Nude Art

[Lil Red]

That is true, but because of original sin, men are tempted to lust by nudity. This is a biological fact.

 

:unsure: women are also tempted to lust by nudity. i mean, if David Beckham paraded around in front of me naked, I'll have to answer for lusting after him. 

[jim111]

Nudity is not inherently obscene.

 

Original sin has increased our passions and makes us sinfully desire things that are normally good. I think where i see a contradiction is why art is OK naked, but it is sinful for women to go in public naked.

Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111

[Nihil Obstat]

Original sin makes has increased our passions and makes us desire sin, for things that are normally good. I think where i see a contradiction is why art is OK naked, but it is sinful for women to go in public naked.

Nobody argued women should walk around naked. We are going in circles.
We talked quite a bit about prudence and proper context. Edited May 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[jim111]

Nobody argued women should walk around naked. We are going in circles.

 

what i am asking you to explain is how it causes less scandal for a woman to be painted naked, then for a person to be naked.

[Nihil Obstat]

what i am asking you to explain is how it causes less scandal for a woman to be painted naked, then for a person to be naked.

See my edit.

[arfink]

Original sin has increased our passions and makes us sinfully desire things that are normally good. I think where i see a contradiction is why art is OK naked, but it is sinful for women to go in public naked.

 

This has already been proposed to you mainly by the repeated statement that art is inherently different from personal nudity. You refuse to even acknowledge or address this point. EmilyAnne has already said it. Nihil and I have said much the same, in that art and personal nudity are not the same. Can you prove they are the same? If they are not the same, then they can be different, and it still falls to you to prove WHY you think that is the case. You keep asserting but never explaining. It's getting annoying.

[Lil Red]

It's getting past annoying.

 

fxd.

[jim111]

People buy magazines "playboy" for pleaure. After Trent they specifically coverd all naked pictues in churches because it was an occasion of sin. We established this long ago.

[Lil Red]

i sincerely hope you are trolling, and do not actually believe that. if you do, methinks you need a sound spiritual director, and to step away from teh interwebz for like, ever. 

I think you are a little obsessed with nudity, modesty, and the like. If this is not the case perhaps you should try making threads about other things.

[Nihil Obstat]

People buy magazines "playboy" for pleaure. After Trent they specifically coverd all naked pictues in churches because it was an occasion of sin. We established this long ago.

Playboy is a non-sequitur.

[jim111]

Playboy is a non-sequitur.

 

what about the effects after trent

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Playboy is a non-sequitur.

Stop eating my props. I'mma start calling you pac-man. 

[Nihil Obstat]

what about the effects after trent

They are uncovered now, are they not? :idontknow:

[jim111]

They are uncovered now, are they not? :idontknow:

 

By a pope who clearly does not understand how scandal works.

[Maggyie]

By a pope who clearly does not understand how scandal works.

 

You mean Pope Julius who had nudes painted all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

[Nihil Obstat]

By a pope who clearly does not understand how scandal works.

Saying "Trent did it" does not mean much. Not unless you can also articulate how it being reversed subsequently somehow does not 'count'.

[jim111]

You mean Pope Julius who had nudes painted all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

 

A lot of popes have made mistakes, they are human, but the paintings were covered because of the doctrine of Trent.

[Basilisa Marie]

Woo! Nihil - Basil tag team! You are all right, for a modernist. :|

 

More like Americanist. :|  I mean... :hehe2:

 

I raise my beer to you, my good smelly RadTrad!  

 

 

Basil does not.

 

 

You flatter me, dear. :) 

 

 

People buy magazines "playboy" for pleaure. After Trent they specifically coverd all naked pictues in churches because it was an occasion of sin. We established this long ago.

 

Oh, but the difference is that Playboy is expressly intended as porn.  Naked paintings are expressly intended to glorify God through admiring His creation. Intent.  

 

 

 

 

Can we just pause for a second and appreciate that while I was digging around for a nasty nickname for Nihil I found out that Triclavianism (belief that 3 nails instead of 4 were used to crucify Christ) was not only a thing, but condemned by the Pope Innocent III as a heresy? 

 

Church History is the best, yo.  

[TheLordsSouljah]

Nudity is not sinful in and of itself, but the fall of mankind causes it to be easily disordered such that if can lead to lust. But the link between nudity and lust is accidental, not essential. Thus nudity can be disconnected from lust and presented in a licit context.

And legitimate art is, as far as I am concerned, among the most proper of contexts for nudity. Right up there with nudity between spouses.

I see where you are coming from, and I am beginning to adopt your position, but could you please explain how while it is not essential that man is fallen and is tempted, doesn't detract from the fact that he actually is? What about porn (not the hard stuff)? I know that's another kettle of fish, and one could say that it is all in the intent of the 'artist', but what is the inherent difference?

[TheLordsSouljah]

They are uncovered now, are they not? :idontknow:

I hear that a whole lot actually weren't uncovered....