Was God a nudist?

[pasdevetements]

I was wondering what all of your thoughts are on nudism in relation to the existence of God, possibly dealing with the never ending battle between evolutionism and creationism.

For example, in the Bible, it says that Noah brought 2 of each animal with him in the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights. It says NOTHING about Noah, his sons, or his sons' wives taking CLOTHES with them. I've researched the Noah/Flood/BareGenitals theory, and in my opinion and the opinion of my bare-assed colleauges, we think that either Noah was a nudist...or Noah did not exist at all...

I've also researched fossil records regarding the Paluxy River tracks, in which dinosaur tracks and human tracks lay fossilized side by side. I just thought I should share one vital fact that I came across while researching these tracks. As I knelt down to take a plaster mold of a metatarsal footprint, I noticed something very peculiar; and that is naked paleotontology is hardly as exciting when you have gential herpes.

The schoolchildren passed me by, pointing and laughing at my God-given (Architect-given?) STD, and after being arrested and ridiculed by the local police, I was released from jail with only the no clothes on my back.

And so, in conclusion, I say that God exists, Noah might, and that since we are born into this glorious world naked, we should leave this glorious world in the same manner.

On that note, I will be in my room awaiting a slow and painful death, "pas des vetements".

Merci beacoup,
Monsieur "Man with No Clothes Or Lack of Faith in a Supreme Creator"

[pasdevetements]

I was wondering what all of your thoughts are on nudism in relation to the existence of God, possibly dealing with the never ending battle between evolutionism and creationism.

For example, in the Bible, it says that Noah brought 2 of each animal with him in the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights. It says NOTHING about Noah, his sons, or his sons' wives taking CLOTHES with them. I've researched the Noah/Flood/BareGenitals theory, and in my opinion and the opinion of my bare-assed colleauges, we think that either Noah was a nudist...or Noah did not exist at all...

I've also researched fossil records regarding the Paluxy River tracks, in which dinosaur tracks and human tracks lay fossilized side by side. I just thought I should share one vital fact that I came across while researching these tracks. As I knelt down to take a plaster mold of a metatarsal footprint, I noticed something very peculiar; and that is naked paleotontology is hardly as exciting when you have gential herpes.

The schoolchildren passed me by, pointing and laughing at my God-given (Architect-given?) STD, and after being arrested and ridiculed by the local police, I was released from jail with only the no clothes on my back.

And so, in conclusion, I say that God exists, Noah might, and that since we are born into this glorious world naked, we should leave this glorious world in the same manner.

On that note, I will be in my room awaiting a slow and painful death, "pas des vetements".

Merci beacoup,
Monsieur "Man with No Clothes Or Lack of Faith in a Supreme Creator"

First off, the Bible says that Noah brought two of each "unclean" animal and seven of each "clean" animal into the Ark.

Second, while the rain lasted 40 days and nights, it was nearly a year before they came out of the Ark, because it took that long before there was enough land for them to live on. This is assuming that they were going by a 12 month calendar. They went into the Ark in the second month and came out in the first month of the following year.

Whether or not Noah and his family wore clothes is anyone's guess. How would they wash their clothes on the Ark?

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Whether or not Noah and his family wore clothes is anyone's guess. How would they wash their clothes on the Ark? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You'd think all that water around them might have been useful for washing clothes. I don't know how they'd have managed for washing powder though.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Rik

[gamblefish]

Maybe they coulda used animal fat...but of course there were no dryers so...nevermind.

Say...what do you suppose the inside of that ark smelled like? PHEW!!!

Perhaps God put all the animals into hibernation so that food for them wouldn't be necessary, and there wouldn't any waste. Of ourse, there would be the animal smell. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
First off, the Bible says that Noah brought two of each "unclean" animal and seven of each "clean" animal into the Ark.

Second, while the rain lasted 40 days and nights, it was nearly a year before they came out of the Ark, because it took that long before there was enough land for them to live on. This is assuming that they were going by a 12 month calendar. They went into the Ark in the second month and came out in the first month of the following year.

Whether or not Noah and his family wore clothes is anyone's guess. How would they wash their clothes on the Ark? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Going by the statistics given in the bible about the size of the ark it has been proven that it would not be possible to fit all these animals plus a year's supply of food inside. Just another fairytale that can't be substantiated in real life.

[David77]

There are TWO stories of Noah and the ark in Genesis.
One states that there was one pair of each kind of animal.

The other states that there were seven pair of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals.

One story says that it was 40 days and 40 nights. The other states it was 370 days.

One says it was a dove. The other says it was a raven.

This is one example of what bible scholars call "couplets" in the bible.

