When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm fascinated why you appear so obsessed with talking and fantasizing about scenarios where children see the genitals of parents and siblings. Some sort of fetish perhaps?

In the course of family life it would hardly be an unlikely [albeit not regular] occurrence.

[rogue06]

Such news reports are valuable for us here.
These kinds of situation seem to be linked to areas where fundamental religion is more common.
Keep these reports coming, because they might help us here to turn further and further away from such extremes. .

So what do you think of the efforts to scrub literature of anything that could trigger someone, somewhere at some time?

The removal of books by Dr. Seuss. The rewriting of works by Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming's James Bond stories, and now Gone With the Wind will be sold with an attached warning label.

You know, the sort of things where leftism is common.

[Mountain Man]

It is not "blindingly obvious from the text" at all . Their disobedience in eating the fruit was the sin.

In <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Genesis+2&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Genesis.2" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Genesis 2</a> the deity gives strict instructions to Adam "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” There is no mention there of loss of innocence, only that the result of eating from the tree will lead to mortality.

That chapter ends with "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." In other words they did not know that nakedness was shameful. They only gained that knowledge after they had eaten the fruit. Yet there is no mention of shame in the deity's reaction to them eating the fruit. In chapter 3 God only asks "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

From your explanation it follows that the deity must have known nakedness was shameful otherwise how could A&amp;E deduce that they needed to cover up? They only made that deduction after they had eaten the fruit [which gave them the same awareness as the deity]. As the serpent tells Eve in Chapter 3 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,^[a]knowing good and evil".

You are clearly confusing me with some other contributor[s].


^[a] Or Gods

Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed because nakedness wasn't shameful. If it was shameful, then God could not have called his Creation "very good" based on the simple logic that a holy God can not call something good if it is, in fact, shameful.

So what changed between them not feeling any shame over nakedness, and later feeling ashamed? Their disobedience and subsequent loss of innocence. Think about it: the tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". Prior to their disobedience, they knew only good. After disobeying God and eating from the tree, they now had knowledge of evil, too, which is to say, they lost their innocence.

At this point, I'm not sure if your inability to comprehend is genuine, or if you're playing one of your little games where you pretend not to understand something and hope your "interlocutor" will trip himself up with repeated explanations. Either way, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion.

[Diogenes]

[sarcasm]

You are now the official spokesperson for every Christian and every Christian church on the planet?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

I can mend the schisms.

Why should people feel any guilt about their sexuality, and why should adults deny their sexuality?

"Why should people feel any guilt in indulging in their base desires?"

Practically the same question.

If gay/bi men were at least monogamous, HIV wouldn't be a common concern. Now they get monkeypox when they participate 15+ men orgies.

Monkeypox outbreak likely spread by sex at 2 raves in Europe, says WHO expert

Monkeypox Outbreak Linked to Gay Sauna and Festival

WHO recommends gay and bisexual men limit sexual partners to reduce the spread of monkeypox

This was even known in 1981 when it was identified as a "cancer".

No one medical investigator has yet interviewed all the victims, Dr. Curran said. According to Dr. Friedman-Kien, the reporting doctors said that most cases had involved homosexual men who have had multiple and frequent sexual encounters with different partners, as many as 10 sexual encounters each night up to four times a week.

Many of the patients have also been treated for viral infections such as herpes, cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B as well as parasitic infections such as amebiasis and giardiasis. Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure.

...

Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to nonhomosexuals from contagion. ''The best evidence against contagion,'' he said, ''is that no cases have been reported to date outside the homosexual community or in women.''

Who suggested the example was from a Christian community?

The context was already Christianity.

I am totally bemused by the attitude of some here towards the naked body in its own right. What is shameful, vulgar, or lewd about it? Can you tell me?

As I said, I doubt you're sincere in such questions. Your interest is nudity for the sake a nudity. You are no more sophisticated than the prudery you decry.

I also wonder if those who are so opposed to their eleven year olds seeing naked statuary or who think nudity is lewd are equally censorious when it comes to firearms and children.

If a gun is present in a home, it's important to teach gun safety. That would be no different than teaching safety in regard to any danger present. It also develops motor skills and hitting a target can be a rewarding challenge.

Let them have their guns but heaven forfend that they might see a nipple, a buttock or some genitalia!

I would imagine your goal is to normalise nudity. Why you are obsessed over children seeing nudity is strange.

[Bill the Cat]

On what other issues am I a pervert, a reprobate, etc?

