Author Topic: Adam and Eve and Beauty (Read 4775 times)

Curious · « **on:** November 14, 2014, 06:57:53 PM »

Before the Fall Adam and Eve were morally perfect. They were also mentally perfect? Would Adam's mental ability before the Fall dwarf the mental ability of Isaac Newton?

Now Adam and Eve were morally and mentally perfect, so that leads me to assume that they were physically perfect, and most artists over the ages have depicted them as such.

But the question for me is how much better looking were they than good-looking people today? Would Adam and Eve's beauty make even good-looking people today look comparatively leperish?

Maybe it's possible they were ordinary looking?

The image of Jesus on the Shroud seems genuine. If that is truly Jesus on the Shroud, then depictions of Jesus are very flattering because the man on the Shroud is average-looking at best. Now Jesus was perfect morally and mentally, and yet physically he was not impressive (if the Shroud is to be used as evidence of what he looked like).

Curious · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2014, 07:21:48 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Curious
Before the Fall Adam and Eve were morally perfect. They were also mentally perfect? Would Adam's mental ability before the Fall dwarf the mental ability of Isaac Newton?

Now Adam and Eve were morally and mentally perfect, so that leads me to assume that they were physically perfect, and most artists over the ages have depicted them as such.

But the question for me is how much better looking were they than good-looking people today? Would Adam and Eve's beauty make even good-looking people today look comparatively leperish?

Maybe it's possible they were ordinary looking?

The image of Jesus on the Shroud seems genuine. If that is truly Jesus on the Shroud, then depictions of Jesus are very flattering because the man on the Shroud is average-looking at best. Now Jesus was perfect morally and mentally, and yet physically he was not impressive (if the Shroud is to be used as evidence of what he looked like).

I can hardly believe you even asked that!

Our Lord was beaten and physically abused beyond belief. Get the message!!

But still, a good looking person who's badly beaten up will look different from an average looking person who's badly beaten up. It's possible that He was physically perfect, but it seems from the Shroud that He was average-looking, even if you take into consideration He had just endured physical torments.

Miseremini · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2014, 10:17:09 PM »

What we consider good looks change with the times. In 33 A.D. He may have been considered the most handsome man on earth.

In the 1920's, Rudolph Valentino was considered the most handsome man on earth but I personally think he looks terrible. Clark Gable in the 1940's, etc. Looking back at pictures from the 1500's I think all the men looked.......wierd?

I think it depends on the times.

And remember.... a dead body is withot expression etc and can't be compared to a live body.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2014, 10:37:08 PM »

This is one of the silliest threads I have ever seen here.

B from A · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2014, 10:42:25 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

This is one of the silliest threads I have ever seen here.

I don't know about their beauty, but here's some info about their nationality:
[perhaps a bit dated]

Quote

A Brit, a Frenchman and a Russian are viewing a painting of Adam and Eve frolicking in the Garden of Eden. "Look at their reserve, their calm," muses the Brit. "They must be British."

"Nonsense," the Frenchman disagrees. "They're naked, and so beautiful. Clearly, they are French."

"No clothes, no shelter," the Russian points out, "they have only an apple to eat, and they're being told this is paradise. They are Russian."

Curious · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2014, 07:50:48 AM »

The thumbs down I've received is more interesting to me than the question in the OP. Why someone would think this thread is silly or offensive needs to be explained, because it's lost on me.

Curious · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2014, 07:56:38 AM »

Quote from: Miseremini

What we consider good looks change with the times. In 33 A.D. He may have been considered the most handsome man on earth.

In the 1920's, Rudolph Valentino was considered the most handsome man on earth but I personally think he looks terrible. Clark Gable in the 1940's, etc. Looking back at pictures from the 1500's I think all the men looked.......wierd?

I think it depends on the times.

And remember.... a dead body is withot expression etc and can't be compared to a live body.

I don't know about this. I think if 1000 women were shown a picture of Valentino and Gable and asked to rate them in terms of physical attractiveness they would likely rate high.

I've seen paintings from the 1500s where the men aren't good looking, but that's usually because the subject of the painting wasn't good-looking and would have been perceived as not good-looking by most people in that time period. That doesn't mean that there weren't good-looking men back then. Most men who would have been painted in the 16th century would be nobles, who didn't get to their positions in society from participating in a beauty contest.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2014, 08:36:37 AM »

Quote from: Curious

Quote from: Miseremini
What we consider good looks change with the times. In 33 A.D. He may have been considered the most handsome man on earth.

