# "Christian" Beauty Queen



## Banjo

Even the secularists get it....Why can't the Church?

“Only in America would the notion of a nearly-naked fundamentalist Christian beauty queen tossing her processed hair as she parades brand new, pageant-bought plastic breasts across a Las Vegas stage in front of millions of television viewers with all the modesty of a blue ribbon heifer at a county livestock fair (the same fundamentalist Christian beauty queen who would later tell a television reporter that she heard God whispering in her ear as she answered a celebrity-worshipping Internet gossip columnist’s question about gay marriage) be treated as anything other than an occasion for high comedy and mirth.”

–Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/at-least-anita-bryant-cou_b_195386.html


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Our country is very SICK.... Sick with its own sinfulness... and refusing to take medicine.

DB BB


----------



## gtparts

Have not seen a more complete response to her pageant participation or the semi-nude photo than the one in the www.huffingtonpost.com page you included, Banjo.

For my part, I can only conclude she is or was ill-advised and most probably deceived concerning what scripture holds up as hallmarks of a woman of virtue.  Or perhaps she has deceived herself by rationalizing her behavior. Either way, it is a sad commentary on the lack of biblical standards being applied to their lives by some who openly claim Christ as savior.


----------



## Havana Dude

Any chance in seeing the positive side of this? Christians are not allowed to wear bikinis? I say judge not others. Just what should she have said to the liberal celebrity worshipping judge?


----------



## Huntinfool

That's your sister in Christ y'all are posting about....just wanted to point that out.

I'd hate for the Christian community to rally behind one of their own and support that one.  It's probably just better to pile on and attack so that we don't damage our already stellar reputation for consistency.

She stood up for marriage.  She stood up for the belief system that her Christian values established in her during the biggest moment of her life knowing that the answer she was about to give would likely cost her...

Bikinis are one portion of the contest.  But I'm sure it's "un-christian" to wear a bikini or even participate in a beauty contest.  

Sometimes you guys just make me laugh.  I love ya.  But sometimes you're just looking for the next thing to be outraged about.


----------



## redneckcamo

she gave the right answer too the troublemaker ........ at least she didnt give the left one that boosts their gay cause and maybe have netted her the crown ......
I hope she will keep going with this as far as she can !!!


----------



## Lowjack

Only the Lord can magnify himself through the ridiculous.
So she made a mistake in her Christian walk ?
Who hasn't here made mistakes or lacks the maturity ?
But She brought out the hate mongers and showed their true colors. It made other women see the unfruitfulness of such things as pageants.


----------



## Randy

Havana Dude said:


> Just what should she have said to the liberal celebrity worshipping judge?



You left out Queer.


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

I guess it doesn't matter either that topless and lingerie pictures of the beauty queen have surfaced on the internet.  Are we not to be modest? Would you all want your daughters parading around half-naked while millions of men and women alike lusted over her? Well I guess it is godly to do that as long as she is speaking out for conservative tradtions.


----------



## Banjo

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I guess it doesn't matter either that topless and lingerie pictures of the beauty queen have surfaced on the internet.  Are we not to be modest? Would you all want your daughters parading around half-naked while millions of men and women alike lusted over her? Well I guess it is godly to do that as long as she is speaking out for conservative tradtions.



I agree!

Why don't all you men who agree, print out her pictures and put them up on your fridge at home.....See what your wife says.

Better yet....have your daughters' pictures taken in the same state of dress and poses.  You could put them up on the internet...but make sure to talk about what a good Christian she is....that will erase any of the negative.

Wait....how about you get her a breast augmentation first.

What is wrong with you people?


----------



## redneckcamo

*wow ....listen too the wolves !!!*

she spoke against the gay agenda an yall just wanna bash the girl ........ I wear alot of camo ...but green isnt some peoples color !! yall get my drift ..... get that log out of your eye an be happy someone on TV is at least not promoting the liberal agenda !!!!

oh yea ...an next time you pray make sure you tell the Lord about her sins before you confess your .... you mite feel better !!!!


----------



## Banjo

> I'd hate for the Christian community to rally behind one of their own and support that one. It's probably just better to pile on and attack so that we don't damage our already stellar reputation for consistency.



The only inconsistency I see here is someone who claims Christ to unashamedly model nude/semi-nude....The pictures were too racy to put up on the Today show.... 

Wait....there is another inconsistency.....most of the evangelicals don't seem to have any problem with this.


----------



## Banjo

redneckcamo said:


> she spoke against the gay agenda an yall just wanna bash the girl ........ I wear alot of camo ...but green isnt some peoples color !! yall get my drift ..... get that log out of your eye an be happy someone on TV is at least not promoting the liberal agenda !!!!



Posing nude does promote the liberal agenda.  Keep your camo on and we have no problem.....


----------



## redneckcamo

*yes*



Banjo said:


> Posing nude does promote the liberal agenda.  Keep your camo on and we have no problem.....



an so does the constant judgement of others by the pharisees in this thread !  .... even the avatar has a snobby judgemental air about it !!


----------



## Banjo

redneckcamo said:


> an so does the constant judgement of others by the pharisees in this thread !



Wrong....Calling what God calls sin, "sin,"  is not being a Pharisee...

Now....if I told you that you were sinning by modestly wearing your camo....THEN you could call me a Pharisee.


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> The only inconsistency I see here is someone who claims Christ to unashamedly model nude/semi-nude....The pictures were too racy to put up on the Today show....
> 
> Wait....there is another inconsistency.....most of the evangelicals don't seem to have any problem with this.



Oh you're being QUITE consistent.  That's my point.  Christians attacking other Christians is the norm....not the exception.

She's taken nude pictures since she's accepted Christ?  Do you know that to be true?  Or are you making assumptions?

Banjo, I've done some things in my life that would absolutely SHOCK you!  If you knew, you'd throw me under a much bigger bus than you throw her under.  Of that, I am certain.

She's a beautiful girl.  She's in a beauty pagent.  I have no doubt that my daughter will wear a bikini at some point in her life...probably in public.  Is that any different?  Why is it wrong for her to do it on stage and not for my daughter to do it at the beach?


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> Wrong....Calling what God calls sin, "sin,"  is not being a Pharisee...
> 
> Now....if I told you that you were sinning by modestly wearing your camo....THEN you could call me a Pharisee.



What exactly are you calling sin?  Nude pictures?  I agree.  Do you know exactly when they were taken in relation to when she accepted Christ?


----------



## redneckcamo

*well*



Banjo said:


> Wrong....Calling what God calls sin, "sin,"  is not being a Pharisee...
> 
> Now....if I told you that you were sinning by modestly wearing your camo....THEN you could call me a Pharisee.



I will assume you are living a sinless life and..''judge not'' doesnt apply too you !! 

this is actually typical america ...because finger pointing is goin on left an right considering this young woman ....

I agree the topless photos (which I have not seen by the way ) an the dern near nude body at the pagent are not the image a christian should give the world ..... bigger mistakes have been made an all I know an the MAIN point that I like about all this is that she could have given the liberal gay agenda answer an maybe took the crown doing it .....but SOMETHING inside her say NO an she listened !!! 
I for one applaud the girl an hope she takes it as far as she can in our liberallly diseased country !!!!


----------



## Banjo

Huntinfool said:


> Oh you're being QUITE consistent.  That's my point.  Christians attacking other Christians is the norm....not the exception.
> 
> She's taken nude pictures since she's accepted Christ?  Do you know that to be true?  Or are you making assumptions?
> 
> Banjo, I've done some things in my life that would absolutely SHOCK you!  If you knew, you'd throw me under a much bigger bus than you throw her under.  Of that, I am certain.
> 
> She's a beautiful girl.  She's in a beauty pagent.  I have no doubt that my daughter will wear a bikini at some point in her life...probably in public.  Is that any different?  Why is it wrong for her to do it on stage and not for my daughter to do it at the beach?



My understanding is that the pictures have been taken SINCE the breast augmentation....which the pageant people had paid for six weeks previously.  I could be wrong....

If they were taken prior to that...then as a Christian, she should publicly apologize and explain that they were taken BEFORE her conversion.

Huntin....Don't be certain.  No way I would throw you under the bus.  In all honesty, I would have to throw myself as well as my husband under there too.  No need to get in a spitting contest over who was the biggest sinner....I bet my husband has you beat..... and I could probably run a close second. (Hope he doesn't see this...).

Why do you think your daughter will be wearing bikinis? Mine never have....We have taught them to be modest, and they find bikini wearing distasteful and unnecessary....as do I.   There is modest swimwear available, that is quite fashionable.  

Prudish? Perhaps some may think so.....  However, the only thing that concerns me is what God thinks.


----------



## christianhunter

Bikini's,I don't know.I didn't go to the sight,as you mentioned,many Christian men are weak in that respect.I know I'am,so why set myself up for temptation,and possibly to sin.If you are a Christian,and an ex-alcoholic don't go to a bar.The same holds true for provocative pictures,and movies of the opposite sex.As far as judging her,I will take no part in that.That is why THE LORD said,"If you look at a woman with lust in your heart,you have commited adultry."Some of my Brethren make me laugh when they say they are looking at a woman,to appreciate her beauty.Seldom is it when she is wearing modest apparel,usually a mini-skirt or bikini.


----------



## Banjo

redneckcamo said:


> I will assume you are living a sinless life and..''judge not'' doesnt apply too you !!
> 
> this is actually typical america ...because finger pointing is goin on left an right considering this young woman ....
> 
> I agree the topless photos (which I have not seen by the way ) an the dern near nude body at the pagent are not the image a christian should give the world ..... bigger mistakes have been made an all I know an the MAIN point that I like about all this is that she could have given the liberal gay agenda answer an maybe took the crown doing it .....but SOMETHING inside her say NO an she listened !!!
> I for one applaud the girl an hope she takes it as far as she can in our liberallly diseased country !!!!



Judge not...least ye be judged BY THE SAME STANDARD...  Of course I am not sinless.  

The only standard by which we are to "judge" others is God's Word.  I have used it.....Do you need the Bible verses that speak of modesty and avoiding the appearance of evil?  How about all the ones pertaining to sexual sins and remaining pure?

If someone is committing adultery....and I call it out as sin...is that judging?

If someone is guilty of murdering another...and I call it out as sin...is that judging?


----------



## redneckcamo

No... You should not kick them because you have the opportunity !!


----------



## WTM45

She is a beautiful woman, competing for a beauty title.
It's just that simple.


----------



## MustangMAtt30

Some of ya'll need to worry about the log in your own eye.

God has used folks with sordid and sinful pasts throughout history to do HIS work.  Plenty of examples throughout the Bible.  

Regardless of past photos, I am proud of her for taking a stand.


