometimes. We now know that anatomically modern humans shared a timeline and even bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, probably others. So there was a period when anatomically modern humans, probably cognitively modern (thus capable of language) or close to it, were interacting with these other archaic homo sapiens and probably became aware of their cognitive differences. Maybe these ancient stories reflect an early rationalisation of how human-neanderthal or human-denisovan physical and cultural practices differed. Of course the stories would have to be transmitted for thousands of generations... Bonus armchair biblical hermeneutics: the Nephilim [1] are the biblical reflex of older stories about one or more archaic homo sapiens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
- mcv 7y ago
  That could certainly explain how Cain, son of allegedly the first man and woman, was afraid of what other people might do to him when he was exiled. Clearly his family wasn't the only people on Earth. Though I don't think that's really about Denisovans and Neanderthals. It's just a transition from creation myth to other kinds of myth, and not reflective of any real events. I'm a Christian, and I'm firmly convinced that the first half of Genesis (possibly all of it, but definitely the first part) is just a collection of older mythological stories shaped into a somewhat cohesive whole, with some mention of God shoehorned in, whether it makes sense or not. It's certainly not meant to be taken literally in any way. There might be a kernel of truth to some of them (there probably was a big flood where someone saved a lot of animals), but that kernel is small. From Abraham onward, it starts to look more like it might be based on real events.

tenpies 7y ago

You are free to take it as literally as you want, but it seems like it would allude to milestones in evolution: * As we get closer to the modern human, we lose body hair to better suit our hunting style. The trade off is we're much more vulnerable since our skin is pretty bad compared to almost every animal out there. * We make up for this by literally taking other animals' skins and putting it on top of our own. * Hunting societies begin to emerge in parallel to this change, and shame is a key element of the social interaction that allows that. Shame allows reinforcement and communication of expectations, all without violence or even language. Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself, so you have to be able to show you are ashamed otherwise it means you're absolutely clueless and why would the group want you around if you're clueless?

eesmith 7y ago
That's not universal. Only some hunter-gathers use animal's skins. Some use, eg, gourds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka .
- eesmith 7y ago
  The modern Sentinelese are hunter-gathers and also essentially naked, wearing only "bark strings", says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese . These observations support my view that the statement "Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself" is not universally correct.
  - raducu 7y ago
    I'm genuinely curious as to why do they even bother with those strings then? Is it shame? Is it something else?
    - eesmith 7y ago
      I am no anthropologist. A quick search on the topic (not specific to those people) suggests decoration, identity, and "perception of how to live life" are possible reasons. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-c... comments that it might be decoration. > Gilligan points out that humans were probably decorating themselves long before clothes even existed. "When you look at contemporary hunter-gatherers who don't use clothing, they decorate themselves brilliantly with body painting. You don't need clothing in order to do that." https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial-myth-naked-bushman/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial... points to several "contexts and situations where elements of dress [broadly speaking] seem to have been of particular relevance." One example is: > a hunter, before he tracks his prey, must cut himself and rub the cuts with a root called ssho /oa. And he must rub his body with it and wear ssho /oa in a band around his shoulders. This is to get the game to “run foolishly”, not knowing that it is afraid, and to approach the hunter as an equal. ... > Far from being naked, or nearly naked, the Bushmen of colonial southern Africa had a complex and meaningful practice of dress. It was intimately related to subsistence, identity and their perception of how to live life in the world as they knew it. The author's book is at http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ .