Seeing nudity in comic I regularly read - a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benjinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Having spent some years at University and in private life and at work dealing with artists, only one thing is clear: people do decide to draw certain things. Nudity is right out.
 
The “win” was a metaphor. Think of it like this.

I’m just using an analogy, I realize without a “formula” we have no clue how these two infinites interact. If it worked like an infinity over infinity ratio, since we cannot take infinity divided by infinity, let us think of it like the ratio of two sequences that each approach infinity (for the sake of speculation).

Limit a_n/b_n, where a_n and b_n are the two sequences that approach infinity.

It is possible the fraction approaches infinity (numerator “wins” out), approaches 0 (the denominator “wins” out), or approaches some constant between 0 and infinity.

In the same way, God’s Mercy is infinite, his justice is infinite, and they both moderate each other. This implies, the proportion, the fraction, of people in Hell could be closer to 0, closer to 1, or some moderate value between 0 to 1 (say a value like 0.2 or 0.8). It is impossible to know for sure how these infinities interact. That was my point.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Having spent some years at University and in private life and at work dealing with artists, only one thing is clear: people do decide to draw certain things. Nudity is right out.
Click to expand...
Thanks for those thoughts. Now back to the question I asked. What if the phrase ‘it’s art’ is not an excuse but a fact?

We can use an example if you like. The last time I saw Michaelangelo’s David it was being described as great art. I doubt if you’ll find anyone who would disagree. So what if we say that David is art? Is it OK that he’s nude?
 
alphonsus1 said:
It is possible the fraction approaches infinity (numerator “wins” out), approaches 0 (the denominator “wins” out), or approaches some constant between 0 and infinity.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s impossible for the fraction to approach either one because, like I said, both are infinite. So my point stands.
 
I was talking about calc I sequences. And yes, it’s possible to think of “infinity” as a limit. But we have no formula, so this was speculation. Given both the numerator and the denominator approach infinity, the ratio’s limit could be anywhere between 0 and infinity.

Or you could think about infinity +/- infinity, it’s undefined.

So both Mercy and Justice being “infinite” doesn’t help us figure out how they interact. Neither “wipes the other out.” So all we know is what we knew before:

The proportion, the fraction, of people in Hell could be anywhere between 0 and 1 (the Saints are definitely saved though, so it is not 1).
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Very much with the hair splitting. There are no grey areas. To say there are is to assume no standards exist. I would never buy a painting of a woman breastfeeding. It would be boring and common.
Click to expand...
I was in a gallery yesterday and there was a beautiful painting (might have been van den Burgh) of Mary feeding Jesus.

Boring and common? I would have said just the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Sacred art is different from common art.
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP- no, at least not accidentally. If you were looking for it deliberately, knowing it was there then that might be a different story.
 
Benjinho said:
Is it a mortal sin to have read this multiple times, knowing full well there is nudity? Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
I would strongly advise against asking “Is this a sin?” questions of any kind on this forum. Please talk about this with a trusted priest.
 
I was a huge comic book reader growing up. I’d read them now if I had time…somehow posting here is more important to me…😎 😏. Enjoy your comic books and don’t worry about it. If they describe a message that might be against your beliefs, think through the message and why it is perhaps wrong. Don’t worry about a bit of nudity. You’ll see much more in any art museum in the US.

I’ve always empathized with Peter Parker myself. Back in my time it was the X-men and Spider man that were top shelf. What is good these days?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Didn’t Our Lady of Fatima state more people go to Hell for sins committed against purity than any other sin? Sexual sins are really where the devil gets us, especially because our fallen human nature is particularly inclined towards these sins. That is why we must always be on guard!
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Wozza:
but a fact?
Click to expand...
What is or isn’t art is subjective so it isn’t possible for it to be a fact.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I’m trying to decipher what Ed considers art. So we know when nudity is acceptable.
 
edwest211 said:
Sacred art is different from common art.
Click to expand...
So if the artist says that his painting represents the mother and child (perhaps in a modern setting) then it’s ok. But if he doesn’t say that, then you’ll have to hold your decision until you find out.
 
Nothing is good these days. I stopped buying comics, especially superhero comics, because they were going in a direction where heroes stopped being heroic.
 
I have a reproduction of a Picasso painting of a woman breastfeeding. My mom has the same one at her house. She was one of the first IBCLCs, so breastfeeding is kind of a thing in our family.
 
NeedANap said:
I have a reproduction of a Picasso painting of a woman breastfeeding. My mom has the same one at her house. She was one of the first IBCLCs, so breastfeeding is kind of a thing in our family.
Click to expand...
Is that Picasso boring and common do you think?
 
It is a common mistake to think that art is about interpretation and not about intent of the artist. Visual art is a medium to convey information, a message, or a story. It is very similar to writing. And internet of the author or artist does have moral significance. A lustful person could read erotica or 50 shades of grey and be titillated, falling to the intent of the author who also would bear moral culpability. The same lustful person could read song of songs and give into lust. But the intent of the author is obviously pure. The moral culpability would fall directly on the lustful reader not the Holy Author.
So it is with art. If you have knowledge that the artist intended to tantalize sexually with the statue of David or that the Infant Christ nursing from the Madona is painted in some horrid attempt at blaspheme then that would be one thing.
Honestly, even putting graphic novel art in this conversation is somewhat insulting to the God inspired works of the past, or present. And yes, none of us even have seen the image in question, but if you wish to assert it is Holy in intent and nature in the name of making a point about a subjective topic of art. I’m listening.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top