----------



## Huntinfool

> My understanding is that the pictures have been taken SINCE the breast augmentation....which the pageant people had paid for six weeks previously.  I could be wrong....



Well, you know I'm less conservative than you.  I don't really have much of an issue with that particular surgery.  But I can see why some might.



> If they were taken prior to that...then as a Christian, she should publicly apologize and explain that they were taken BEFORE her conversion.



I don't agree with that.  She doesn't owe ME anything.  



> Huntin....Don't be certain.  No way I would throw you under the bus.  In all honesty, I would have to throw myself as well as my husband under there too.  No need to get in a spitting contest over who was the biggest sinner....I bet my husband has you beat..... and I could probably run a close second. (Hope he doesn't see this...).




Not trying to get into a spitting contest.  But boy oh boy....you must have been REALLY bad if you think you've got ME beat! 




> Why do you think your daughter will be wearing bikinis?



Because I don't have an issue with women wearing bikinis I guess.  It's not that big of a deal to me.  



> However, the only thing that concerns me is what God thinks.



I agree.  I don't concern myself with what others think very often.  Prudish?  Nah, I wouldn't say that.  It's a decision you've made for your family.  Where we'd have an issue is if you tried to tell me that God says my kid shouldn't wear a bikini if she wants to.


----------



## Buzz

I've seen the photo, it's not a nude photo.   It's no worse than some of the pictures in the SI Swimsuit issue and is certainly no worse than "PG rated".   She's topless but covering herself with her arm which isn't any more revealing than some bikini tops at any beach in America.   IMO - It's much ado about nothing and just an excuse from the left to try to discredit her.    I don't see anything wrong with a woman wearing a bikini at the beach.  Maybe we should make them wear Burkas at the beach, oh wait...


----------



## Banjo

Buzz said:


> I've seen the photo, it's not a nude photo.   It's no worse than some of the pictures in the SI Swimsuit issue and is certainly no worse than "PG rated".   She's topless but covering herself with her arm which isn't any more revealing than some bikini tops at any beach in America.   IMO - It's much ado about nothing and just an excuse from the left to try to discredit her.    Maybe we should make them wear Burkas at the beach, oh wait...



Would you allow your wife or daughter to pose in the same manner?  

Again....if she hadn't said she was a Christian....I would have no problems with her posing like this....As a matter of fact, I would expect it.


----------



## Havana Dude

Banjo said:


> Judge not...least ye be judged BY THE SAME STANDARD...  Of course I am not sinless.
> 
> The only standard by which we are to "judge" others is God's Word.  I have used it.....Do you need the Bible verses that speak of modesty and avoiding the appearance of evil?  How about all the ones pertaining to sexual sins and remaining pure?
> 
> If someone is committing adultery....and I call it out as sin...is that judging?
> 
> If someone is guilty of murdering another...and I call it out as sin...is that judging?




Basically it is not your place to "call them out". Do you want evryone to call out your sins?


----------



## redneckcamo

*well honestly ....*



Banjo said:


> If they were taken prior to that...then as a Christian, she should publicly apologize and explain that they were taken BEFORE her conversion.
> 
> .



this puts me in mind of Al Sharpton telling Don Imus what he should do !!


----------



## Huntinfool

I guess, Banjo, my overall point is that you seem all too fond of pointing out the "bad" and very rarely seem to point out anything good about the Church or other Christians.

It would be a nice change.


----------



## Buzz

Not sure there is much I could do to stop a 21 year old daughter or a wife from doing a modeling shoot that they had their mind set on it.    Mine wouldn't want to do it because she's a shy person, but I have pictures of us from the beach (her in a bikini) on my facebook and photobucket pages and I don't see the problem with that.    

Of course , I've seen the picture and apparently many of you have not.   It really is much ado about nothing.   Apparently that picture was taken when she was 18, so it's not current.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

The woman taken in adultrey who was brought to the Lord Christ for judgement was guilty of alot more then a bikini contest. so, all y'all out there without sin cast your stones. the rest of just us need to pray for mercy for our own.


----------



## WTM45

Some who hold that same general judgemental and superior attitude want to be the leading influence in DC.

"Focus on the Family?"  Focus on your own family, I say.


----------



## Banjo

Havana Dude said:


> Basically it is not your place to "call them out". Do you want evryone to call out your sins?



She is in the PUBLIC eye....Her photos are PUBLIC....therefore it is a PUBLIC matter and a PUBLIC apology is needed.

Were you to know me....and I were in sin....Yes, I would want you to follow the Biblical mandates concerning such.

Public sins are dealt with publicly....Private sins should be dealt with first privately.  If the individual doesn't listen, you are to take it to the elders.  They go to the individual.  If that doesn't work....you are to "tell it to the church" and discipline may ensue.

Is it more loving to wink an eye at sin or to confront a brother or sister?


----------



## WTM45

Banjo said:


> She is in the PUBLIC eye....Her photos are PUBLIC....therefore it is a PUBLIC matter and a PUBLIC apology is needed.



Um, no they are not "public" at all.
They are accessible, but not posted on the courthouse square.  They are the property of an individual or an entity.  Even a media entity is not public.
Don't want to see them?  Don't look for them.
Destroy your TV.  Don't buy another.
Don't buy a newspaper.  Or a magazine.
Do not not pay for internet connection.

That will help prevent you from getting sidetracked in your walk.


----------



## Banjo

Huntinfool said:


> I guess, Banjo, my overall point is that you seem all too fond of pointing out the "bad" and very rarely seem to point out anything good about the Church or other Christians.
> 
> It would be a nice change.




I will be the first to admit that in our churches in America there is more bad than good....thus the state of our nation and culture.  We call evil "good" and good "evil."  

I wish this weren't the case; I pray that God will have mercy on us and clean house....Or should I say BOTH houses....Unfaithful pulpits and corrupt Civil Magistrates...

However, I am afraid that the two are tied inextricably together.  We have corrupt Civil Magistrates because we have unfaithful pulpits....We have Christians who think there is nothing wrong with a Christian girl posing topless because we have faithless men in the pulpits....

Oh well...perhaps I digress.


----------



## Huntinfool

That's a stretch WTM....

They're intended for public distribution.


----------



## GAGE

Good thing she is not a witch, or you would probably have her burned!

This came from the Huffington Post, mentioned on the Today show...what a joke and enough said!


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> I will be the first to admit that in our churches in America there is more bad than good....



I have never disagreed with something you've said more than this.




We do have some churches that have crossed lines that shouldn't be crossed.


----------



## ambush80

As a non-Christian, I can tell y'all that her hypocrisy is laughable,


----------



## fourwinds

Banjo, maybe you should email her and ask her to give back her Christian card... maybe go paint harlot on her house in big red letters so everyone will know shes been a bad girl. Or better yet, maybe you should just pray for her and stop telling others how she is commiting sins. You'd probably be more productive that way. Christians arguing with Christians about petty stuff is one of the reasons that people like me don't have much trust in the Church. You don't exactly practice what you preach. You should love her instead of bringing her down right? I mean your the more experienced Bible reader. So I guess you know the answer. And before you say the Bible say all that you just wrote... please save your time. The text in the Bible is subjective and can be bent and spun until it promotes/fits just about any situation.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> That's a stretch WTM....
> 
> They're intended for public distribution.



FOR PROFIT.

It is the viewer's/reader's/listener's choice completely.


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

Jesus also told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.


----------



## Banjo

ambush80 said:


> As a non-Christian, I can tell y'all that her hypocrisy is laughable,



And here I am agreeing with an atheist...

It is kind of like the preacher who preaches against homosexuality, yet has been in an adulterous affair with his secretary for years....

It is kind of like the choir members who are "shacked up" together and the preacher enjoys a weekly football game at the house....

It is kind of like the youth minister who looks the other way while fornication runs rampant amongst his youth group....

It is kind of like the Sunday school teacher who rants against pornography in his class, yet can't wait to get back to the internet trash he regularly views....


----------



## Huntinfool

> FOR PROFIT.
> 
> It is the viewer's/reader's/listener's choice completely.



It's still intended for public distribution.  She knew that when she took the pictures.

Banjo's point is that, if she thought those pictures might cause someone to stumble or sin, and she knew they would be publicly accessible, then she shouldn't have participated....assuming she was a Christian at the time (sorry if I'm not getting that quite right Banjo).

You trying to say they aren't public is a stretch.  It's got nothing to do with who the "end-user" is.  It has everything to do with who she was at the time and whether she thought they would be used for the purpose of causing a brother or sister to stumble.


----------



## Banjo

Huntinfool said:


> I have never disagreed with something you've said more than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do have some churches that have crossed lines that shouldn't be crossed.



Can you argue with the evidence?  How many churches do we have in America?  More than ever...yet the culture is progressively becoming more and more wicked.  How many Americans claim Christ?  The majority???  You sure couldn't tell it.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> It's still intended for public distribution.  She knew that when she took the pictures.
> 
> Banjo's point is that, if she thought those pictures might cause someone to stumble or sin, and she knew they would be publicly accessible, then she shouldn't have participated....assuming she was a Christian at the time (sorry if I'm not getting that quite right Banjo).
> 
> You trying to say they aren't public is a stretch.  It's got nothing to do with who the "end-user" is.  It has everything to do with who she was at the time and whether she thought they would be used for the purpose of causing a brother or sister to stumble.



I'll pull up the waders a little higher.  It's getting deep.

Money is the baseline factor.  Money paid for the shoot, money paid for the ownership of the result, money gathered from end users of the product.

Use those pictures without express authorization and see if the owner does not take you to court to prove ownership and if they are truly for "public distribution."

If a person does not like it, don't buy it.  
And, if you have seen those pictures, someone bought them making them available for you to see.
Someone paid the cable bill, the magazine subscription rate or the newspaper bill.


----------



## ambush80

Banjo said:


> And here I am agreeing with an atheist...
> 
> It is kind of like the preacher who preaches against homosexuality, yet has been in an adulterous affair with his secretary for years....
> 
> It is kind of like the choir members who are "shacked up" together and the preacher enjoys a weekly football game at the house....
> 
> It is kind of like the youth minister who looks the other way while fornication runs rampant amongst his youth group....
> 
> It is kind of like the Sunday school teacher who rants against pornography in his class, yet can't wait to get back to the internet trash he regularly views....



We might agree on more than you imagine.  I think the Amish are the best Christians.

(By the way, I think it's funny that being a non-Christian makes me an atheist.)


----------



## Huntinfool

You're not listening to what I'm saying my man.

It's got nothing to do with what the end-user does with those pictures.

If she was a Christian at the time and knew that those pictures would cause another to sin, then she shouldn't have participated.

