TN Nude Statues and 10 Commandments

[NuTex]

I found this article interesting.

Ten Commandments signs go up at Music Row's nude statuary (http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/03/47920615.shtml?Element_ID=47920615)

The purpose of this posting isnt't to spark a Ten Commandment debate since I think that would belong in the Off Topic Misc section. But I wanted to spark a Nudity and Religion discussion on this.
NuTex

Ten Commandments signs go up at Music Row's nude statuary
By HOLLY EDWARDS
Staff Writer
About a dozen small blue cardboard signs listing the Ten Commandments appeared yesterday morning around the giant nude sculpture Musica near Music Row.

By afternoon, they were gone.

A phone number that was listed at the bottom of the signs connects callers to an answering machine at the American Rights Coalition in Chattanooga. According to the coalition's Web site, tenlaws.com, the organization is led by Charles and Brenda Wysong.

Brenda Wysong says her organization sells thousands of the signs nationwide.

''I don't know who put them around the nude sculpture, but I sure am glad they did,'' said Wysong, a homemaker and mother of 15.

''Right now there is no moral law in this country, and our children don't know right from wrong. The Bible tells us if we follow God's law, we will be happier.''

Unveiled in October, the $1.1 million, 40-foot-tall sculpture was privately funded and presented as a gift to the city. Sculptor Alan LeQuire has said it represents a celebration of music and of the creative spirit.

But critics of the sculpture have said it's obscene and inappropriate for children to see.

June Griffin, an advocate for the Ten Commandments from Dayton, Tenn., said the commandments were a good counterpoint to the sculpture, which she views as obscene. She is heading up an effort to create a new specialty license in Tennessee that reads ''Tennessee for the Ten Commandments.''

''Since we've had pornography for 50 years, nudity doesn't seem to bother anybody,'' she said. ''But I don't want to look at the statue. It's one of the things diverting people's minds from God, and the Ten Commandments are the answer to that.''

[Trailscout]

NuTex,

You are preaching to the choir, buddy! There's nothing that gives greater glory to God than the nude human body, either represented in the fine arts or by any of the living breathing souls who share this planet with us.

I hope someone will say a prayer for June Griffin and that she will listen with an open mind the next opportunity she has to hear our side of things.

[WacoTX]

How does a nude statue divert ones mind from God?

I agree with Trailscout, you're preaching to the choir. Speaking of the choir, does anyone like close harmony?

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are preaching to the choir, buddy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I suspected I was. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This whole issue seems odd to me. Here in the Dallas area we have a lot of public nude art. Anyone that visits the State Fair Grounds will see wonderful giant nude murals across the walls. The Dallas Museum of Art has many classic nude paintings and sculptures. And beautiful nude statutes surround the Trammel Crow tower in downtown Dallas.

Why TN is having such problems baffles me with their closeness in culture to us here in TX.
NuTex

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NuTex:
Ten Commandments signs go up at Music Row's nude statuary
By HOLLY EDWARDS
Staff Writer

''Since we've had pornography for 50 years...'' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A lot longer than that, actually!

Strange; I didn't know that one of the Ten Commandments was, "Thou shalt not go naked, nor allow thyself to see nakedness nor any likeness thereof." What version of the Bible were they using? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Strange; I didn't know that one of the Ten Commandments was, "Thou shalt not go naked, nor allow thyself to see nakedness nor any likeness thereof." What version of the Bible were they using? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Being originally from TN, I suspect it was the Volunteers' Unique Literary Version Annotated -- VULVA for short. };>

Flaming from Tennesseeans may now commence....

Vin

[Trailscout]

NuTex,

I was not trying to brush off your question. Even though most of us here affirm the goodness of the body in its natural state of nudity, we MUST get inside the minds of those who so vigorously oppose us.

Having gone through a fundamentalist phase in my spiritual pilgrimage, I would like to offer my best guess about the doctrines and just as importantly the preconceptions about nudity.

Because our bodies have the potential for sensuality, there has been an element within the stricter sects of the Protestant movement and perhaps some segments of Catholicism that has always been nervous about bare skin, at least in the northern latitudes where nudity was a rarity before central heating.