Other couplets are;
Two differing stories of creation.

Also there are two stories of the covenent between the diety and Abraham.

Another example; One story says Seth was the first child. The other story says Cain was the first child.

The reason for couplets in the Bible?
It is because each of the two tribes, Isreal and Judeah, had their legends different, so they just incorporated BOTH stories in the bible, so take you pick! (I don't "literalize" any bible story).

(Incidentally, each of these two tribes had their own name for God and different concepts for God).

[Frank R]

Going by the statistics given in the bible about the size of the ark it has been proven that it would not be possible to fit all these animals plus a year's supply of food inside. Just another fairytale that can't be substantiated in real life. [/QB][/QUOTE]

It has also been proven that a bumble bee cannot fly due to the shape of their wings.
Until it was actually found, the city of Troy was considered a myth.
When Henry Hudson returned to England with a "cure" for scurvy (Vitamin C), the medical establishment of his day laughed him off as everyone knew that scurvy was a disease and not just lack of vitamins. The number of times a "proven fact" has been found to be wrong would take thousands of pages to cover so let's just say we have a difference of opinion and leave it at that.

[Trailscout]

Those interested in the ability of the ark to carry a pair of specimens (probably immature)of each "kind" of terrestrial animal, (a genetic grouping generally between a species and genus in scope), can look to Noah's Ark FAQ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp) for further explanation.

For those of us who are Christian or Jewish, we need to answer the question, "Do we need to emulate the biblical patriarchs in every cultural respect? In particular, as it concerns social and/or familial nudity?

I won't go into detail, but it can be shown that the patriarchs did some things that are clearly wrong, Rachel worshipped pagan gods (her idols were secretly packed in her saddle bags as she left her home in Haran), Jacob used trickery and his brother's lack of food to dupe him into swearing off his birthright. King David committed very public sins. So to those who insist that we imitate every behavior of the characters in the Bible, down to the clothes they wore, I will simply say that their actions were just as often an example of what not to do as what to do.

Rather than try to discover whether Noah was a nudist, I think we should ask with all seriousness is God a nudist?

God's nudism is not a hard case to prove:

Adam and Eve were created nude and remained nude and in God's perfect will until they sinned.

God's reply to Adam's body shame was, "Who told you were naked?" God was not asking how Adam found out that he was naked, God is questioning the entire premise that being without clothing is a state of lack or "nakedness".

When God dressed Adam and Eve, this did not inaugarate a covenant of clothing. There was never a subsequent command to wear the skins of animals used in sacrifice. Sin causes the need for atonement, not the need for clothing.

King Saul prophesied in the nude all day long and the public reaction was not "For Shame!". Instead, the onlookers commented that his nudity was typical of a prophet.

Isaiah prophesied nude for three years to warn of impending captivity of the Jews. It does demonstrate that people in Israel generally wore clothes, or Isaiah's nudity would have no shock value, but it also demonstrates that God had no problem using nudity to make a point. If non-sexual nudity were truly shameful (as Adam thought), then God wouldn't have insisted on it. Jesus himself was briefly nude at the conclusion of the Last Supper as he washed the disciple's feet.

There are passages in which God admonishes priests to take precaution against accidental exposure of their bodies in temple worship, but that was because of mockers or hecklers in the congregation, not because God himself objected to the unclothed body. There are also passages in which modern renderings of the Torah admonish us not to <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>uncover the nakedness of... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>some close relative. In a textile society, which the Hebrews had become, if a man is alone with a woman and removes her clothing, that is generally a sexual context. That same woman might blamelessly work in a vineyard nude or partially nude, and there is the famous example of the apostle Peter innocently working nude in his fishing boat. The latter cases are examples of nonsexual nudity that were a given in Hebrew culture.

If you are Jewish or Christian, do not assume that body shame is an intrinsic part of your faith. Only a very prejudicial reading of scripture will teach body shame. Look at the verses for yourself. God created us without clothes and called it very good. Only the need to avoid hostility of people with a warped view of the body or the need for protection from harsh weather create the need for clothing in our present world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David77:
There are TWO stories of Noah and the ark in Genesis.
The reason for couplets in the Bible?
It is because each of the two tribes, Isreal and Judeah, had their legends different, so they just incorporated BOTH stories in the bible, so take you pick! (I don't "literalize" any bible story).

(Incidentally, each of these two tribes had their own name for God and different concepts for God). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But christians say that their god wrote the bible. Does he had a twin brother that wrote the other version? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
[QUOTE]But christians say that their god wrote the bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*Some* Christians say this. Most have a better understanding of it.

