| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/5/2007 2:36:40 PM |
Egocentricity and nakedness are worlds apart to me. Good and evil? The lack of good is what's evil... if you're on a nudist beach there is no evil and it doesn't take ego to disrobe... it goes with the scenery.
We are saying that a clotheless person is now the root of evil? I think I need enlightening here.
skypoetone
you completely misunderstood what I was saying...the issue with nakedness being shameful to Adam and Eve was due to the fact that they had now become concerned with how they appeared before God, before they had any knowledge of good and evil, this could not have been a concern for them because they were ignorant to the fact that they were naked. Ther was no such thing as an egocentric nature until they knew the difference between good and evil. This knowledge manifested this egocentric nature. prior to this knowledge, the egocentric nature could not have existed, it is literally impossible. | |
|
| |
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/5/2007 2:45:00 PM |
Ok.. the reference to the bible is because, people are taught in church that being naked is a sin. Preachers use Genesis as a teaching tool as to why we cover our nakedness. Therefore, when asking my question, I brought up the fact that it is taught in churches that being naked is wrong. Why is this? What is wrong with the human body that we must cover it up? (Not bringing into the discussion the obvious reason of protection from the elements)
Perhaps that poses the question better?
Because i don't belong to any church, then I couldn't say why they teach this..I study the scriptures on my own and have had certain individuals who have come into my path and served as mentors in pointing me in a certain direction..I can only offer my scriptural understanding on what the scriptures say and how I interpret them. I think its unfair though to say that all churches teach this doctrine...thier are a mutitude of different churches, and I am sure that some probably promote nudity, just as some are promoting the use of cannabis.
but if you are speaking specifically of the church that you have experienced, then it is only a legitimate question that can be answered by those who belong to the church you have experienced this teaching from.
am I missing something? | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/5/2007 2:50:04 PM | LOL Artz!
Though some do not find it disconcerting to see others that are older. I have danced around bonfires with naked men in their 60's! It is all how comfortable you are in your body.
Ok, back on topic now! | |
|
| |
| |
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/5/2007 3:19:19 PM |
I am trying to understand this reasoning and failing. It makes no sense to me. At what point did the naked human body become a sin and why is it viewed as such? We all have the same things, just different shapes, colors and sizes. Why are humans so ashamed of their bodies? I know that babies and young children aren't ashamed of their bodies. I've heard that men who go to nudist camps quickly get over looking at women's bodies. As Artz said, some societies are semi-naked, or fully naked. I think it's in our society to use everything as a weapon and a commodity. So sex and thus sexual attraction are used in the same way. So people protect themselves from those who choose to use what they have and lack against them.
It even states in the bible that man sought to cover his shame. If Yahwah created humans naked and after eating the forbidden fruit they realized they were naked and grew ashamed, then wouldnt that mean that Yahwah made a mistake in creating humans naked? That just shows people changed. As consigliere31 said, they became selfish and self-centred. They changed from appreciating the human form as an object of art and beauty, to an object that could be used as a weapon and a commodity. IMHO, the female form began to be used to manipulate men, to make men beg, and to brag about how one man had a woman other men desired, and the male form began to be used to humiliate men.
Maybe one reason that the Bible specifically mentions this story, is to teach us that nudity is a good thing, but only when we appreciate it as art and beauty, and once we become selfish, self-centred, and manipulative, beauty, art and sex all turn sour.
Ok.. the reference to the bible is because, people are taught in church that being naked is a sin. Preachers use Genesis as a teaching tool as to why we cover our nakedness. Therefore, when asking my question, I brought up the fact that it is taught in churches that being naked is wrong. Why is this? What is wrong with the human body that we must cover it up? (Not bringing into the discussion the obvious reason of protection from the elements) I personally found I am happy being naked by myself. Not as a sexual object, but because I appreciate the beauty and art in the design of my body. Even those things that others find distasteful, I find are perfectly designed to my needs. However, I find such ridicule in society of the male form, that it makes me feel intimidated to reveal it to others. I have no problem in the appreciation of the female form, but I am well aware that very few women will reveal any part of their body without a sexual intent, such as to make men find her desirable. I suspect that such revulsion of the male form, and such manipulation of the female form, makes it very difficult to go naked in a society that is built on manipulation and slavery, such as our own society. It might be that these preachers are aware of these facts, and seek to save the children from being manipulated or turned into little more than slaves. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 2:35:59 PM | Meh. Its a body.
