A question of a christian and nude models

[nebula_omega]

I went to a statue garden a few months ago, and all but a couple of the statues were nude. Even ones of little kids! I asked one of the tour guides why all the statues were of nudes and she gave me a rather interesting answer.

Clothing dates people. For instance, right now I'm wearing jeans and a sweater. You could date a statue of me from this moment anywhere from mid-1980's to today. But if I were wearing a scoop bonnet and gingham dress, you could date me mid-to-late 1800's. So on and so forth. But if I'm not wearing anything... you can't really say what time period I'm from.

BTW, if you ever go to Myrtle Beach, SC, be sure to check out Brookgreen Gardens. Really cool place.

[L'Ange]

I wouldn't say it isn't the models fault. Are we not charged in the bible not to cause others to stumble? This makes it impossible to really have models pose at all because there will always be someone struggling. We can't really compare medical to art. In Medicine they have to observe cadavers and pictures of a human being to understand how it functions so they can preform their duties of keeping someone alive and well. Art isn't related at all.

I agree with all you have said Jungleman. As far as Michaelangelo and all the other famous people who painted nude people of either sexes, I see it as pornography period. Sometimes it was "classy" commissioned pornography by the very wealthy and royal, but pornography just the same. The basic motifs on the Sistine chapel are pretty pagan in some ways. What in the heck are nude people doing on a Church cieling? How many people today, wives especially, would be favorably impressed to come in some Sunday and find that someone decided to paint "built" nude models on their Church cielings, uh, just to picture pre fall Edenic bliss of course!

There are people viewing horrible, hard core pornography in these times who will defend it by saying, "It's art!" Yeal, uh huh, suuuuure, and that's why they "collect" it, too!

The book Every Man's Battle tells of the awful struggles men often have from viewing scantily clad women. All the way nude? Give them a break!

I am an artist myself and believe art is neutral like most everything else. It can be used for good or bad. If a child drew a really well done art work on a chalkboard in a classroom, depicting a cruel caricature of another student, should he be able to defend himself by saying, "It's just art!"

[moonglow]

I agree with all you have said Jungleman. As far as Michaelangelo and all the other famous people who painted nude people of either sexes, I see it as pornography period. Sometimes it was "classy" commissioned pornography by the very wealthy and royal, but pornography just the same. The basic motifs on the Sistine chapel are pretty pagan in some ways. What in the heck are nude people doing on a Church cieling? How many people today, wives especially, would be favorably impressed to come in some Sunday and find that someone decided to paint "built" nude models on their Church cielings, uh, just to picture pre Eden bliss of course!

There are people viewing horrible, hard core pornography in these times who will defend it by saying, "It's art!" Yeal, uh huh, suuuuure, and that's why they "collect" it, too!

The book Every Man's Battle tells of the awful struggles men often have from viewing scantily clad women. All the way nude? Give them a break!

I am an artist myself and believe art is neutral like most everything else. It can be used for good or bad. If a child drew a really well done art work on a chalkboard in a classroom, depicting a cruel caricature of another student, should he be able to defend himself by saying, "It's just art!"

My understanding of "hard core pornography" are people engaging in sex which is not happening in Michelangelo work. If you think a painting of a nude is hard core porn...what do you call real porn with people having sex? Just wondering...

God bless

[L'Ange]

Moonglow - Let's say you come into your Church on Sunday and see a painting on the cieling vividly portraying a prefall Eve stacked like a Playboy model, and not having sex, mind you, but just standing around nakedly enjoying her lush garden. Let's say you saw these married men and young boys gawking up at the cieiing. Now, would you want to debate with the people who were responsible for that art work about whether or not it should be called soft porn, porn or hard core porn? Or would you want to just get the heck out of there with any husband or children you had?

[amazzin]

I thought this would be a no brainer, but apparently some pretty Liberal christians I know have actually justified the use of viewing nude models for artistic purposes. I feel that this is basically soft core pornography, and another attempt by art to destroy something sacred. They stand in their views....Any thoughts?

