nude art

[Commando Omnipants]

Eh, overall, I'm against it.
Now, if the situation somehow completely required the concept of nudity to make a further more valid point, that'd be okay . . . but even then, it has the potential for someone to view it sexually.

And most nude art I've seen is about being nude . . . rather than conveying anything that they couldn't without it.

Basically, I can see negative things coming from it . . . so I'd say we could do without it?  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

What you have construed is gossip can also be construed as concern. The passage doesn't specify motive. Also, the passage mentions nakedness four times. If, indeed, Ham was cursed for gossipping, it certainly isn't relevant to this thread.

The passage is quite clear in regards to Ham's inappropriate behavior. Ham walked into Noah's private tent without invitation, and upon seeing Noah's nakedness, he did not cover him. Instead, he went and told Shem and Japheth. Those two decided to cover Noah, making sure not to look upon him. When Noah woke up, he cursed Ham for his behavior.

How do you "construe" Ham's actions as done out of concern? It cannot be done, and no, this passage is not relevant to the thread.

Priestley

It makes more sense that Shem and Japheth were rewarded for their action towards their drunken father over their younger brother Ham's inaction.

Why does this make more sense? They were never blessed or praised for their actions, so I see nothing to suggest this.

Commando Omnipants

Eh, overall, I'm against it.
Now, if the situation somehow completely required the concept of nudity to make a further more valid point, that'd be okay . . . but even then, it has the potential for someone to view it sexually.

This is irrelevant. A person can find a sweater sexually attractive, and that has no bearing on the morality of wearing fleece. If the art is not done specifically to encite lust, there is no basis for using lust as a criticism for it.

Commando Omnipants

Basically, I can see negative things coming from it . . . so I'd say we could do without it?

I can see negative things coming from electricity. Shall we all become Amnish, or is it obvious enough why this is not a legitimate criticism of nudity?  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Priestley

What you have construed is gossip can also be construed as concern. The passage doesn't specify motive. Also, the passage mentions nakedness four times. If, indeed, Ham was cursed for gossipping, it certainly isn't relevant to this thread.

The passage is quite clear in regards to Ham's inappropriate behavior. Ham walked into Noah's private tent without invitation,

Whether this is indeed "inappropriate" is entirely based on Noah's reaction to the event, which is what I was bringing into question.

zz1000zz

and upon seeing Noah's nakedness, he did not cover him. Instead, he went and told Shem and Japheth.

You assume it was to gossip but the passage says nothing to indicate this. A person can tell someone something out of concern as much as they can out of gossip. Bear in mind that Ham was the youngest brother and, quite possibly, the least responsible out of the three. It seems only logical that one would appeal to the more responsible sibling in dealing with such an issue.

zz1000zz

Those two decided to cover Noah, making sure not to look upon him. When Noah woke up, he cursed Ham for his behavior.

By making his nation subservient to Shem and Japtheth.

zz1000zz

How do you "construe" Ham's actions as done out of concern? It cannot be done, and no, this passage is not relevant to the thread.

See above regarding the concern.

zz1000zz

Priestley

It makes more sense that Shem and Japheth were rewarded for their action towards their drunken father over their younger brother Ham's inaction.

Why does this make more sense? They were never blessed or praised for their actions, so I see nothing to suggest this.

Noah gave Canaan to Shem and Japheth, asking God to make Canaan subservient to them. He also asked God to expand Japheth's people so that they live among Shem's people. What is that if not a blessing?  

[freelance lover]

Commando Omnipants

Eh, overall, I'm against it.
Now, if the situation somehow completely required the concept of nudity to make a further more valid point, that'd be okay . . . but even then, it has the potential for someone to view it sexually.

The only thing is, even if you're in clothing, there's still the potential for it to be viewed lustfully. People find lust in just about everything, and it gets to a point where you have to let other people take responsibility for their own actions and sinful tendencies. In general, nude artwork works to glorify the human figure and God's creation.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

Priestley

What you have construed is gossip can also be construed as concern. The passage doesn't specify motive. Also, the passage mentions nakedness four times. If, indeed, Ham was cursed for gossipping, it certainly isn't relevant to this thread.

The passage is quite clear in regards to Ham's inappropriate behavior. Ham walked into Noah's private tent without invitation,

Whether this is indeed "inappropriate" is entirely based on Noah's reaction to the event, which is what I was bringing into question.

I do not get what you are trying to say. The violation of privacy is obviously inappropriate. Yes, we know Ham's actions were inappropriate because of how Noah reacted, but that is a literary issue which seems irrelevant to me. Noah reacted in the manner one would expect for that situation, which means how he reacted tells us what the situation was.

The only other possibility is to say Noah acted wrongly. I cannot see any way to justify this position.

Priestly

zz1000zz

and upon seeing Noah's nakedness, he did not cover him. Instead, he went and told Shem and Japheth.