In the past century, we have seen a remarkable increase in the acceptance of bare skin, even among very conservative religious people.

But there seems to be a backlash in recent years as ultra-conservative religious folks lash out against increasingly lewd displays of sexual behavior in the cinema, television and in tabloid journals.

NuTex, there are a lot of people who have linked simple nudity with lewdness. These people are not easy to reason with. They are full of preconceptions, make a lot of decisions out of a crude sense of "feels right" vs. "feels wrong".
These are the same people you often hear crying out, "Let's take America back for God!" And who knows what Godawful laws they would pass if they could muster a big enough posse at the polls.

These people do NOT represent mainstream mature Christian thought, but we MUST take them seriously. They seem to have amassed a lot more political power and media presence than ever before. Believe me, you would not like the kind of America they envision. It remains to be seen whether we will have a more liberal humane society or become more like the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

(For the benefit of those who are not familiar with this episode of American history, much of New England was dominated by religious zealots who could not tolerate the slightest deviation from their beliefs and they backed this up by force of law. Quakers, Baptists and Catholics were driven out in fear of their lives. Witches or anyone you would like to "frame" as a witch were killed using outlandish means of torture to determine guilt or innocence).

[NuTex]

Trailscout wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I was not trying to brush off your question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never thought you were. Don't worry about it.

You made some really good points. I think you're on to something there.

I just find it interesting that Nashville TN, being historically and culturally so close to TX, is having this problem.

But again I think you did a very good analysis of the textile reactions we're seeing.
NuTex

[HansM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NuTex:
I found this article interesting.

Brenda Wysong says her organization sells thousands of the signs nationwide.

''I don't know who put them around the nude sculpture, but I sure am glad they did,'' said Wysong, a homemaker and mother of 15.

''Right now there is no moral law in this country, and our children don't know right from wrong. The Bible tells us if we follow God's law, we will be happier.''
.'' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Isn't this the truth, once one knows the truth that God created us naked and unashamed, how free that lets us feel. To bad more people cannot come to this realization. For Jesus says, once you know the truth you can never turn away from it again.

[Jochanaan]

A lot of those "fundamentalists" seem to believe, "If it feels good, don't do it!" /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif But "at [the Lord's] right hand there are pleasures for evermore." (Psalm 16:11) As C.S. Lewis writes in The Screwtape Letters, "He's a hedonist at heart."

[Bob S.]

That woman is extremely fundamentalist. Did you see in the column how many children she has? 15! Ouch is all I can say about that!

I am going to assume that unless she lives in a 50,000 square foot house, privacy is a valued commodity at her house. I am sure everyone has seen everyone else naked there. But we cannot have art! Heathenous art!

Bob S.

[fred950]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
That woman is extremely fundamentalist. Did you see in the column how many children she has? 15! Ouch is all I can say about that!

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As the great philosopher Marx (Groucho, that is) once said to the husband of a woman whom had a mere thirteen children. "Sir, I love to smoke cigars, but I do occasionally take it out of my mouth!" /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Nude in the North]

Apparently She doesn't know God's Law.

''Right now there is no moral law in this country, and our children don't know right from wrong. The Bible tells us if we follow God's law, we will be happier.''

Maybe she needs to read the Bible herself instead of taking the word of the preachers that have their own agendas.

I don't remember any commandment that says "thou shalt not be nude" .

Steve

[Elton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't remember any commandment that says "thou shalt not be nude" .

Steve [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There isn't. In fact, it could be health-threatening not be nude.

[Trailscout]

With all this flurry of posting, we seem to have forgotten the sculptor who made Musica, these beautiful nude bronze statues that are displayed outdoors in Nashville. The sculptor's name is Alan Lequire. Perhaps you would like to visit his Web site (http://alanlequire.com/home.html) and write him: lequire@mindspring.com to show your support.

http://alanlequire.com/images/Dixon_Musicabut.jpg

[Elton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
[QB] With all this flurry of posting, we seem to have forgotten the sculptor who made Musica, these beautiful nude bronze statues that are displayed outdoors in Nashville. The sculptor's name is Alan Lequire. Perhaps you would like to visit his Web site (http://alanlequire.com/home.html) and write him: lequire@mindspring.com to show your spport.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, he's the artist that did the Athena Parthenos for the Nashville Parthenon! Wow . . .