Their minds have been overtaken by fleshly desires and unwholsome desires

[moonglow]

Moonglow - Let's say you come into your Church on Sunday and see a painting on the cieling vividly portraying a prefall Eve stacked like a Playboy model, and not having sex, mind you, but just standing around nakedly enjoying her lush garden. Let's say you saw these married men and young boys gawking up at the cieiing. Now, would you want to debate with the people who were responsible for that art work about whether or not it should be called soft porn, porn or hard core porn? Or would you want to just get the heck out of there with any husband or children you had?

Not if they were done by Michelangelo. I guess you didn't read my other posts on this. Especially the one where someone brought up playboy magazine pictures compared to how these famous artist painted nudes...you might want to read through those.

I guess I was just confused by your use of porn. I certainly don't see Michelangelo's paintings as porn...and I am truly sorry you do. That makes me sad that such beautiful art would be viewed that way. God made the first man and woman and did not clothe them. It wasn't until they sinned that these things became a problem. Apparently He saw nothing wrong with their nude bodies...

God bless

[L'Ange]

Moonglow - In spite of how many times we women have been told how visual men are, sometimes we still just don't "get it." It was hard for me to understand too until I heard radio shows like Focus on the Family and read articles about men struggling to overcome their addition to pornography. I remember one man confidng to me that in the summer times he really had a struggle due to all the women in shorts. Men have a hormonal reaction to female flesh. That's the way they were made. (Of course some women are quite visual, too.) It is a good thing if geared to where a man is supposed to put his sexuality, toward his wife only. His sexuality belongs to her only. Women should not be posing nude for art for anyone to see. Neither should men.

No I did not read your posts about Playboy and am glad you think that is unacceptable as do I. However, I believe we have all been conditioned to think that Michaelangelo's painting are above reproof, they are so far "up there" and I don't just mean on the cieling. I really believe that if you had never heard of Michaelangelo and his clone came in and painted pretty much the same scenes on your Church cieling, but with modern standards of nude beauty, you would not be admiring the wonderful art and thinking it was just fine for young chldren, and well, anyone to be looking at during the Church service.

[Vhayes]

Women could be dressed in a burka and some men will STILL lust after them - after all, they have beautiful eyes.

There is nothing sinful about the human body. Nothing. It's the thoughts of the person who looks upon the nudity that is the problem.

V

[L'Ange]

Women could be dressed in a burka and some men will STILL lust after them - after all, they have beautiful eyes.

There is nothing sinful about the human body. Nothing. It's the thoughts of the person who looks upon the nudity that is the problem.

V

I don't think anyone is saying there is anything sinful about the human body. It was created to be beautiful and to give pleasure within marriage.
Yahshua said that if a man even looks on a woman to lust after her that he has already commited adultery in his heart. That's pretty serious.

Yes, men can lust after a woman in a burka. If so, according to Yahshua they are comitting adultery, however. I'm not holding my breath waiting to hear about any women in burkas in Playboy however. If a man is lusting after a woman who is wearing a burkha, it is because of something he is visualizing in his head and you can be sure it ain't the burkha.

[canvasjockey]

Hmmm... as an artist I have pondered this, and have never come up with an easy answer. Luckily I paint horses, nude horses... but very classy and not at all inciting desire (except maybe in horse crazy girls).

I'm much better at coming up with questions than answers... from the perspective of the artist... Is it right to paint from a nude model under any circumstances? What if it's same gender, and what if it's (as life drawing sessions usually are) temporary, not to be used in any final artwork but just an exercise to hone one's skills? Is it right to paint a nude purely from imagination with no model? What is the level of nudity acceptable, such as a head with bare shoulders?

There are benefits to the artist in working with a nude model that have nothing to do with titillation. To paint the human form and become familiar with the musculature is fundamental to capturing gesture, motion and feeling in a clothed figure when creating a final piece. I personally have only been in one or two sessions with a nude model, though they are clothed more often (a lot of places that have life drawing sessions also have a theatrical-type wardrobe on hand). It was handled very professionally, and was used only as an exercise with an instructor helping.

