born naked

I was born naked, without belief in gods or God. I believed only in what I could touch and hear and see: the breasts I suckled on, my mother’s cooing voice, the funny faces my father made, the lullabies my grandmother sang. I believed in what was palpable and real.

Almost from my birth adults attacked both my nakedness and my atheism. They wrapped me in clothing. They filled me with talk of imaginary beings — Easter bunnies, tooth fairies, Santa and his tiny reindeer (who never seemed tiny in my imagination — or Santa either). King of all these imaginary being was the one even my parents believed in: the God who, they cooed, created and loved us all. With God came angels who were (so they told me) thoughts from God, But try as I might, I could never imagine angels as “thoughts.” I had to imagine them with wings and bodies and faces. God too, had to have a body and a bearded face — or he couldn’t be imagined either.

It seems that to be imagined — much less be visualized doing things — even imaginary beings must have bodies of some sort or another. Though we are told that God is pure spirit, bodiless and eternal, the truth is we can’t imagine spirit without imagining body. Thus even adult Christians must imagine their God transformed into bodily Jesus in order for their deity to seem real. It is a truth every baby is born knowing: real things have substance. Soul requires body for its expression: otherwise it is static and absent. Official definitions notwithstanding, bodies are necessary for existence.

The established definition of God says he is bodiless — yet no one can imagine him without imagining something. Him, did I say? God cannot be him. Embodied in human form, imagined as Jesus walking the earth or hanging on the cross, God can have a penis even if he never uses it. But take away the body and you take away God’s penis, his maleness, his masculinity, all. Nor can God be feminine, since the disembodied cannot have a vulva either. God must be sexless and genderless, forever “it”.

Note that if a theist insists on masculinizing God, turning it into he, they are not taking their theism seriously. Any pronoun other than “it” is just the infant’s intuition that real beings must have a body reappearing in the grownup. The infant is right. No matter how much intellectual brainwashing the adult theist has undergone, they can never quite escape the infant’s truth.

Let me repeat that: whenever anyone refers to God as “he”, they are failing to take the concept of God seriously. If your God is bodiless nonetheless very real, then you will readily concede that the God you believe in must be an it. On the other hand if your God is merely an imaginary fancy of yours — like Santa and his tiny reindeer or like the tooth fairy — then impossibilities don’t bother you, and you will have no hesitation in insisting on God’s bodiless masculinity.

If God is merely a fantasy, incoherent details don’t matter. Pretend doesn’t have to make sense. But if your God is not pretend, then it can be neither masculine nor feminine.

As for me, I was born a naked atheist and I will die atheist and — God willing! (that was a joke) — I will die naked. If nothing else, when I die it will be me, my body not my clothing, which does the dying. Only naked me can die. I was born naked and I will die naked and my profound wish while alive is to be allowed to be naked me. It is the most important wish any of us can have: to be fortunate enough while we breathe and live to be our naked selves. Me and you, meeting as we are despite the cultural smokescreens of clothing and religion. Naked me and naked you in naked life — from beginning to end and everything between.

This entry was posted in Death, Nudity, Prose, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to born naked

  1. theisticphilosopher says:

    The “naked me and naked you in naked life” is actually consistent with my Christian theism, which encompasses Luciferian concepts (Lucifer meaning “Light-Bringer”).

    “God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero. In other words, God is the “unmanifest”. Satan, then, is the “manifest” and is in direct to opposition to God by the nature of being manifest. Yet, the manifest nature of Satan is two-fold. First, there is the “fallen Satan”—body of man. Then, there is the “unfallen Satan”—soul of man. For man, the avenue to the soul is the tunnel of the body, and the avenue to God is the tunnel of the soul. Those consumed by pure body shall be consumed by the one-ness of nothing. But those who can retain a love in the soul that is pure and true shall pass thru the tunnel of the soul to a realm of spirit where he or she shall not be consumed by the nothingness, but will dwell forever in the “house of the Lord”.

    Much in the same way that each of us is an individual spark of the divine and a reflection of the one true God, the holy are united with God, yet they retain a spark of the divine self that was manifest on earth in bodily form. Recognition of this divine spark in others and in one’s self is the true meaning of “consciousness”. It is the trinity of “alive-ness” present in the actual Christian Trinity—the Father (mind/God), the Son (body/man), and the Holy Spirit (soul/Lucifer). This last, soul or spirit, is the moral conscience and the inner voice of Truth; thus, it can be said to be “angels as thoughts”.

    Also, if man is a fallen manifestation of an unfallen and unmanifest God, then for the Christian theist, it is appropriate (rather than infantile) to consider God as masculine. After all, God’s greatest and most influential defender in the realm of the real is the manifest Jesus.