In the 1920's, Rudolph Valentino was considered the most handsome man on earth but I personally think he looks terrible. Clark Gable in the 1940's, etc. Looking back at pictures from the 1500's I think all the men looked.......wierd?

I think it depends on the times.

And remember.... a dead body is withot expression etc and can't be compared to a live body.

I don't know about this. I think if 1000 women were shown a picture of Valentino and Gable and asked to rate them in terms of physical attractiveness they would likely rate high.

I've seen paintings from the 1500s where the men aren't good looking, but that's usually because the subject of the painting wasn't good-looking and would have been perceived as not good-looking by most people in that time period. That doesn't mean that there weren't good-looking men back then. Most men who would have been painted in the 16th century would be nobles, who didn't get to their positions in society from participating in a beauty contest.

I googled Rudolph Valentino for images and he was quite a debonair guy. Just a few changes in garments and he'd fit right in with the 2014 young adult scene. I was interested in seeing more of Natacha Rambova who was very lovely.

The clothes and the level of modesty is always changing and today, or at least over the last decade there has been an attempt to remove expressiveness so much from the eyes that one would get the impression that looking like a zombie was the goal.

BTNYC · « **Reply #8 on:** November 15, 2014, 10:07:31 AM »

Quote from: Curious

The image of Jesus on the Shroud seems genuine. If that is truly Jesus on the Shroud, then depictions of Jesus are very flattering because the man on the Shroud is average-looking at best. Now Jesus was perfect morally and mentally, and yet physically he was not impressive (if the Shroud is to be used as evidence of what he looked like).

First of all, you throw Our Blessed Lord's Holy Name around with a contemptuous familiarity. Secondly, your using Him as an example to prove whatever point you're trying to make are daring to the point of being offensive to pious ears. Even if you believe it to be true, due reverence for Our Blessed Lord's Divine Person should impel you to hold your tongue about it.

As to the point you're making: As has been pointed out, beauty, as most people understand it today, is highly subjective, with standards differing from culture to culture and era to era. But if we try to leave out the baser, carnal concept of "attractiveness," (for no one knows less about a man's "attractiveness" than I) we can sum up beauty as a more perfect reflection of God's Creation; God is a God of Order and not chaos, so a face whose features are symmetrical and well-ordered can be said to be beautiful in this sense.

Here is the Face on the Shroud:

Here are some CGI renderings of the Face on the Shroud by artist Ray Downing (done for a halfway decent program that aired a few years ago on the otherwise reprehensible History Channel):

I see there a face of perfect symmetry and order, and one remarkable close to many Traditional devotional images of Our Blessed Lord, like the Christ Pantocrator in the ancient Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai (6th Century):

Most importantly, in addition to being ordered and symmetrical, this Face is manful. And masculinity is a concept that's been given the short shrift in our current sick age's concept of male "attractiveness," where faggy, effeminate un-men like these are considered ideal:

Curious · « **Reply #9 on:** November 15, 2014, 10:42:33 AM »

"First of all, you throw Our Blessed Lord's Holy Name around with a contemptuous familiarity."

I can see why you would think that. I don't apologize though since this wasn't my intention. But I think that your perception is shared by some others and so that may explain the negative reaction. Perhaps I should have just focused on Adam and Eve and left Jesus out of the discussion.

"Secondly, your using Him as an example to prove whatever point you're trying to make are daring to the point of being offensive to pious ears. Even if you believe it to be true, due reverence for Our Blessed Lord's Divine Person should impel you to hold your tongue about it."

If I thought Jesus was not good-looking that would not change anything I think about Him. You seem to be suggesting that if Jesus wasn't good-looking then that would diminish Him.

"(for no one knows less about a man's "attractiveness" than I)"

Attractiveness, yes. But being able to tell if someone of your own sex is good-looking doesn't require that you be a sodomite. You can tell that a man without leprosy is better looking than a man with leprosy, can't you?

