When other excuses for universally opposing public nudity are refuted, one may hear the assertion that clothing must be worn to emphasize the elevation of humans over animals, as if covering the body displays our greater theological importance. It is used more seldomly than many other objections to nudity, but this does not make it any more difficult to defeat. This idea has absolutely no basis in the Bible, even though evangelicals are perhaps the most likely to agree with it.
Conservative prudery is almost inevitably what motivates claims like this, and evangelical Christians are quite likely to agree with this idea. Ironically, the first chapters of Genesis attribute the key differences between humans and animals to something far more significant than the gratuitous wearing of clothes. Clothing was not even something that God intended humans to regularly wear, or else he would not have created humans naked (Genesis 2:25).
It is not clothing that distinguishes humans from animals, but the metaphysical differences entailed by God's image (Genesis 1:26-27). Theologically speaking, humans are separated from animals due to resembling the nature of God more closely than animals do, not because of either bodily differences or clothing that hides the body. The Bible does not clarify the full nature of God's image, but God is described as having characteristics that are also held by humans (like sentience).
The true phenomenology of animals is barred from access to non-telepathic beings like myself, and thus it is hypothetically possible that animals have the same capacity for abstract reasoning as humans even if it cannot be proven. However, humans have observable characteristics that animals do not: thoroughly developed languages, social depth that transcends that of animals, and overt displays of spirituality. These things are noticed by practically everyone during their lives.
The inner thoughts of animals, if they are indeed conscious (even other human minds cannot be known to exist), may ultimately mirror ours, but the aforementioned outward features distinguish humans from animals, and every single one of them seems related to the nature of Yahweh. After all, the early chapters of Genesis portray him as a deity who desired to create human minds in order to communicate with them.
In light of this, only Christians guilty of fallacious eisegesis would hold that clothing theologically separates humans from the other creatures God created. Their stance is easily defeated on both logical and Biblical grounds! As with many other instances of opposition to nonsinful displays of the human body, traditions of prudery and a reluctance to give up assumptions are to blame for this pathetic belief.
Remember, Cooper Cooke: Primarily/distinctively in ROMAN/catholic - influenced Western ¿“civilization”? as an outlier, God is depicted in “Male/Man’s” image; likely because Roman Caesars/Emperors deemed themselves as “gods” & embodiments of the Divine ( & thus recognized & eventually embraced a kindred-spirit in Jesus who was audacious enough to pronounce HisSelf as the “Male/Son of God” in defiance of traditional Jewish norms — not some “golden-bos taurus cloven-hooved herbivore as worshipped even by some historic Jews; & Hindus, Africans, ( & later Native Tribal Americans ) – demeaned by Romans as pagans — traditionally & in some case still — recognize/d “The Divine” in several embodiments in the “TheAnimalKingdom” ( eg: Hindu & African & Asian avatars/incarnations/representation/embodiments of God : “monkey-god” Hanuman, Hindu “elephant-god” Ganesha. Islam, at the opposite extreme, eschews All representations of God in animalian even human form in Islamic iconography, in deference to God & not deifying anyone “before God”, & is reserved to & preserves the concept that We are All within God’s Creation which is depicted as “The Garden/Eden” in “arabesque” almost exclusively in fruit floral & plant forms.
ReplyDeleteThese other cultures also, ironically, have a much more appreciative if not reverent view on the Naked Human Male/Female figure ( eg: Naturist/Nudist Hindu/Jain renunciate naga sadhu monks who are free to roam Naked/Nude & hold massive annual festivals & parades throughout India, the 2nd if not quite yet 1st largest Nation on Earth. There are surely more devout Naturist/Nudist naga sadhu monks in India than All professed sometimes-Nudists/Naturists in the USA.