Still there is a great deal of disagreement about how 'inspired' the various authors were. Some extreme fundamentalists believe God gave them every word and moved their hands, and that the contents are literally true in all respects (I find it hard to believe that those people have actually read the Bible). Others view it as little more than a collection of often mistranslated oral traditions that require a great deal of scholarship to draw any serious conclusions from. Most fall between the two viewpoints.

[Trailscout]

Mark,

Millions of Christians, perhaps a majority, have no difficulty accepting the Bible at face value as the literal word of God.

It almost sounds as if you are contending that nudism is incompatible with a belief in the divine inspiration of scripture. I can only invite you to examine the text as if God gave the message to the patriarchs and prophets. Even if you do, it would be impossible to derive a doctrine that God forbids social or familial nudity much less that the Creator of nude humanity suddenly changed gears and deems it immoral to be nude.

If you are laboring under the paradigm that there is no God, or perhaps if there is, you are predisposed to reject the possibility that the divine ever deigned to communicate with the material world, then you obviously have no interest in examining the scriptures to see if God might have revealed his will about nudity.

I would like to gently suggest that this thread was started to address the concerns of those who do see God's word in the Bible and there are a lot more of us than you realize.

Even if you don't accept the existance of a sacred scripture, you might find it helpful to understand why believers accept or reject the goodness of social nudity.

By the way, a previous post postulated two scriptural traditions. Israel was never a tribe, but a nation that was a composite of 11 tribes minus Judah. The theory actually postulates two verbal traditions: Yahwistic and Elohistic, both of which would have predated the division of the nation of Israel by many centuries. That theory has been debunked. Hebrew literary style employs this technique without requiring two input streams. There never were two creation accounts, nor would these be necessarily verbally transmitted prior to Moses. Writing existed in ancient Chaldea centuries before and may have gone back as far as the first of the antediluvian patriarchs.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Mark,

Millions of Christians, perhaps a majority, have no difficulty accepting the Bible at face value as the literal word of God.

It almost sounds as if you are contending that nudism is incompatible with a belief in the divine inspiration of scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, you certainly read a lot more into my post than I wrote.

I was responding to Cyndiann's comment about who wrote the Bible. My point was that yes some do view it very literally as dictated by God, making the human authors little more than stenographers, others view it as having little or no divine influence or inspiration, but most are in between.

I think you are very wrong that "perhaps a majority, have no difficulty accepting the Bible at face value as the literal word of God."

Most accept it as the word of God only with a great deal of interpretation, whether they are intellectually aware of that or not.

There are numerous factual errors in the Bible. The sun does not revolve around the Earth. The value of Pi is not 3. There are conflicting histories of the same events. Those with very strong convictions about Biblical inerrancy engage in extreme interpretive gymnastics to harmonize obvious errors.

Those with a greater trust in God simply assign the errors to imperfect humans. The divine inspiration of the imperfect human authors is still evident to the thoughtful reader.

There is a big difference between believing that the Bible is the 'Word of God' (which is basic to Christianity), and that it was inerrantly and literally authored by God.

-Mark

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:

There never were two creation accounts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, there are two versions of creation as follows;

The first versions is in Genesis 1:1-2:3.
It is considered the "J" version from Judah, using the sole name "Elohim" 35 times for God.

The second version is in Genesis 2:4-24.
It is considered the "E" version from Isreal using only the name "Yahweh" 11 times for God.

They describe creation events in different order.

In the first version, God created plants first, then animals, then man and woman.

In the second version, God created MAN first. Then he created plants. Then, so that man should not be alone, God created animals. And last, after man does not find a satisfactory mate among the <u>animals</u>, God created woman.

<u>Genesis 1</u>
plants
animals
man & woman

<u>Genesis 2</u>
man
plants
animals
woman

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trailscout:
[qb] Mark,

Those with very strong convictions about Biblical inerrancy engage in extreme interpretive gymnastics to harmonize obvious errors.

There is a big difference between believing that the Bible is the 'Word of God' (which is basic to Christianity), and that it was inerrantly and literally authored by God.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you Mark, I absolutly agree that the Bible is inspired by God and useful for teaching, edifying, building up our faith, leading us to God, etc. But word for word, inherrantly literal? No.

Unfortunatly many do believe that and I think in doing so they put their faith in the wrong place, a book inspired by God to lead us to God rather than God's self. First of all which interpertation is word for word literal? Than what about how we read it, is it literal if you read it from a grace perspective or only if you read it from a law perspective? (literalists tend to favor the law perspective) From an eastern way of thinking or a western way of thinking? What about how we understand things from our cultural perspective today vs. how those in the time it was written would have understood them from a far different cultural perspective and understanding.