I do see a big difference between most figure drawings/paintings and porn. To me they seem like night and day. If it's simply all wrong, then where do we draw the line with other subjects... should artists not paint a still life with a bottle of wine or food for fear it might tempt someone who has alcohol or eating issues? The artists that are truly offensive are not doing nudes. Instead they're painting with elephant dung, and sooo much worse (I can't even describe most of them here) - they care nothing about beauty of God's creation, only upsetting, offending and shocking people, the more the better - often in public museums that families and school field trips attend. I'd rather see a nude done by a classical 18th century artist any day.

I don't think anybody is expecting to install nude art of any kind in their sanctuaries, but I doubt it would be any better to install a painting of Secretariat winning the Kentucky Derby, yet it's not wrong to paint that (I hope). I also don't like the idea that artists of the past (such as Michelangelo) should be labeled as "bad" because they painted what was accepted and even commissioned by the church. I do believe there is some need to adjust for cultural norms. 100-200 years ago seeing a woman's ankles was considered obscene and immoral, and women swam (with "swim suits" that fully covered their whole body) in large boxes so that men could not see them.

There has to be a middle ground between not causing a brother to stumble and not locking the world out.

[moonglow]

Moonglow - In spite of how many times we women have been told how visual men are, sometimes we still just don't "get it." It was hard for me to understand too until I heard radio shows like Focus on the Family and read articles about men struggling to overcome their addition to pornography. I remember one man confidng to me that in the summer times he really had a struggle due to all the women in shorts. Men have a hormonal reaction to female flesh. That's the way they were made. (Of course some women are quite visual, too.) It is a good thing if geared to where a man is supposed to put his sexuality, toward his wife only. His sexuality belongs to her only. Women should not be posing nude for art for anyone to see. Neither should men.

No I did not read your posts about Playboy and am glad you think that is unacceptable as do I. However, I believe we have all been conditioned to think that Michaelangelo's painting are above reproof, they are so far "up there" and I don't just mean on the cieling. I really believe that if you had never heard of Michaelangelo and his clone came in and painted pretty much the same scenes on your Church cieling, but with modern standards of nude beauty, you would not be admiring the wonderful art and thinking it was just fine for young chldren, and well, anyone to be looking at during the Church service.

Since you are an artist I was wondering if you ever took any art classes? Its common for those studying art in college to have to take art history and view alot of nudes. There were different periods of art and this was one period of time where it was considered acceptable. You can't go to a museum and not see nudes. You can't travel to certain countries over seas and see partly or fully nude statues that are very old. No one thinks a thing of them. Not even the children living there. The culture is different for one thing. If you grow up with this its not an issue.

I see a huge difference between porn and art. And like I said before I find it sad that people cannot look at Michelangelo's art or any other great artist work and even think the things you have posted. I have never thought the things you have said in your post even while looking at a male nude painting or sculpture. I see the art in it...not this lust and perversion you are talking about. And its not like I have never had lustful thoughts looking at a flesh and blood man so obviously I am capable of that...not that I want to be or should be...I am trying to show you it is possible, using myself as a example, to view simply art and appreciate its beauty and not have the slightly type of thoughts of lust. I find it pretty odd that anyone would anyway! There are alot of us out there that love art and don't struggle with any lustful feelings looking at it. I just think its very strange anyone would actually...I really don't understand that.

Here are the couple of posts I did that in this thread might at least give you some insight to how I and others view art:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jungleman
I thought this would be a no brainer, but apparently some pretty Liberal christians I know have actually justified the use of viewing nude models for artistic purposes. I feel that this is basically soft core pornography, and another attempt by art to destroy something sacred. They stand in their views....Any thoughts?

Ok I am majored in art in college (not that I ever got a degree...) but I did major in it. Being a small college we never had a nude model come in though.

Have you ever seen Michelangelo's work? I would hate to think what you thought of his statue of David (king David from the bible)..or the Sistine chapel..he painted the ceiling of a church and many of the people are nude or partial nude including Adam in the Creation of Adam with God reaching towards him to bring life into him. Or other major artist through the centuries? Many of the painted nudes (usually partial nudes). The human body does not have to be viewed in a sexual way. When you go to the doctor and have to be partial nude do you think the doctor is viewing you sexually just because you are nude? Of course not. Most naked people are far from attractive anyway. God created our bodies and originally Adam and Eve were naked in the garden so apparently God saw nothing wrong with it..that is until sin entered in.

