Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I do not subscribe to the notion that there is or is any differences between male and female nudes. The nude form is just that a form of expression.

If one chooses to cast the nude form with an eye to exhibit some idea of the form as what many call the 'classical' form of presentation, then you get just that, the classical form of presentation. The problem occurs when culture collides with the social preconceived notions of viewers.

The artist Serena Gabriel in the upper meadow of Colorado National Forest is a classical presentation of the body placed in the natural landscape. Then, the same artist (woman) doing physical exercises before an audience of male photographers in a photo club like setting, and be aware that wearing a T-Back genital covering this same artist woman dances in a Gentlemen's Club. She will dance the classical Middle Eastern Dance Forms and will draw an audience into the action first working the women into her approval and then teaching by actions both male and female children, then finally preform with humor with the adult males. All a part of the classical Gypsy form of belly dance(note: There are vastly more male bely dancers in the traditional Middle Eastern belly dance tradition).

One can argue that it is the context, yet other than some legalistic notion placed there due to the prevailing social and political context, there is no difference. (Note: It is illegal in a Federal Park or Forest to uncover ones breasts or not have 'proper' coverage of the genital areas of a woman).

And I will concede that there is much to unpack with regards to the notion f The Nude. But that discussion is about sexuality and our social notions regarding that contextual structure. The Nude in the context of just The Nude is a fine but vary limited notion of the human body. If you are looking for the details of this view of the subject the author Kenneth Clark has a book titled The Nude that presents this view on the subject perfectly. This form has little to do what that notion of the nude. That is why the term NSFW (Not Safe For Work)is in the banner.

Upper Meadow, Colorado National Forest.


Starena (Serena Gabriel), yes she has a tat, Tibetan symbol of protection.

(Download)

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Nicely done Tim.

Don

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Since the beginning of recorded history, the nude has been featured in artworks of all types. The Bible tells us that there was no need of clothing in the garden of Eden, but when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, he taught them shame and cast them out. So, clothing became a necessity as well as a punishment.

The shame is what has caused the furor. We have no need for God's punishment now because we punish ourselves.

The human form is most intriguing. I see nothing wrong with exploring it artistically.

W8K Loc: Marietta, Georgia

Just Fred said "The human form is most intriguing. I see nothing wrong with exploring it artistically."

My sentiments exactly. Well stated!

Cloudboy Loc: Orlando, Florida, USA

When we go back through all cultures that portray nudes commonly in visual art, most portray both male and female. The Greeks perhaps most famously strongly exalted the male nude—to the point that young men who died in most any manner were often depicted in funerary sculptures (young men from wealthy families, at least) as warriors or athletes and nude, because that nudity was a shorthand for conveying a warrior or athlete.

For more on that, see:

Turner, Susanne. "In Cold Blood: Dead Athletes in Classical Athens". World Archaeology, vol. 44, no. 2, 2012, pp. 217-233

theaverlo Loc: Iowa

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

Fred;
I have never been or had anything wrong with nudity, it is just people being beautiful. I do not know where you got the idea that God taught them shame ? He did not from what I read. The story is written that when their eyes were opened THEY realized they were naked. So when God came to visit, they hid from him because they KNEW they were naked. God asked them, 'who told you that you are naked ? '.
When asked if they ate from the fruit, AH YES, the original blame game began, Adam replied,, the woman whom you gave me offered it to him. Ah yea, the choices we make.
Nudity is beautiful, always has been unless perverted by porn and smut peddlers.
This topic should open to free expression.
Oh well, my thoughts this morning.
bruce.

toxdoc42

I believe there is a portion in which Noah is drunk and sleeps nude and is seen by his sons and from then it is c0nsidered shameful, i think the scholars that say that put both nakedness and drunkenness together as shameful.


I googled that and found: https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/9/Genesis-9-23.html

What does Genesis 9:23 mean?
The previous verses describe a scenario involving Noah and his sons without providing more than the barest of details. Even so, this event will have grave implications. Noah got drunk on the wine from his new vineyard (Genesis 9:21). In his drunkenness, he lay naked in his own tent. Noah's son Ham walked in, saw him naked, and went out and told his brothers.

The response of Shem and Japheth reveals how seriously they and their culture took the issue of seeing another's nakedness and honoring one's father. With great care and creativity, they found a way to cover their father without ever looking at him. In this way, they honored Noah greatly.

Did Ham intend to dishonor Noah? The following verse will imply that he did, resulting in Noah's curse on Ham's descendants (Genesis 9:25). Some suggest that Ham's sin was failing to help his father by covering him—instead, Ham went to tell others what he had seen. Others believe that "what He did to [Noah]" (Genesis 9:24) was something more disturbing and personal. The extremely vague nature of the passage, in its own way, supports this idea since ancient literature was famously shy about describing certain shameful acts in any detail. In any case, whatever Ham has done is so offensive, it brings severe consequences.