Personally I think God allowed many things to be put in the Bible just so people wouldn't take IT too literally. So that more people would ultimately understand that it's inspired but NOT literal and look to God instead of depending on a book. I think anyone who say they believe it is word for word literal should take this test at http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html Admittedly the people who put this test together have an anti-Christian bias but the test is backed up with scriptural proof. To me the fact this test can be backed up with Scripture should make anyone question the idea of the Bible being word for word literal.

I think some peoples faith is built on the Bible being literal, to me that is sad and a very weak, shallow faith that could easily crumble under many types of trials. A good example are people who believe the Bible says that Christians will be raptured before the persecution at the end times (the word rapture isn't in the Bible even for the literalists!). Many who have believed this have quickly denied their faith when faced with persecution.

Nate

[Trailscout]

Nate,

Neither you nor Mark has addressed the premise of this thread. Is God a nudist? I say yes, but neither of you have voiced an opinion.

I do accept the Bible as being literally inspired not word for word but concept for concept. That does not mean that I accept the interpretation of every literalist.

I believe that God inspired the Torah and the entire Torah administered with a mediator was his perfect will for the children of Israel up to the time Messiah departed from this earth.

I am well aware of harsh penalties for sin, but the Bible is full of examples of people acting as a mediator to avert punishment. Noah offered a way of escape from the flood. Abraham pled with God for the lives of those in Sodom. Moses asked God to spare the Jews in the Wilderness. God has been a God of mercy from the beginning. We never get what we deserve. A human who does not show the love and mercy of God will be in sin if he tries to extract the full Levitical penalty for any proscribed behavior.

One who takes the Bible literally should be aware of the verse in which Jesus said, Jhn 5:39, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ...
In other words the scriptures are a means to an end, right relation with God through Jesus.

You ask "...which interpertation is word for word literal?" The Hebrew Old Testament is. Jewish scribes had fanatical devotion to the purity of the text. The Koine Greek New Testament has a few typos at this point in time, but you misspelled a word in this paragraph yourself and I still understood you.

Much of the Bible translates literally quite well across cultures and times. There are some concepts and principles of Hebrew thought you need to master, but the differences are not permanent barriers to comprehension. Under a little guidance, after a few years of study you will be able to understand these teachings in their original context with their intended meaning. You can make a life study of scriptural nuances, but a basic mastery of the teachings of the Bible is attainable in a few years.

You are right on target when you say, "...God allowed many things to be put in the Bible just so people wouldn't take IT too literally".
It is a well-known literary device, the Hebrew paradox. Two apparently contradictory statements follow one another in short order. Both statements are actually necessary components of a broader truth. The book of Proverbs is rife with these deliberate paradoxes. The western mind calls them contradictions. The eastern mind looks for the unifying unspoken truth.
If you are more familiar with Marxist dialectic, the concept seems borrowed from the Bible. A thesis and its antithesis meet in synthesis. The similarities of these concepts is understandable if you recognize that Karl Marx was the son of a rabbi. I am not a Marxist, but on those occasions where Marx's theories are based on solid biblical truth I am on common ground with him.

The "rapture" is a modern theological construct. I literally believe the verses which are used to support the theory, I just think the theory is flawed.

- Trailscout

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Nate,

Neither you nor Mark has addressed the premise of this thread. Is God a nudist? I say yes, but neither of you have voiced an opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was responding to other issues that had been brought up within the discussion.

But since you ask... If you stipulate that God doesn't have a corporeal body I'd say that clothing or its lack is meaningless.

If you are asking whether God approves of nudism, I'd say yes. In creation story 2 God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden in a nude state. That was apparently the intended state of mankind. Nudity is described throughout the Bible, but non-sexual nudity is not condemned.

If God had meant for us to be ashamed of our bodies and to hide them at all times She would have told us...

-Mark

[Nate Dekan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
[QB] Nate,

Neither you nor Mark has addressed the premise of this thread. Is God a nudist? I say yes, but neither of you have voiced an opinion.[QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was responding to other issues that had been brought up within the discussion.

But since you ask... If you stipulate that God doesn't have a corporeal body I'd say that clothing or its lack is meaningless.

If you are asking whether God approves of nudism, I'd say yes. In creation story 2 God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden in a nude state. That was apparently the intended state of mankind. Nudity is described throughout the Bible, but non-sexual nudity is not condemned.

If God had meant for us to be ashamed of our bodies and to hide them at all times She would have told us...

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I couldn't have said it better than Mark did myself.

Nate

[Bob S.]