OP why do you say 'humans' so much in your posts here? Its not 'humans' ya know, its whites. Unless you dont count blacks as human?
In Australia up until about 60 years ago blacks were actually documented as a proven non human species. It was a fact.
Now if anyone is so arrogant and so ignorant as to actually believe that, then they also deserve to believe god made clothes.
Otherwise, cover yourself against the sun? Sit under a tree or grab a bunch of leaves and hold it over your head if you must move about. In cold places, a skin or fur.
But lets go back a little. If 'humans' werent able to fashion their own outer shells (think about it) then in most places, we would have died out as a species. Our dexterity and tool making tendencies is what has allowed us to swarm over the planet like a pile of fattening maggots, ever growing. Is there perceived strength and power in that ability to overcome the elements that would (in natural circumstances) certainly kill us?
Oh yes.
Dominant species and his ability to survive. And the customs became enforced, and expected. Legends began to appear that reinforced the customs (as they do) and based on fear. The motivating factor of all legends that reinforce those things not actually understood, but which need to be observed, for survival of the species.
Then of course we see legends grow, enlarge, become embellished, until the legend actually lives and breathes (although in varied forms).
As people were more 'covered' and only NEKKID when sex was on the go, nakedness and sex became associated. And of course the sight of a naked body then set of signals of imminent sex. See boobies? Yehah! Pleasure coming.
baDOING!
And the more covered up, the more EXCITING it is when uncovered. And clothes themself become the tool for sexual excitement.
Kinda silly when you stop to think about it?
But humans (mostly the white ones) have this inbuilt curiosity (also to do with survival) which will make them chase 'forbidden fruit'. Try it. Tell someone "You can go into any room here - but not THAT one." It will drive them NUTS until they HAVE TO just peek in.
In indigenous societies, you will find a greater level of 'acceptance' through living 'with nature' rather than fashioning nature around themselves. In that, is a kind of acceptance that makes it easier if someone says "You dont go there" they know there's a good reason for it and simply accept it. Because there IS a good reason.
We live in a society where everything is the opposite to what it seems, and seems the opposite to what it is. We interpret.
What better way to sexual fantasy than a woman whose body you KNOW is firm and ripe, hidden behind that closed door. You cant go in there.
Oh yeah. I want it.
Survival of species.
 | |
|
| |
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 3:49:36 PM | I guess the point I was trying to make is this. Humans in their natural form would NOT live in the UK, or at least not in the cold seasons, unless they learned to somehow grow hair or hibernate. They would simply die out.
Whereas those semi nomadics would survive. Animal species move with the seasons and resources. This one place living only works if the resources in that area are plentiful. NOT the case in the UK. Therefore humans would likely not live there anyway. It doesnt provide what we need without intervention and control.
That species NEEDS to control its environment, and so it becomes a way of life.
Without both tools and fire, would there be a human population in the UK? Highly unlikely.
As has been said, polynesian nations arent so hung up on clothes and sex. There was no need for it. They got along quite ok within their environment and everything worked quite nicely thank you. So if it aint broke, why fix it?
They also had in the some cases the practice of inbreeding to preserve certain bloodlines. Akin to modern genetic engineering or dog breeding...except on a human platform. Icky? They didnt think so. They were a healthy and happy race. And in some cultures woman-men are celebrated as really special and wise and knowledgable. Not bashed as poofy creeps (as they are seen in white society).
Some societies embrace diversity. Those who by sheer need for survival bow to conformity as a necessity, are the same ones who would die out if this practise were not performed. They are in fact a weak and aggressive species. Aggressive in shaping their environment, and in enforcing practises that will ensure their survival.
Give it a go. Move out of the house, ditch the clothes. See how long it takes before you either want to get the hell out of there, or you start fighting to get what you need to survive in that environment. Or die.
Most people just never stop to think about it. The rest and all the social morees are mere justifications based on observations of the ALREADY EFFECTS of clothes or coverings being worn. How it does affect our conscious behaviour and responses to that.
Go back to the source. The answer is there. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 6:16:58 PM |
OP why do you say 'humans' so much in your posts here? Its not 'humans' ya know, its whites. Unless you dont count blacks as human?
