« Nokia Lifeblog | New Look Digital Photography Blog »

Nude Living Room

14 March, 2004 1:34 PM

I couldn't resist posting this. Saw it over at Digital Art and Photography



Darren my boy you have been reading The Green Man too long.

Next thing you'll be dropping your dacks at the next Spencer Tunick photo shoot.

GreenMan » 15 March, 2004 8:50 PM

I am a christian School teacher, and I have a blog, and I have students look at this blog occasionaly. On my blog, I have a link to your blog. I want you to consider something...

I counsel with young boys who have been hooked on internet porn. (really porn of any type, but the internet makes it so easily accessible.) And they are trying to break free of that.

I have to say that I can understand differences is some theological positions, and doctrinal disagreements, but I don't quite get how one could think that it was ok to publish pictures of nude people.

There are only two choices on the shelf, please God or please self. Do you think that God is pleased with your publishing of pictures of nuce women?

Do you have any biblical basis? What about the countless scriptures about men lusting with the eyes?

What I mean is this... I have gone back and forth about things like eternal security, calvinism, baptism, tongues, etc. etc.

But it blows my mind when I see something like this. Something that attaches the name of Christ to it. I am not trying to be mean or harsh, I am just perplexed when I see it. And this isn't the first time.

harmless » 16 March, 2004 4:01 AM

"Harmless", can you honestly say this is porn?? That these are "lust-inciting" pictures?? Seriously, I can hardly even determine the gender, each photo is so tiny... And what is wrong with the God-created human body?

Jonathan » 16 March, 2004 4:23 AM

Harmless, the only porn you in this post was what you brought yourself. There is no sexual content in the post.

GreenMan » 16 March, 2004 7:06 AM

Like I said at the beginning, I just want you to consider...

Ask yourself, Do you decide your beliefs on logic, common sense, intuition, a gut feeling, etc.?

II Peter 1:3 says that God has given us everything we need for life and godliness. And if you follow the context of that passage, Peter is referring to the completed Word of God (The Bible).

All I am asking is if you have researched it. It is too easy to become a thinker, and a philosopher of this world. Depending upon our logic, and justifying our actions and beliefs with a fleeting feeling.

I am just asking... As a brother in Christ, I have a biblical responsibility to confront. To communicate, to ask questions. I want to tell you about my experiences, but that is not what it is about. The only reason that I said anything is because of my students.

Look for examples in the bible of people who uncovered themselves. Was it ok with God? Was God pleased with that? Can you find one example of this pleasing a Holy God, who commanded us to "be Holy, for I am Holy."

If you are not for sure where to start, try Genesis. But maybe the disagreement is further back. Maybe we don't both believe in the authenticity of the Bible.

Just some thoughts.

harmless » 16 March, 2004 8:23 AM

Seems to me it's a long way from posting this picture to not believing in "the authenticity of the Bible" (whatever that means). Still, this isn't my blog it's Darren's, so I suppose I should let him respond instead of carrying this out myself. Still...

As far as Biblical examples go there are several. What about Adam and Eve themselves? The story doesn't teach that their nakedness was bad; the implication was that it was good. The Fall brought them GUILT AND SHAME over their bodies. I think God would have His children be free from sinful hangups and guilt, don't you? And then there's David dancing scantily clad/nude before the Lord (and all the people!) with "all his might." The narrative seems to justify David, while portray Michal (who criticized him) in a bad light. Jonathan stripped in front of David and gave him his clothes and his sword to seal their friendship.

Heck, baptisms in the early church were often performed in the nude!

Anyway, as I said, I'll let Darren speak to his own feelings and beliefs when/if he chooses to do so...but in all respect, it seems to me that you're overreacting here.

But that's just one opinion, from a decidedly "liberal" person to boot, so..."your mileage may vary" I guess!

Jonathan » 16 March, 2004 11:10 AM

thanks for your comments - I wasn't expecting that this post would cause any controversy - but perhaps I should have considered others reactions a little more before posting.

Let me say that I respect you opinions Harmless but come at it from a different perspective. My primary reason for posting it was that I thought it was mildly amusing and an interesting idea. The fact that the people in the photos were nude only increased my amusement. Ok - it probably says more about my sick mind than anything.

I do understand that some struggle with pornography - its something that I've observed take control of people both young and old and something that I would never want to be a part of anyone struggling in.

However I'm not sure that these pictures fit into what I would define as porn. I personally don't find them stimulating in that way at all, they are so small that I doubt they would be visually stimulating to too many people even if magnifying glasses were supplied to readers. I don't view the pictures as sexually explicit, exploitative or graphic in any way.

I'm open to being challenged on this - but to this point don't see it as a problem. I suspect there are bigger issues at stake around us in our world at the moment that would could stand against but I'm happy to have others have their say.

Darren Rowse » 16 March, 2004 12:35 PM

Gee Darren... I don't know. You better take this offline. And while you're at it, take some big blankets down to the museum and cover up Michelangelo's David just in case some poor young girl feels the need to become a prostitute. Oooh.. better still, take a hammer and a chisel and remove the offensive parts and then etch "God does not endorse nudity" on his chest.

Regan » 16 March, 2004 12:46 PM

OH for gods sake, some people should really be concerned about things that are worth being concerned about. I thought the posting was amusing too. Internet porn? I dont think so. Art , perhaps? Hey Harmless, it is all harmless. really....

dave the rave » 16 March, 2004 7:28 PM

Is it pornography, no. Is it appropriate for a web site such as this? That's the question. And only Darren can answer that, but Mr. Harmless point should strongly considered because there is another fact: the photos can be a strumbling block for those that struggle with pornography or sexual lust.

James E. Robinson, III » 17 March, 2004 12:23 AM

Look, a guy's hand is a much bigger "stumbling block" than these pictures will ever be.

There. I said it.

Jonathan » 17 March, 2004 2:07 AM

are those real?

t » 10 April, 2004 12:47 AM

are those real?

t » 10 April, 2004 12:47 AM

Every month I get at least two hits from this post... makes me laugh...

harmless » 16 December, 2004 5:22 AM

Email this entry to a friend:

Friend's email:

Your email:

Message (optional):