I recently watched bishop barrons pivotal players documentary on michealangelo. And, it talked about how the inspiration for the bare butt of god in the sistine chapel was that it was the case in exodus with moses. I was exodus 33 23 where god says that "thou shalt see my back parts, but my face thou canst not see.
If that is all we have to work off of, then it is blasphemous and scandalous in my opinion to emphasize it to mean god "full mooning you with his butt". There is plenty of testimony of those parts meant to be private throughout the old and new testament. Christ revered to it as "privy" when talking about uncleaness and food, meaning private. The old testament talks about not revealing or being revealed to the nakedness of family members or obviously others in general. The israelites who rebuilt the temple at one point were commended for all of them laboring with their shirts on rather than off. It was a crime I forget how severe for the wife of a man in a fight to attack her husbands opponent(both israelites) in the private parts. Anyone who touched feces was to be considered unclean.
And, yet God will not show moses his face, and instead show him his full moon butt? It is quite a contradiction if you ask me.
So, no. Michaelangelo was a pervert. He carved one enormous cruficix where christ was totally nude. Is that even allowed?
It is high time for a devastating destructive fire in Rome.