In Australia up until about 60 years ago blacks were actually documented as a proven non human species. It was a fact.
This is totally inappropriate... all you are doing is adding insult to coloured people... and violating the posting rules with this prejudice. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 6:31:35 PM | I find it sickening, repulsive, reprehensible and downright disgusting that someone would actually make a post saying that blacks were not considered human and asking if I was saying such.
When I say the word humans I mean just that. Humans. Not animals. Not repitles. HUMANS. Black, white, yellow, red, orange, green, purple.. HUMANS. The color of the skin is not a determining factor in what makes someone human.
Your post was inappropriate, disrespectful and thoroughly sickening.  | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 7:08:34 PM | But what you were talking about as a fact does NOT in fact happen in black communities. But you kept using the term human. I was objecting to using the word human as all encompassing for a behaviour born out of white nations and adopted by them, and enforced by them
If anyone is offending by me bringing to light that black people here seriously WERE considered (and documented as) a NOT human species, before you go off on some ignorant tangent, its true. They were sceintifically 'proven' to be a sub species of ape, not human. Got it? Not HUMAN. This by the anglo invaders who also though anything that didnt live like them was 'not human' and set out to prove it.
Dont believe me? Insulted? Disgusted? Good. Because its a fact, and not a pleasant one. We did NOT wear clothes! But yes most certainly 'human'. And acknowledged as such for only 60 years now.
Saying 'humans' wearing clothes is just wrong. Humans dont wear clothes. Do some homework and I think you will find many of the black cultures did not, and for reasons outlined clearly. To use the term 'humans' in a statement for behaviour that clearly does not include black nations and societies, is in fact racist. Not to mention ignorant.
Not all live or have lived or even do live this way (the clothes thing you asked about) Some very simple googling will establish this. So its not a 'human' thing. Its a thing that applies to only some sectors of humanity. I was pointing out climatic and geographic areas where people of black skin have either evolved or survived, do not in fact practise......clothing.
There is no insult to black people here. None at all. But I'm not keen on some peoples being excluded from the 'human race' by use of such terms where entirely inappropriate, in a context of behaviour confined to only some races. Racism by exclusion. The same kind of thinking that had people here scientifically labelled as a non human species. Hey they dont wear clothes.
Hope this clears up my post and my question to you.
Thanks
This is totally inappropriate... all you are doing is adding insult to coloured people... and violating the posting rules with this prejudice.
Skypoet: If you are insulted by facts you prefer did not exist (the non human designation of our indigenous peoples) please dont be insulted by me saying it, its a fact, be insulted instead by those who did it. I didnt do it. i just brought it to your attention.
Dont shoot the messenger?
And you know, I dont see colored people, I just see people, just people with cultural differences. But all people and all human. Clothing is a cultural thing. Not a human thing.
Thanks for your comments. | |
|
| |
| |
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 8:05:42 PM | ...............................
Wow. I wonder what it would be like to live in e_frog's universe, where I could say anything I wanted and have it be considered fact, no matter how stupid and insulting it is.
Sorry, but no. There are individual tribes the world over who do not wear full outfits, but every human culture on earth has had some variety of body decoration. Your statement is, to be blunt, bullshit.
You are NOT an expert. You are NOT some sort of anthropological prodigy. It is indeed a human trait, as humans the world over have body-image taboos regarding decoration or lack thereof. Some cultures have entirely different set of taboos than westernized society, that does not mean they aren't there.
The only one excluding certain races from the term "human" is you. Perhaps you ought to take your own advice, and do some research.
Now: to wait for the entirely predictable backlash, where you tell me I'm wrong without a shred of evidence, and cite your own earlier statement as evidence proving you correct.
Good day. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 8:41:30 PM |
Sorry, but no. There are individual tribes the world over who do not wear full outfits, but every human culture on earth has had some variety of body decoration. Your statement is, to be blunt, bullshit.
So you are saying you are an authority on human culture? Great :)
Please present your evidence for negating my statement.
In the mean time
Scientists qualified their characterization of Australian Aborigines as primordial ... sub-human" and "simply did not count as inhabitants" of Australia
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/victorian_studies/v042/42.3kuklick.html
And re clothing? Sorry but no. And body painting and decorating was ceremonial only and not for all and even expressly forbidden to others. It was not 'clothing' by any wild stretch of the imagination.