If we accept the Noah story (-ies), then the number of animals on the ark is not the only thing to look at. Assuming that all land on Earth was covered and there were no pieces of land even sticking out of the water, then that would mean that all mountains would have to be covered as well. And in order to make that happen, we have to look at Mt. Everest, which has a height of 29,028 feet (do your own conversion to metric). I have done the math and discovered that if the rains lasted for 370 days, it would have had to rain at an average of 0.653 inches of rain per minute! And the rainfall would have been just over 6 inches per minute in the 40 days and nights version. That is a whole lot of rain that would have caused some erosion of the wood on the ark.

I think that it is funny that Christians can accept that Jesus can teach using moral tales, but that the Bible cannot have any fictional tales. I personally do not take the Bible as anything but a bunch of historical fiction tales with moral lessons in them. Sure, they may have been based on real events, but over time, these oral tales underwent the telephoning effect, ie stories were changed, words were changed, exaggerations were introduced, etc.

justBob

[Trailscout]

Bob,

A quick glance at the book of Genesis will remind you that during the Flood, there were several sources of water for the flood: the fountains of the deep bursting from the ground, a vapor canopy (firmament) that precipitated out and a massive tsumani as the sea beds rose in relation to the continents. You need not postulate covering Mount Everest; the earth's antediluvian topography may have consisted of low hills and valleys. Immediately following the flood and in the centuries that followed, the mountains attained their present height and the sea bed would have deeped to accomodate the firmament of water vapor in the sky.

Such a cataclysm would require a miracle. Some choose to believe in them others don't, but in any case, it would not require nearly as much rainfall as you conjecture.

You are welcome to "take the Bible as anything but a bunch of historical fiction tales with moral lessons in them", but apart from a few miracle stories thrown in, much of the Bible is verifiable by archaology and contemporaneous extrabiblical works.

Do you have a problem with the concept of a powerful deity intervening in human affairs a few times in recorded history? Why is that so difficult?

[theoldman]

I've always believed (was taught this at an early age) that some of the Bible is literally true, that some is allegorical, some is historical, etc. etc.

A lot of the old testament is probably not litterally factual, although "scientific discoveries" tend to prove some of it rather than disprove it.

Here again everyone has his/her own interpretation & isn't going to change this interpretation.

Original quetion seems to have gotten pushed aside about was God a nudist. Who knows? No one has seen God (George Burns movies not withstanding) but if God created man in his own image, & he created man naked (Adam & Eve story, be it true or fable the fact is the account says they were naked & were created in God's image, so I accept that if you put human form to God then he (or is it she?) was without a doubt a nudist.

With all due respect to many posters in this thread, get back on the subject, Noah & the ark doesn't seem to me to be related to God's nudity!

[Trailscout]

Thanks for your input oldman!

It seems silly to think of God being nude, except for those times he wears human form.

I do think nudity was God's idea. I also contend that one who takes the Bible literally could not defend clothing without doing injustice to the text of the Bible. It is a little bit of a stretch to say that God advocates going to nudist resorts, but I think that any social movement that can partially restore humanity to the nudity for which we were designed is a good thing.

If I may paraphrase his reply to Adam, "Who told you that your body needs to be covered up?" (It wasn't God's idea!)

[Bob S.]

Trailscout, two things.

1. Thank you for informing me of the extraneous parts of the flood story that I was not privy to. But that would lead me to ask what the highest peak was during that time? Since all land was covered, that peak would have had to be covered as well, meaning that the whole of the planet was one waterball. And acknowledging that, the Earth would more than likely, knowing the properties of water, be covered with water, equidistant to the center of the Earth (A circle, or rather an ellipse, of water as pur planet).

2. Please don't be so condescending and patrononizing when it comes to youtr religion. I believe in a deity just as you do, but in my own personal beliefs, He is much less involved in our lives. He watches over us and allows us to make our own descisions and does not intervene in anything. It is up to us to decide whether to follow His path to goodness or not. If you have trouble understanding exactly what I am getting at, read "The Neverending Story." In that book (please not the movie, it does not have the same characterization) look how everyone views the Childlike Empress and how she rules her realm. She is "Fantastica" and if she dies, so dies her realm. SHe has the power to kill off anyone or any section of her realm with the mere thought, but chooses not to.

Now to answer the main question. G*d is not a nudist. Nudism is a human idea that was created thousands of years after we started weaing clothes. Our original form was naked. The first sin in the Bible caused mankind to wear clothing as protection against the elements outside of Eden. To say that G*d is a nudist would then be saying that the original sin was planned by Him and he expected us to fall from paradise.

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Hi Bob!

