/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Also, is there a way to pursue physical beauty without falling in the pitfalls of pride and lust?

>>644523

Let me essplain what I learned from Tolstoy and Plato. Objective beauty exists (God's creation is beautiful for one, as written in the genesis). However, the beautiful isn't the same thing as good, both have nothing to do with each other (demons are God's creations and therefore by default they are beautiful, but they aren't good). Remember how the devil seduced Tartini with their beautiful music? Beauty can be evil and sinful.

And regarding aesthetics, aesthetics are purely subjective matter. Fat people can be subjectively aesthetic, but they're not good for they bring health complications. So aesthetics and beauty are very similar, but not always the same. From what I understand is beauty is a concept understood by God while aesthetics is a concept understood by man. Beauty is something of a divine greatness and perfection while aesthetics only cater to carnal and mental pleasure. What men do understand is the concept of good. So, beauty, good, and aesthetics, I think they're three similar yet very different things that are, more often than not, contradictory to each other.

>>644525

No such thing as physical beauty, there are only physical aesthetics and physical health (health = good).

Well apparently the more symmetrical someone's face/body is, the more likely they are to be perceived as "attractive" on average. So yes, objective beauty to an extent exists, though people certainly still have different tastes in what they like in a person.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080818-body-symmetry.html

>>644527

That's like your opinion bro. That metallic/crystal guy looks awesome. See? This is why aesthetics are completely subjective.

>>644528

More likely maybe, but there are no absolutes here.

>>644536

What you're saying is a sense of aesthetics that is born out of evolutionary traits. We admire healthy bodies because being healthy gives us better chance at survival. It's not beauty as known by God, it's just aesthetics.

>>644539

>We admire healthy bodies because being healthy gives us (a) better chance at survival

Sure we do. And that's quite true. However, that's only a side effect of the main cause.

Healthy bodies don't grow on trees, they are they the result of some virtue. Be it self control, discipline, determination, or perseverance.

Which is why my main point is that beauty resides in the unseen things, we merely look to the external representations as proof of the internal ones.

Unless you don't find the results of self-control or discipline beautiful, which I have never seen coming out of anyone's mouth in my entire life.

>>644540

But what about the people that are unhealthy and ugly not because of their lifestyle choices?

>>644523

>From a Christian standpoint, is there such thing as objective beauty? Can we say that some bodies are more aesthetic than others?

Yes, yes.

>Or is there some truth to the "pretty at every size" movement?

There is truth in that we should not judge people based on their physical appearances. Indeed, we should not judge them at all, but we can rebuke and speak the truth about what is good ought to be done. Unhealthy lifestyles should be avoided as they are sinful and show disregard for God's gift of our bodies. The "prety at every size" movement is entirely composed of vain self-worship that glorifies unhealthly body compositions.

>Also, is there a way to pursue physical beauty without falling in the pitfalls of pride and lust?

Same way we avoid falling into pitfalls of sin over anything else good—do not make it an idol. We admire the creation but worship only the Creator.

>>644526

You've got it wrong, brother. Beauty and Good both come from God and go hand-in-hand with Him.

>(demons are God's creations and therefore by default they are beautiful, but they aren't good).

Demons, like all things, were created beautiful and good. However, they used their free will to oppose God and are now oriented away from God, beauty, the Good, and toward nothingness.

>Remember how the devil seduced Tartini with their beautiful music? Beauty can be evil and sinful.

All the most effective snares of the devil take something good from God and corrupt it. There's just enough left of God's there to draw you in but not to save you. Take, for example, any number of political ideoplogies that take one good thing as its goal (e.g. care for the poor) and orient everything to evil for that end (e.g. communism).

Additionally your false category of physical "aesthetics" as distinct from "beauty" is downright confusing.

>From what I understand is beauty is a concept understood by God while aesthetics is a concept understood by man.

What does this mean? Beauty (in which I would include what you term "physical aesthetics"), like the Good, and thus inded like God Himself, of course cannot be "understood" by mere created minds, but that does not invalidate it in any way nor does that mean we cannot experience it. Have you never had a sublime, almost divine experience of beauty admiring a fine piece of art or listening to a masterful musical composition? Every classical Christian liturgy is oriented around the use of beauty (in art and music especially) to aid us in prayer and communion.

>>644529

>See? This is why aesthetics are completely subjective.

That people disagree about something does not mean that it is subjective. I doubt you would posit that since different cultures and indeed different individuals have different ideas about what is moral that morality is therefore subjective.

>>644525

-don't use roids

-don't go into meme diets (keto, paleo, vegan, etc)

-always dress modestly

Anything else?

>>644523

Look into Genesis.

1:10,12,18,21,25

>And God saw that it was good

1:31

>God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good

The Hebrew word for "good" is also translated as "beautiful" or "pleasant" (in a visual way). So God infact looked at His Creation and deemed it beautiful.

Therefore, there is objective and non-negotiable beauty - people are just untrained or mis-trained to see it. Take for example a great musical piece by Bach. Those are objectively beautiful, just like for example the sculpture in your picture. A real artist does things, not because he wants to have fun or make money or have a pastime - he or she does it to create beauty, because creating true beauty is always inspired by God.

