Three Questions For You

[Neto]

So in what way does wearing immodest or provocative clothes portray pride and vainglory without being a temptation to men?

.... I bet very few men particularly care about a woman wearing an expensive brand of shoes, but women definitely do notice. I doubt many men encounter much "temptation" when a woman is wearing a fancy $400 pair of shoes as opposed to a similar shoe bought for $20 at TJ Maxx.

So true, and it creates a really hilarious picture in my mind. -

[Bootstrap]

Really, referencing Jesus’ miracle at Cana and the first wine and the later wine did not directly address the alcoholic nature of wine?

The "Two Miracles of Cana". The first miracle was when Jesus turned the water into wine. The second miracle was when the Mennonites turned the wine into grape juice.

[Josh]

#3 - because mankind was commanded to in Eden; the Bible tells us we should cover our bodies so that the shame of our nakedness is not revealed.

So am I understanding you correctly that you think there is something shameful about nakedness, that has nothing to do with human's tendency to lust?

Well, Adam & Eve were both ashamed and tried to sew fig leaves for themselves, but what they did was insufficient. God then went and slew a lamb and made coats for them. Ever since then, people have been ashamed to be naked, and it is also proper to use animal products to make clothes for ourselves, such as leather and wool.

If a group of guys got together, and were naked, they would be ashamed, even though they probably wouldn't be lusting. Or perhaps several very, very unattractive people decide to go do an activity together. If they were all naked, they would be ashamed, even if they wouldn't find each other attractive or be feeling much lust.

The NT continues this theme, telling us the Lord would wish we would spend money to buy clothes so that we cover our nakedness, and buy gold refined in the fire to buy such clothes.

Do you think this refers to physical clothes, spiritual clothes, or both?
[/quote]

I think it refers to both - but is also taking how we think about regular clothes (someone who can't cover up their own body is deeply shameful, and charity calls for us to clothe the naked), and it asks us to apply this to our spiritual lives as well.

Elsewhere in the NT, we see that a Christian's duty is actually to clothe the naked:

for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.

[Soloist]

Well, Adam & Eve were both ashamed and tried to sew fig leaves for themselves, but what they did was insufficient. God then went and slew a lamb and made coats for them. Ever since then, people have been ashamed to be naked, and it is also proper to use animal products to make clothes for ourselves, such as leather and wool.

Side question, do you believe it’s fine to wear plant derived clothing or is that wrong in your eyes?

[Josh]

Side question, do you believe it’s fine to wear plant derived clothing or is that wrong in your eyes?

I don't have a firm doctrine or position on that. However, I do see a few interesting things in Genesis and in the old law:

- Clothes made from plants were insufficient and instead fresh leather from a slain animal was needed instead.
- Abel brought a sacrifice of an animal, but Cain brought a sacrifice of plants. The latter was insufficient.
- It was an abomination to "mix fabrics" in the OT law.

Now, in the present day, I think we'd be a lot better off using leather and wool and furs to clothe ourselves, instead of polluting the soil and waterways with cotton (which requires major application of pesticides), or worse, making clothes out of petroleum and plastics which end up polluting the world with microplastics, which is generally starting to be seen as a major problem. Leather, wool, and furs are also more durable, leading to better economy and thrift.

Cotton has a very sordid association with the slave trade, and the Aral Sea disaster was basically caused by cotton farming. What was once a prosperous sea with lots of commercial fishing is now a dead and poisoned wasteland.

[ken_sylvania]

God then went and slew a lamb and made coats for them.

If that's any indication what size our clothing ought to be - wow!

[Soloist]

Side question, do you believe it’s fine to wear plant derived clothing or is that wrong in your eyes?

I don't have a firm doctrine or position on that. However, I do see a few interesting things in Genesis and in the old law:

- Clothes made from plants were insufficient and instead fresh leather from a slain animal was needed instead.
- Abel brought a sacrifice of an animal, but Cain brought a sacrifice of plants. The latter was insufficient.
- It was an abomination to "mix fabrics" in the OT law.

Linen was used in the temple and Joseph was dressed in it.

As for Cain, read the account in the septuagint, veggies versus meat wasn’t why God rejected it.
Sin offering for poor would go down to a measure of flour

[Josh]

God then went and slew a lamb and made coats for them.

If that's any indication what size our clothing ought to be - wow!

Well, the text is a little light on details. Here's how the NET describes it.

Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

...

The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

The NET has a note on the word "skin":

'The Lord God made garments from skin': the text gives no indication of how this was done, or how they came by the skins. Earlier in the narrative (v. 7) the attempt of the man and the woman to cover their nakedness with leaves expressed their sense of alienation from each other and from God. By giving them more substantial coverings, God indicates this alienation is greater than they realize. This divine action is also ominous; God is preparing them for the more hostile environment in which they will soon be living (v. 23). At the same time, there is a positive side to the story in that God makes provision for the man’s and woman’s condition.

For various historical reasons, we assume the skins were from a lamb (and that the fruit was an apple).

[Josh]

Linen was used in the temple and Joseph was dressed in it.

Yes, it was.

As for Cain, read the account in the septuagint, veggies versus meat wasn’t why God rejected it.
Sin offering for poor would go down to a measure of flour

Yes, I don't quite make a case for meat-eating from that passage. I just think it is interesting to observe the contrast drawn.

Overall, there is a subtil theme in scripture that large scale sedentary agriculture and the resulting cities is not really a good thing, yet it is also portrayed as sort of inevitable that it will happen, cities will be built up, and then due to men's disobedience God will destroy the city, the granaries will run empty, and the people will be scattered.

[RZehr]

Really, referencing Jesus’ miracle at Cana and the first wine and the later wine did not directly address the alcoholic nature of wine?

The "Two Miracles of Cana". The first miracle was when Jesus turned the water into wine. The second miracle was when the Mennonites turned the wine into grape juice.