Didn't mean to be brusque with you. In a verbal conversation it is easier to speak more softly than on this forum.

Interesting thought about a water world. Did you know that if the contours of the Earth were smooth as a beachball, the oceans would cover the entire planet to a depth of 2000 feet?

The Genesis account is the main source for the Flood facts I gave, but I did draw from Psalms and Job as well.

As for miracles, I don't think they happen everyday or they wouldn't be miracles. On the other hand, what's to keep G*d from dropping in 2 or 3 times in recorded history for a "mid-course correction" as they used to say in the Apollo program?

I will keep an eye out for "The Neverending Story."

You make a very good point when you said, "To say that G*d is a nudist would then be saying that the original sin was planned by Him and he expected us to fall from paradise".

Is there such a thing as being naked? The word naked implies that we lack something and barring harsh weather, I am just fine in my skin!

[averagejoe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> To say that G*d is a nudist would then be saying that the original sin was planned by Him and he expected us to fall from paradise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Didn't he? God never asks a question to which he does not already know the answer. When God speaks to Adam after the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, he isn't asking a question expecting to be informed by Adam. Rather, he wants his question to inform Adam, a tactic most good parents know quite well.

As to the original question...

God, while perhaps not a practicing nudist, must be one at heart for sunshine, soft breezes and ocean waves to feel so good against our exposed flesh /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[David77]

When you ask the "silly" question, "Is God a nudist" you are using anthropomorphism to the extreme, that is, "Creating God in your own image." Then you might as well ask does God have a liver, spleen, upper and lower intestines, genitals, along with the body surface exposed as a nudist, and does he use his intestines in processing and eliminating food he eats? Do his lungs take in oxygen and if so, from where does he gets the oxygen? What is the function of his genitals and why does he have a human-like belly button since he originally did not have an unbilical cord, since he was never born of a woman? If you are going to say that God is a nudist, you are obliged to consider his internal body along with his external nude body.

Most people I have had contact with think abstractly of their God, such as a spiritual entity of highest ideals, Life Force, and not having a body; example, God is Love, All Good, worthy of reverence, but would not believe in a physical man or woman God, or a God who is a nudist!

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
To say that G*d is a nudist would then be saying that the original sin was planned by Him and he expected us to fall from paradise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And herein lies one of the irresolvable internal contradictions in Christianity: either God is omniscient (he knew Man would "fall from grace" before it happened) and omnipotent (but he failed to prevent the fall), or he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Either he knew it would happen and went ahead with the Creation anyway, or he didn't foresee it.

Within the Christian paradigm of a _perfect_ deity, the Fall must have been part of the original design, since God couldn't have made a mistake. If the Fall (resulting in eternal damnation unless one is "saved" by choosing correctly among the myriad flavors of Christianity) was preplanned, then this god is not one most of us would choose to worship. If a human parent conceived and bore a child just for the fun of torturing it endlessly, we would think that person was the worst sort of monster. Why do we allow our gods, who allegedly gave us our moral values, to get away with such behavior?

As for the original question, I suspect the gods are not concerned with whether humans wear clothes. But what I find more interesting is the wording of that question: WAS (past tense) God a nudist? Did he die when we weren't looking? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BB,
Vin

[Trailscout]

Vin,

Is the question irresolvable because you can't figure it out? Life is full of things that are beyond our capacity to understand fully, but that does not mean that God is not good or in control of our destiny. It just means we are finite, not infinite in our grasp of reality.

Vin, let's put this in human terms. If a medical doctor knew that you would die if you didn't take, let's say insulin and he told you so. Then you chose not to take it and told him so, then the doctor knows you will die ahead of time, but that it was of your own choosing. The doctor could beat you over the head, knock you unconscious and inject you with this life-sustaining medicine, but instead he places a greater priority on your right to choose life or death.

If you don't believe in the Christian God, but in many deities, even imperfect ones, the problem doesn't go away. There is still the issue of a choice between allowing you to have free will, vs. making all the life choices these higher powers want you to.

It is flawed logic to assume that divine foreknowledge of the path you will chose means that your wrong choice was your destiny. By the same token, the powers from on high are not to blame if you ignore their advice. Again, it is more important that you are free to choose, free to love and free to hate.

Perhaps there are myriad flavors of Christianity, but is that not true of pagan belief systems as well? The differences in practice are simply tools we use to help us with abstract concepts. At the end of the day, God is one though we honor him in many ways.

The question "Was God a nudist" also disturbs me, but for a different reason. It implies that God changed his mind about nudity and suddenly it is wicked for his highest creation, our bodies to be seen in all it's glory. God says "I change not". One of our sacred books speak of the one who was and is and is to come. The divine name itself reflects that eternal reality in the original Hebrew.

