Hi Everyone! My husband and myself are going to try to share this profile and we will see how that works

[NTuft]

@MigL I second your call to be careful with words, name-calling, and labelling, but, examine this:

On 9/30/2022 at 2:21 PM, Doctor Derp said:

The bible leans in favor of moderation and humility. Staying clothed and not showing off your health and physical attractiveness for the entire world to see is considered moderate behavior. While nudity and extremism would be more strongly correlated with liberalism.

If you disagree with this basic assessment, I would be interested to know why.

Aside from that, the rest of your points belong in a religious discussion and are too off topic (and uninterestingly inaccurate) to bother responding to here.

as a reply to Phi for All's critique. Does that set a tone of respect, or an inkling of an axe to grind? If points are to go unaddressed, leave them unaddressed, or, what is the purpose of the disparagement?

The responses, assertions, and argumentation style used here deserved to be lampooned and harshly characterized. Again, I second your point to be careful and address the arguments, but there is a flavor of irrational disrespect coming through that perhaps cannot be well met with measured and reasoning counter-argument. Note "zero effort to quantify" a qualitative property: historical context. And in both prior responses PfA had couched things being in historical context! Irrational responses! I do think bigot is maybe too strong a word for what was a poorly formulated overgeneralization, but, TheVat artfully used it to illustrate a point, and zapatos drew an easy parallel to what was effectively name-calling/labelling by Dr Derp. 

On 10/1/2022 at 11:21 AM, MigL said:

We are not the thought police here; make counter arguments, not 'labels' to stop discussion you don't agree with.

I do think it makes sense to police bad-faith behavior if that starts to come through in our verbal arguments. There is an absence of malice in either TheVat or zapatos's posts where they use the term; they are indirect, it should not bully down discussion such a usage.

[Peterkin]

47 minutes ago, NTuft said:

I interpret the biblical admonition to "Render unto Caesar..." as similar to the aphorism "When in Rome...". I think the Christian or general public distate for nudity comes from long traditions aimed at chastity and partly as a result there are laws in many of these traditionally Christian places against such a display in public.

There is no single or monolithic Christian tradition. Jesus had very little to say about modesty or chastity - in fact, I can't member a single sermon where those things featured. In Rome, both the costumes and customs were different from the Levant, where a number of Christian sects all went by different interpretations of scripture. The Romanized Christian church made further adjustments in each of their conquered territories, in accordance with local mores. After the fall of the empire, Eastern and Western Catholicism were split and later, the Reformation fundamentalist factions that were far more prohibitive - and misogynist.

The whole modestly fetish comes out of a misreading of one of Paul's many, many instructions regarding methods of worship. He was persuading not to show off wealth and status. It wasn't even about specific naughty parts. 

Quote

Timothy 2:9 Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing,a with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold,b pearls, or expensive apparel, 10 but with good works,c as is proper for women who profess to worship God.

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Did they? I don't recall any biblical references. Lots of bared breasts in Renaissance art - from a period in Europe when it certainly would have been shocking if a real woman walked down the street topless, but they would most likely feed their babies, under a cloak or veil, wherever they happened to be. Different mores applied then, as now, to different forms and degrees of exposure for different people.  In biblical times, slave women may have been lightly or selectively covered,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness

Quote

In most Middle Eastern countries, toplessness has not been socially accepted since at least the beginning of Islam (7th century), because of Islamic standards for female modesty. However, toplessness was the norm in some pre-Islamic cultures in Arabia, Egypt, Assyria and Mesopotamia.

Yes, they did go topless a lot, and apparently it was Islam and not Christianity that objected. 

And again, there are lots of mentions of spotting women topless and with bare legs and shoulders in the Song of Solomon. It seems like having some of your clothes on (or available nearby) kept one from "nakedness", which was seen as shameful. Overall, it seems like naked means "your genitals are showing" rather than referring to the full monty. It may be assumed that it didn't matter what you wore up top if your bottoms were visible.

[Peterkin]

Quote

However, toplessness was the norm in some pre-Islamic cultures in Arabia, Egypt, Assyria and Mesopotamia.

Must have been a lot of sunburned women in those days. That doesn't seem to include Judea; i.e. bible-country. Isaiah was pretty clear about what it means to have your head and legs uncovered in public: it's a degradation reserved for captured slave women. He didn't mention breasts. In fact, nobody in the Bible talked about breasts, it was genitals they worried about, and menstruation, and incest.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Yes, they did go topless a lot, and apparently it was Islam and not Christianity that objected. 