Those that view the nudes are the ones that may have the problem...not the nude person in the painting or statue. The human body is an amazing thing and can seen as beautiful without the sexual stuff attached to it. Sadly though everything seems to be corrupted with sex in some way or fashion.

I am far from being a liberal Christian and if I hadn't major in art, I might feel like you do...but seeing it from an artist point of view...you just don't view a nude in this way.

Quote:
and another attempt by art to destroy something sacred.

I don't know how to come to this conclusion that art is somehow to blame for this. As I said, nudes were a very common thing to be painted and sculpted hundreds of years ago...probably going back longer then that actually. Its nothing 'new' and not an attempt by the art community to destroy something...maybe its their attempt to bring back the simply nature of appreciating the human body without the sexual stuff attached to it.

edited I see several others already posted pretty much what I said here...lol. And yes a doctor viewing OUR naked bodies is no different...not all doctors look at dead naked people either...that is usually done by those doing autopsies or in funeral homes.

God bless
__________________

Originally Posted by Jungleman
I attack art in general because it seems that artists are always trying to push the envelope morally be it theatre or normal paintings.

Though with the logic you're using you could say a person looks at playboy magazine to admire the human form because it's a beautiful creation of God.I don't know if we can ever agree on this topic.

No comparison though between the two. Those picking up a Playboy magazine know its about lust and the women are posed in such a way. In most nude paintings they aren't posed to be seductive or in outfits to promote lust either. In art, especially the older art I was talking about the women are chubby and in position that many times look pretty awkward actually. The women are not done over by a plastic surgeon to make them 'perfect' by any means. Plus no fancy makeup or hair do's. All their flaws and imperfections are shown...this goes for the nude men too. They aren't 'attractive' in the sense you are thinking of. They are much more 'real' in that the artist does capture their imperfections...thighs too heavy, hips too wide, many times with tiny feet that don't fit their portions, sags and bags here and there..and they aren't posing lustfully...

Now there is some art that was done before they had things like Playboy magazine that are clearly sexual in nature...its pretty obvious though.

Like they say though, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..
__________________________________________________ _______________
(hopefully I got all the quotes in the right places)

God bless

[moonglow]

Hmmm... as an artist I have pondered this, and have never come up with an easy answer. Luckily I paint horses, nude horses... but very classy and not at all inciting desire (except maybe in horse crazy girls).

I'm much better at coming up with questions than answers... from the perspective of the artist... Is it right to paint from a nude model under any circumstances? What if it's same gender, and what if it's (as life drawing sessions usually are) temporary, not to be used in any final artwork but just an exercise to hone one's skills? Is it right to paint a nude purely from imagination with no model? What is the level of nudity acceptable, such as a head with bare shoulders?

There are benefits to the artist in working with a nude model that have nothing to do with titillation. To paint the human form and become familiar with the musculature is fundamental to capturing gesture, motion and feeling in a clothed figure when creating a final piece. I personally have only been in one or two sessions with a nude model, though they are clothed more often (a lot of places that have life drawing sessions also have a theatrical-type wardrobe on hand). It was handled very professionally, and was used only as an exercise with an instructor helping.

I do see a big difference between most figure drawings/paintings and porn. To me they seem like night and day. If it's simply all wrong, then where do we draw the line with other subjects... should artists not paint a still life with a bottle of wine or food for fear it might tempt someone who has alcohol or eating issues? The artists that are truly offensive are not doing nudes. Instead they're painting with elephant dung, and sooo much worse (I can't even describe most of them here) - they care nothing about beauty of God's creation, only upsetting, offending and shocking people, the more the better - often in public museums that families and school field trips attend. I'd rather see a nude done by a classical 18th century artist any day.