  2. theisticphilosopher says:

    In addition, the naked self IS the holy self. It is thru the Trinity of “alive-ness” that a man realizes that he is more noble, more divine and special, than either his boot or the clothes on his back.

  3. theisticphilosopher says:

    Further, it is worth noting that the word “God” has become unpopular simply because it evokes many images, one of which is the dictatorial deity present to some degree in all three great monotheistic religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity). Other images are those of the mystical and mythological representations in polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, which seek to explain man’s life and existence thru the language of pseudo-profundity, telling us that is “ignorant” to believe anything other than the wisdom of “knowing” that we “were never born” and that we “will never die”. While many of the specific myths and symbols of the Hindu religion contain pearls of practical wisdom that might do man well enough to note, as theology or faith…Hinduism is absurd.

  4. theisticphilosopher says:

    If I say that God is real or that God exists, it is likely that the listener is hearing much more than what was actually said. The listener is hearing the whole of what all others have claimed God to be. All I am saying is that God is real; nothing more, and nothing less. Indeed, it is a part of my philosophical and theistic belief that each man must come unto God thru himself, for the realization of divinity is not a thing that can ever be truly realized thru “the other”. This is why I support the “radical individulaism” of the existentialists and Ayn Rand’s “virtue of selfishness”. I have “come unto the Lord” thru Jesus only in the sense that I feel I have arrived at a deep understanding of the life words of Jesus, a man who possessed, for whatever reason, a prodigious understanding of the divinity of self and its relationship to the one true God.

  5. Dwight says:

    I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and I’m glad you find nudity consistent with theism. Your words are nice-sounding, but I guess I am too literal-minded to comprehend them. I give a few examples where I cannot follow what you write.

    …if man is a fallen manifestation of an unfallen and unmanifest God, then for the Christian theist, it is appropriate (rather than infantile) to consider God as masculine. After all, God’s greatest and most influential defender in the realm of the real is the manifest Jesus.

    I suppose that the word “man” here encompasses both male and female (or are you saying God “manifested” men but not women?), so your argument is that because God created people in both masculine and feminine versions it follows that God must be masculine. Well, I can’t see how that follows. Your next sentence doesn’t help me. In that sentence you argue that because Jesus, who is male, is “God’s greatest and most influential defender” why of course God must therefore also be male. Again, I can’t see why. My wife is probably my “greatest and most influential defender” but it doesn’t follow that I am female or feminine because she is.

    I’m sure it makes sense to you, but it just baffles me. Here’s something else I am too literal-minded to understand.

    “God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero. In other words, God is the “unmanifest”.

    So, if “one” is “none” then doesn’t that make God the “none-ness” of all. Doesn’t none mean zero. And to say that God is “unmanifest” sounds to me like saying that God is just an idea or concept not brought into existence yet. Combine that with saying God is zero or none, and it seems like you should find atheism very agreeable.

    Why are you a theist if you believe that God is some sort of nothing or none-ness? But then I read your next sentence

    Satan, then, is the “manifest” and is in direct to opposition to God by the nature of being manifest.

    and I think, well, by “all” you mean God (the “unmanifest”) plus Satan (everything “manifest”, the earth and all our bodily lives). But you also said that the sum of all is zero. But if the sum equals zero, then instead of God being

    the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”

    it would seem that God must actually be negative, else how can God plus Satan equal zero? Or maybe you intend that everything “manifest” is negative and everything “unmanifest” is positive. Or maybe you mean that Satan and God are both zero, and so of course zero plus zero equals zero, and we have no need for negative or positive.

    Never forgetting, naturally, that Satan is really us human beings:

    First, there is the “fallen Satan”—body of man. Then, there is the “unfallen Satan”—soul of man.

    Does this mean Satan is masculine too?

    Fortunately there’s always Hinduism with its “language of pseudo-profundity”. Good thing we haven’t been swayed by Hinduism’s nonsense about reincarnation, or the supposed

    wisdom of “knowing” that we “were never born” and that we “will never die”

    Taken literally, I’d agree that’s absurd. You are right to dismiss it, confident in the assurance that

    “God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero

    and ever mindful that human beings are Satan manifested in body and soul and summed to zero with God. Did I get it right?

  6. MARK SOHLDEN says:

    Hey, you are dead right and dead wrong at the same time, check it out,
    on my website truthislifelifeistruth.com, and you will see that God has always been unclothed forever, and yet most christians reject what their own bible says about it.

    comment on my web site, click the links….tell me what you feel

Leave a Reply