Jesus didn't seem to mention how to dress - other not to worry about it, because lilies don't need clothes. His logic was a little eccentric sometimes. Paul did mention modesty, but only the sense of not showing off or drawing attention to oneself. Christianity only began to object universally and vehemently after the Reformation - though some popes and monastic big-wigs were more prudish than others. 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And again, there are lots of mentions of spotting women topless and with bare legs and shoulders in the Song of Solomon.

Of course, that's pretty much all pornographic and takes place in the bedchamber. But his mother had some rotten luck, when Kind David caught an accidental glimpse of her in the bath, had her husband murdered, married her whether she liked it or not, and got her first baby killed by God in revenge for his wrongdoing. I doubt he'd have gone mad with lust if he was accustomed to seeing her topless. 

Yes, people have and did have some pretty weird notions about the human body.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know that was pornographic, right? Not respectable women in public, but a particularly self-indulgent king's harem at home. His mother's story was lesson in humility from the prophet kidnapped

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That doesn't seem to include Judea; i.e. bible-country. Isaiah was pretty clear about what it means to have your head and legs uncovered in public: it's a degradation reserved for captured slave women. He didn't mention breasts.

I'm sorry, I took it for granted that people would take my use of "topless" in the context I've been using, which is specifically bare breasts. Not bare legs. Not bare head. Let's keep the goalposts where they were.

I don't see why Judea should be exempt from the lack of concern over bare breasts. Remember, when Adam and Eve ate the apple and became aware they were naked, they made garments out of fig leaves, and the Hebrew word chagowr used for those garments translates to a belt for the waist. IOW, they covered their loins only.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm sorry, I took it for granted that people would take my use of "topless" in the context I've been using, which is specifically bare breasts.

Okay. I didn't realize that was the central issue of nudity. I didn't cite anything biblical about breasts; in fact there are  very few mentions of any kind of undress, except the explicitly sexual ones I mentioned and the covering of Noah's genitals. The comments about toplessness in the desert in general and ancient Israel in particular was an opinion, not a shot on goal.   

The covering of Adam and Eve's nakedness with fig leaves is not at all clear as to extent, but very clear on the shame of 'nakedness'; the religious painters all agreed on genitals only. Later, God makes them leather tunics, which would cover both of them from shoulders to knees. Modern Christians, even the most prudish don't have a problem with men's chests but do with women's, because they consider the female breast sexual, rather than nourishing. Extreme Protestants are terrified of anything sexual, especially female sexuality. Solomon liked them - or whoever wrote those songs; much of it seem in a female voice. Lots of pastoral imagery, too, which doesn't seem the obvious choice for a king.

 The early Christians made a great to-do about the "image of God" question, whether it was a physical likeness or a spiritual one; whether the human body was sacred or profane. By the middle ages, they seem to have settled on preserving the "mystery of the body" for holy matrimony. But they had communal baths - off an on, place to place, co-ed or segregated or brothel - from the advent of the Roman empire into Europe until the Reformation. Different mores for different cultures, classes and periods, as well as body parts and degree and occasion of undress.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Peterkin

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, people have and did have some pretty weird notions about the human body.

Apparently it even extends to face coverings, to this day, in Iran.

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Apparently it even extends to face coverings, to this day, in Iran.

Sure, but they're not unique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil

Quote

Veiling has a long history in European, Asian, and African societies.

Modern brides are still doing it!

And of course all the various religiously mandated head-coverings for both men and women - you'd think gods just don't like looking down on human hair. 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I think calling someone a bigot is offensive; that is my opinion.
And since, according to Zap, I'm ignorant of the definition ( even though I'm offended ), I must be, according to Dim, a bigot.

That's a bit of a stretch Mig, almost a leap of faith. ☺️

[NTuft]

 

On 10/2/2022 at 1:30 PM, Peterkin said:

There is no single or monolithic Christian tradition. Jesus had very little to say about modesty or chastity - in fact, I can't member a single sermon where those things featured.

Quote

Matthew 5:20-32
King James Version
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

On 10/2/2022 at 1:30 PM, Peterkin said:

In Rome, both the costumes and customs were different from the Levant, where a number of Christian sects all went by different interpretations of scripture. The Romanized Christian church made further adjustments in each of their conquered territories, in accordance with local mores. After the fall of the empire, Eastern and Western Catholicism were split and later, the Reformation fundamentalist factions that were far more prohibitive - and misogynist.

What I intend to convey from my interpretation was that one should comport oneself to surroundings or mores as necessary, more of a be sly advisement than an explicit rule or commandment. I think an undercurrent in the Church was always that they were developing under the Imperial power, and then once the church was ascendent it became a social power...