Public or Private....it is not an issue of access.  It is an issue of where her heart was at the time.


----------



## Banjo

ambush80 said:


> We might agree on more than you imagine.  I think the Amish are the best Christians.



Perhaps that is because you have never met a truly Reformed Presbyterian....

We actually drink beer and like it.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> You're not listening to what I'm saying my man.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with what the end-user does with those pictures.
> 
> If she was a Christian at the time and knew that those pictures would cause another to sin, then she shouldn't have participated.
> 
> Public or Private....it is not an issue of access.  It is an issue of where her heart was at the time.



Well, no one should watch me actually bench over 400lbs at the gym either.  That might cause them to spend Wednesday nights, Sunday mornings and Sunday evenings in their own gym trying to match my ability.
Is that my "sin" for indirectly motivating them to work out harder?

Is it my "sin" for someone to envy or wish to own my Harley?  Oh, I should cut back on the chrome?

Come on.  When will folks take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming it on everything or everyone else?
The girl is not a porn actress, drug dealer or a prostitute.

But some here will group everyone (themselves excluded) in the same boat regardless.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> I will be the first to admit that in our churches in America there is more bad than good....thus the state of our nation and culture.  We call evil "good" and good "evil."
> 
> I wish this weren't the case; I pray that God will have mercy on us and clean house....Or should I say BOTH houses....Unfaithful pulpits and corrupt Civil Magistrates...
> 
> However, I am afraid that the two are tied inextricably together.  We have corrupt Civil Magistrates because we have unfaithful pulpits....We have Christians who think there is nothing wrong with a Christian girl posing topless because we have faithless men in the pulpits....
> 
> Oh well...perhaps I digress.



I guess you don't beleive in the separation of church and state,?? are you to be the judge of what I do or what I permit my wife to wear??


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> She is in the PUBLIC eye....Her photos are PUBLIC....therefore it is a PUBLIC matter and a PUBLIC apology is needed.
> 
> Were you to know me....and I were in sin....Yes, I would want you to follow the Biblical mandates concerning such.
> 
> Public sins are dealt with publicly....Private sins should be dealt with first privately.  If the individual doesn't listen, you are to take it to the elders.  They go to the individual.  If that doesn't work....you are to "tell it to the church" and discipline may ensue.
> 
> Is it more loving to wink an eye at sin or to confront a brother or sister?



Osama Bin Laden would agree with you


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I guess you don't beleive in the separation of church and state,?? are you to be the judge of what I do or what I permit my wife to wear??



As a matter of fact, I do believe in the separation of church and state.  Each of these entities have different functions.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM....you're being ridiculous.  You know you're stretching so I'll just let you have all the rope you want.

As a Christian, we are not to knowingly cause others to stumble.  Bottom line.  

If I stumble because of those pictures, it is MY sin to be responsible for.  But now we have two sins rather than one.  Now, she, as a Christian took the pics knowing that it might cause me to stumble and I actually allowed them to make me stumble.

Every person is responsible for their own actions.  DID YOU READ THAT? 

But, if I'm thinking about killing myself, you shoudn't hand me the gun....follow me?


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

Or kinda like pastor Ted Haggard who was the head of the largest pro-family, anti-homosexual group, yet he was paying to have sex with male prostitues. Although he has stepped down from the pulpit, he has a movie about him and is on a speaking tour. Was he sinning? Was that puplic? Can we trust him around our young sons?
Can we say that what he did was sinful? It's too confusing to know b/c the church doesn't really preach anything regarding sin.


----------



## Banjo

Where are the regulars now?????  I thought this would call them out.


----------



## WTM45

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Osama Bin Laden would agree with you






"Rocks, or an AK-47?  You have the choice!  Soccerfield at Noon!"


----------



## Huntinfool

Present!


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> WTM....you're being ridiculous.  You know you're stretching so I'll just let you have all the rope you want.
> 
> As a Christian, we are not to knowingly cause others to stumble.  Bottom line.
> 
> If I stumble because of those pictures, it is MY sin to be responsible for.  But now we have two sins rather than one.  Now, she, as a Christian took the pics knowing that it might cause me to stumble and I actually allowed them to make me stumble.
> 
> Every person is responsible for their own actions.  DID YOU READ THAT?
> 
> But, if I'm thinking about killing myself, you shoudn't hand me the gun....follow me?



.45ACP or 9MM?

I would not let you do that!

But tell me, who is stretching now?


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Osama Bin Laden would agree with you



Wow...now I am a terrorist?  Well...since I supported Ron Paul in the last election and believe in the sovereignty of the states....the government might agree with you....

Oh yeah....I also like the Constitution....and don't agree with an interventionist foreign policy....I also think the Federal Reserve should be audited and the IRS disbanded.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> Present!




So, you would like to witness such judgement and punishment metered out?


----------



## Banjo

WTM45 said:


> So, you would like to witness such judgement and punishment metered out?



I think he meant he was one of the regulars....


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> Is it my "sin" for someone to envy or wish to own my Harley?  Oh, I should cut back on the chrome?
> 
> Come on.  When will folks take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming it on everything or everyone else?
> The girl is not a porn actress, drug dealer or a prostitute.



If you "roll all blinged out"  it says as much about who you are as it does about those who envy you



JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I guess you don't beleive in the separation of church and state,?? are you to be the judge of what I do or what I permit my wife to wear??



I gotta tell ya, I'm with Banjo on this one.  There are modes of dress which are provocative and there are ones which are not.  When she comes of age, I'm not gonna stop my daughter from wearing a bikini either.  But I will make darned sure that she understands how it affects the men that might see her.  Moreover, I will try to help her understand why she feels motivated to look that way.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> .45ACP or 9MM?



I carry a 9mm everywhere I go....how did you know?  Great minds!


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> So, you would like to witness such judgement and punishment metered out?



You got in between me and Banjo.  I was saying present to "where's the regulars".


----------



## Double Barrel BB

banjo said:


> i will be the first to admit that in our churches in america there is more bad than good....thus the state of our nation and culture. We call evil "good" and good "evil."


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> If you "roll all blinged out"  it says as much about who you are as it does about those who envy you



There are those who would flip over a classic Ford Pinto just as fast as some do over certain Harley models.

It ain't the fault of the Pinto driver or the Harley rider.


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

I do find it amusing that an atheist has a better understanding of modesty than most christians. I think ambush has it right. What is the motivation behind flaunting your body?


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> I carry a 9mm everywhere I go....how did you know?  Great minds!



G19 for me.
Three of 'em!  Plus multiple others.
9 is fine.

They are my answer to the AK-47 wielder or the random stone thrower.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

ambush80 said:


> I gotta tell ya, I'm with Banjo on this one. There are modes of dress which are provocative and there are ones which are not. When she comes of age, I'm not gonna stop my daughter from wearing a bikini either. But I will make darned sure that she understands how it affects the men that might see her. Moreover, I will try to help her understand why she feels motivated to look that way.


 
I can't believe I am doing this.... But God can use them(athiest) too!

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Huntinfool

Sin pointed out in condemnation is just as sinful as the first.

Sin pointed out for the purpose of bringing a brother or sister in Christ back into the fold and with the SINGLE intent of that person's benefit is a glorious thing to behold.

I've been on the business end of both.  You'll know the difference....trust me.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> Would you allow your wife or daughter to pose in the same manner?
> 
> Again....if she hadn't said she was a Christian....I would have no problems with her posing like this....As a matter of fact, I would expect it.



So, I can do anything I want to as far as you're concerned as long as I don't Jesus is Lord, but if I do then I'm subject to you??. That logic is really torturted. I feel sorry for the girl, the gays are stoning her because she's straight, and the holy rollers are because...why. she would be better off to have supported the gays


----------



## WTM45

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I do find it amusing that an atheist has a better understanding of modesty than most christians. I think ambush has it right. What is the motivation behind flaunting your body?



Maybe a person has worked hard at looking their best, built up their strength and endurance, has pride in their self-worth and owns a positive self image.

Why do the very people who believe human life is a gift of the creator, wish to suppress those who want to make the very best of their gift?


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> .45ACP or 9MM?
> 
> I would not let you do that!
> 
> But tell me, who is stretching now?



I think he's got a point.  If you provide him with the gun, then you're enabling him to kill himself.  You should take responsibility for your part of his death just as much as Miss California should take responsibility for arousing people.  Neither case bothers me, but I don't claim to be following any moral code book.


----------



## Banjo

Double Barrel BB said:


> I can't believe I am doing this.... But God can use them(athiest) too!
> 
> *AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*




Now this made me chuckle.....

Hey DBBB!  I am glad to see you.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

*Being "Christian" in word is different from being a "Christian" in practice.*

*Anyone can call themselves a Christian, it is the Fruits that you show that define you as a Christian or not to everyone else...*

DB BB


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> Wow...now I am a terrorist?  Well...since I supported Ron Paul in the last election and believe in the sovereignty of the states....the government might agree with you....
> 
> Oh yeah....I also like the Constitution....and don't agree with an interventionist foreign policy....I also think the Federal Reserve should be audited and the IRS disbanded.



You miss my point, when you elect to deny someone else the right to express themselves based on you're interpertation you are on a slippery that ends at Bin laden and the salem witch trials


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Banjo said:


> Now this made me chuckle.....
> 
> Hey DBBB! I am glad to see you.


 

Feels good to be back!!!!


*PRAISE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> I think he's got a point.  If you provide him with the gun, then you're enabling him to kill himself.  You should take responsibility for your part of his death just as much as Miss California should take responsibility for arousing people.  Neither case bothers me, but I don't claim to be following any moral code book.



That's where I differ a little.  Most here will not like it.

I take no responsibility for other's actions or thoughts.  I wish no control over others.

I believe Dr. Kevorkian provides a good and honorable service to mankind.

What arouses me is purely individual and is MY responsibility.  I can, do, and must control that in my life.

It's not part of any moral code book for me either.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

WTM45 said:


> What arouses me is purely individual and is MY responsibility. I can, do, and must control that in my life.


 

Hint.... Control is an illusion...

DB BB


----------



## Banjo

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I do find it amusing that an atheist has a better understanding of modesty than most christians. I think ambush has it right. What is the motivation behind flaunting your body?



Great point....I am a bit amused myself.

What motivates one to wear a bikini?


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> There are those who would flip over a classic Ford Pinto just as fast as some do over certain Harley models.
> 
> It ain't the fault of the Pinto driver or the Harley rider.



The bigger issue for me here is being covetous.



Gold Dust Woman said:


> I do find it amusing that an atheist has a better understanding of modesty than most christians. I think ambush has it right. What is the motivation behind flaunting your body?



