About wearing clothes as proof of the Garden of Eden.

It's been often discussed concerning the existence of the perfect original place of sinlessness from the fact of knowledge to progress from in science and ethics, that the Garden of Eden should have fulfilled us a much better result for God's assertion of Earth's humanity overcoming the detracting need for evil. Evil is horrible and less important than polished life-styles and improved empires with or without slavery. This thing called evil is a nuisance to be sure; it causes frowning and distaste for the whole project of survival.

I would like to than just consider if the Garden of Eden did not exist. Some other myth could be conceived. Perhaps a creative one in the notion of dress and the hiding of innocence which man truly is non-naive about.

Truly we resort to having, along with the intolerable sinning in the world, culture and style, technique and restraint. Let us say that the garden of Eden is not necessary. We, in producing survival and creating adjustment to the cycles of living from one incarnation to another can now simply feel that God had designed in the creation of heaven and earth simply the 'modus operand' humans to be incarnated to these life-cycles by not eating each other. Knowledge was introduced for MAN to find the means of production and communication and lasting the life of habitation and co-habitation in the fashion of history occurring civilized and cultured.:2thumbsup::devil: (yeah, sure, devil)

 

the enterity of every world, before sapience evolves on it, is a place of perfect sinlessness. of course there are things that eat each other and so on, but they do so in perfect innocense, of making any sort of judgement upon doing so.

as for creation myths, yes, every place on the planet there have been people to make them up, each have their own.

i kind of like coyote, because only a crazy trickster, could have created a sapient species as insane as humanity.

"intolerable sinning", is a meaningless turn of phrase.

destroying the wonder and beauty and the very means of our own existence as a species,
by indifference to how we treat the surroundings beyond our personal space,
because some people believe and try to convince everyone else, we can 'gain' more (of what? other then hollow symbolism) by doing so,
is a very real and stupid problem, shared by all of us,
and not in the least way reduced by the adamance of fanaticism.

 

Perhaps wearing clothes is a one thing or product of overcoming paganism. But believing is some consciousness of self, much at the primal instinct, experiencing the realistically unbelievable world. No?

 

i think wearing anything started for practical reasons, then it became a fashion, and THEN it became a religious mandate, because almost everyone was already doing it, so those who weren't, became a minority that fanatics could scapegoat.

certainly doesn't make doing so a 'proof' of anything.

 

what's up ? a hat . hats are very important . first there was one hat then
there were many and each for an idea . what's below ? ah , nothing , but
hey! i gots a hat .

 

I think wearing clothes probably started in order to keep out the cold.

But it's interesting that many tribal cultures who are pretty much naked often wear some kind of accessory or object which designates their status as one of the tribe. Even their position in the pecking order.

In old pre-christian Greece, nudity and the beauty of the human form were celebrated, but they did live in a nice climate.:sunny:

Prudishness about the body though seems to be a theme of many religions.

 

I think guilt or shame an inability to process suffering in a meaningful way and thus the scapegoat. I must have done something wrong to end up cold and naked in the face of the most elementary. Who took my coat and why?

 

Hey, good timing; I think it is (Being before all else) all a matter of chemistry.:biker:

 

Yes it is very important for the mother to keep the father away from the children, and to protect them from him, because he will eat the children. Perhaps she should kick him out of the den upon their birth, or keep them in a separate den, perhaps only meeting him for purposes of copulation...

...wait, I'm being told that this is true for bears, not humans. I guess we have been doing this wrong. Hmmmmmm...

 

You spelled pecker wrong.

 

The Garden of Eden is more a story of the birth of civilization than it is of anything else. It clearly sets the tone of duality for Judeo-Christian and even Muslim thought. It is also a story of the emergence of ego, the ego-ideal, and the ego-shadow complex. It also adds credence to the later Christian concept of the Devil.

I think it is time for man to move beyond this Post-Planter-Culture ethic of duality.

 

I didn't spell it at all.