[NuTex]

Thanks Trailscout for finding the web site and posting the image!

That sculpture is beautiful. These critics are so small minded and wrong to attack it.
NuTex

[Trailscout]

You are welcome, NuTex!

I did not realize the caliber of artist in question when I first did my search for the sculptor.

Alan Lequire is truly a great artist. I haven't been to the Nashville Parthenon in quite a few years, so I haven't seen his statue of Athena, but I intend to as soon as I am free to make the trip.
Yes, Elton, "Wow" is my reaction too!

If you visited his Web site, you can see for yourself how joyous his work is. The medium is massive statues of bronze, but they seem so light and full of motion. There isn't the slightest impropriety in the nudity of the figures. It reminds me of some of the nude statuary in Helsinki, but better!

We are incredibly lucky to have something like this in Nashville. Shame on those prudes who said such slanderous things about these masterpieces!

[Ben_m]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>''Since we've had pornography for 50 years, nudity doesn't seem to bother anybody,'' she said. ''But I don't want to look at the statue. It's one of the things diverting people's minds from God, and the Ten Commandments are the answer to that.'' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think she got it quite backwards. It's at least partly because we've had pornography for 50(+) years that she and others like her cannot see anything but pornography in the human body. How profoundly sad. That sculpture is absolutely beautiful, depicting in very elegant fashion the crowning creation of God. And she, in her own mind and heart, has decided to be completely blind to that, instead allowing herself to only see filth, even when such wonderful beauty is right before her, were she but to open her mind, eyes, and truly see.

Presumably she really wants 11 commandments, with the first and most important one being "Thou Shalt Not be Naked". She needs a reality check on that notion too. Also quite sadly, she has way too much company in her delusions.

[Elton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
You are welcome, NuTex!

I did not realize the caliber of artist in question when I first did my search for the sculptor.

Alan Lequire is truly a great artist. I haven't been to the Nashville Parthenon in quite a few years, so I haven't seen his statue of Athena, but I intend to as soon as I am free to make the trip.
Yes, Elton, "Wow" is my reaction too!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which reminds me, the Hellenes in Athens are going to renovate the Parthenon! I hope they hire Alan to build their Athena. That would be so cool!

[Prometheus]

Some excellent posts by Trailscout and Jochanaan here. http://www.clothesfree.com/ubb/icons/icon31.gif

I would just like to add that if the folks in this article would spend a few days touring any large European city, they would get over their shock about nude statues very quickly.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prometheus:
Some excellent posts by Trailscout and Jochanaan here. http://www.clothesfree.com/ubb/icons/icon31.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would just like to add that if the folks in this article would spend a few days touring any large European city, they would get over their shock about nude statues very quickly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or take a good art appreciation class...

[Elton]

Art Appreciation = Good.

[rlwysong]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
That woman is extremely fundamentalist. Did you see in the column how many children she has? 15! Ouch is all I can say about that!

I am going to assume that unless she lives in a 50,000 square foot house, privacy is a valued commodity at her house. I am sure everyone has seen everyone else naked there. But we cannot have art! Heathenous art!

Bob S.

I just happened upon this site and thought I should leave a comment. As the second born member of the household mentioned above, I can assure you that even though we do not live in a 50,000 sq. ft. house, we so not see each other naked unless you are under the age of 2 and need your diaper changed or a bath. Unlike most everyone on this blog, I'm supposing, we do our best to be proper and clothe ourselves.

To all the others that have made rude comments about my mother and father's choice to have 15 children, stop being childish and grow up. God has blessed our family with each and every child He wanted my parents to have. I wouldn't trade my life for anyone's. Don't mock what you don't know anything about.