Beauty is also another thing. Not only visual or hearable, beauty is also within every human as the Creation of God as He created us in His image and likeness.

Then, you have those that try to imitate beauty - and you always see that it is an imitation of what is truly beautiful. See for example contemporary music that is created to kill time and to make money or to "bring a message". Or "re-interpreted" classical Greek art. There's no such thing for "differences in taste" for beautiful things. This is just learned and trained inability to recognize what is true beauty - because the mind got stuck in a rather infantile stage where truly inspired things are recognized as "trash" or "not my thing" while in the next moment, they turn and listen to Burzum and tell you how incredibly awesome this music is. [just an example]

And regarding the last question, that was answered in reply 2.

>>644586

<he or she does it to create beauty, because creating true beauty is always inspired by God.

This is false, because God is not vain. For an example read matthew 5:37.

>Take for example a great musical piece by Bach. Those are objectively beautiful

And because of you being wise in your conceits I will now reply to this thread. Ecclesasties 3:11

>He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

However vain that beauty is, it is "beautiful in his time". Which ironically would lend some truth to the pretty at every size (((movement)))

>>644523

>From a Christian standpoint, is there such thing as objective beauty?

Read proverbs 31:30

>Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Beauty is objectively vain. Since God hath declared it in the Bible.

>Can we say that some bodies are more aesthetic than others?

Read ecclesasties 3:11, yes we can but only "in his time". Even then it is vain to do so.

>>644594

We could have had a discussion, but then you used that infantile ((())) /pol/-crap. You just disqualified yourself entirely from anything that could've been meaningfully discussed in here.

This reminds me of an apologetical "strategy" - the Argument from Beauty. Look that up. Also while you're at it - look up the documentary "Why Beauty Matters". Terrific stuff, one of my favourites.

>>644523

In culture yes. People like to sell things. They dictate what is "beauty" is. Don't listen to it. Become strong. Healthy, as some here have said.

You are known.

You are seen.

You are loved.

There is nothing to fear.

>From a Christian standpoint, is there such thing as objective beauty?

Yes, it's called God :)

>>644525

If you view exercising as something that is fun to actually do or do it for the practical aspects of being stronger then it is possible. However, if you lift for sloots then it is too late.

>>644545

>Beauty and Good both come from God and go hand-in-hand with Him.

Not quite right. Look this up

https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5257

>the good is being considered as the object of appetitie, desire, and will, the true is being a the object of the intellect.

Therefore, the good has more to do with morals rather than pleasing appearance (aesthetics) or God's admirable quality (beauty, as described by Aquinas). Only pagans like Aristotle roll good, beauty, and aesthetics into one, christians aren't supposed to hold the same belief.

>Additionally your false category of physical "aesthetics" as distinct from "beauty" is downright confusing.

What is it that you found confusing? It is indeed not an easy concept to grasp, but actually it's simple. Aesthetics is related to the pleasure we achieve upon witnessing an object, and as with most kinds of pleasure, it's purely subjective. Beauty is simply God's quality, something we praise Him for, and it is objective. Good is our moral quality, partially subjective because while God wants us to be good we possess limited knowledge and intellectual limitations to understand Him perfectly, but that doesn't mean we can't understand it at all (Romans 1).

>Beauty (in which I would include what you term "physical aesthetics"), like the Good, and thus inded like God Himself, of course cannot be "understood" by mere created minds, but that does not invalidate it in any way nor does that mean we cannot experience it.

We experience it everywhere and everyday in our lives. The omnipresence of God means everything he created is beautiful, even the ones that

>Have you never had a sublime, almost divine experience of beauty admiring a fine piece of art or listening to a masterful musical composition?

The truth is, there is nothing "divine" or mysterious about music and any art for that matter. The feelings that you believe to be divine is nothing but what Tolstoy called "pleasurable beauty" (What is Art). In other words, hypnotism through aesthetics. It's very apparent in art pieces such as the majesty and glory of Wagner which are hollow in good values.

>Every classical Christian liturgy is oriented around the use of beauty (in art and music especially) to aid us in prayer and communion.

They aren't beautiful in themselves, but they're capable of transmitting the emotional language to inform us about the beauty of God. Because that's the good quality of art, the purpose of art, it's an emotional transmitter of the feelings of the artist. And it isn't done for the purpose of "aesthetic hypnotism" in mind, a mere entertainment to pleasure our mental state.

>That people disagree about something does not mean that it is subjective.

Of course it means subjective, when some disagree with you. But God's beauty is objective, because no one can disagree with God.

>I doubt you would posit that since different cultures and indeed different individuals have different ideas about what is moral that morality is therefore subjective.

Morality is only partially subjective, as I've explained.

>>644649

>They dictate what is "beauty" is.

They easily dictate what beauty is because even people like you are clueless about the real definition of beauty. You and the art academia mix up the objectivity of beauty and the subjectivity of aesthetics, and you rarely acknowledge the good part of art even though goodness should be the most determining factor in creating a good art.

>>644755

>skim over the post again

>notice all these grammatical mistakes I somehow missed last time

I really need to practice writing more often.