Art Model

[faroukfarouk]

Is God concerned that we have properly trained doctors? There are certain professions where an understanding of the naked human body is necessary.

If a gentleman from one of North America's sprawling suburbs murders me and leaves me to rot in the gutter, I hope that in due course the pathologist who gets to write a report about my remains will have received adequate training about human and morbid anatomy. For this, accurate anatomical drawings and pictures will have been essential.

(Did you know that Congressman John Scott Harrison of Ohio - son of US President William Harrison and father of US President Benjamin Harrison - was buried in 1878 and shortly afterwards his body was believed to have been stolen by a British spy and graverobber called Henri Le Caron? This disgusting incident occurred still in the era when the study of medicine and pathology at medical colleges was not remotely as regulated as it subsequently became and when some colleges for purposes of study and research would haphazardly accept the 'fruits' of graverobbing.)

The fact is that well regulated medical colleges and precise and accurate drawings of the human body are essential to medical studies; I am confident that Canadians and I very strongly assume Americans also have no desire to go back to the haphazard practices of some medical colleges which occurred over a century ago.

 

[Archivist]

Completely naked? Or in his underwear? You know, the cloth that "girded his loins" so to speak.

King James version says he was naked, and surviving art from the period depicts naked fishermen.

 

[Meowzltov]

The fact is that well regulated medical colleges and precise and accurate drawings of the human body are essential to medical studies; I am confident that Canadians and I very strongly assume Americans also have no desire to go back to the haphazard practices of some medical colleges which occurred over a century ago.

What do they practice surgery on these days if not cadavers of people who have donated their bodies to science?

 

[Meowzltov]

King James version says he was naked, and surviving art from the period depicts naked fishermen.

If scripture says he was naked, then naked he was. Can I have the chapter and verse? I'd like to read it for myself.

 

[katinka]

Thank you for the response. She is an artist as well and is ok with it. I was just mainly curious as to whether or not it would be deemed as sinful. Or if it is ok for me to do? Just wondering if I am over thinking this or not because I don't really see it as a big deal...

 

[katinka]

In college I took a figure drawing class. I agree with Galates. Since it is ok with your wife and you see only with the eyes of an artist I would agree. However, after everyone agrees be sure you agree with yourself and God. If something is sinful to you, it is sin to you. I was married at the time I took the class and my husband did not frown on it. I saw both, man and woman through the lens of an artist and had no sexual thoughts at all about the man. lol, or woman.

 

[faroukfarouk]

What do they practice surgery on these days if not cadavers of people who have donated their bodies to science?

Yes, indeed. My point was about the related matter of the need for accurate drawing of the human body.

 

[aiki]

John 21:7 (NKJV)
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.

Many Bible translations render the parenthetical comment that, in the KJV, is rendered "for he was naked," much as the NKJV does here:

ESV:
That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea.

NASB:
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said* to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.

NIV:
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.

RSV:
That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.

Rather a different meaning these translations give to what the KJV describes as nakedness.

In any case, if public nudity was a common practice with which Peter thought Jesus was perfectly okay, why did he want to arrive on shore to meet Jesus fully clothed? Peter was willing to get all of his clothes totally soaked and struggle through the water in them rather than appear before Jesus only partially dressed. As far as I'm concerned, this speaks volumes about what Peter thought was Jesus's attitude toward public nakedness.

What's more, if Peter had removed all of his clothing while fishing, why did he put on only his outer garments? The implication in this seems quite obviously to be that he put only his outer garments on because it was only his outer garments he had removed!

John 21:7, then, hardly acts as scriptural justification for public nudity - and could never, by itself, serve to negate all of the negative associations Scripture makes with public nakedness.

Selah.

 

[faroukfarouk]

In college I took a figure drawing class. I agree with Galates. Since it is ok with your wife and you see only with the eyes of an artist I would agree. However, after everyone agrees be sure you agree with yourself and God. If something is sinful to you, it is sin to you. I was married at the time I took the class and my husband did not frown on it. I saw both, man and woman through the lens of an artist and had no sexual thoughts at all about the man. lol, or woman.

The context and purpose of being disrobed is significant also, right? Ms. Katinka.

When it's for drawing, it's for this specific purpose.

 

[wyatt1111]

Other than nudity possibly being portrayed as shameful (and only in certain context) I have not seen anywhere that says it is an outright sin. I think our culture is oversexualized and equates nudity with sin even in non sexual situations.

On a side note the class will not have male artists ( eliminates possibility of a gay artist lusting). It seems rather unlikely that a woman would list after a man posing in a non sexual or un erect state. I just don't see it happening.

 

[wyatt1111]

I believe my sins were paid for and it is very hard for me to equate this with sin. I'm not having an affair and I'm helping people improve their art skills. If you are not comfortable with it that is one thing but to label it as something that will hinder my salvation seems a bit much. I think if I get that uptight about life I will have major health issues from stress.

 

[faroukfarouk]

My mom asked about it once, for her to be a model an I felt awful, I was a teen at that time ...

Hi;I think you guys in Finland have a strong tradition of going to the sauna, right?

Well, I suppose that context is all part of it, whether a sauna or learning to draw human anatomy.

Do you think that your reaction as a teen was linked to the fact that you were not very mature?

 

[aiki]

Other than nudity possibly being portrayed as shameful (and only in certain context) I have not seen anywhere that says it is an outright sin.

The Bible doesn't say outright that selling narcotics to children is a sin, either. Or torturing and dismembering cats for fun. But no Christian would suggest these things are moral and God-honoring. And there are many other such behaviours we can include as sinful on principle, if not by explicit command. Certainly, given the very dim view Scripture takes of public nudity, it is no stretch to condemn it (outside of medical necessity) as inappropriate for followers of Christ.