On 10/2/2022 at 1:30 PM, Peterkin said:

The whole modestly fetish comes out of a misreading of one of Paul's many, many instructions regarding methods of worship. He was persuading not to show off wealth and status. It wasn't even about specific naughty parts.

Well both "Jesus" and "Paul"'s sayings are.. so meta.. I don't think this book is meant to be literal. I don't think Paul mentions Jesus. But I digress. If Jesus's instruction was not to even look at women in lust, then a fine pair of tanned bosoms exposed is.. well it's a fine thing. But control yourself.

On 10/2/2022 at 2:30 PM, Phi for All said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness

Yes, they did go topless a lot, and apparently it was Islam and not Christianity that objected. 

And again, there are lots of mentions of spotting women topless and with bare legs and shoulders in the Song of Solomon. It seems like having some of your clothes on (or available nearby) kept one from "nakedness", which was seen as shameful. Overall, it seems like naked means "your genitals are showing" rather than referring to the full monty. It may be assumed that it didn't matter what you wore up top if your bottoms were visible.

I will posit here in regards to nudism that most folks would agree that to hang dong in front of everyone willy-nilly may not be our best course. I need to do Bible study, and Song of Solomon is now on the list. I don't know why, but i have it on file that to kiss a woman's breasts was something about the Shekinah...

On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

Must have been a lot of sunburned women in those days. That doesn't seem to include Judea; i.e. bible-country. Isaiah was pretty clear about what it means to have your head and legs uncovered in public: it's a degradation reserved for captured slave women.

Shaved??

On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

He didn't mention breasts.

Quote

 

KJV
Isaiah
Chapter 66:1-13
1Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.5Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.6A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.7Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.8Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.9Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.10Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:11That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.12For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.13As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

nit-picky, I know but I found it from

On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

In fact, nobody in the Bible talked about breasts, it was genitals they worried about, and menstruation, and incest.

Strong's Concordance shad:breast Original Word: שַׁד Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: shad Phonetic Spelling: (shad) Definition: (female) breast

On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

Jesus didn't seem to mention how to dress - other not to worry about it, because lilies don't need clothes. His logic was a little eccentric sometimes. Paul did mention modesty, but only the sense of not showing off or drawing attention to oneself. Christianity only began to object universally and vehemently after the Reformation - though some popes and monastic big-wigs were more prudish than others. 

I don't know.. I get that the O.T. is supposed to be historical, but I doubt even the story with Bathsheba isn't allegorical. Or stories with Daniel. And I don't think Jesus's sayings like the one above about adultery are supposed to be hard-line literally applied as rules.. Like to dis-member yourself. I think what is at issue is how to read history. I don't know if we can conclude what things were like necessarily, we may just have to try to put ourselves into the place and time as an experiment.

Quote

 

KJV
1Corinthians10:6-33,11:1-19

...
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.28 But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

11
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. ...

 

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by NTuft
added 1Corinthians

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

Well both "Jesus" and "Paul"'s sayings are.. so meta.. I don't think this book is meant to be literal. I don't think Paul mentions Jesus. But I digress. If Jesus's instruction was not to even look at women in lust, then a fine pair of tanned bosoms exposed is.. well it's a fine thing. But control yourself.

It makes not a damned bit of difference whether she's naked in a nudist colony or wearing a long white gown at Russian court ball, or a pin-striped suit at a Wall Street board meeting - you're supposed to control yourself among all the women dressed in the normal costume of their normal habitat. If that fine bosom is exposed in the boardroom, that would be as provocative as if a nudist walked out on the beach in a long white gown. It's the exception you notice, not the norm.  

 

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

Shaved??

No, I'm not aware that Middle Eastern women of the time indulged in the shaving of limbs. They may have, but it's not relevant here. Isaiah quite clearly said that her fine clothing would be stripped from the princess, in public, as part of the humiliation ritual inflicted on a noble captive in a brutal war.

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

nit-picky, I know but I found it from

That's not a nit; it's a flea egg; whole different species. It's a reference to Mother Zion, who brought forth Israel, not to a woman; the breast is nourishing, not lust-inducing. You'd have done better with Solomon - but those lust-inducing breasts are compared to gazelles or hills of moonlit barley or some silly poetical metaphor like that.

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

I get that the O.T. is supposed to be historical

Supposed.... by some. It's a bunch of legends, dire predictions and curses, nationalistic jingo, retroactive predictions and instructions for how to pamper the priestly caste and serve the landowners. And some really terrible examples of how to behave when you're a guest in a foreign country.