Wanting to feel desired or superior or coveted.  Trying to lure a mate. General lack of self actualization.



Double Barrel BB said:


> I can't believe I am doing this.... But God can use them(athiest) too!
> 
> *AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



I told you that you don't need to be a Christian to have morals.


JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> So, I can do anything I want to as far as you're concerned as long as I don't Jesus is Lord, but if I do then I'm subject to you??. That logic is really torturted. I feel sorry for the girl, the gays are stoning her because she's straight, and the holy rollers are because...why. she would be better off to have supported the gays



You can do anything you want if you join the "A" team (as long as the man doesn't catch you).  If you go around calling yourself a Christian then you are subject to scrutiny against the bylaws of your club.



WTM45 said:


> Maybe a person has worked hard at looking their best, built up their strength and endurance, has pride in their self-worth and owns a positive self image.
> 
> Why do the very people who believe human life is a gift of the creator, wish to suppress those who want to make the very best of their gift?



If that's her best gift than I feel sorry for her.  I would venture to guess that she doesn't have a very high self image.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I do find it amusing that an atheist has a better understanding of modesty than most christians. I think ambush has it right. What is the motivation behind flaunting your body?



What does it matter??


----------



## WTM45

Double Barrel BB said:


> Hint.... Control is an illusion...
> 
> DB BB



So is the idea a human can be God-like and determine the spiritual status of another human based on their "fruits," "works" or any other subjective interpretation.


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> You miss my point, when you elect to deny someone else the right to express themselves based on you're interpertation you are on a slippery that ends at Bin laden and the salem witch trials



C'mon. There's a big difference between a burka a one piece and a mesh thong bikini.  Don't get all black and white on the issue.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush.....Banjo...


Isn't there something in Revalation about dogs and cats being friends or lions and lambs....or something like that?

Y'all hang on.  He's comin'!


----------



## Double Barrel BB

ambush80 said:


> I told you that you don't need to be a Christian to have morals.


 

I call it God using you... and you not even knowing it... 

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB

WTM45 said:


> So is the idea a human can be God-like and determine the spiritual status of another human based on their "fruits," "works" or any other subjective interpretation.


 
God tells us to look at the fruits...

Not being God-like.. just pointing out the obvious...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Huntinfool said:


> ambush.....Banjo...
> 
> 
> Isn't there something in Revalation about dogs and cats being friends or lions and lambs....or something like that?
> 
> Y'all hang on. He's comin'!


 

Can't be soon enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DB BB


----------



## WTM45

Isn't the bigger issue not what she is wearing, but what she has said?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> C'mon. There's a big difference between a burka a one piece and a mesh thong bikini.  Don't get all black and white on the issue.



Sure, there is a diff. My point is, when you use religion to restrict someone else's rights you're on that same slippery slope. Remember, the men who crucified Christ considered themselves rightious and Jesus a heretic


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> That's where I differ a little.  Most here will not like it.
> 
> I take no responsibility for other's actions or thoughts.  I wish no control over others.
> 
> I believe Dr. Kevorkian provides a good and honorable service to mankind.
> 
> What arouses me is purely individual and is MY responsibility.  I can, do, and must control that in my life.
> 
> It's not part of any moral code book for me either.



There are things that will arouse most "normal" people.   That's why they use them in commercials.  Good and honorable service? Kevorkian, OK, Miss California, not so much.  Don't get me wrong, I like the service she provides , it's her noggin that's broken.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

WTM45 said:


> Isn't the bigger issue not what she is wearing, but what she has said?


 

hmmm.... People say a lot of things... but unless you live by them... they are meaningless....

DB BB


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like the service she provides , it's her noggin that's broken.




Ergo my question, in post #91.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Sure, there is a diff. My point is, when you use religion to restrict someone else's rights you're on that same slippery slope. Remember, the men who crucified Christ considered themselves rightious and Jesus a heretic


 

I think the problem is that most people can't distinguish Religion from TRUTH...

DB BB


----------



## Banjo

Well....I have done enough  for now...

I am off to prior commitments!  I will check back in later.

Hold down the fort DBBB, gold dust woman.....and ambush (I think???)


----------



## Double Barrel BB

WTM45 said:


> There is not much truth found in religion.


 

There is more than enough found in The Bible! The Word of God! Can't get any more Truthful than that...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Banjo said:


> Well....I have done enough  for now...
> 
> I am off to prior commitments! I will check back in later.
> 
> Hold down the fort DBBB, gold dust woman.....and ambush (I think???)


 

fixing to have to go myself... got a kid that needs a checkup at the doc's....

C ya,
DB BB


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> ambush.....Banjo...
> 
> 
> Isn't there something in Revalation about dogs and cats being friends or lions and lambs....or something like that?
> 
> Y'all hang on.  He's comin'!



Now, now.  Don't get me all lumped in with the crazies .  The only thing that I think she is doing that's wrong is being a hypocrite;  waving her finger at the gays then lettin her cat out da bag all over the world.



WTM45 said:


> Isn't the bigger issue not what she is wearing, but what she has said?



What shes wearing and who she claims to be.



JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Sure, there is a diff. My point is, when you use religion to restrict someone else's rights you're on that same slippery slope. Remember, the men who crucified Christ considered themselves rightious and Jesus a heretic



I agree that religion shouldn't be used as a reason to restrict peoples rights. Don't get caught up in this slippery slope business. It's a donkey.


----------



## Huntinfool

I'm just kiddin' with ya bud.

You think we're ALL wacko!~


----------



## ambush80

Banjo said:


> Well....I have done enough  for now...
> 
> I am off to prior commitments!  I will check back in later.
> 
> Hold down the fort DBBB, gold dust woman.....and ambush (I think???)



I will testify until I make believers of all nations sistah!!

Deacon! Lock the door!! I'm fixin ta get Right-ah!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB

ambush80 said:


> I will testify until I make believers of all nations sistah!!
> 
> Deacon! Lock the door!! I'm fixin ta get Right-ah!!


 



that made me laugh....

DB BB


----------



## reformedpastor

Here and accounted for................isn't it funny how folks will fight for what they really like even if they don't have the guts to express it in a particular way they will do everything to make sure others can???????????

" I would never pose half nude BUT I don't mind looking at others who do"


----------



## Free Willie

I like naked girls. So long as they are my wife and toddler daughter.

I haven't seen the pictures nor will I search them out, but I am with huntinfool on this one. I am NOT about to cast stones knowing the things I have done. And I am personally ashamed of some of the responses here on this forum.


----------



## christianhunter

Banjo said:


> Great point....I am a bit amused myself.
> 
> What motivates one to wear a bikini?



They wear them so that men will look.Some men are righteous enough to look then turn away.Sometimes that is not alway's the case.If a woman is in her own back yard,surrounded by a privacy fence.Then a peeping tom comes along,looking through a knot hole,did the woman make the man sin then?
No.
Had David noticed Bathsheba bathing,and looked briefly and walked along his way.His sins would not have been recorded in the Bible.He continued to look until he was burning with desire.We all have a neck,and eye lids.To look and not lust,is not sin.If you look too long,your mind starts working overtime,then it's the spirit man vs the flesh.I didn't look at the site,because I wasn't compelled to.Let's suppose we have a fellow Brother on here who once was addicted to porn,and he looked and then he looked some more.Did you cause him to stumble by posting that site?As I said I did not feel compelled to look,but by description from others it must be provocative.There is not a man nor woman on here,who can boast of not falling at one point or another.The descriptions of the girl implies she is very young,GOD forbid we post what a lot of us did at a younger age.She's already doing better than me,I didn't get saved until I was 30.


----------



## Huntinfool

or maybe they want a tan?



Look....here's where I stand.  Naked pics?  NO NO.

Beauty pagent?  Go right ahead sista...and BTW thanks for standing up for your values even though you knew it was gonna cost you.  It's rare these days.

In either case, I don't know where her heart was as time.  I'd expect a non-believer to be cool with posing nude...or half nude.  I'd also expect a Christian to stand up for marriage in that situation.


----------



## reformedpastor

Much of whats been called "your interpretation" is simply the plain words (reading) of scripture which doesn't need interpreting. 

What part of "DON'T" do you not understand? Sounds like my children.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

christianhunter said:


> They wear them so that men will look.Some men are righteous enough to look then turn away.Sometimes that is not alway's the case.If a woman is in her own back yard,surrounded by a privacy fence.Then a peeping tom comes along,looking through a knot hole,did the woman make the man sin then?
> No.
> Had David noticed Bathsheba bathing,and looked briefly and walked along his way.His sins would not have been recorded in the Bible.He continued to look until he was burning with desire.We all have a neck,and eye lids.To look and not lust,is not sin.If you look too long,your mind starts working overtime,then it's the spirit man vs the flesh.I didn't look at the site,because I wasn't compelled to.Let's suppose we have a fellow Brother on here who once was addicted to porn,and he looked and then he looked some more.Did you cause him to stumble by posting that site?As I said I did not feel compelled to look,but by description from others it must be provocative.There is not a man nor woman on here,who can boast of not falling at one point or another.The descriptions of the girl implies she is very young,GOD forbid we post what a lot of us did at a younger age.She's already doing better than me,I didn't get saved until I was 30.



I looked for ya, she is pretty but I think she looked better as a brunette. I don't care for bottle blondes


----------



## Double Barrel BB

reformedpastor said:


> much of whats been called "your interpretation" is simply the plain words (reading) of scripture which doesn't need interpreting.
> 
> What part of "don't" do you not understand? Sounds like my children.


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## reformedpastor

> AMBUSH- I told you that you don't need to be a Christian to have morals.



Ok-I'm not going there, glad to be shoulder to shoulder here.


----------



## rjcruiser

Banjo said:


> Where are the regulars now?????  I thought this would call them out.



Working like a busy man....it has definitely cut down on my woody's time.



Huntinfool said:


> Sin pointed out in condemnation is just as sinful as the first.
> 
> Sin pointed out for the purpose of bringing a brother or sister in Christ back into the fold and with the SINGLE intent of that person's benefit is a glorious thing to behold.
> 
> I've been on the business end of both.  You'll know the difference....trust me.



I agree with the above.  The problem is that the Church today has often failed to confront and we have everybody quoting "Judge not lest you be judged" rather than "judge with righteous judgement."



Banjo said:


> Great point....I am a bit amused myself.
> 
> What motivates one to wear a bikini?



Hmmm...well, I personally like the way it shows off my assets



Huntinfool said:


> Look....here's where I stand.  Naked pics?  NO NO.
> 
> Beauty pagent?  Go right ahead sista...and BTW thanks for standing up for your values even though you knew it was gonna cost you.  It's rare these days.
> 
> In either case, I don't know where her heart was as time.  I'd expect a non-believer to be cool with posing nude...or half nude.  I'd also expect a Christian to stand up for marriage in that situation.