I think our culture is oversexualized and equates nudity with sin even in non sexual situations.

Hardly. The oversexualization of western culture has spread so deeply and has so thoroughly numbed the consciences of people to sexual sin that even those in the culture claiming to follow Christ have compromised severely in this area - as this thread demonstrates.

On a side note the class will not have male artists ( eliminates possibility of a gay artist lusting). It seems rather unlikely that a woman would list after a man posing in a non sexual or un erect state. I just don't see it happening.

What difference does it make to the reality of the situation what you can or can't envision about it? Just because it seems unlikely to you any woman drawing your naked body might be led to lustful thoughts in doing so doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. That's a glaring non sequitur! You are obliged by the command of Scripture to do all you can to avoid causing any moral or spiritual stumbling in another person! And posing naked before a room full of women is far more likely to cause such stumbling than not posing.

Selah.

 

[JacksBratt]

I believe my sins were paid for and it is very hard for me to equate this with sin. I'm not having an affair and I'm helping people improve their art skills. If you are not comfortable with it that is one thing but to label it as something that will hinder my salvation seems a bit much. I think if I get that uptight about life I will have major health issues from stress.

So, I guess you started this post to get, and follow the peoples opinions that support the view that you already have, and, ignore or berate the people that advise you of this not being acceptable Christian behavior.

You already made up your mind. I hope you got enough support for you to do what you "want" to do and have a nice warm fuzzy feeling about it.

 

[Archivist]

John 21:7 (NKJV)
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.

Many Bible translations render the parenthetical comment that, in the KJV, is rendered "for he was naked," much as the NKJV does here:

ESV:
That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea.

NASB:
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said* to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.

NIV:
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.

RSV:
That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.

Rather a different meaning these translations give to what the KJV describes as nakedness.

In any case, if public nudity was a common practice with which Peter thought Jesus was perfectly okay, why did he want to arrive on shore to meet Jesus fully clothed? Peter was willing to get all of his clothes totally soaked and struggle through the water in them rather than appear before Jesus only partially dressed. As far as I'm concerned, this speaks volumes about what Peter thought was Jesus's attitude toward public nakedness.

What's more, if Peter had removed all of his clothing while fishing, why did he put on only his outer garments? The implication in this seems quite obviously to be that he put only his outer garments on because it was only his outer garments he had removed!

John 21:7, then, hardly acts as scriptural justification for public nudity - and could never, by itself, serve to negate all of the negative associations Scripture makes with public nakedness.

I could put up numerous translations that use the word naked, but the word used in the original Greek--which I hope we would agree would prevail over modern translations--directly translates as nude or naked. It was translated in that way for over 1000 years until the Victorian Era, and we know how the Victorian felt about nudity. Some references do say that the word could also be translated as lightly clad, but that is a secondary definition not the primary meaning.

You also said that Peter pulled his clothing on and swam to shore fully clothed. Actually we are told that he wrapped his outer garment around himself, probably around his waist, and swam to shore. Why would he do this? Clothing was expensive; he probably didn't want to risk loosing it.

And, again, we know that fishermen commonly fished while naked at that time. One man would get it the water to work the nets and he would strip to do that.

 

[Archivist]

So, I guess you started this post to get, and follow the peoples opinions that support the view that you already have, and, ignore or berate the people that advise you of this not being acceptable Christian behavior.

You already made up your mind. I hope you got enough support for you to do what you "want" to do and have a nice warm fuzzy feeling about it.

It us perfectly acceptable behavior and there is nothing wrong with doing it.

 

[Archivist]

The Bible doesn't say outright that selling narcotics to children is a sin, either. Or torturing and dismembering cats for fun. But no Christian would suggest these things are moral and God-honoring. And there are many other such behaviours we can include as sinful on principle, if not by explicit command. Certainly, given the very dim view Scripture takes of public nudity, it is no stretch to condemn it (outside of medical necessity) as inappropriate for followers of Christ.



Hardly. The oversexualization of western culture has spread so deeply and has so thoroughly numbed the consciences of people to sexual sin that even those in the culture claiming to follow Christ have compromised severely in this area - as this thread demonstrates.



What difference does it make to the reality of the situation what you can or can't envision about it? Just because it seems unlikely to you any woman drawing your naked body might be led to lustful thoughts in doing so doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. That's a glaring non sequitur! You are obliged by the command of Scripture to do all you can to avoid causing any moral or spiritual stumbling in another person! And posing naked before a room full of women is far more likely to cause such stumbling than not posing.

So where do we draw the line? Someone could lust by seeing him posing nude. But someone could also lust by seeing him in a bathing suit at the beach or wearing a three-piece suit at work. If you wear a nice suit you could cause someone else to be envious. If you serve them a piece of chocolate cake you could cause them to commit the sin if gluttony. If someone sees you depositing your paycheck at the bank they could commit the sin if greed. So much of what we do could conceivably cause another to sin. People are responsible for their reactions.

 

[Archivist]

If scripture says he was naked, then naked he was. Can I have the chapter and verse? I'd like to read it for myself.

John 21:7

 

[JacksBratt]

It us perfectly acceptable behavior and there is nothing wrong with doing it.

Well, I guess we can all pack up and go home. Archivist has spoken. No need to quibble.

 

[Archivist]

Well, I guess we can all pack up and go home. Archivist has spoken. No need to quibble.

I see, when you speak on an issue it is acceptable, when I do so it us grounds for sarcasm. I think we can be polite here.