 

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

I doubt even the story with Bathsheba isn't allegorical.

What would it be an allegory for? It's perfectly believable. How many men have killed a rival and taken his wife? Another day, another Claudius.... They're stories and legends from a long cultural tradition: some based on real events, some wholesale fiction, some carried over from other tribes' stories, some old and retold and embroidered over time. Like the one about Abraham and Sarah and the badger game. That's recycled; the second time, she'd be about 90 years old when the king of someplace fell head-over-heels. (too late at night to look it up) The stories accrued and evolved over centuries, maybe a millennium, largely without documentation.

The New Testament is an entirely different matter. Those stories were fresh-minted by the chroniclers of a religion in the process of being invented. They are purposeful and directed, written in the space of a few years, then Paul's self-important correspondence, which isn't part of the story, as he wasn't even there, and the ravings of a much later mushroom-head named John and the fake bits that were added by Roman clerics another three centuries on.

Is there some point in posting enormous walls of biblical text?

     

Edited October 4, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

The question of nudity and sexuality is completely cultural; the most inefficiente way to explain a culture, to people from different cultural backgrounds, is the written word, even a contemporary book in the appropriate language, can be difficult to comprehend; which gets more difficult with each passing generation.

Maybe Adam and Eve covered up, because their culture was suffering from the same type of body shaming that our's do, and that was their solution.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe Adam and Eve covered up, because their culture was suffering from the same type of body shaming that our's do, and that was their solution.

Their 'culture' consisted of wild animals who couldn't care less whether anyone is wearing anything, as long its not their skin, with an occasional visit from God, who didn't want them to know they were naked. It was them covering up that tipped Him off to their having eaten of the forbidden fruit, which was the knowledge of good and evil. And it was forbidden because that knowledge make them godlike.

Quote

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Then they started procreating a culture, all of whose members, from infancy on, were taught to  feel guilty, frightened and ashamed. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Their 'culture' consisted of wild animals who couldn't care less whether anyone is wearing anything, as long its not their skin, with an occasional visit from God, who didn't want them to know they were naked. It was them covering up that tipped Him off to their having eaten of the forbidden fruit, which was the knowledge of good and evil. And it was forbidden because that knowledge make them godlike.

Why do you keep invoking God to support your arguments? You're an atheist, right?

Isn't it more likely, given they're human (much like us), that the story is about our knowledge of tomorrow and how that can spoil our appreciation of today, compared to naked animal's who don't care about tomorrow and enjoy the today their faced with.

The point is, neither of us can know what they were thinking, despite the book...

 

All we can rely on is reasoned argument's, based on who we are today.

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why do you keep invoking God to support your arguments? You're an atheist, right?

I'm not 'invoking God' and it's not my argument. When you refer to mythical beings, you are invoking the mythology in which they exist. I am familiar with that myth, and the god who later becomes the Jehovah of Israel in their story featured large in the story of Adam and Eve. 

My being an atheist has no bearing on the integrity of that story.

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't it more likely, given they're human (much like us), that the story is about our knowledge of tomorrow and how that can spoil our appreciation of today, compared to naked animal's who don't care about tomorrow and enjoy the today their faced with.

The logic of that escapes me. How does knowledge of 'tomorrow' require that one cover one's genitals? I should think knowledge of tomorrow would prompt us, as it does the naked animals, to seek out warm caves, build dams and dig burrows, store up body fat, nuts and grains, migrate to sunnier climates, etc. Why would it cause shame? What's it to do with good and evil?   

The story is about the shift from kinship-based hunting-gathering society to agriculture and civilization: the proverbial loss of innocence.

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The point is, neither of us can know what they were thinking, despite the book..

'They' were not thinking. They did not exist. There is only the story, which was once an oral tradition that changed from telling to telling (Proof: there are two version it, right in that book.) and is now preserved in the book.

 

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All we can rely on is reasoned argument's, based on who we are today.

To do what? Who you are today is not who I am today, and the rest of humanity today is not like either of us; there are many different cultures and mores and attitudes. No argument about ancient peoples and their mythology can be based on "who we are", but the religions of people today are based, more or less, on those ancient stories.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

When you refer to mythical beings

When did I do that?

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

When did I do that?

Just before I responded to your doing that.

On 10/4/2022 at 7:19 AM, dimreepr said:

Maybe Adam and Eve covered up, because their culture was suffering from the same type of body shaming that our's do, and that was their solution.