I don't think anybody is expecting to install nude art of any kind in their sanctuaries, but I doubt it would be any better to install a painting of Secretariat winning the Kentucky Derby, yet it's not wrong to paint that (I hope). I also don't like the idea that artists of the past (such as Michelangelo) should be labeled as "bad" because they painted what was accepted and even commissioned by the church. I do believe there is some need to adjust for cultural norms. 100-200 years ago seeing a woman's ankles was considered obscene and immoral, and women swam (with "swim suits" that fully covered their whole body) in large boxes so that men could not see them.

There has to be a middle ground between not causing a brother to stumble and not locking the world out.

Excellent post..I address some of what you brought up here: http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?...4&postcount=33

On painting nudes to learn the structure of the body...I was sick when I posted that and only half here so I didn't really follow through very well on what I was trying to say. If an artist doesn't know the basic structure of the human body..the bones, how the muscles attract to the bones, how the skin lays on all of this and so forth...even when painted or drawn with clothes on they won't lay right if you make the person with a skinny thigh and a huge calve...they will look deformed. The artist is looking past the surface...I explained this on that link. We don't just see what everyone else does...we have to look much deeper. We can be focusing on the way one muscle is tensed under a cheek bone while the other is more relaxed in order to get the smile just right. Someone walking in that isn't an artist may see only the surface...the cheeks, lips and teeth ...we have to look deeper then that.

With porn the viewer certainly isn't thinking about how one arm muscle is a tad bit larger then the other...

Anyway canvasjockey you brought up some great points. If nudes are off limits then we can't draw a glass of wine...someone might be tempted to go out and drink. We can't draw food! Someone might go off their diet and blame the wonderful painting of a chocolate cake that caused them to eventually have a heart attack. Certainly would have to get rid of all those paintings of hell too. It might scare people, especially young children.

I think people just need to be responsible for themselves here instead of trying to force others to conform to their standards. If folks have this little control over themselves that they can't look a a 500 year old painting of some nudes, then I would say they are the ones with the problem and they better not travel to certain countries in this world or go to any art museums.

God bless

[Tonton]

I thought this would be a no brainer, but apparently some pretty Liberal christians I know have actually justified the use of viewing nude models for artistic purposes. I feel that this is basically soft core pornography, and another attempt by art to destroy something sacred. They stand in their views....Any thoughts?

The answer is (as always) in the Word of God:

MT 5:28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)

Anton

[L'Ange]

Since you are an artist I was wondering if you ever took any art classes? Its common for those studying art in college to have to take art history and view alot of nudes. There were different periods of art and this was one period of time where it was considered acceptable. You can't go to a museum and not see nudes. You can't travel to certain countries over seas and see partly or fully nude statues that are very old. No one thinks a thing of them. Not even the children living there. The culture is different for one thing. If you grow up with this its not an issue.

I see a huge difference between porn and art. And like I said before I find it sad that people cannot look at Michelangelo's art or any other great artist work and even think the things you have posted. I have never thought the things you have said in your post even while looking at a male nude painting or sculpture. I see the art in it...not this lust and perversion you are talking about. And its not like I have never had lustful thoughts looking at a flesh and blood man so obviously I am capable of that...not that I want to be or should be...I am trying to show you it is possible, using myself as a example, to view simply art and appreciate its beauty and not have the slightly type of thoughts of lust. I find it pretty odd that anyone would anyway! There are alot of us out there that love art and don't struggle with any lustful feelings looking at it. I just think its very strange anyone would actually...I really don't understand that.

Yes, I did take art classes and studied classical art. I used to feel just as you do, that there is nude and there is naked. The former was okay and
artistic and the latter was pornographic. I felt no lust, however, at looking at any of those kinds of art work as I am a pretty typical woman and am not that visual, not turned on by visual stimuli the way so many men (and, again, some women) are.

It wasn't until I started hearing men talking about how much visual stimuli hindered their spiritual walk with YHWH, and their relationships with their wives, that I began to see things differently.

I don't care if it is called art, or done by a classical artist, men tend to be aroused by the sight of women's flesh. It's a fact of life. Some may go through a museum and see naked women and for whatever reasons not feel bothered. I have no doubt, however, that some do find it arousing.
What in the heck are teachers doing taking children to museums where young, maturing males are gazing on naked women? (I worked in the school system and might have been dumb enough in the past to do that, but it just didn't happen to happen.) Do you reeeally think that all they are feeling is, "Gee, I sure like that artist's use of color and form?"

