Sunday, April 27, 2008

Miley Cyrus on Semi-Topless Pic: 'I Feel So Embarrassed'!

cross-post from A Catholic View

When I first saw this, I thought alot of people would be disappointed because Miley Cyrus had presented herself as a Christian. That got me thinking....why should that make a difference? Don't get me wrong...I think posing nude or semi-nude is wrong no matter who it is. It is immoral, and I think it only cheapens the person posing, and provides a moral obstacle to all who see the picture. But back to my question: are we judging Miley more harshly because she is a Christian? Do we set higher standards for Christians? Do we expect more from them? Are we less tolerant of their shortcomings? After thinking about it, this is what I came up with: First of all, we shouldn't be judging anyone: Jesus told us this several times:


"Judge not, and you will not be judged"

"Don't worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye...worry about the plank in your own."

"Let the one who is without sin throw the first stone."


Secondly, Although people can tend to be judgemental, It is Miley who "set the bar" for herself. When you present yourself as a Christian, people expect more from you. When someone is a Christian and decides to follow Christ, they should also follow his commandments. I think this would be covered under

"thou shall not commit adultery."

Here's how Jesus explained it in Matthew 5:28

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Thirdly, it is not judgemental when you are discriminating in avoiding anything/anyone that could present a temptation or lead to sin, if only sinful thoughts.

In short, I think I will follow a little advice my mother gave me: "avoid people, places or things that could lead to sin."

Your comments welcome!

article here

8 comments:

Scott Nehring said...

I certainly have higher expectations of Christians than I have of others. I expect Pagans to act as Pagans. When someone claims to follow Christ I immediately hold the expectation that they will try their best to uphold the values that entails. Posing nude in a seductive way clearly goes against Biblical teaching. Having such expectations isn't judging the person nor is being disappointed when someone is defiant of Christ's teaching.

Its too bad she made this choice. I hope she's learned from the experience.

Tom McDonald said...

You're not seriously saying that posing semi-nude is a violation of the 7th commandment, are you? There is a very clear and unmistakable line between art and pornography, and this photo is far on the other side of that line. Many great works of Christian art are painted using nude models, and the nude has long been a valid subject for art. The most that could be said is that she showed bad judgment and is lacking in modesty, and certainly because of her youth this should never have happened. The undraped form, however, is a magnificent subject for art: God's own creation. We're Catholic, not Puritans.

Christine said...

Yes, the 7th commandment does require purity and modesty.

Here's how Jesus explained it in Matthew 5:28

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Tom McDonald said...

I disagree. The subject, not the object, is the only person capable of looking lustfully. The assumption that all nudes/semi-nudes are meant to inflame lust is misguided.

Don't get me wrong: no child should be exposed like this girl is. She's too young, and society is too quick to exploit the sexuality of the young. But the equation of nudity=sex/lust (and therefore adultery) is flawed.

I slipped when wrote before. Of course, it's the 6th commandment. The relevant sections of the CCC are 2331 to 2400, and I don't read an equivalence there.

Julie D. said...

I have to agree with Tom on both points. This girl shouldn't have been exposed in such a way and this just highlights my whole distaste for "child stars" who I believe are robbed of their childhood.

However, one cannot deny that legitimate are includes nudity as the human body is a thing of beauty. For example, see this sculpture.

Yes we must be personally modest, but if we are to constantly try to guard people's minds, we'll wind up like the women who have to wear burkahs and veils.

Scott Nehring said...

Julie & Tom,

We agree that nudity doesn't equal impurity. We probably all agree that art is in the eye of the beholder as well.

In this instance I see a teenage girl in a less than artistic pose. I think it is reasonable to conclude the intent of the photo is to sexualize the subject for marketing purposes. Not good.

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;"

1 Cor 6:19

One has to be careful how they display themselves. Modesty is generally the best policy. I don't think believing this means someone is calling for women to put on burkahs.

and

"Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—" 1 Corinthians 10:33

To be fair, the second verse calls for recognition of one's intent when taken in context. They may have been intending to make an artistic statement and couldn't have possibly known how it would look at the end of the process - then again, this family isn't new to the business and the statement of having their daughter nude wouldn't have escaped them.

I guess the easiest way to approach this is to ask - is having this image staring back from the magazine racks making this society better?

Julie D. said...

Scott,

I believe that if you read our comments you would see that we are in complete agreement with you.

Perhaps you missed this in Tom's comment:Don't get me wrong: no child should be exposed like this girl is. She's too young, and society is too quick to exploit the sexuality of the young....

Or this in mine: This girl shouldn't have been exposed in such a way and this just highlights my whole distaste for "child stars" who I believe are robbed of their childhood.

Based on those, I'm not sure why you commented. Because clearly we have already indicated that our answer to your last question would be a resounding, "No."

It is easy to mix up the specific with the general comments that are flowing back and forth here, and you are not one to do that usually ... having a discerning wit and eye (your attitude to the movie Serenity notwithstanding!).

Julie D. said...

Scott,

I believe that if you read our comments you would see that we are in complete agreement with you.

Perhaps you missed this in Tom's comment:Don't get me wrong: no child should be exposed like this girl is. She's too young, and society is too quick to exploit the sexuality of the young....

Or this in mine: This girl shouldn't have been exposed in such a way and this just highlights my whole distaste for "child stars" who I believe are robbed of their childhood.

Based on those, I'm not sure why you commented. Because clearly we have already indicated that our answer to your last question would be a resounding, "No."

It is easy to mix up the specific with the general comments that are flowing back and forth here, and you are not one to do that usually ... having a discerning wit and eye (your attitude to the movie Serenity notwithstanding!).