Huntin...I'm kinda with you on this whole issue...but Banjo, I see your point too.  I don't have any problem with Bikinis.  There are modest two pieces.  There are one-pieces that aren't.  The Bible says to be modest....not to only wear a one-piece.  If you say that, your being legalistic.

I think it would be hard to be in the pageant business and not bend on some of your Christian morals.  But I think it was awesome that this girl stood for what was right in the eyes of marriage being between a man and a woman.  For that, I give her kudos.


----------



## Huntinfool

Good post bud.


----------



## mtnwoman

OMGosh I'm glad some of you haven't seen some of my past actions, yesterday, last week, last year, 10 years ago, and base what I proclaim today based on my mistakes from the past.
None of us are sinless nor are we perfect, we are forgiven that's what seperates us from the unforgiven, and the only thing that seperates us.

My granddaughter who is 19, smokes, she was booted from keeping the nursery, now she doesn't even attend church...nice move Christian overseers.

God takes what the devil means for bad and turns it into good.
I guess some of you don't get the 'learn from my mistakes'  teachings, some of us teach our children.
Like Sarah Palin's daughter trying to tell other teens of how hard it is and what she now believes is the right thing to do....she learned the hard way....God forbid she made a mistake and is trying to help others using that.

Get out the tar and feathers or a noose, I'll stick with leaving judgement up to God, and forgiving others as I have been forgiven.
I'm not prideful enough to care what nonChristians think about other Christians....obviously their judgement may be impaired, too.


----------



## earl

*Some times things just fall into place.*

7:1 How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the
joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a
cunning workman.

7:2 Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy
belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.

7:3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.

7:4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in
Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of
Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.

7:5 Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head
like purple; the king is held in the galleries.

7:6 How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!  7:7
This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters
of grapes.

7:8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the
boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine,
and the smell of thy nose like apples; 7:9 And the roof of thy mouth
like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing
the lips of those that are asleep to speak.

7:10 I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me.

7:11 Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in
the villages.

7:12 Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine
flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud
forth: there will I give thee my loves.

7:13 The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of
pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my
beloved.

Now tell me women aren't to be appreciated !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## reformedpastor

RJ- Good comments. 

If we derive at a standard that isn't justifiable, implied, explained or set forth directly in scripture then it is a "self righteous" standard and not the righteousness we should be doing.

1Jn 3:7  Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 

Your comment is true about one or two piece swim suits. Yet even this shouldn't be taken as license to wear either. (I am not saying you think that) So does the bible say wear a one piece or two? No. But There are more than enough scripture, examples and implications that do answer the question. Scripture does governs what what wear! 

Folks have talked about past actions as being embarrassing, I think we all have some or in my case many, and, if this young woman is a christian God will see to it that she will grow in grace. In that time she may very well come to to be ashamed of her actions and vanity and repent of them and move on like many of us have testified to on here. 

But to say or imply that obeying scripture is not freedom or is some how legalistic is to make the very premise of christianity legalistic. God does require obedience to His revealed will which is His word. And it is wrong to use the "legalistic" trump card every time someone points out something another disagrees with.

Christian ethics are important and even the non-christians can see how the same bible quoted by us to condemn the action of another may very well condemn us on another level. What I find interesting and wonder if she's thought about, is, while being for a biblical marriage, she at the same time poses seductively which has the reality of luring and enticing men to "think" about her rather then their own wives! Is she really for biblical marriage?


----------



## ambush80

earl said:


> 7:1 How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the
> joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a
> cunning workman.
> 
> 7:2 Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy
> belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
> 
> 7:3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.
> 
> 7:4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in
> Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of
> Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.
> 
> 7:5 Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head
> like purple; the king is held in the galleries.
> 
> 7:6 How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!  7:7
> This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters
> of grapes.
> 
> 7:8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the
> boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine,
> and the smell of thy nose like apples; 7:9 And the roof of thy mouth
> like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing
> the lips of those that are asleep to speak.
> 
> 7:10 I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me.
> 
> 7:11 Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in
> the villages.
> 
> 7:12 Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine
> flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud
> forth: there will I give thee my loves.
> 
> 7:13 The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of
> pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my
> beloved.
> 
> Now tell me women aren't to be appreciated !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



That's hot.  What book is that from?  Maybe I should give this Christianity thing another chance.


----------



## ambush80

rjcruiser said:


> I think it would be hard to be in the pageant business and not bend on some of your Christian morals.



Then why be in it?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> What I find interesting and wonder if she's thought about that, is, while being for a biblical marriage, she at the same time poses seductively which has the reality of luring and enticing men to "think" about her rather then their own wives! Is she really for biblical marriage?



That's the problem of the men who have the problem controlling themselves.  Not her problem.
Does not matter if she is in a business suit, a bathing suit or her birthday suit.  

She just wants to win a beauty contest.  Many before her have attempted, few have won.  
She was just another contestant, until she opened her mouth.  What she said makes the issue here, not her attire.


----------



## Buckmoses

Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin no more.  Maybe this one should do the same.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> That's the problem of the men who have the problem controlling themselves.  Not her problem.
> Does not matter if she is in a business suit, a bathing suit or her birthday suit.
> 
> She just wants to win a beauty contest.  Many before her have attempted, few have won.
> She was just another contestant, until she opened her mouth.  What she said makes the issue here, not her attire.



See, this is where we differ! The bible holds me to a higher standard than "to each his own." It is every man's responsibility to control their own desires but it is also's hers to cover up and not be a cause for someone to stumble. If a man lusts for a women who is covered up then it certainly not her fault, but all his and God will address in His time.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> See, this is where we differ! The bible holds me to a higher standard than "to each his own." It is every man's responsibility to control their own desires but it is also's hers to cover up and not be a cause for someone to stumble. If a man lusts for a women who is covered up then it certainly not her fault, but all his and God will address in His time.




A bathing suit.
It's that simple.
I worry more about the rhetoric she voiced than the outfit she wears.  It is much more damaging.

Too many people are hung up on a phobia regarding the human body.  It is what it is.  Those who can not control their primal urges, and those who are bent to act out their desires are the ones with the issue.


----------



## earl

Song of Solomon ,my new favorite.


----------



## ambush80

earl said:


> Song of Solomon ,my new favorite.




I think some in depth and repeated discernment is in order.


----------



## rjcruiser

reformedpastor said:


> But to say or imply that obeying scripture is not freedom or is some how legalistic is to make the very premise of christianity legalistic. God does require obedience to His revealed will which is His word. And it is wrong to use the "legalistic" trump card every time someone points out something another disagrees with.



Agreed...but your interpretation might be different than anothers.  So...gray issues.  I'm not saying what this woman was wearing was modest either.  Just pointing out the fact that what you might find as immodest, others might not view that way.  Just like what is crude language?  Society determines that, right? And clothing? Society right?  I mean, we've all seen programs on discovery where the natives are naked.  Are they in sin?



ambush80 said:


> Then why be in it?



Good question.  Personally, I'd have a hard time justifying it.  That is why I don't do a lot of things that probably could be reasoned away as okay.  Is it against what the Bible says?  Maybe not.  Does it help me or help others grow in their spiritual walk?  That I think is the better question.



WTM45 said:


> That's the problem of the men who have the problem controlling themselves.  Not her problem.
> Does not matter if she is in a business suit, a bathing suit or her birthday suit.
> 
> She just wants to win a beauty contest.  Many before her have attempted, few have won.
> She was just another contestant, until she opened her mouth.  What she said makes the issue here, not her attire.



WTM, I think I probably have to agree with you on part.  Usually we see polar opposite on things, but on this, I somewhat agree.  Often times, the man wants to blame the woman for his own sin.  Should she tempt?  No.  But the man is the one sinning. Just like in the Garden of Eden.  Eve took the apple, but Adam followed her in sin and he was held accountable for not protecting her. 

RP/Banjo, quit preaching to the girls...start preaching to the men/boys.  They need to be careful what they watch and what they allow their minds to think.


----------



## rjcruiser

ambush80 said:


> I think some in depth and repeated discernment is in order.



Ambush, take your Bible....open it to the middle.  You'll see the book of Psalms.  Go a book over, you'll find Proverbs.  Read it.  It is only 31 chapters long.  Should take about 2 hours and you'll learn a lot of good life lessons.  Then, you'll hit ecclesiastes. 12 chapters...read it and you'll learn how if you desire everything, when you get it all, you'll still be empty inside.

Then, you'll get to Song of Solomon.  Start reading and you'll get to the chapter above several chapters in.


----------



## Lead Poison

Huntinfool said:


> That's your sister in Christ y'all are posting about....just wanted to point that out.
> 
> I'd hate for the Christian community to rally behind one of their own and support that one.  It's probably just better to pile on and attack so that we don't damage our already stellar reputation for consistency.
> 
> She stood up for marriage.  She stood up for the belief system that her Christian values established in her during the biggest moment of her life knowing that the answer she was about to give would likely cost her...
> 
> Bikinis are one portion of the contest.  But I'm sure it's "un-christian" to wear a bikini or even participate in a beauty contest.
> 
> Sometimes you guys just make me laugh.  I love ya.  But sometimes you're just looking for the next thing to be outraged about.



I have to agree with you. She's not perfect, but I'm glad she at least stood up for God. Let's not bash her.


----------



## ambush80

Lead Poison said:


> .... but I'm glad she at least stood up for God.



Right after showing me her blessings in a swimsuit.


----------



## PWalls

I think it was an error on her part to be in that competition and to have done the things she has done there.

However, her answer to that loaded question and her attitude about that since seems to be good.

Regardless, I am not going to discount that God used her competition appearance to make a point.


----------



## Havana Dude

By the very fact that everyone on here has mentioned something regarding her appearance(including me now), we have all sinned. It's a fact, and I'll admit it. She's a beautiful girl. We are all sinners, saved by grace(those of us who believe). Why are we arguing about this? I can promise you, I don't want my dirty laundry aired for all to see. It would not be allowed on this forum. Why do we feel the need to judge her? I mean really. To my knowledge, no one on here has gone before the public, in such a way as she, and declare their belief in Christ, and their convictions about SS marriage. Who here has personal knowledge that she has not asked for forgiveness for any of her transgressions, just like we do. I just cannot believe that people who claim to be christian, would dump on her as much as she has been dumped on here. You let the mainstream, liberal biased media get a hold of what has been posted on here, and they would tear her to shreds, right along with christianity. C'mon people, is this really necessary, for fellow christians to tear her apart?


