Art, erotic art, naked natives and p0rnography

[Pergamum]

What's the difference and why?

Here's some scenarios:

• ---A man has a picture of his wife in a bikini from a recent vacation on his wall,
  
• ---A man has a picture of a stranger in a bikini hanging on his wall,
  
• ---A man has a painted picture of a naked women on his wall..but she is Eve and the painting is a Biblical scene,
  
• ---A man has a picture of naked tribal women on his wall related to his anthropological work.
  
• ---A man has a picture of a naked female form on his wall (he is a obgyn and the picture of a graphic description of certain parts).
  
• ---A boy draws grafiti on the wall of a crude, almost stick figure form of a naked female woman.

It appears that the difference is the purpose of the picture. Therefore, National Geographic is a great EDUCATIONAL magazine and graphic prints of OBGYN prints are very useful. What about art showing the beauty of the human form. Can this beauty be shown without sin, since the beauty is the goal and not the eroticism? Can Chrsitians own old works of art like Botticelli?


I need a logical framework to fit this together.

 

[RamistThomist]

I actually like Botticelli

 

[clstamper]

I actually like Botticelli

I have been searching for answers on this issue all my life and have found nothing. Nada. Zilch.

 

[VictorBravo]

I actually like Botticelli

I have been searching for answers on this issue all my life and have found nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Similarly, the US Supreme Court has been trying for more than 50 years. The best anybody's come up with, regarding obscenity, is "I know it when I see it."

That and "community standards" which was supposed to be an objective test.

 

[Sydnorphyn]

similar questions

I listened to a sermon in chapel today on p0rnography and was struck by the lack of attention to Song of Songs and its graphic presentation of female and male sexuality - when do we draw the line in presenting this to our children...our students?

 

[panta dokimazete]

p0rnography is any image that arouses lust.

bikini, nude, etc...

 

[k.seymore]

I listened to a sermon in chapel today on p0rnography and was struck by the lack of attention to Song of Songs and its graphic presentation of female and male sexuality - when do we draw the line in presenting this to our children...our students?

What!?!? I thought Song of Songs was all about trees and fruit and pairs of deer and battlements and boards of cedar.

 

[RamistThomist]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

 

[Kevin]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

(you are on a roll tonight!)

 

[Pergamum]

What if Song of Solomon arouses lust? Or a few verses in Ezekial?



Arouses lust in whom? WHen? I guess that is where community standards or a "common sense" comes in. THe purpose of a thing it seems determines its quality. Thus Botticelli would not be seen the same as a bikini model.

What is the difference in all these items, the Botticeli, the Nat Geo pics of natives, the obgyn textbooks and etc....

 

[Kevin]

p0rnography is any image that arouses lust.

bikini, nude, etc...

Ahh..., Have you read the Song of Songs? Some pretty strong desire going on there. I may be reading between the lines, but are you suggesting that lust is "strong desire"?

Not disagreeing with you totally, but I would add the caveat that *sinfull* lust is a desire for that which is not *rightfully* yours.

 

[RamistThomist]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

(you are on a roll tonight!)

I have an even better one, but it probably crosses the line (I found it in a commentary, so that makes it okay). I don't fee like getting my study bible out of my car tonight...maybe tomorrow.

 

[DMcFadden]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

One old and one new??? Yikes!

 

[DMcFadden]

Pragmatic test of p0rn: Does it leave you feeling guilty? Does your pulse quicken?

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

One old and one new??? Yikes!

A common occurrence in California.

 

[Theoretical]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

One old and one new??? Yikes!

A common occurrence in California.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Regarding Song of Songs... I think it is a fallacy to assume that because it is God's Word it is therefore suitable reading material for everyone. Remember, both the Jewish community AND the early (pre-allegory) church had "restrictions" on who should read it and when.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Regarding Song of Songs... I think it is a fallacy to assume that because it is God's Word it is therefore suitable reading material for everyone. Remember, both the Jewish community AND the early (pre-allegory) church had "restrictions" on who should read it and when.

True, we forget the inspired Word is holy and not be approached flippantly or without prayer.

 

[Pergamum]

Who would then restrict the Song of Solomon? Would it come packaged in a black wrapper? Who would do the packaging. Rome? To withold any part of inspired Writ seems unjustifiable.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No, the two breasts = the two testaments.

In all seriousness though, why can't people just admit that the Song of Songs is a book about a husband and wife having sex?

 

[Davidius]

Regarding Song of Songs... I think it is a fallacy to assume that because it is God's Word it is therefore suitable reading material for everyone. Remember, both the Jewish community AND the early (pre-allegory) church had "restrictions" on who should read it and when.

Who would then restrict the Song of Solomon? Would it come packaged in a black wrapper? Who would do the packaging. Rome? To withold any part of inspired Writ seems unjustifiable.

