Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was God a nudist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Was God a nudist?

    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"

  • #2
    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"

    Comment


    • #3
      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?

      Comment


      • #4
        quote:
        Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
        [qb] Whether or not Noah and his family wore clothes is anyone's guess. How would they wash their clothes on the Ark? [/qb]
        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.

        [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] Rik

        Comment


        • #5
          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!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            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. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:
              Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
              [qb] 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? [/qb]
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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).

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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 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
                    quote:
                    uncover the nakedness of...
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:
                      Originally posted by David77:
                      [qb] 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). [/qb]
                      But christians say that their god wrote the bible. Does he had a twin brother that wrote the other version? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:
                        Originally posted by cyndiann:
                        [qb] [QUOTE]But christians say that their god wrote the bible. [/qb]
                        *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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            quote:
                            Originally posted by Trailscout:
                            [qb] 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. [/qb]
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by Trailscout:
                              [qb]
                              There never were two creation accounts [/qb]
                              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 animals, God created woman.

                              Genesis 1
                              plants
                              animals
                              man & woman

                              Genesis 2
                              man
                              plants
                              animals
                              woman

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X