----------



## pigpen1

Sin is Judged by The Word of God. If the Bible calls it sin and we repeat what the Word says, we are not Judging, the Word is.  By what most of you have posted on this thread, you are so politically correct you can not see the truth. Read the 5th chapter of 1st Corinthians...

 We are not to judge, but we can be fruit inspectors and you can tell the tree by the fruit it bares, and in her case there is to much fruit hanging out of the loom.


----------



## WTM45

Havana Dude said:


> By the very fact that everyone on here has mentioned something regarding her appearance(including me now), we have all sinned. It's a fact, and I'll admit it. She's a beautiful girl.



Just seeing a woman in a bikini is a "sin?"
I'll have to disagree fully with your presumption.


----------



## gtparts

gtparts said:


> Have not seen a more complete response to her pageant participation or the semi-nude photo than the one in the www.huffingtonpost.com page you included, Banjo.
> 
> For my part, I can only conclude she is or was ill-advised and most probably deceived concerning what scripture holds up as hallmarks of a woman of virtue.  Or perhaps she has deceived herself by rationalizing her behavior. Either way, it is a sad commentary on the lack of biblical standards being applied to their lives by some who openly claim Christ as savior.



Thought it appropriate to add further comment:

I do not judge her. I have not been given the authority to do so. While not in possession of all the facts, including a time-line for the pics, conversion, and pageant, her picture (yes, the semi-nude one) is a matter of record. Her response to the pageant question is a matter of record. Her profession to being a Christian is a matter of record.

I find her past willingness to pose semi-nude regrettable. Whether one likes it or not, many will find her Christian credibility to be compromised by the photos. It is nearly impossible to reclaim the moral high ground once one has so easily relinquished it in the past. At least from that standpoint, the testimonies of all Christians could be better (that is, more credible) than they are, had we been more careful to avoid our own moral failures. 

I am sorry that, at least in some cases, her words, voiced as a Christian, may be heavily discounted due to her youthful decision to pose for the previously mentioned pic(s).


----------



## Big7

Banjo said:


> Even the secularists get it....Why can't the Church?
> 
> “Only in America would the notion of a nearly-naked fundamentalist Christian beauty queen tossing her processed hair as she parades brand new, pageant-bought plastic breasts across a Las Vegas stage in front of millions of television viewers with all the modesty of a blue ribbon heifer at a county livestock fair (the same fundamentalist Christian beauty queen who would later tell a television reporter that she heard God whispering in her ear as she answered a celebrity-worshipping Internet gossip columnist’s question about gay marriage) be treated as anything other than an occasion for high comedy and mirth.”
> 
> –Huffington Post
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/at-least-anita-bryant-cou_b_195386.html



I love it when the notion of a nearly-naked fundamentalist Christian beauty queen tossing her processed hair as she parades brand new, pageant-bought plastic breasts across a Las Vegas stage.... 

That takes a little heat off of the Catholic Girl's 
School uniforms.
BTW - That is the ONLY reason I made it through school.

Banjo... Huffington Post?? That is the most liberal, left-wing rag on the net. Now I know what is wrong with you.



Banjo said:


> Where are the regulars now?????  I thought this would call them out.



OK - I'm here. Now what?



ambush80 said:


> Right after showing me her blessings in a swimsuit.



You got that right.
If she told me "come on, boy" and something got
between me and her... I would kill it!

Ahhh... Yes..  "The blessings" and plenty of them
not just the fake stuff.

As a single guy...
I kinda' like beautiful women, fully clothed, bikini
AND nekked. 

News flash for the ladies:
If your feller' is telling you he ain't lookin'
he is a liar... 

Don't believe me? Follow him around the mall or 
the beach when he thinks you are not watching. 

Yall need to lighten up about 10 notches.


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo said:


> Perhaps that is because you have never met a truly Reformed Presbyterian....
> 
> We actually drink beer and like it.




I think that you posting this article and making the comments you've made is just as bad and the liberal anti's of this country.
YOU don't know the whole story.
I don't know the whole story.

I contend that a boob job and nudies don't disqualify her from being considered a Christian today.  At least, not by Jesus Christ.

James 4: 11 "Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?"

Stick with God's work, not Satan's.


----------



## Banjo

Ronnie T said:


> I think that you posting this article and making the comments you've made is just as bad and the liberal anti's of this country.
> YOU don't know the whole story.
> I don't know the whole story.
> 
> I contend that a boob job and nudies don't disqualify her from being considered a Christian today.  At least, not by Jesus Christ.
> 
> James 4: 11 "Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?"
> 
> Stick with God's work, not Satan's.



Wow....now I am about Satan's work.  You guys kill me.  Some girl poses topless, says she is against gay marriage, and you all laud her as a hero.  I disagree with what she has done....I disagree with her parading herself around on a stage with (to borrow the phrase from ambush) her store-bought "blessings" hanging out, and now I am akin to Satan.  

By the way....the Bible is pretty clear on women being modest.  I have a strong suspicion that topless photos and string bikinis don't "fit the bill" of what constitutes modesty.


----------



## Banjo

> Banjo... Huffington Post?? That is the most liberal, left-wing rag on the net. Now I know what is wrong with you.



That is my point.....a liberal newspaper sees the hypocrisy...even an atheist on here (Ambush) sees it....but the majority of evangelicals present here don't get it.  

I am shocked.


----------



## pigpen1

Banjo said:


> By the way....the Bible is pretty clear on women being modest.  I have a strong suspicion that topless photos and string bikinis don't "fit the bill" of what constitutes modesty.



AMEN!!!!!



Banjo said:


> Wow....now I am about Satan's work.  You guys kill me.  Some girl poses topless, says she is against gay marriage, and you all laud her as a hero.  I disagree with what she has done....I disagree with her parading herself around on a stage with (to borrow the phrase from ambush) her store-bought "blessings" hanging out, and now I am akin to Satan.



I don't think you are doing Satan's work, when I read what has been commented against you I think of those that told Jesus that he was casting out devils by the power of Belzebulb. 

  Its good that there is still some true "Ladies" left that believe in being modest and raising their children that way.


----------



## Banjo

pigpen1 said:


> AMEN!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you are doing Satan's work, when I read what has been commented against you I think of those that told Jesus that he was casting out devils by the power of Belzebulb.
> 
> Its good that there is still some true "Ladies" left that believe in being modest and raising their children that way.



I knew that I liked you.   Tell Peach to get on here and help a gal out.


----------



## pigpen1

Banjo said:


> I knew that I liked you.   Tell Peach to get on here and help a gal out.



 I will tell her, but she might get fired up and her post's turn into novel's.


----------



## Madman

> As a matter of fact, I do believe in the separation of church and state. Each of these entities have different functions.
> ...Banjo



I don't. Where in the constitution does it use the phrase "There shall be a separation of church and state?"


----------



## Banjo

Madman said:


> I don't. Where in the constitution does it use the phrase "There shall be a separation of church and state?"




Out of this whole entire thread on the beauty queen....this is the question you ask???

I am out the door...but maybe we could start a new thread on the separation of church and state....

Oh why not...I will start it quickly....


----------



## dawg2

V
e
r
y

I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Madman

> If she told me "come on, boy" and something got
> between me and her... I would kill it!...Big7



I hope her father would get between you and her.  At least long enough for you earn her respect and get married.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> That is my point.....a liberal newspaper sees the hypocrisy...even an atheist on here (Ambush) sees it....but the majority of evangelicals present here don't get it.
> 
> I am shocked.



You running out of stones yet?? since you seem to be without sin.


----------



## Madman

QUOTE]Out of this whole entire thread on the beauty queen....this is the question you ask???[/QUOTE]

Out of this whole entire thread on the beauty queen....this is the remark you choose to respond to???

I enjoy sitting back  and watching you protest-ants  each other.


----------



## reformedpastor

> RP/Banjo, quit preaching to the girls...start preaching to the men/boys. They need to be careful what they watch and what they allow their minds to think.



Its obvious you didn't read my post all the through if this is your response. I never excused the men! They are responsible for their own lusts but not alone in it; who is more responsible, the one who is willing to look or the look making the opportunity? 

What I have read on here is ridiculous!


----------



## Dixie Dawg

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I guess you don't beleive in the separation of church and state,?? are you to be the judge of what I do or what I permit my wife to wear??




What YOU permit your wife to wear?!??!  Wow.... just...  wow......



pigpen1 said:


> We are not to judge, but we can be fruit inspectors and you can tell the tree by the fruit it bares, and in her case there is to much fruit hanging out of the loom.



   Now that right there was hilariously clever  



pigpen1 said:


> Its good that there is still some true "Ladies" left that believe in being modest and raising their children that way.




As a mother of a teenage daughter myself, I can say that much of it has to do with raising your daughters with self confidence and self esteem.  It's the smart woman that realizes that confidence is often times more sexy than the skimpiest of bikinis...


----------



## Havana Dude

I would just like to add here that I am not in any way criticizing Banjo, or anyone else here who speaks their mind and beliefs. That is fine. What does seem to puzzle me though, is ANYBODY wanting to knock this girl down for things she has done in the past. I don't think anyone on here WANTS to see their daughter pose for pics like what is on the link posted. But if she did, would you cast her aside, and say anything she did from that point forward was all for nothing. I don't think so. 
Banjo, you come across as a very strong lady, grounded in her convictions, and I applaud you for standing on your beliefs. I do hope you take nothing I have said personally. It is obvious that this is a very touchy subject to many, and opinions are broad. As I stated earlier, it would break my heart if my daughter posed like that. It would break my heart if my 16 y.o. son came home drunk, or if my wife were to cheat on me. These are all sins, which are forgivable in the eyes of God, cast away. My only question is, why do other human beings feel the need to put her down for what she did? Most likely, no one on here will have the opportunity, to talk with her, and try and "make" her see the error of her ways. If this was a discussion about your daughter, or a niece, or the daughter of a close friend, then I say yea, you may have a chance to help the young lady, and set an example for her. As far as Ms. California goes, why don't we all just agree to pray for her. My God is a forgiving God. If not I would be in a heap of trouble. We are predestined to sin. There is not a thing we can do about it. I'm sorry , but this thread bothers me to a degree. We should attempt to be Christ like in welcoming her into the fold, loving her, praying for her, and supporting her in what she stood up for. She is not perfect, nor am I. The Bible says for us to have child like faith. I do not pretend to know everything there is to know about the Bible. But my faith is chidlike. I am a simple man. God said if we seek him we shall find him. I am starting to ramble here, sorry. I just can't leave this alone. I see ya'lls point, I get it, and I agree to a point. I just can't agree on casting her out, because of something she did in the past, I'm sorry.