I agree with Pergie. Just because the Jewish community and early church placed restrictions on the reading of a book (source?) doesn't mean that they should have. I'd like some elaboration on the point that it's a "fallacy" to claim that God's Word is for everyone. Historical evidence is certainly not the criterion for classifying something as a fallacy.

 

[VictorBravo]

Pragmatic test of p0rn: Does it leave you feeling guilty? Does your pulse quicken?

Would it be OK if it didn't? I suspect there are a lot of jaded guiltless consumers out there. One of the more dramatic changes I've seen in my lifetime is the acceptance of **** in the mainstream. It used to be confined to the squalid little theater at the edge of town, or maybe at the sleazy magazine vendor in the big city. Now it is on TV, marketed by big respectable companies. It is remarkable how numb our culture has become to it.

BTW, for me, coffee with a little too much sugar meets your test too.

 

[VictorBravo]

Huh, funny how Dennis's post bypassed the filter and mine didn't. I really don't use the asterix that much.

 

[VictorBravo]

It was the colon on the end.

Thanks, Josh. Although I had to stop to think about what you were talking about! (I had just read an article about colon cancer).

 

[DMcFadden]

Huh, funny how Dennis's post bypassed the filter and mine didn't. I really don't use the asterix that much.

My post was fully immersed first.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What's the difference and why?

Here's some scenarios:

• ---A man has a picture of his wife in a bikini from a recent vacation on his wall,
  
• ---A man has a picture of a stranger in a bikini hanging on his wall,
  
• ---A man has a painted picture of a naked women on his wall..but she is Eve and the painting is a Biblical scene,
  
• ---A man has a picture of naked tribal women on his wall related to his anthropological work.
  
• ---A man has a picture of a naked female form on his wall (he is a obgyn and the picture of a graphic description of certain parts).
  
• ---A boy draws grafiti on the wall of a crude, almost stick figure form of a naked female woman.

It appears that the difference is the purpose of the picture. Therefore, National Geographic is a great EDUCATIONAL magazine and graphic prints of OBGYN prints are very useful. What about art showing the beauty of the human form. Can this beauty be shown without sin, since the beauty is the goal and not the eroticism? Can Chrsitians own old works of art like Botticelli?


I need a logical framework to fit this together.

I don't have any pics like this on my walls. And I just wouldn't. Concerning pics of my wife... My nakedness is my own and I wouldn't want to flaunt it about for other to see. The scriptures tell us that our family nakedness is ours. And I wouldn't want another mans nakedness to be flaunted on my walls either.

When it comes to medical journals that is another thing. They are not displayed out in the open and are meant for study and learning.

Leviticus 18 has a lot to say about a persons nakedness.

 

[DMcFadden]

I don't have any pics like this on my walls. And I just wouldn't. Concerning pics of my wife... My nakedness is my own and I wouldn't want to flaunt it about for other to see. The scriptures tell us that our family nakedness is ours. And I wouldn't want another mans nakedness to be flaunted on my walls either.

When it comes to medical journals that is another thing. They are not displayed out in the open and are meant for study and learning.

Leviticus 18 has a lot to say about a persons nakedness.

For many of us, such pictorial representations would not constitute illicit you-know-what-ography so much as a criminal offense in 38 states or at least a VERY stong emetic. My goodness, I even make myself sick looking in a mirror!

 

[Pergamum]

I've known folks who paste photos of themself in their closets of them in their undies as they diet, so that a monthly check can be done of dieting progress. This also seems a functional use and does not seem illicit.

Also in the military, they show that horrible STD film of before and after of the jennytills to dissuade soldiers being deployed from engaging in illicit acitvities - this seems to be an educational use, albeit shocking and I cannot see anything wrong with that (to graphically show the effects of sin on the body).


A fully unclothed photo in some cases is all right but a fully clothed woman in other pics (wearing a tight sweater perhaps) would be not okay. It seems the principle is not the amount of flesh shown but the use and the purpose that it fulfills.... is that sound logic?

 

[RamistThomist]

I listened to a sermon in chapel today on p0rnography and was struck by the lack of attention to Song of Songs and its graphic presentation of female and male sexuality - when do we draw the line in presenting this to our children...our students?

What!?!? I thought Song of Songs was all about trees and fruit and pairs of deer and battlements and boards of cedar.

Don't worry. We can spiritualize the parts of Scripture we don't like. Here is an example:

11 I went down to the grove of nut trees
to look at the new growth in the valley,
to see if the vines had budded
or the pomegranates were in bloom.

This seems to suggest sexual intimacy on the deepest level, but I can explain it away. The hard outer covering of the "nut" signifies the Mosaic law. The nourishing, inner part is Jesus Christ.

 

[Pergamum]

Maybe he's just checking out his fields!