I would be interested (sincerely) in seeing any evidence that can be offered that clothing is in fact a human trait and not a social or climatic one.
If it cannot be proven and it is found that there are exceptions (which there are) then it becomes a discussion on why some cultures or geographic locations have adopted clothing and where the practise(s) originated. Either locally or if imported by migration for whatever reasons. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 8:52:01 PM | Main Entry: human
Function: noun
Date: circa 1533
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid
— hu·man·like \-mən-ˌlīk\ adjective (merriam-websters dictionary)
Main Entry: hu·man
Pronunciation: \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being — more at homage
Date: 14th century
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
— hu·man·ness \-mən-nəs\ noun (merriam-webster dictionary)
Before you assume and make an ass out of you and me, understand now that I am far from ignorant. I am not the one who came onto a thread and posted some****maimy bullshit that humans only referred to white people. When I use the word human.. I mean every living, breathing homo sapien on this planet.
Stop trying to pick racial fights when there is none. I am in no way, shape or form prejudice and certainly do not like the implication that I am being racist. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/6/2007 9:03:31 PM | I'm not trying to pick a racial fight at all. You said again...
When I use the word human.. I mean every living, breathing homo sapien on this planet.
And you have used to term in reference to 'humans wear clothes'
What I am pointing out (still) is that humans dont wear clothes. Only 'some' humans do.
I have also presented a discussion on the possible (and even probable) origins of the practise of wearing clothing for those who do. In direct relation to question posed in the OP. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 10/9/2007
Msg: 45 | |
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/7/2007 12:49:44 AM | Nudity and clothing are a sociological phenomenon. Nudity is only "good" or "bad" depending on how each society and/or culture views it. Ancient greek athletes would compete in the nude. As well, some polynesian, melanesian, and african cultures had no problem with full or partial nudity, some still don't. Only until the introduction of european cultures did some native-american tribes start to clothe themselves.
Clothing is more than just a means of protecting one against the elements. In western culture it serves to discern from the different classes. The rich or upper class wear Armani, whereas the poorer classes tend towards levi's, or no-name brands. Please no flaming, when I say "poorer" classes, I mean those less than the rich and wealthy. Could be what we consider "middle" class as well as "poor". Clothing in our time serves as a status symbol.
Clothing can also have sexual connotations, things such as the mini-skirt, thigh high boots, bikinis, thongs, even some business suits for women could be considered sexy. This can be attributed to women attracting a mate, or even just to feel attractive. For men, it could be a fine suit, tight T-shirts, a certain type of jeans, etc. | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/7/2007 6:11:18 AM | | Here's some 2 cents on this topic. From when we are born we are taught to cover up from our parents. As we grow older this act of covering up continues so I think it's more of a conditioned thing (Pavlov's Dog). But that's just IMHO | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/7/2007 6:13:34 AM | Okay, given that this topic is right here on the religious/supernatural thread and low and behold (oops! ) there is a heaven after all... will we be flying around with our god-given angel wings butt-naked? (Brings a whole new meaning to dumping on friends)... Dancing on some communal cloud likewise? Presenting out nether regions in all their perfection? After all we will have no sin, sort of pre Adam and Eve apple incident and blissfully unaware huh?  | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/7/2007 10:44:18 AM | | Freya,I agree with ya....it seems as if possibly that Adam and Eve only put on clothes AFTER they sinned...just my opinion and also my opinion,without this "forbidden fruit of self awareness" if you will,then we may all be still running around nude but not feeling naked at all....reminds me of a movie I watched about "The Notorious Bettie Page" also known as "Pin-Up Queen of the Universe," ..seems that she also possibly had this innocence quality about her that photographers also described as "nude without being naked." But the movie takes a twist in the end where it possibly seems that she later has this self awareness of herself in such a way ...kind of like Cooleys looking glass self...'what you think others think' kind of thing as to the many different ways others saw her and also the different actions that others were following through with as well I guess ya could say....again,just my opinion/Cool thread Freya | |
|
| What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 11/7/2007 2:38:09 PM | find being naked is ok, sometimes I sleep walk and when I sleep naked can be interesting - woke up in the middle of a campsite once with no clothes on, 1/2 mile from tent :) was not that cold
luckily not all that religious :) | |
|
| |
Home
login 