----------



## Madman

> What I have read on here is ridiculous! ... RP




X2 


 “Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality. They will not have you condemning what they have done as being wrong, and they have created a belief system in which it is not, and in which they are no longer the criminal or the villain or the evil person, but you are!”
			D. James Kennedy


----------



## reformedpastor

> Ronnie T;]I think that you posting this article and making the comments you've made is just as bad and the liberal anti's of this country.
> YOU don't know the whole story.
> I don't know the whole story.
> 
> I contend that a boob job and nudies don't disqualify her from being considered a Christian today.  At least, not by Jesus Christ.
> 
> James 4: 11 "Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?"
> 
> Stick with God's work, not Satan's.





??????????????? Are you serious???????????????

What I find interesting is its only men defending her!!!!!!!!!!

Has her motives been JUDGED or called into question? It not hard or a stretch to think she loves showing off? Who said she wasn't a christian? Who said a boob job sends you to he-l-l? 

One of the 5 membership vows to join most reformed churches is, "Do you promise to live as becomes a Christian?" 

Lets make this more interesting, Pastor. You go to her and tell her what she has done is not becoming of Christ, His word or His church, and yet, she still doesn't see it that way. So after many attempts and months of trying to teach and instruct her in Christian modesty she continues to take the same kind of photos.....................etc. What will you do? Should she be disciplined? Maybe kepted from taking the Lord's Supper until she demonstrates an ability to examine herself? Or maybe full excommunication until she repents? I have no doubt that this will get a ton of misinformed attention but I would like to know what the action or actions the church should have in her public nudity. 

RJ, has pointed out that my interpretation may be different from others, which, is true if we are dealing with something that is implied in scripture not something that is clear, which this is.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Hey, Dixie, do you find that objectionable??


----------



## Dixie Dawg

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Hey, Dixie, do you find that objectionable??



For me, absolutely.  I'm a grown woman.  I'm more than capable of choosing my own wardrobe.

Apparently, for your wife, it isn't objectionable.  To each their own.  I think I just relate that to the practices of some other countries who totally control their women (as some have mentioned on here) and it definitely makes the hair on my neck stand up.  TO ME, a woman who has to get permission from her husband on what she can wear is humiliating.  But that's just my opinion.  If your wife ain't got a problem with it, who am I to judge....


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> X2
> 
> 
> “Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality. They will not have you condemning what they have done as being wrong, and they have created a belief system in which it is not, and in which they are no longer the criminal or the villain or the evil person, but you are!”
> D. James Kennedy




Great quote! I miss Dr. Kennedy, his work in the kingdom will be missed. Please keep'm coming MM.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

It's not a question of permission Dixie, it's a matter of relationship. ie; i object if she wears something that won't make her look good. and she won't let me hang around single women. both sides exercise a measure of control, if you only want to answer to yourself then maybe you should stay single.


----------



## reformedpastor

Guess DD didn't support your side?


----------



## Israel

The only validity this thread has is for the purpose of general discussion.
Since no one who seems willing to condemn the behavior has acknowledged going to this woman personally to discuss what is the presumed source of offense and see whether she has a repentant or rebellious heart in the matter, all "we" say about her short of this is both vain and self condemning.
As a source for general discussion, it might be fitting for us to hash out where we stand in regard to seeking awards and rewards based on the vanity of outward beauty. Likewise a discussion of what both brothers and sisters consider appropriate dress (I prefer no man see my wife's thighs, except me, and if need be, her doctor)
And, of course, a discussion of just what constitutes marriage, in the eyes of God vs the state (and why Miss Prejean's comments have aroused such ire in a certain growing segment of the land of the free and the home of the brave).
I admit that she's made herself an easy target, but that does not preclude those who find offense in her at least honoring her confession of Christ and in some measure attempt to speak privately to her about those matters. 
An older, wiser, sister would probably fit the bill rather well.And if she won't hear her, take another...maybe a brother if need be.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> It's not a question of permission Dixie, it's a matter of relationship. ie; i object if she wears something that won't make her look good. and she won't let me hang around single women. both sides exercise a measure of control, if you only want to answer to yourself then maybe you should stay single.



See, that's where we disagree... although I will say that now you have changed it to her wearing something that 'won't make her look good'.... that's not the same as giving permission to wear something.  Maybe she looks good showing a little cleavage.... but I digress....

Both sides exercise a measure of control?  I disagree... it's not about control, it's about respect.  If my partner was uncomfortable about me wearing a certain outfit, then out of respect for him I would probably not wear it.  But I wouldn't be asking for his permission on what I could and could not wear.  

Since the day I turned 18, I have never been and never will be controlled by a man.  And any man that thinks controlling a woman is the only way to have a relationship can go find himself a submissive woman, because that ain't me.  Any man I decide to be with would only have as much 'control' over me as I would allow.... so is that really any control at all?  I don't think so.   It's not about control.  It's about respect.   If there is no mutual respect, then there's no relationship.


----------



## ambush80

Dixie Dawg said:


> See, that's where we disagree... although I will say that now you have changed it to her wearing something that 'won't make her look good'.... that's not the same as giving permission to wear something.  Maybe she looks good showing a little cleavage.... but I digress....
> 
> Both sides exercise a measure of control?  I disagree... it's not about control, it's about respect.  If my partner was uncomfortable about me wearing a certain outfit, then out of respect for him I would probably not wear it.  But I wouldn't be asking for his permission on what I could and could not wear.
> 
> Since the day I turned 18, I have never been and never will be controlled by a man.  And any man that thinks controlling a woman is the only way to have a relationship can go find himself a submissive woman, because that ain't me.  Any man I decide to be with would only have as much 'control' over me as I would allow.... so is that really any control at all?  I don't think so.   It's not about control.  It's about respect.   If there is no mutual respect, then there's no relationship.



 Those little doily head coverings are SAAAAAXY!!!


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

I think we more or less agree on this, it's more a matter of semantics, control, respect or whatever. Remember in my original post I was objecting to others setting themselves up as the final arbiter of what my wife could wear. Look at the post on context.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I think we more or less agree on this, it's more a matter of semantics, control, respect or whatever. Remember in my original post I was objecting to others setting themselves up as the final arbiter of what my wife could wear. Look at the post on context.



I realize that.  But then in your post, you made yourself the final arbiter of what your wife could wear.  I'm just saying, that would never be me.  I am the final decision maker on what I wear, where I go and what I do, etc.

I don't think it's splitting hairs to diverse between 'control' and 'respect'.  They are very different concepts.

As far as the original post and topic, I must say that a lot of this has to do with the society that we live in.  As someone else pointed out, in some societies women don't wear tops at all, EVER.  So this would be perfectly natural over there.  

If I remember correctly, Adam and Eve started out naked in the garden. It was only after eating the apple that they were ashamed of their nakedness.  Doesn't say anywhere in the bible that God said they should be ashamed of it.....


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Intermarital relations are not the topic here, so we can debate that another time, I dare say I should have more say on the subject then some self appointed church police. BTW I agree with paragraphs 3 & 4 of you're post


----------



## Dixie Dawg

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Intermarital relations are not the topic here, so we can debate that another time, I dare say I should have more say on the subject then some self appointed church police. BTW I agree with paragraphs 3 & 4 of you're post




And on that I would agree with you as well...  so can we still be friends?


----------



## Huntinfool

This isn't germain to the topic....


....but I find it interesting how many folks have posted comments regarding the concept of "control" whether it's a husban over his wife or simply a person "controlling" his/her life.

I just find the fact that so many people actually believe that they can control the things that happen to them very interesting.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Dixie Dawg said:


> And on that I would agree with you as well...  so can we still be friends?



I should hope so, a debate over ideas should not get personal


----------



## Ronnie T

Havana Dude said:


> I would just like to add here that I am not in any way criticizing Banjo, or anyone else here who speaks their mind and beliefs. That is fine. What does seem to puzzle me though, is ANYBODY wanting to knock this girl down for things she has done in the past. .........I get it, and I agree to a point. I just can't agree on casting her out, because of something she did in the past, I'm sorry.



That is my whole point.
Why are we talking about her PAST??
I don't know about you, but I have a past that I'd prefer you not judge me by today.
This young lady deserves me do the same for her.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Ronnie T said:


> That is my whole point.
> Why are we talking about her PAST??
> I don't know about you, but I have a past that I'd prefer you not judge me by today.
> This young lady deserves me do the same for her.



Amen


----------



## ambush80

Ok, talk about what she's doing today.  Is it Christlike to be in a beauty pageant?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> Ok, talk about what she's doing today.  Is it Christlike to be in a beauty pageant?



Is it Christlike to eat too much, or drive too fast, or speculate on stocks??. You can go all over the place with that one


----------



## reformedpastor

Are we talking about a past before Christ or after. Very different I think.


----------



## reformedpastor

> Originally Posted by Havana Dude
> I would just like to add here that I am not in any way criticizing Banjo, or anyone else here who speaks their mind and beliefs. That is fine. What does seem to puzzle me though, is ANYBODY wanting to knock this girl down for things she has done in the past. .........I get it, and I agree to a point. I just can't agree on casting her out, because of something she did in the past, I'm sorry.



Who wants to cast her out?


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> Who wants to cast her out?



If you do, the Atheists will sweep her up and put her to work.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> If you do, the Atheists will sweep her up and put her to work.



Nah.  That's a decision she has to make on her own.  
But with the motivation of some crooked-fingerpointing coming from folks she thought were on the same team, she will in time.


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> If you do, the Atheists will sweep her up and put her to work.



I am sure they would have no problem finding her work. I don't want to cast her or anyone else out. Yet, there are standards and isn't part of the reason that Atheist have a legitimate complaint with the church is its willingness to say one thing and do another. Agree? 

I guess you are referring to my comment of church discipline?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> I guess you are referring to my comment of church discipline?



The very notion of that has me rolling on the floor in laughter!


----------



## reformedpastor

Another comment- I would have guessed that non christians are the ones buying her photo's but I am not so sure after reading many of these posts.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> The very notion of that has me rolling on the floor in laughter!



How?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

If you were to cast her out for that, then you would need to round up and cast out all those fat deacons and pastors since gluttony is also a sin


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> If you were to cast her out for that, then you would need to round up and cast out all those fat deacons and pastors since gluttony is also a sin



You don't cast anyone out that is repentant for their sins. Gluttony is a sin that must be repented of!


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> How?



Easy.  I just think about it, and remember what I have seen and observed in my lifetime of church going.

Well, I do understand it.  It is, after all, a private club.  And I guess whatever rules the pastor and board of investors wish to implement is their choice.
Whatever book it is based on.


----------



## Huntinfool

reformedpastor said:


> Another comment- I would have guessed that non christians are the ones buying her photo's but I am not so sure after reading many of these posts.