Since everyone seems to be quoting the Bible, here's a verse for you. Genesis 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." If God thought it was important enough to make Adam and Eve clothes, then I'm guessing He thought we should wear them too. I'm not suggesting that the human body is not beautiful but if the Maker of our bodies wanted them covered, there's a reason.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by rlwysong:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
That woman is extremely fundamentalist. Did you see in the column how many children she has? 15! Ouch is all I can say about that!

I am going to assume that unless she lives in a 50,000 square foot house, privacy is a valued commodity at her house. I am sure everyone has seen everyone else naked there. But we cannot have art! Heathenous art!

Bob S.

I just happened upon this site and thought I should leave a comment. As the second born member of the household mentioned above, I can assure you that even though we do not live in a 50,000 sq. ft. house, we so not see each other naked unless you are under the age of 2 and need your diaper changed or a bath. Unlike most everyone on this blog, I'm supposing, we do our best to be proper and clothe ourselves.

To all the others that have made rude comments about my mother and father's choice to have 15 children, stop being childish and grow up. God has blessed our family with each and every child He wanted my parents to have. I wouldn't trade my life for anyone's. Don't mock what you don't know anything about.

Since everyone seems to be quoting the Bible, here's a verse for you. Genesis 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." If God thought it was important enough to make Adam and Eve clothes, then I'm guessing He thought we should wear them too. I'm not suggesting that the human body is not beautiful but if the Maker of our bodies wanted them covered, there's a reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The verse doesn't actually say God wanted our bodies covered just that we have the option of wearing clothes.

[kphoger]

maybe they should have posted the *eleven* commandments -- the eleventh one being "you shall make no graven image of a person not wearing underpants."

if seeing each other naked were morally unacceptable, then adam and eve were sinning before the fall. what constitutes sin didn't change after the fall: god didn't change his mind.

it's interesting that people assume the ten commandments were posted as a "counterpoint" to the nude form nearby. for all we know, the person who posted them is a nudist, and thought that was one way of making art enthusiasts think about god.

(((i remember an episode of "you can't do that on television" wherein it was revealed that the eleventh commandment was supposed to be "you shall not serve your kids liver and lima beans," but they ran out of room on the tablets.)))

[Bob S.]

A few things rlwysong:

1) Talk about coming in late. This thread was over 2 and a half years old.

2) I do not take issue with your parents' desire for a full household. I was commenting that, for the most part in today's society, having that many children is usually the product of a very conservatively religious family who usually does not agree with any type of contraception.

3) This is not a blog. It is a message forum. There is a huge difference.

4) In my home, we had only 3 children growing up and took baths together until we were between about 6-10 (oldest to youngest).

5) Read the Bible more. Adam and Eve were created perfect and naked. Nudity, therefore, was not an issue for G*d. The first animal skins were sacrifices for the original sin, which was disobeying their Father. Not once in the entire Bible is there ever a commandment for anyone to cover their body. In fact, there are quite a few instances of nudity such as Isaiah and Jesus (the fishermen naked and Jesus washing the feet).

6) How did you find this place?

Bob S.

[alfredr]

The Law was made for Man, not Man for the Law.

[Bob S.]

kphoger:"(((i remember an episode of "you can't do that on television" wherein it was revealed that the eleventh commandment was supposed to be "you shall not serve your kids liver and lima beans," but they ran out of room on the tablets.)))"

Somehow that just sounds like a Kevin sketch to me. Do you remember who actually was in it?

And it's good to meet another fan of YCDTOT!

Bob S.

[rlwysong]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
A few things rlwysong:

1) Talk about coming in late. This thread was over 2 and a half years old.

2) I do not take issue with your parents' desire for a full household. I was commenting that, for the most part in today's society, having that many children is usually the product of a very conservatively religious family who usually does not agree with any type of contraception.

3) This is not a blog. It is a message forum. There is a huge difference.

4) In my home, we had only 3 children growing up and took baths together until we were between about 6-10 (oldest to youngest).