"Here are some CGI renderings of the Face on the Shroud by artist Ray Downing (done for a halfway decent program that aired a few years ago on the otherwise reprehensible History Channel):

I see there a face of perfect symmetry and order, and one remarkable close to many Traditional devotional images of Our Blessed Lord"

If I thought Jesus looked like that rendering than I would say he was good-looking. It's hard to tell from the Shroud what He really looked like, but He appears to have been very Semitic looking, whereas the guy in the CGI rendering looks European.

"Most importantly, in addition to being ordered and symmetrical, this Face is manful. And masculinity is a concept that's been given the short shrift in our current sick age's concept of male "attractiveness," where faggy, effeminate un-men like these are considered ideal:"

Yeah but they are a couple examples of effeminate young men. The media also promotes manly-looking types as ideal as well, though there does seem to be a dearth of bearded men promoted by the elite.

Curious · « **Reply #10 on:** November 15, 2014, 10:49:19 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Curious
But still, a good looking person who's badly beaten up will look different from an average looking person who's badly beaten up. It's possible that He was physically perfect, but it seems from the Shroud that He was average-looking, even if you take into consideration He had just endured physical torments.

In addition to being illogical, I would better expect this to come from an atheist or nαzιphile.

How's it illogical?

Not an atheist or nαzι-phile. though I don't think the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** November 15, 2014, 11:34:22 AM »

I did not give any down thumbs here, however please tell me, maybe I am missing something, but why does it matter to anyone how Our Lord looked anyway? The fact that He is God and saved us from our sins is really what is important.

His suffering should be our focus, not His looks.

It reminds me of the Jєωιѕн people in His day, who was expecting a worldly Missiah, a rich, powerful king, and when Jesus came He, Jesus, did not fit their expectations, so they would not except Him as their Missiah.

Curious · « **Reply #12 on:** November 15, 2014, 12:44:30 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I did not give any down thumbs here, however please tell me, maybe I am missing something, but why does it matter to anyone how Our Lord looked anyway? The fact that He is God and saved us from our sins is really what is important.

His suffering should be our focus, not His looks.

It reminds me of the Jєωιѕн people in His day, who was expecting a worldly Missiah, a rich, powerful king, and when Jesus came He, Jesus, did not fit their expectations, so they would not except Him as their Missiah.

I agree that wondering about His looks is of ancillary importance, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of discussion.

Curious · « **Reply #13 on:** November 15, 2014, 12:50:19 PM »

Quote from: Nado

How does one show invalid logic to someone who cannot discern it for himself? There is a contradiction. You cannot discern between good looking & average looking through a disfigured, swollen face. In addition, good and average are both good. Our Lord was physically perfect, the ideal man. What you question is basically heretical.

Your point isn't hard to understand. Only I disagree that one can't ever tell the difference between a good looking person who's been disfigured and an ugly person who's been disfigured. In some cases this may be true, depending on the degree to which someone has been facially disfigured.

Can you give me a source that says Our Lord was physically perfect?

cassini · « **Reply #14 on:** November 15, 2014, 01:57:43 PM »

Quote from: Curious

Quote from: MyrnaM
I did not give any down thumbs here, however please tell me, maybe I am missing something, but why does it matter to anyone how Our Lord looked anyway? The fact that He is God and saved us from our sins is really what is important.

His suffering should be our focus, not His looks.

It reminds me of the Jєωιѕн people in His day, who was expecting a worldly Missiah, a rich, powerful king, and when Jesus came He, Jesus, did not fit their expectations, so they would not except Him as their Missiah.

I agree that wondering about His looks is of ancillary importance, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of discussion.

I agree with you curious. I have pondered all my life on how Adam and Eve looked, how Jesus looked and Mary of course. Why anyone would feel the subject is not fit to be discussed is puzzling to me.

In my heart I believe Mary was the perfect woman with the most beautiful face to reflect that perfection. I know Jesus must also be have had a perfect masculine face and I would love to have seen those faces.

Adam and Eve must also have been perfect human beings. Again we can only imagine how beautiful and hansom. Indeed there is speculation all four were in the image of one another, male and female.

Looks of course are not the same to everyone. Races differ tremendously, and a perfect chinese man and woman would not be the choice of an Irishman's imagination. Jesus and Mary were of their race and perhaps only one of that race can describe them.

Finally, my images of Christ and Mary were fully satisfied in Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ.'