You assume it was to gossip but the passage says nothing to indicate this. A person can tell someone something out of concern as much as they can out of gossip. Bear in mind that Ham was the youngest brother and, quite possibly, the least responsible out of the three. It seems only logical that one would appeal to the more responsible sibling in dealing with such an issue.

Actually, I doubt Ham was the youngest brother. Each time the brothers are listed, Ham is listed second, which would mean he was the middle child. The word translated into "youngest" also means "smallest."

Again, I do not see what your point is supposed to be. The interpretation you propose requires Noah have acted incorrectly, and it does not even excuse Ham's actions.

Priestly

zz1000zz

Priestley

It makes more sense that Shem and Japheth were rewarded for their action towards their drunken father over their younger brother Ham's inaction.

Why does this make more sense? They were never blessed or praised for their actions, so I see nothing to suggest this.

Noah gave Canaan to Shem and Japheth, asking God to make Canaan subservient to them. He also asked God to expand Japheth's people so that they live among Shem's people. What is that if not a blessing?

Cursing one person is not blessing another. If someone gets demoted at a workplace, this does not mean the people now placed above him got promoted.

I had stopped reading at verse 25 before. In reading the full passage, there is no doubt Japheth was blessed (with an interesting play on words), as was Shem. However, there is no doubt Ham was cursed for his actions. The blessings of Shem and Japheth have nothing to do with that (hence why I hadn't payed attention to them before).  

[Matt Pniewski]

I have nothing against it. Actually, if you look at my website, www.halffishmovie.com, you will see plenty of pictures of my lead actress nearly nude, and even some nude concept sketches.

We, as human beings, are sexually attracted to other human beings. We can be mature about it, and appreciate the nude form, and not get indecent about it.... Just a physical sensation nothing more. It's not lustful thoughts or intentions, it's not a moral lapse, it's just what happens. We have control of our thoughts and actions, so we can handle it like adults. So let's do that.


Now, I've done plenty of nude art, because I am an art student. I can't just say "God says it's wrong" and be able to pass. Won't get a degree that way. And on top of that, I'm very excited about my short film having the first nude scene I've ever directed. It's coming up.... And for the watchdogs here, relax- It's masked. As harmless as the Nudist scene in "A Shot in the Dark".


I think the difference is, is the artist trying to make people think certain things, or are they more interested in the beauty or the moment captured? Because here's the Irony- I'm an active opponent of the Pornography Industry (of course, that's because of the corruption and exploitation.... Pretty much everything except the content).  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

To answer the question about whether or not we had this thread before- yes, and I started it. xd

Anyway, nudity is only bad when you make it bad or misuse it in some way, the same as pretty much anything that isn't already sin. confused Sex can be bad when you make it bad or misuse it, using substances for a euphoric feeling can be bad if you make it bad or misuse it, love can be bad if you make it bad and misuse it. If nudity is being used in a tasteful way that is appreciating the creation of the human body and glorifying God for His works, then it's totally okay. Nudity or partial nudity is often used as a sales device, however. Sex sells. Showing a partially naked woman or man in order to sell perfume or shoes or cheeseburgers is generally not tasteful. confused It's about the sex, the message that if you buy or use this product, you will be sexually desireable (since, as far as I'm aware, that's the definition of sexy).  

[Kazydi]

As long as it isn't meant to arouse lustful feelings, and as long as you aren't getting lustful feelings from it, then I would see no problem with nudity as an art form. I mean the drawn/painted kind, though. Photography kinda pushes the boundary.

And to freelance_lover and Fushiga na, good points.  

[Samsoonie]

AerynV

how does god feel about this? I have read that we should be ashamed of our nudity and also that we should rejoice in it because god made our bodies beautiful and whatnot. I know it is a sin to view someone in lust, but what if its for art? What if it is done in a very tasteful way. I dunno i just thought of this and would like your inputs. =/

edit:

in art class we are learning about different artists, like micheal angelo and whatnot and he was famous for the painting "Creation of Adam" (two hands almost touching on the ceiling) and the figures are nude. There's also a bunch of other artists that have done simular things and i was wondering how God viewed this. Is it bad to show nudity in art? I know you're not supposed to look at a person in lust, but if the art is tasteful like Micheal Angelo's work then is it ok? And is it different depending on if its a painting or a photo or film? Is it wrong to watch movies where there is some nudity? lol sorry if this is random, but i'd really like to know.


this article/thing explains one view... http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/03/nudity-in-art.html

"When we see someone who is without clothing, we are not to admire their form, but to cover them (Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18:7, Genesis 9:22-27)."

not a fan of the painting personally but not because of the nudity but rather the way God is portrayed in the painting but that's for different time.. anyhow, I don't think that nude paintings are "sinful" especially in that context, Adam has just been created and is about to be given life from God.. Adam wasn't born with clothes, he only put clothes on after the whole taking a bite from the apple thing.
I mean if you don't feel comfortable with it then don't look at it but Micheal Angelo didn't make Adam and God naked to spark any lustful feelings within the viewer of his work.
God created our bodies and i don't think its anything to be ashamed of but it all depends on the context like everyone else has been sayin'