5) Read the Bible more. Adam and Eve were created perfect and naked. Nudity, therefore, was not an issue for G*d. The first animal skins were sacrifices for the original sin, which was disobeying their Father. Not once in the entire Bible is there ever a commandment for anyone to cover their body. In fact, there are quite a few instances of nudity such as Isaiah and Jesus (the fishermen naked and Jesus washing the feet).

6) How did you find this place?

Bob S.

1) I'm sorry to come in so late on this MESSAGE FORUM. I don't usually browse nudity sites for things said about our family.

2) I was refering to the comment below yours by Fred950. I was just replying to everyone's comments with one big comment.

3) I'm not interested in the difference between a blog and a message forum.

4) Since there are 15 children in our house, we do not take baths together. I do understand the concept of taking baths together as young children. That's not how the original comment was directed. The origianl comment suggested that since there are so many of us, we usually end up seeing each other naked. Well, sorry, that doesn't happen at our house unless it's an accident.

5)I have read my Bible and I find that God shows us things in different ways. One of them being by example. Since we are no longer like Adam and Eve in the garden before thay sinned, then we cannot say that God just gave us a choice to wear clothes now. Adam didn't even know he was naked until he had sinned. His eyes were 'opened' and he knew he was naked. They themselves made coverings out of fig leaves. Later of course, God made them coverings/clothes out of animal skin. I don't think it takes a genious to figure all of this out.

6) One of my brothers happened upon this site by googleing our last name.

[kphoger]

regarding adam and eve.....
(by the way, i am a christian)

being nude with each other was not sinful, as they were still free from sin. their realization of nudity didn't make nudity a sin, because only god is qualified to decide what is sin and what is not. i think pretty much everyone agrees that, before the fall, their nudity was not sinful.

so, what happened at the tree? first, i want to lay down some cultural context. this story is not unique to the bible, but shows up in various forms in other religious traditions of the region. in most other traditions, the fruit of the tree imparted sexual knowledge, or lust. i should also point out that the story has more than one word for "naked": one which simply menas nude, and one which means laid bare. adam and eve were naked (nude) yet felt no shame; after sinning, they realized they were naked (laid bare, unable to hide anything from god) and tried to hide behind leaves and bushes.

the "knowledge of good and evil," which power is in the fruit of that tree, is not just knowing right from wrong, but it is the power to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. after all, they already knew it was right to obey god and wrong to disobey him; furthermore, the serpent tempted them with the words, "you will be like gods, knowing good from evil." so, we see, the original sin was the denial of being less than god, it was the coveting of god's moral power, it was deciding that we could do better than god's will.

now they were sinful. if we incorporate the neighboring traditions, they lusted after each other, too. that would help explain why they made loincloths: it hid the parts they were lusting after. but, at any rate, they tried to hide from god. it didn't work. "who told you that you were naked," (laid bare, unable to hide anything) said god. that's a good question, because why would sinless man have any reason to hide anything from god? by his admission that he's naked (laid bare), he is admitting that he has done something shameful.

the bible doesn't say why god made animal-skin clothes for adam and eve. some people go for the idea that it was a blood sacrifice for the sin; if that's true, then the function of the clothes has been taken away by jesus' death. some people say it's because god was banishing them to an inhospitable place -- one where snakes strike at their heels, one with brambles and thistles; if that's true, then the clothes' only function was protection from the elements, and therefore obviously not required all the time. but, the fact is that it doesn't say exactly why god gave them clothes.

however, let's return to the original sin. it was the desire to be able to call "good" what god has called "bad," and vice versa. isaiah 5:20 proclaims:
"woe to those who call what is bad, good, and what is good, bad, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
this is why you should not say that it's morally wrong to be nude around others, that the body should be hidden from others: because of what is recorded in genesis 1:27,31a
god created man in the image of himself, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them. / and so it was. god saw all that he had made, and indeed it was very good.

