I'm reminded of Rush's saying @ feminism being the home of unattractive women...along those lines, I think the culture of the left, which we are unfortunately steeped in, hates much of what is beautiful. Conversely celebrating that which is ugly. I recall it being part of the commie goals, read into the Cong. record in the early '60's. It is often mentioned here on FR.
It has, in certain quarters, become 'sexist' to mention a woman's beauty/good looks. When Peter Parker complimented Mary Jane on her looks, her reply was sneering, saying something to the effect; "Oh, so therefore I have value?" To which he responded in the 'culturally approved' beta/cuck way, simpering some kind of apology.
To me, the left is at war against nature, against human nature, and anything 'natural'. Which brings me back to Rebekah being very beautiful. God thought it was important to mention in scripture, didn't He? I wonder why. I truly do. Is it because He knows Adam chose Eve because he saw her naked & was overcome by that?
Why is a woman 'being beautiful' important? Is it because they are the 'weaker sex' and must rely on their looks to get ahead/survive?
Note: for the most part - to posit that a woman has no value beyond physical beauty is not what I'm saying, nor is God imo. After all, He describes a more well-rounded character in other areas of scripture.
I noticed, like TP Pole, how the artists portrayed 'very beautiful'...I remember on your first series, Dan, that I commented on the women's 'attractiveness' in one painting...here:#107 https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3995110/posts...about Irma Martin at #17.
The ones here that I "behold" as close (kind of pretty) are #'s 17, 20, 25, 22 (composition in this one is beautiful in an of itself!), 27, (even though the face is veiled. the artist put a bit of sexy leg into it!)... and I think #30 wins. jmo
I agree with you about the human body being beautiful, and that God’s command “Be Fruitful and Multiply” does convey the idea that certain activities are required by us to obey that command!
I’m not prudish at all, dear FRiend. Sixty years as a rock musician and 50 as a biker have cured me of any of that! LOL.
But I am also a painter and attended Art College, which means, of course, painting nudes. That is far more challenging than landscapes, seascapes, or especially abstractions. And so, I know that Artists (especially in the Renaissance) would never miss an opportunity to portay a nude or semi-nude figure. This was not a spiritual thing, or even a prurient thing, but merely a way of showing off one’s “chops”, like a rock star taking an extended solo in the middle of a song. Sometimees the solo is warranted, but sometimes it is incongruous and out-of-place. Such is the situation with Rebecca’s “Wardrobe Malfunctions”. She was venturing out to water the sheep, among shepherds who were male, and not of her family.
Her beauty was apparent to Abraham’s Servant even without the décolletage.
But, you MUST know if you follow this thread with any regularity, that Dan and I tease each other mercilessly about the art he posts. We feel comfortable doing so, because he knows I am an artist, and his “little sister in Christ”. Brothers and Sisters are famous for teasing each other because they have a much deeper relationship than the rest of the world.
And so, by teasing Dan about Rebecca’s sartorial negligence, I was not engaging in the communist practice of celebrating the “ugly” or being an overly sensitive feminist. In fact, both you and Rush are completely correct about that aspect of the Left.
Anyway, enjoy the art! See you next time! :-)
It's a good thing that God made women. He didn't give them facial hair to hide behind, instead giving each inherent beauty.
And it's a good thing that God made Rebecca beautiful, so that Abraham's servant would have his judgment confirmed. Isaac needed her.