Shalom!

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
herein lies one of the irresolvable internal contradictions in Christianity: either God is omniscient (he knew Man would "fall from grace" before it happened) and omnipotent (but he failed to prevent the fall), or he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Either he knew it would happen and went ahead with the Creation anyway, or he didn't foresee it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Several comments: Was there a 'fall from grace'? It is certainly described in the Bible, but how literal is the story? That story of the fall is one of the very oldest in the Bible and represents a surprisingly sophisticated examination of the condition of mankind and our relationship to the Creator. That this story was first recorded in a time when the Hebrews still practiced animal (and occasionally human) sacrifice just makes the psychological insights even more profound despite their 'primitive' provenance.

There is plenty to learn from Genesis 2 even if you don't take it literally, so you needn't tie yourself into knots worrying about God's ulterior motives.

Predestination and free-will is a well worn theological conundrum. My take on it is that there are some exceedingly strange aspects to the structure of the universe as we are now beginning to understand it that, to me, seem to indicate that the whole purpose of this reality is to allow free will within the context of a complete creation.

There is a book in this concept, perhaps I'll write it someday, but not in this already long post. Just a few tidbits...

God is extremely anthropomorphized in the Old Testament, but even today it is diffilcult to wrap our minds around the concept of a God who is greater than the creation we inhabit. We are past thinking of the Creator as a large powerful man in a far away place, we can easily imagine that space and distance don't apply to the presence of God because the creator isn't bound by the confines the 3 dimensions of space. But we don't often think that Time is just as much a part of that creation, and our Creator must stand outside of time as well as space. The past present and future are all part the completeness of the creation, the passage and restrictions of the flow of time only apply to our perceptions, not to God's.

So how can there be free will in a creation that God percieves outside of time? Isn't it all finished, known, set in concrete from God's perspective?

Look at quantum physics. On the submicroscopic level nothing happens in a straightforward manner. The orderly Newtonian universe becomes a fuzzy haze of probabilities and potentials where you can never know the exact position, condition or energy of any particular particle. Only on the mass scale of millions or billions of particle interactions can we approach any certainty about what is happening.

Not only can we not know exactly what is happening in submicroscopic physics, but there is no 'exactly' happening. A photon can behave like a particle or like a wave or both at the same time. High school students can do experiments that show that a single photon can travel two separate paths to a target at the same time.

Particles and their anti-particles can appear out of nothing at all, exist briefly and then disappear in mutual annihilation using energy borrowed from the Universe in some not very well understood manner. Almost anything is possible, (although unlikely) a Porsche could appear in your swimming pool - not impossible, just nearly impossible.

Very small variations in initial conditions can result in huge changes in eventual effect. The so-called 'butterfly' effect where the beat of a Monarch's wing in Minnesota eventually results in an Indian Ocean Typhoon. The branch of mathematics known as chaos theory examines such complexities and can find the order that exists within the randomness of the chaos. I see chaotic systems as a macroscopic extension of the random probabilistic nature of the quantum scale.

Our brains are highly organized organic machines that work in a highly chaotic manner (It has been shown that a lack of sufficient chaos -a pathologic orderliness, is exhibited in brains of epileptics during seizures.) Our brains are fuzzy logic quantum computers that operate chaotically. That is as far from tinker-toy clockwork as can be conceived by our limited intellects.

Our brains, our bodies, our atoms, and the very structure of the universe seem to be built in such a way that there is no telling what will happen next. In our probabilistic universe there is enough certainty that physical existance is orderly, but enough room for chance that nothing can be taken for granted. Room enough for free will.

A simple clockwork universe would have been much simpler. It's as if the universe was designed by some mad genius determined to allow free will and meaning to exist. It's almost enough to make you believe there was a purpose to it. :-)

-Mark

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
Almost anything is possible, (although unlikely) a Porsche could appear in your swimming pool - not impossible, just nearly impossible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Man, naturistmark...I'll have some of whatever you're smokin'!!

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Is the question irresolvable because you can't figure it out? Life is full of things that are beyond our capacity to understand fully....

If a medical doctor knew that you would die if you didn't take, let's say insulin....

If you don't believe in the Christian God, but in many deities, even imperfect ones, the problem doesn't go away. There is still the issue of a choice between allowing you to have free will, vs. making all the life choices these higher powers want you to.

It is flawed logic to assume that divine foreknowledge of the path you will chose means that your wrong choice was your destiny....