Ask around. I'm sure there are several here just chomping at the bit to let you know where they think you're a perv. I'm content to just snipe at this point.

A parent should always provide an honest answer that is age appropriate. The use of "because it is" indicates an excuse premised on the inability to answer the question which suggests poor parenting skills [and/or lack of general knowledge]

Or that the kid is just asking "why" because they are frustrated with the initial answer. Sometimes, "because I said so" is all the answer that is necessary. That isn't poor parenting. That is a proper parent/child responsibility hierarchy.

Merely noting your peculiar fixation with sex.

It's not a fixation. It's a clear boundary of a moral stand I chose to take for my children. That your line is different than mine does not make yours any more or less correct. I'd never dictate to you how to raise your kids when it came to age-appropriateness. You, on the other hand, seem to relish the opportunity to tell other parents what is appropriate and not for their kids.

Yet many people do not. That is peculiar to you and others who share your [for want of a better phrase] hang-ups about nudity, possibly premised on feelings of guilt and shame that were acquired in youth.

So let them go and see whatever they want. Just keep my kid out of it.

Why should children running about their garden naked be deemed perverted?

Because I think it's inappropriate to be nude in a public place where by-passers can see.

Or is what is deemed perverted [like beauty] in the eye of the beholder?

YES!! You finally get it.

So you think that if a child sees an adult who is a stranger to them naked that child might be damaged in some way? Pending context on what evidence?

I taught my kids what I consider propriety and appropriate behavior.

Or it merely adult genitalia that are the real issue?

Oh no. pre-adult genitalia should not be paraded around either.

Furthermore, what about children seeing their parents naked? Do you consider that to be perverted?

The scriptures surely say that.

if your five year old saw you walking naked from the shower to your bedroom would that be a cause for shame and embarrassment?

Yes. Very much so. See Genesis 9:22 for example

Would you consider a young child sharing a bath or shower with their parent be an act of perversion?

Yes. Genesis 9:22 again.

Or what about young siblings [under 8] of the opposite sex sharing a bath? Is that perverted? Would a four year old seeing a six year old's penis/vagina be traumatised in some way?

It's inappropriate. Nowhere did I claim everything inappropriate would cause trauma. That's your fish...

Yet you do not appear to have issues with adult strangers viewing one another naked. What is the difference? Genitalia are genitalia albeit at different stages of development and [with age] additional body hair.

Because adults set their own standards of appropriate conduct. No one is responsible for them but themselves. But again, MY kids are MINE and you have literally ZERO say over what I allow them to see and not see.

[eider]

So what do you think of the efforts to scrub literature of anything that could trigger someone, somewhere at some time?

The removal of books by Dr. Seuss. The rewriting of works by Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming's James Bond stories, and now Gone With the Wind will be sold with an attached warning label.

You know, the sort of things where leftism is common.

Different subject, so wrong conversation.
You could start a thread about whatever it is you're griping about.

[eider]

Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed because nakedness wasn't shameful. If it was shameful, then God could not have called his Creation "very good" based on the simple logic that a holy God can not call something good if it is, in fact, shameful.

So what changed between them not feeling any shame over nakedness, and later feeling ashamed? Their disobedience and subsequent loss of innocence. Think about it: the tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". Prior to their disobedience, they knew only good. After disobeying God and eating from the tree, they now had knowledge of evil, too, which is to say, they lost their innocence.

Now what did Jesus say about all that, eh?
I thought that the real question was/is 'God or Mammon'?
Christianity often seems to clutch at Mammon with both hands and yet tries to make a fuss about nudity.....? Hypocrisy much?

[eider]

If gay/bi men were at least monogamous, HIV wouldn't be a common concern. Now they get monkeypox when they participate 15+ men orgies.

Why are you so concerned about illnesses common to some gay groups?

I would imagine your goal is to normalise nudity. Why you are obsessed over children seeing nudity is strange.

Are you obsessed with keeping children from seeing nudity?

[Diogenes]

Why are you so concerned about illnesses common to some gay groups?

Diseases spill out to the broader population. It's interesting that it's an easy utilitarian calculus to say that people prone to a disease due specific activity should stop such activity. Imagine the negative utility of lives lost and money spent on HIV in contrast to the small amount of positive utility of, in the least, the indulgence of sexual desire of a minority. At the very least, gays being monogamous would have been an improvement.

Sharing needles is another issue but of course, the liberal "solution" is to just have "safe" injection sites.

Are you obsessed with keeping children from seeing nudity?

