/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I have never seen anything like that.

>>756838

Isn't it a rennaisance thing? Can you post some examples?

>>756844

>>756846

You've never seen Michaelangelo's sculptures or Da Vinci's artworks? Those are the most common examples. My chuch has 2 replicas of DaVinci.

>>756847

>I mean, Christ was not crucified while wearing a business suit. How else are you going to depict His suffering without bringing back to mind

Hence I'm not asking people to depict Christ in business suit. I'm just expressing my uneasiness. Of course it's different for everybody but for me the scripture is enough to describe it.

>To be ashamed of vulnerability and of the body that God gave us is a consequence of the Fall

You can't really be free from the original sin that shaped our nature unless you're not human.

>Of course, modesty matters, but it's not like the naked depictions of Christ sexualize Him in any way.

Our perception of art is subjective. Some might say He's not sexualized, but I feel like He is. In my perception, it's uncalled for because it's like stripping Him off again to be nailed on the cross.

>>756848

>You can't really be free from the original sin that shaped our nature unless you're not human.

… Huh? Aren't you Catholic? Baptism is for the removal of original sin, while Confirmation is the seal of the Holy Spirit to permit us to persevere in this. Of course, it takes an entire lifetime to embrace the grace of Baptism, but not only is it possible to be free from original sin, but it is by being free of original sin that we become truly human.

Our original nature is disfigured and stained but it's not lost. That our original nature has been lost, or that the image of God in us has been lost, is a Calvinist teaching.

>Our perception of art is subjective.

The Church's intentions, however, are not. And the Church's intentions are not to depict Christ as a sex beast, but to depict Him in the naked suffering at the Cross, to depict Him in the naked purity at His baptism, to depict Him in the naked vulnerability that He wholly embraced when He chose to be born from a woman as a naked baby in a manger. I guess that it can be argued that some statues and artwork depict him as too "muscular" or "fit" and it could be distracting, but I'm not Catholic so I'm not used to statues and such (but the statues of Christ I've seen certainly didn't make me feel hot and heavy - to be honest I find Him more to look miserable and thin than to look like a model for a photo shoot).

>>756850

I mean, we can't be free from our natural tendencies. Yeah I worded that wrong. Our nature was formed by the sins that Adam and Eve did. Sins can be forgiven but their natural tendencies stays with our physical and psychological state.

>the Church's intentions are not to depict Christ as a sex beast

Of course, I understand their intentions. And I'm not saying that Christ is depicted in a eroticized way. However I respect Christ so much that I don't like Him to be displayed this way, and I also respect the holiness of God's image in human's body so I prefer a modest display. These are the unwritten traditions of my Church that I can't really agree with. I don't really like these artistic depictions of Christ and the saints.

>>756838

You sound like a girl or someone with a degree of queerish apprehensions.

You did know that criminals are believed to have been crucified nude? And as far as I know Mary wasn't crucified.

>>756864

We don't need to see photos of car crash victims to know that they died nastily.

>>757183

And, it's not respectful to show the photos of rape victims being raped, for example.

>>757185

>>757183

The depravity of the treatment of Christ is a major part of the Christian Tradition, we are to remember how Christ lowered him self below all other in the most humble fashion. We are to recall vividly on how he was treated.

There is nothing sexy about how we depict Christ, if there are any inclinations to those perversions it's on you.

I honestly cannot agree with anything you've said.

You are lucky the Antiochian Parish near me held a gala with bikini dancers.

Is nudity something you associate with sexuality?

Stop sexualising the human body.

>>757205

I think I'm okay with the really old icons' depiction of nudity, but I think Greek art really brought a bad influence to catholic artistic traditions. The Greeks were sexually depraved. It still can't get through my head how the Church accepted their influence in arts.

>>757317

End thyself, puritan.

>>757319

>telling someone to kill themselves

I feel like this is somehow not charitable.

>>757317

>It still can't get through my head how the Church accepted their influence in arts.

They literally didn't. Not all of us are unable to distinguish between sexual and non-sexual nudity.

>>757285

>posting the Greek goddess of roasties

Come on, man. Not on /christian/.

>>757405

>This is aside from all the possible homosex and diddling. That's what such prudishness gets you.

Ah, so you're fresh from Reddit. That explains the spike in abhorrent posts.

>>757319

Being a puritan is quite virtuous nowadays

Why are you disgusted at the body God so masterfully crafted for man?

>>757405

>Bored monks made illustrations of people with horns up their bums.

So you're saying that they should've drawn nudes of Christ and the saints just so they can fulfill their lust for the gay?

>>757434

No, I love the host. The Eucharist is beautiful because it contains both symbolical and literal meaning.

>>756838

this is the ideal male body. you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like

>>757359

>They literally didn't.

But they actually did. The arts of Raphael, Michaelangelo, and Da Vinci among other artists were inspired by the ancient Greek arts.

>Not all of us are unable to distinguish between sexual and non-sexual nudity.

I don't think the crucifixion was sexual, but it was a form of humiliation too.

This wasn't a problem until the Puritans and Victorian age. Catholicism was always upfront with sex and the body and viewed it as holy things within marriage. The Puritans and the 60's sexual revolution is two sides of the same coin.

>Mother Mary is always depicted as fully clothed and even veiled.

Not in the medieval ages. She was often depicted nursing Baby Jesus. Now, this kinda seems weird but its because we sexualize breasts too much. Back then everyone recognized breasts as tools for child feeding and only "sexy" within sex.

Here is an article and a bunch of images of Mary being depicted as a nursing mother:

https://www.fisheaters.com/marialactans.html

If you have a problem with lust and sexualizing breasts too much, you can look at a few images and meditate on how God created breasts for child raising

>>756844

>I have never seen anything like that.

I'd say in Western art it's common.. and not sure it was done for any sacred reason (such as old paintings of St. Mary Magdalene… who never was a prostitute to begin with and just some weird belief in the West for some reason).

>mfw there’s a painting called “sacred love and profane live”, depicting two women near a rock sarcophagus filled with water, one in the muse and one clothed;

>mfw the nude one is true sacred love, who hides nothing of herself, and the clothes one is the profane one, since she hides herself indeed rich robes…

>mfw this is how our ancestors saw and read chaste nudity and lustrous clothes as something which was usually used by prostitutes.

>>757405

Anon I'm going to be honest with you

Other than the last one, those pictures look abhorrent.

>>758373

>>mfw this is how our ancestors saw and read chaste nudity and lustrous clothes as something which was usually used by prostitutes.

Yeah, I'm sure the average teenager circa 1400 who walked by such a painting only got a boner from the woman who was "clothed like a prostitute". Totally wasn't interested in the beautiful naked woman.