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

Well Tox;
this is a good link and I read it and I think we are on the same page here.
There is nothing about nudity shameful here or anywhere in the Bible that I can find.
The disrespect Ham showed to his father was going to his brothers and talking about it. If Ham was concerned about his father and what would be his concern ?
IF Ham was concerned about his father what would his concern be ?
Ham could have covered his father if he felt that was what was needed but I think Noah would have come around and done this himself.
So nudity in itself is not shameful to me or anywhere in the bible BUT I see where thorough the ages perversions of nudity have it a perversion and or disgraceful insult to the beauty of God's created being, Us.
So it is easy for some to blame God or whoever or whatever some of the societal stuff we see today.
Well tell me what you think ?
Sir Bruce in Texico formally the state of Texas.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Here is what my grasp of all this biblical renderings are. That old testament writings can also be found in other cultural writings from the same time frame. Any reference to morality is so far removed from our time frame it has only a legitimate value as a reference to those cultures and should not be taken out of context.

debating these historic facts in our time is so often absurd and of no real value except with in the limits of that historic reference. I find vary little in old testament writings of importance to modern day moral structures.

A classic is the so called Arch of the Covenant. The object in question was originally so termed as a "contract" and existed long before the Hebrew nation absconded it and renamed it. Now in Axon in Ethiopia, it was so poorly understood by most Hebrews that one of their tribes (Levitz) were completely decimated by it. That is what I have found in reading the historic information without all the 'religious take' on the subject.

I also do not subscribe to the rhetoric of terms like 'pornography'. As has been stated over and over, if you don't like viewing something stop looking and move on. And as an important point, child pornography is under some control as is bestiality, by some vary smart individuals, so don't go there, save it for the attic where this nonsense belongs.

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

I agree Tim,

toxdoc42

This isn't meant as a religious discussion, but since you raised the issue, I looked up to see if there was a different Archg of the Covenant than the one I learned of. Unless you know of another here is what I discovered:
As a general rule, Judaism rejects physical manifestations of spirituality, preferring instead to focus on actions and beliefs. Indeed, the story of Judaism begins with Abraham who, according to ancient sources, shattered the idols that were the conventional method of religious observance at the time. Worship of graven images is harshly condemned throughout the Torah, and perhaps the greatest sin the Israelites collectively committed was the construction of the Golden Calf (in Ex. 32), intended to serve as a physical intermediary between them and God. Today, Jews do not venerate any holy relics or man-made symbols.

But in the history of the Jewish people, there was one exception to this rule. One man-made object was considered intrinsically holy - the Ark of the Covenant.

"Constructed during the Israelites' wanderings in the desert and used until the destruction of the First Temple, the Ark was the most important symbol of the Jewish faith, and served as the only physical manifestation of God on earth. The legends associated with this object - and the harsh penalties ascribed for anyone who misuses it - confirm the Ark's centrality to the Jewish faith of that period; the fact that Jews and non-Jews alike continue to study and imitate it confirms its centrality even today." If we agree that the "Israelites" are what we now call Jews, then this did not predate Judaism.

I am not stating that the written Bible as we know it, is really history, it is the written down oral history, with all of those flaws. It also does contain some degree of ethical discussions. True, things do change over 3k years, so it should NOT be taken as an unyielding source.

Paradise Pirate Loc: Cape Coral, FL

Back to the Picture. Great lighting, well done!

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

My sources are academic and are well documented. Without all the detail and as an over view of basic information of a historic nature we have the following.

King Solomon placed the relic Arc of the Contract/Covenant into the Great Temple he built along with other critical documents many of the documents are now held in the Vatican Archives in the Vatican City/State. Solomon had a visit from the Queen of Sheba, she returned to the place we now refer to as Ethiopia, pregnant. She bore a son, who traveled to Solomon and there was taught many things including the secrets of the arch. That son returned to his Kingdome in Ethiopia as it's leader with the Arc, he was now referred to as the Emperor of the Universe (the last in the line was Haile Selassie, who had lost the knowledge of the Arc because with the power of the Arc he should have easily defeated the invasion of Fascist Italy during their invasion).

Fast forward to the Christen Crusades. The Knights Templar was primarily a form of archeologists, their main focus was to unearth the writings of King Solomon. They were completely successful and indeed did discover the writings. One proof of this is the complete transformation of building construction in a period of ten years of all major building construction in Europe from wood to stone. The other item on the agenda was to 'contain' the Arc in a small stone structure in Axon in Ethiopia so as to control it's power through the use of magic symbols.

Another item of focus was the retrieval of the Lance of Lungengloria, now housed completely unprotected (as required) in the Hapsburg Armory Museum in Austria. In the cycles of the world history or so it is believed) this is the focus of Good verses Evil among men.

This brings us to a rather important point about "FACTS". Reading the Bible and understanding what you are reading are two entirely different things. A classic scam long ago was to dupe drunks into facts. "Who cut the hair of Sampson and so caused his demise?" The wrong answer was the Jewish woman Delilah, she was a devout Jew and devout Jewish women were NOT allowed to cut even touch a man's hair (the source of his religious strength), Delilah had her woman servant cut Samson's hair at her instruction. Thus you win the bet as a drunk poser that other drunks bet that they know their Bible.

So now the question, who killed Jesus, rather, how did Jesus die. Jesus was killed by the Centurion Lungengloria who drove a standard lance point up and into Jesses side piercing his lung and heart with the lances point, thus facilitating his rapid death. Many will say incorrectly that he died from crucifixion, but this is not correct.

The truth is most often much more interesting than the general story.

toxdoc42

so the comment that the Arch predates the Jewish nation is supported by what?