Why are people obsessed with showing children nudity?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Or that the kid is just asking "why" because they are frustrated with the initial answer. Sometimes, "because I said so" is all the answer that is necessary. That isn't poor parenting. That is a proper parent/child responsibility hierarchy.

I consider it authoritarian and poor parenting to respond to a child's persistent question "because I said so".

It's not a fixation.

Your behaviour with regard to your child's visit to Greece and Italy [the two countries of the classical world] indicates that it is.

You requested that any visits to historic sites and museums be vetted so that your child did not glimpse any naked human form statuary. That is is a fixation [i.e. preoccupation with one subject or issue] in your case nudity.

in you have to It's a clear boundary of a moral stand I chose to take for my children.

But you do not give a reason. Yours is very much an "I say what is right and that is the end of the matter" approach - again somewhat authoritarian..

That your line is different than mine does not make yours any more or less correct . I'd never dictate to you how to raise your kids when it came to age-appropriateness. You, on the other hand, seem to relish the opportunity to tell other parents what is appropriate and not for their kids.

I am not dictating, although I consider my attitude less guilt and shame ridden than yours, which I suspect is the underlying cause of your antipathy towards nudity.

Nor can you present a cogent and rational explanation. You cite a verse from Genesis chapter nine [for which there are different interpretations] rather than merely seeing a naked drunk.

Because I think it's inappropriate to be nude in a public place where by-passers can see.

Firstly my scenario was a private garden and secondly these are young children! Good grief! What kind of mindset considers young children playing in their garden on a warm sunny day naked and thinks it is "inappropriate"? Inappropriate to whom or what? Or is this a manifestation of your own guilt and shame that was instilled in you in your formative years?

YES!! You finally get it.

That you consider pornography to be in the eye of the beholder does not present your attitudes in an overly favourable light as evidenced by your above comment.

You see innocence demonstrated by young children in a garden] as in "appropriate" simply because passers-by might see them.

Suggesting that [a] passers by might get some sort of weird thrill or [b] that passers-by might be offended by seeing very young children playing on private property in the state in which [your god] created them.

I taught my kids what I consider propriety and appropriate behavior.

I am sure you did and I note again the defensive language.

Oh no. pre-adult genitalia should not be paraded around either.

Why? You cannot seem able to present a cogent reason. What is the issue with genitals per se?

The scriptures surely say that.

Yes. Very much so. See Genesis 9:22 for example


Yes. Genesis 9:22 again.

You are not a ninth century BCE Hebrew!

Nor, I'll wager do you follow all the prohibitions and moral codes laid down in the Torah.

It's inappropriate.

Why is it inappropriate?

Would you not let your five year old see their 15 month old sibling's diaper being changed for fear they might see another young child's genitalia?

Nowhere did I claim everything inappropriate would cause trauma. That's your fish..

That is what you are suggesting with your comments on nudity per se. I.e. it is "inappropriate" "indecent " or "Because it is". Or you cite a verse from Genesis. You have provided no valid and reasoned explanations for your objections.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why are people obsessed with showing children nudity?

What is wrong with art?

[Diogenes]

What is wrong with art?

What wrong with not exposing children to nudity?


We both know your objection has no relation to art. Why you continue such pretense in unknown.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed because nakedness wasn't shameful. If it was shameful, then God could not have called his Creation "very good" based on the simple logic that a holy God can not call something good if it is, in fact, shameful.

My point.

So what changed between them not feeling any shame over nakedness, and later feeling ashamed? Their disobedience and subsequent loss of innocence. Think about it: the tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil".

Their sin was disobedience and gaining the same knowledge as the god. In chapter two their nakedness was not a cause of shame. However, when they gained that knowledge by their disobedience [the sin] of eating the fruit they had been prohibited from consuming] they realised they were naked. "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked," Which is exactly what the serpent had told Eve "But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die, ⁵ for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,^[a] knowing good and evil.”

So they gained the same knowledge as the deity.

It therefore follows [according to what you are contending] that the deity knew nakedness was shameful Otherwise how could A&E know? Nor does Genesis 3 tell us that A&E have lost any innocence [which does not automatically mean what you might infer it to mean].

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What wrong with not exposing children to nudity?

[sarcasm[ Why not make them wear eyeshields or blindfolds when they bathe or get undressed?

[Diogenes]

[sarcasm[ Why not make them wear eyeshields or blindfolds when they bathe or get undressed?

We both know you're not being sarcastic.