Art is not above the call of our Heavenly Father to be sexually pure. You seem to be saying that I am filled with nasty lust because I am against depicting nudity. Let's say anyone does feel lust when looking at those pictures, and we can be sure some do, and in fact that they were commissioned by royalty and others for that exact purpose. How come they aren't feeling lust for the furniture in the picture? Or the scenery?
You are acknolwedging that lust can be incited by nudity! We are not to be the cause of a brother stumbling.

It seems easy for a woman to say, "Well! If you men are looking at nude women painted by great artists and feeling lust, then there is something wrong with you, you dirty ol' things." Give them a break.

Our society would lose nothing if it decided that nakedness is for spouses only. Look what it is producing instead. From what I hear pornography is selling much more than McDonald's any day of the week. Why shouldn't a young boy look at naked women in a Playboy magazine after seeing them at the Museum? There may be a huge difference to you, but I have no doubt that to the teen age boy, there is no huge difference, just a kind of permission given to look at naked ladies. This can be the first step to a lifetime of addiction to pornography.

[moonglow]

Yes, I did take art classes and studied classical art. I used to feel just as you do, that there is nude and there is naked. The former was okay and
artistic and the latter was pornographic. I felt no lust, however, at looking at any of those kinds of art work as I am a pretty typical woman and am not that visual, not turned on by visual stimuli the way so many men (and, again, some women) are.

It wasn't until I started hearing men talking about how much visual stimuli hindered their spiritual walk with YHWH, and their relationships with their wives, that I began to see things differently.

I don't care if it is called art, or done by a classical artist, men tend to be aroused by the sight of women's flesh. It's a fact of life. Some may go through a museum and see naked women and for whatever reasons not feel bothered. I have no doubt, however, that some do find it arousing.
What in the heck are teachers doing taking children to museums where young, maturing males are gazing on naked women? (I worked in the school system and might have been dumb enough in the past to do that, but it just didn't happen to happen.) Do you reeeally think that all they are feeling is, "Gee, I sure like that artist's use of color and form?"

Art is not above the call of our Heavenly Father to be sexually pure. You seem to be saying that I am filled with nasty lust because I am against depicting nudity. Let's say anyone does feel lust when looking at those pictures, and we can be sure some do, and in fact that they were commissioned by royalty and others for that exact purpose. How come they aren't feeling lust for the furniture in the picture? Or the scenery?
You are acknolwedging that lust can be incited by nudity! We are not to be the cause of a brother stumbling.

It seems easy for a woman to say, "Well! If you men are looking at nude women painted by great artists and feeling lust, then there is something wrong with you, you dirty ol' things." Give them a break.

Our society would lose nothing if it decided that nakedness is for spouses only. Look what it is producing instead. From what I hear pornography is selling much more than McDonald's any day of the week. Why shouldn't a young boy look at naked women in a Playboy magazine after seeing them at the Museum? There may be a huge difference to you, but I have no doubt that to the teen age boy, there is no huge difference, just a kind of permission given to look at naked ladies. This can be the first step to a lifetime of addiction to pornography.

Personally yes, I do what I can to not cause others to stumble. I dress modestly and do what I can...but as others have pointed out some are simply going to lust after whatever simply because they either have a problem or aren't Christians. There is nothing you or I can do about the nude paintings and other artwork that you think might cause someone to stumble though...we can discuss that into the dirt but that is the fact of things in this world right now. Adam is naked on the ceiling of a church overseas and there isn't anything either of us can do about that...not that I would want too either actually. People do have to take responsibility at times and not expect the world to change so they won't sin. You and I can only do what we can personally...but neither of us can control what paintings are hung in a museum.

As far as I know children aren't taken to museums to see nudes. I sure don't remember seeing any on school field trips when I was a kid. And now they have all these children's museums or sections in it for children.