having said ALL of that, i do want to say that all the details and technicalities still matter even if you don't take the eden account as literal historical truth. i think it's reasonable to view it as literal, for a number of reasons -- the primary one, that how many similar accounts there are in world religions attest to their being rooted in truth -- but not everyone does. even if you don't, heed the words of 2timothy 3:16-17
all scripture is inspired by god and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. this is how someone who is dedicated to god becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.
the lessons learned in genesis apply to every christian -- yea, even every person:
* we are the creation of god, and we reflect his nature.
* we cannot hide our true nature from god, for his eyes penetrate to the heart.
* we cannot make ourselves sinless by covering up the things which "make" us sin, or by avoiding the object of our lust, because nothing makes us sin but our own wickedness.
* we sin by coveting those powers reserved to god himself, especially the autonomy to decide what is right and wrong.
* doing so (and we all do so) separates us from god, puts us out of communion with him. this last point is why the israelites were given the law; but sinful man cannot keep a perfect law, and so you know the rest of the story: jesus. because he was of one nature with god, he was able to fulfill the law and bear the shame and curse of sin for us, giving us back the communion with the father.

summary:
our nude body is not shameful, because god called it good. being nude was not adam and eve's sin; desiring to usurp god's authority was their sin. we should not call "bad" what god has called "good."

to kphoger
I couldn't have said it better

[kphoger]

two other things that i forgot:

1. they noticed they were naked and made loincloths. they heard god coming and hid from him. by using the same reasoning that hiding their nudity was the morally right to do, we would come to the conclusion that hiding from god was the right thing to do. remember, they were now sinful people, and we can't assume that their actions are right; in fact, it's obvious from the story that they were unable to determine on their own the right thing to do.

2. adam and eve were the only people on the scene, and she was specially crafted just for him. basically, they were husband and wife. to claim that they should not be nude around each other is to say that i should not be nude with my wife, that we should not shower together, that we are morally obligated to wear pyjamas to bed. not so.

[hm0504]

Excellent points kphoger.

As you say in 2, this would imply that all Bible believers should not be nude with their spouses -- I wonder how widely this is practiced.

[brainyguy9999]

Great comments. There is one thing that I personally disagree with and wanted to get your opinion on.

I have heard over and over that Adam and Eve knew that they were naked and therefore made loincloths. I think this is inaccurate.

When God came looking for Adam and Eve, and couldn't find them, he called out. When Adam replied that they were naked, God asked(this is the important part) "Who told you that you were naked?" He didn't say, "How'd you figure it out on your own?" He asked who had told them that they were naked.

The answer, to me, is Satan (the serpent). Once Adam and Eve had eaten from the apple, they had a choice - to listen to God and obey Him, or to listen to the serpent and obey him.

Now, this should be important to nudists especially. Why did satan tell Adam and Eve that they were naked and (in my opinion) that there was something wrong with it? Because their bodies were the perfect creation of God's. They were beautiful to behold, a couple of God's masterpieces. So what would make satan happier than to have God's greatest creation hidden from view? Even more, to have man (and woman) shameful of even being God's creation?

In my opinion, satan is the one that wants us to wear clothes out of shame. He is the one that wants us to see our bodies as dirty and evil. For us to see God's greatest creation as evil, dirty, and shameful is one of satan's greatest achievements.

Maybe Adam and Eve did figure it out for themselves. But, to me, when God himself asks "WHO?", I trust that God knows what (or who) He's talking about.

I think the Bible at that point is pointing out that there are two ways you can go - with God, or with satan.

Just my 2.

Stay nude.

bg

[alfredr]

Interesting observation, Brainyguy. Satan's role in this story is usually assumed to be over by this point, but if he hung around after getting Eve and Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, this is the sort of thing he would do, isn't it?

My earlier comment about the Law being made for Man was an attempt to get Christ back into the discussion of "Christian" values here. That was His answer to a trick question from the officials of the church.

I guess I need to put in the disclaimer that this is my opinion, but a Christian should, when examening the Old Testament, look at it in the light of Christ's example and teachings. The Old Testament should be illuminated by Christ and not be taken as the final word on anything in and of itself. Including the Ten Commandments.

The Christ I know, left two Commandments, (again in answer to a trick question) "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." And this does mean that you should love yourself first because He loves you.

I hope I made some sense here.