Perhaps there are myriad flavors of Christianity, but is that not true of pagan belief systems as well? The differences in practice are simply tools we use to help us with abstract concepts. At the end of the day, God is one though we honor him in many ways.

The question "Was God a nudist" also disturbs me, but for a different reason. It implies that God changed his mind about nudity and suddenly it is wicked for his highest creation, our bodies to be seen in all it's glory.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've tried to pare this down to the salient points, but I may have cut too deep. Sorry if that's so. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The question is irresolvable because it's logically inconsistent. While there are many things in life beyond our ability to understand, this is not one of them; it simply does not make sense. I'm asked on the one hand to believe in a merciful god, but then told that he's gone forward with a creation in which most of the people, his "children," will be damned. That's not very merciful.

I've never said I don't believe in the Christian God. I think it's another aspect of the godhead that I perceive as a God/Goddess duality, that Greek Recons perceive as Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, Pan.... Whichever concept helps you wrap your head around the idea of a universal spirit is the one that you should use. I don't beleive that the god(s) have any set plan for us; rather I think that we are pieces of them and our purpose is to discover truths that we take back between incarnations. (I've written this much better in the "What Religion Are You?" thread.)

The doctor analogy suffers from a logical flaw: the doctor didn't give me diabetes. He is merely making me aware of my options for dealing with it. In the Christian paradigm, God either gave me diabetes or knew in advance that I would get it. Either way, he created me to suffer from the disease. Again, that's not very merciful.

I disagree that divine foreknowledge is not the same as destiny. If I'm created by a being who knows in advance what will happen, then I really don't have any free will. If, on the other hand, I do have free will, then anything can happen and no one can predict the outcome.

Absolutely there are myriad Pagan belief systems. I personally don't have any problem with the idea that we can all be right, as I think you imply. I've said often that Christianity is a beautiful path and that Christ was one of the good guys. I think if you can tease out what he probably actually said from what Paul & Co. wish he had said, it's a wonderful message. It's the old Hebrew dogma and Paul's ego trip that make it not worth the trouble to me. And the fact that Wicca is what I already believed long before I ever found this path. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Finally, I forget; did we ever establish what most people think on the question of whether God is a nudist? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lots to think about. Thanks!

BB,
Vin

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
Several comments: Was there a 'fall from grace'? It is certainly described in the Bible, but how literal is the story? That story of the fall is one of the very oldest in the Bible....

Predestination and free-will is a well worn theological conundrum.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't disagree with any of your post (I think). The whole quantum mechanics viewpoint is very much in line with most of my thoughts on the subject of HOW the universe works. I'm not sure about it being a mechanism that allows for free will, but I do like the idea of a deity that set the whole thing in motion (or was created along with it) and is simply watching to see how it plays out.

Have you ever read Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy?" Your post is very similar to one of the basic premises of the story: that the actions of any given individual are absolutely random, but that once the number of individuals in a group attains a "critical mass," the actions of the group are absolutely predictable. It's a cool story.

BB,
Vin

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
Have you ever read Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy?" Your post is very similar to one of the basic premises of the story: that the actions of any given individual are absolutely random, but that once the number of individuals in a group attains a "critical mass," the actions of the group are absolutely predictable. It's a cool story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course I've read the Foundation Trilogy (just how many books is it up to now?). I don't think you should be allowed to call yourself literate until you've read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, Nightfall , and Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. :-)

But I'd like to differ on the 'critical mass' aspect. Although there are predictable patterns to group behavior the 'butterfly effect' shows us that miniscule changes in initial conditions can result in hugely different end results. Quantum mechanics shows us that there is absolutely no way to control initial conditions at the smallest levels.

(Asimov's) Psychohistory is somewhat paralleled by Chaos theory's concept of 'strange attractors' except that in Asimov's fiction the outcome is rather specific, and in chaos theory the strange attractor (shape of limits to chaos) is very unspecific. I.E. Psychohistory has the random players individual efforts combine to a single likely outcome. Chaos theory has random players produce a huge variety of outcomes, abeit ones that show a pattern in the variety of possibilities.

Another of Asimov's books should be of note to readers of this topic... the final third of The Gods Themselves is set in a society where non-sexual nudity is the norm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but I do like the idea of a deity that set the whole thing in motion (or was created along with it) and is simply watching to see how it plays out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That assumes God is trapped in our timeline... the idea that God stands outside of time is a hard concept to wrap your mind around /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I would suggest that such a view does not mean that God doesn't act in the world beyond setting creation in motion. God's design for our reality doesn't limit God's will, God's will is part of our reality. Just as there is room enough in the shape of reality for our free will, there is room enough for miracles.

-Mark