Jimmy Galindo wrote:


"We concluded that sensuality and eroticism were part of life, and not wrong "per se" for an artist to portray."

That is true. However, let's get deeper into the issue and sift through the shades of gray on this issue.

"Consider Song of Songs."

Personally understanding the "love language" of Song of Songs, you need to support how this Biblical book relates to nudes in art, especially in our time in history.

"God made sexuality and He made all things good."

It is true, but through sin God's perfect elements on Earth have been corrupted. For example, humans were once innocent in the Garden of Eden but God killed the animal to clothe man and woman and hide them from their shame (Gen 3:7,21). Sex was intended as a means to become "one" between husband and wife (Eph 5:32, Gen 2:24), now the libido seems to reign.

"Visualizing Botticelli's Birth of Venus, and listing the virtues that her lovely form and face express to me, when I realised that my list sounded a whole lot like Galatians 5:22-23"

One can draw moral illustrations from just about any scenario, art work, or element in life.
Drawing moral illustrations from an artwork, in this case Botticelli's Birth of Venus, does not make nudes appropriate per se.

Apart from a few higher theological errors I find in some of the illustrations you (or whoever wrote the article) pointed out, I don't find the article a very convincing argument to support nudes in art.

Maybe you can give me your opinion, and Biblical support on the subject?