I realize men are visual but I have never heard of a man that had a problem with porn getting on the net and doing a search for nude paintings...they usually go to porn sites. And I have never heard of a man seeing a nude painting leading to a life long addiction to porn either. The thing is the nude paintings don't show that much..at least not those done by the Masters...the people aren't posed in very sexually explicit positions in paintings that they are in porn and usually porn are pictures of people having sex...or men and women in positions that leave little to guess at. Porn shows everything! Unlike with most art.

As I said on one of my posts there is of course art that is sexual and was meant to be more like what we see in playboy magazines done in the past and currently of course. (especially currently). As far as I am concerned those type of artist do a real dis-service to art in general. Some people will use art, or writing, or other things just to gross others out and call it 'artistic expression'...those I do have a real problem with.

I think we need to take another look what on what not causing our brother to stumble means. I found a good bible commentary on this:
David Guzik's Commentaries
b. Why is the brother who will not eat the meat sacrificed to an idol considered weak? Many Christians would consider such a one to be the "stronger" Christian. But Paul is not speaking about being weak or strong in regard to self-control, but in regard to knowledge.

c. To influence the weak brother to go against his conscience (and thereby wound their weak conscience) is actually to sin against Christ. The Corinthian Christians who were abusing their liberty might have been thinking it was a small matter to offend their weak brothers, but they did not understand they were offending Christ.

i. In doing so, they were actually "building up" their brother to sin! Emboldened comes from the word build up. Their misuse of liberty was building others up towards sin.

d. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat: Paul makes the principle clear. Our actions can never be based just on what we know to be right for ourselves; we also need to consider what is right in regard to our brothers and sisters in Jesus.

i. It is easy for a Christian to say, "I answer to God and God alone" and to ignore his brother or sister. It is true we will answer to God and God alone; but we will answer to God for how we have treated our brother or sister.

e. At the same time, the issue is making a brother stumble and stumble over a issue that has direct relevance to the brother in question. Paul would never allow this principle to be a means by which a legalist could bind a Christian walking in liberty through their legalistic demands.

i. In Galatians 2, Paul rebuked Peter, who by his association and approval of Jewish legalists, was making Gentiles think they had to come under the Jewish customs and law to be saved. Even if the Jewish legalists would have said to the Gentiles, "Your lack of obedience to our customs stumbles us. We are stumbled brothers. You must do what we want." Paul would have said, you are not stumbled, because you aren't being tempted to sin through their actions. Your legalism is being offended. Out of love, I will never act in a way that might tempt you to sin, but I don't care at all about offending your legalism. In fact, I'm happy to do it!"

ii. "Many persons cover a spirit of envy and uncharitableness with the name of godly zeal and tender concern for the salvation of others; they find fault with all; their spirit is a spirit of universal censoriousness; none can please them; and every one suffers by them. These destroy more souls by tithing mint and cummin, than others do by neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Such persons have what is termed, and very properly too, sour godliness." (Clarke)
*****************************
So of course in that light if I was with a person that I knew had a problem with this, I sure wouldn't suggest we go to a museum for an afternoon outing. Alone or with someone I knew was ok with it, then we could go. But I wouldn't personally put another in a position to cause them to stumble. We also don't want to become legalistic either and on this issue I think it could easily go that way....but then again its kind of a moot point since none of us on here can do a thing about these paintings other then to talk about it.

As far as the struggles with men, the way I see it, they have a whole lot more then to worry about seeing a nude painting. First nude paintings aren't 'out there' all over the place where they can't avoid them. What they can't avoid though is... they can't turn on the TV without seeing a barely dressed woman. They can't walk into a store and not see magazines of beautiful women dressed in seductive clothing, they can't get on the net without seeing ads on nearly every site of women...the least of their worries is nude paintings. You really have to out of your way to go see any...

And I think we need to give men a little more credit anyway. I truly think a man is capable of looking at nude paintings and statues and appreciate the simply beauty of a woman without it being sexual. Same for women viewing a nude man in a painting or statues. Art brings out the beauty in the human body without the sexual overtones we are constantly bombarded with in the world today. Its like a breath of fresh air after breathing in smog all day long.

God bless