If you meant some other Adam and Eve who also covered up, you should have specified, since most readers would, reasonably I think, assume you meant the Biblical couple who famously covered up. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The logic of that escapes me. How does knowledge of 'tomorrow' require that one cover one's genitals? I should think knowledge of tomorrow would prompt us, as it does the naked animals, to seek out warm caves, build dams and dig burrows, store up body fat, nuts and grains, migrate to sunnier climates, etc. Why would it cause shame? What's it to do with good and evil?   

Understanding that good and evil is a product of our imagination, would be a start. 

How would you plan to avoid your imagination?

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Just before I responded to your doing that.

If you meant some other Adam and Eve who also covered up, you should have specified, since most readers would, reasonably I think, assume you meant the Biblical couple who famously covered up. 

I just presented a reasonable explanation of a story, in a book; after explaining the limitations of the written word.

 

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Understanding that good and evil is a product of our imagination, would be a start. 

Okay. Conceptualization and abstraction are a product of sophisticated thinking, which includes reason, pattern-recognition and imagination. It's the 'tomorrow' part that doesn't fit as a causative factor in shame. Swedish people are just as conscious of the passage of time as Afghans, yet they have quite different dress codes.

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. Conceptualization and abstraction are a product of sophisticated thinking, which includes reason, pattern-recognition and imagination. It's the 'tomorrow' part that doesn't fit as a causative factor in shame. Swedish people are just as conscious of the passage of time as Afghans, yet they have quite different dress codes.

Wouldn't different cultures explain that?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Wouldn't different cultures explain that?

Yes, they would. Imagination and knowing about tomorrow wouldn't.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I just presented a reasonable explanation of a story, in a book; after explaining the limitations of the written word.

And I pointed out that contradicting the explicit content of a story is not a reasonable explanation of the story. The limitations of written word may contravene our notion of what should have happened or how it could have happened, but if you don't like the story as written, make up your own, don't go stealing the characters from one story and putting them in a different one.

I could explain as how Hamlet's father was a wife-beater and that's why Gertrude divorced him, which might be a reasonable explanation, but not in that story.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Imagination and knowing about tomorrow wouldn't.

Why?

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And I pointed out that contradicting the explicit content of a story is not a reasonable explanation of the story.

And as I pointed out, you can't know, explicitly, what the story teller was telling, even less what the story is "culturally" meant to convey; it's akin to reading a translated Japanese novel and then arguing with his sister, over what he meant by the word 'wogawomptamov' and how it affects the plot.

The one fact we, I assume, can agree on is, God doesn't exist!!! He's just a character in a book, that's part of the narrative of a vastly different culture; that's been translated/edited to the point that we have only the vaguest idea what the book might be about; so I think it's reasonable to not include God in my hypothesis.

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I could explain as how Hamlet's father was a wife-beater and that's why Gertrude divorced him, which might be a reasonable explanation, but not in that story.

Do you imagine you'd have the same level of certainty, in four thousand years (through multiple translations of translation's and then edited by multiple versions of Trump)!!! be honest... 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And as I pointed out, you can't know, explicitly, what the story teller was telling, even less what the story is "culturally" meant to convey; it's akin to reading a translated Japanese novel and then arguing with his sister, over what he meant by the word 'wogawomptamov' and how it affects the plot.

I'm sorry! I had no idea that you are a close relative and confidante of the author of Genesis. I assumed we both had access to the same version of the same translated text. In the light of this revelation, I defer to your interpretation in all particulars. Write God out, if you're sure it would make a more convincing story without him.  

[Arete]

On 9/24/2022 at 7:20 PM, we2 said:

We will promise to reply to everyone who posts. 

"...and they took one look down the rabbit hole and noped the hell out." 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm sorry! I had no idea that you are a close relative and confidante of the author of Genesis.

Wow, way to miss the point, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I assumed we both had access to the same version of the same translated text. In the light of this revelation, I defer to your interpretation in all particulars. Write God out, if you're sure it would make a more convincing story without him.  

I think the most coherent and relevant passage in the bible is 'The sermon on the mount', if you read it and imagine the lesson is meant to be contentment; IOW if I'm content with my existence before I reach heaven, then why do I need a God?

8 hours ago, Arete said:

"...and they took one look down the rabbit hole and noped the hell out." 

LOL

OTOH, if you can't be content with life now, perhaps because that guy's got more than me and all he does is sit on his arse, it's so unfair 😡; then an imaginary friend that's gonna kick his arse, until he's in as much pain as me, can give one a little peace.

Different people require different types of lesson...