Oh my goodness!  If you believe that, I've got some very nice ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

Have you seen the porn statistics among the Christian community?  How about divorce?  How about adultery?  How about gambling?....and on and on.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> You don't cast anyone out that is repentant for their sins. Gluttony is a sin that must be repented of!



I have not seen a whole lotta repentin' when it comes to gluttony in the church, in fact, the finger pointing sister Bertha Betterthenyou is usually the fattest of the bunch


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> Oh my goodness!  If you believe that, I've got some very nice ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.
> 
> Have you seen the porn statistics among the Christian community?  How about divorce?  How about adultery?  How about gambling?....and on and on.



Yes, I am very aware of the issues and counseling many who are and have struggled in various areas. So it was somewhat tongue in cheek and related to the many defending her "right" to express herself in the nude while professing to be a christian.

I think the key word is for the Christian is "struggle" wouldn't you think?


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I have not seen a whole lotta repentin' when it comes to gluttony in the church, in fact, the finger pointing sister Bertha Betterthenyou is usually the fattest of the bunch



Well, Mr. GREYWOLF have you loved ya sista Betterthanyou more than yourself and tried talking to her about her gluttony? 

Aren't we all accountable to one another?


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Easy.  I just think about it, and remember what I have seen and observed in my lifetime of church going.
> 
> Well, I do understand it.  It is, after all, a private club.  And I guess whatever rules the pastor and board of investors wish to implement is their choice.
> Whatever book it is based on.



About what I expected. Nothing to serious or important.


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> I am sure they would have no problem finding her work. I don't want to cast her or anyone else out. Yet, there are standards and isn't part of the reason that Atheist have a legitimate complaint with the church is its willingness to say one thing and do another. Agree?



Agree.  I'm tellin' ya, the Amish are doing the best job of walking the narrow path.  If all Christians were like them that would be OK with me.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> Well, Mr. GREYWOLF have you loved ya sista Betterthanyou more than yourself and tried talking to her about her gluttony?
> 
> Aren't we all accountable to one another?



Actually I did.....It did not go well


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Actually I did.....It did not go well



Did she try to eat you?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> Did she try to eat you?



In a manner of speaking, yes


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> About what I expected. Nothing to serious or important.



Why belittle my response?  I guess you see being a pastor as having rank on your collar/sleeve?

I know there is a tradition and precedent to uphold........

It is about control, obviously.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> I think the key word is for the Christian is "struggle" wouldn't you think?



RP, 'struggle' is the key word for everyone.... it doesn't matter what religion, gender, nationality, income level, or whatever you are in.  EVERYONE struggles and battles the same 'demons'.  Sorry, but you don't get to claim exclusivity on that one.  The struggle is for all of humanity.


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> RP, 'struggle' is the key word for everyone.... it doesn't matter what religion, gender, nationality, income level, or whatever you are in.  EVERYONE struggles and battles the same 'demons'.  Sorry, but you don't get to claim exclusivity on that one.  The struggle is for all of humanity.



I think we are talking about something different. Does everyone struggle with nudity? Drunkenness? Gambling? No, some actually love it.I only said, christians "ought" or should struggle with these vices. So, I am not sure where I claimed exclusivity to  the word struggle?


----------



## ambush80

Dixie Dawg said:


> EVERYONE struggles and battles the same 'demons'.



When you stop believing in ghosts you don't have to worry about them anymore.


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Actually I did.....It did not go well



Gotcha, well you can continue with Matt 18 and take another with you until the truth is established. The problem will be when it finally comes to the pastor or elders or deacons will they do some thing with the unwillingness or not, most won't. At that point I can only say find you a church that will exercise lovingly the discipline Christ requires.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Why belittle my response?  I guess you see being a pastor as having rank on your collar/sleeve?
> 
> I know there is a tradition and precedent to uphold........
> 
> It is about control, obviously.



No collar or sleeve ??? here! 

WHY? Your comments are condescending and always misleading. For example, your comment about control, because thats what its always about right? No one forces a person to join any church but while being a christian it requires a certain moral standard that must be sought after and lived up to at varying degrees and when thats not the case ones profession ceases to be valid. Control? Love? Tradition? License? Money? Numbers? 

Obviously!


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> I think we are talking about something different. Does everyone struggle with nudity? Drunkenness? Gambling? No, some actually love it.I only said, christians "ought" or should struggle with these vices. So, I am not sure where I claimed exclusivity to  the word struggle?



Some of those who 'love' it are Christians. 

My point is that life isn't a struggle for just Christians.  When it comes to vices, non-Christians struggle just as much as y'all do.  Just because someone doesn't believe in Jesus, or even God for that matter, doesn't mean that they want to be a drunk or a gambler or addicted to porn.  

I think this goes back to the idea that Christians are the only ones with any sort of morals or code of conduct. That's just simply not true.  MOST people, regardless of religion, have an inner working of the difference  between wrong and right, living a good life and not living a good life, being healthy and not being healthy.

By the way, I have really enjoyed your discussions today... thank you 



ambush80 said:


> When you stop believing in ghosts you don't have to worry about them anymore.



Now ambush, don't go supporting the idea that all of us non-Christians are moral-less heathens!!!


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> Gotcha, well you can continue with Matt 18 and take another with you until the truth is established. The problem will be when it finally comes to the pastor or elders or deacons will they do some thing with the unwillingness or not, most won't. At that point I can only say find you a church that will exercise lovingly the discipline Christ requires.



I think you're missing my point. Point is, most of the churchified, self appointed moral police I've met are always on the bandwagon about "modesty" all the while being guilty on one or several of "the seven deadlys" themselves

As the Master said " he that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her"


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> You running out of stones yet?? since you seem to be without sin.



Come on Johnny.....I have already admitted that I am not without sin....nor have I ever claimed to be.  Is that the best that you've got?  Use the Bible to defend your position....

I have said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating....

I have a problem with this girl being lauded as an example to young Christian girls.  I have a problem with her thinking it is okay to parade around inciting men to lust....I have a problem with the vanity that surrounds the whole beauty pageant scene...and yes, I think it degrades women...both Christians and non-Christians.  

Were this girl a nonbeliever...I would have no problem with it...that is what I would expect.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Banjo said:


> I have a problem with her thinking it is okay to parade around inciting me to lust....



Ummm, Banjo, if she's enticing you to lust after her, maybe that's not your only issue...     

Oh what a difference one little letter can make!!


----------



## Banjo

Havana Dude said:


> I would just like to add here that I am not in any way criticizing Banjo, or anyone else here who speaks their mind and beliefs. That is fine. What does seem to puzzle me though, is ANYBODY wanting to knock this girl down for things she has done in the past. I don't think anyone on here WANTS to see their daughter pose for pics like what is on the link posted. But if she did, would you cast her aside, and say anything she did from that point forward was all for nothing. I don't think so.
> Banjo, you come across as a very strong lady, grounded in her convictions, and I applaud you for standing on your beliefs. I do hope you take nothing I have said personally. It is obvious that this is a very touchy subject to many, and opinions are broad. As I stated earlier, it would break my heart if my daughter posed like that. It would break my heart if my 16 y.o. son came home drunk, or if my wife were to cheat on me. These are all sins, which are forgivable in the eyes of God, cast away. My only question is, why do other human beings feel the need to put her down for what she did? Most likely, no one on here will have the opportunity, to talk with her, and try and "make" her see the error of her ways. If this was a discussion about your daughter, or a niece, or the daughter of a close friend, then I say yea, you may have a chance to help the young lady, and set an example for her. As far as Ms. California goes, why don't we all just agree to pray for her. My God is a forgiving God. If not I would be in a heap of trouble. We are predestined to sin. There is not a thing we can do about it. I'm sorry , but this thread bothers me to a degree. We should attempt to be Christ like in welcoming her into the fold, loving her, praying for her, and supporting her in what she stood up for. She is not perfect, nor am I. The Bible says for us to have child like faith. I do not pretend to know everything there is to know about the Bible. But my faith is chidlike. I am a simple man. God said if we seek him we shall find him. I am starting to ramble here, sorry. I just can't leave this alone. I see ya'lls point, I get it, and I agree to a point. I just can't agree on casting her out, because of something she did in the past, I'm sorry.



I don't take anything that is said on here personally...don't worry.  I know you don't know me personally....but I would love to welcome this girl into my home or church.  She needs another Christian to love her enough to teach her what a Godly woman looks and acts like.  She claims Christ; she should imitate Him.


----------



## Banjo

Dixie Dawg said:


> Ummm, Banjo, if she's enticing you to lust after her, maybe that's not your only issue...




OHHHHHNOOOOOOOOO>>>>>>>

I meant "men."  Going back to fix that.......


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> Come on Johnny.....I have already admitted that I am not without sin....nor have I ever claimed to be.  Is that the best that you've got?  Use the Bible to defend your position....
> 
> I have said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating....
> 
> I have a problem with this girl being lauded as an example to young Christian girls.  I have a problem with her thinking it is okay to parade around inciting me to lust....I have a problem with the vanity that surrounds the whole beauty pageant scene...and yes, I think it degrades women...both Christians and non-Christians.
> 
> Were this girl a nonbeliever...I would have no problem with it...that is what I would expect.



And now Banjo, we get back to the point that got me in trouble with Dixie.  

If we go by you're statement, then you have no problem with anything I do, but if I say "Jesus is Lord"  then you somehow suddenly have the right to judge me, I have a problem with that logic


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> And now Banjo, we get back to the point that got me in trouble with Dixie.
> 
> If we go by you're statement, then you have no problem with anything I do, but if I say "Jesus is Lord"  then you somehow suddenly have the right to judge me, I have a problem with that logic




Is it really too much to expect people who claim Christ to actually ACT like Christians???


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I think you're missing my point. Point is, most of the churchified, self appointed moral police I've met are always on the bandwagon about "modesty" all the while being guilty on one or several of "the seven deadlys" themselves
> 
> As the Master said " he that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her"



Ok-not trying to miss your point. I thought I understood you to say you had tried doing Matt 18 and it didn't go well. Who are the churchified, moral self appointed police you are referring to? 

Modesty is an issue in our day! Both inside and outside the church and if you assume your position of perfection before you can correct anyone then we have no bases to correct anyone even our children. No one has assumed moral superiority though there are degrees to which this can be true, such as pedophiles and such.


----------



## ambush80

Dixie Dawg said:


> Now ambush, don't go supporting the idea that all of us non-Christians are moral-less heathens!!!



Me and thems on the same side on this one.  

Heathen, maybe. Moral-less, no way.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> Ok-not trying to miss your point. I thought I understood you to say you had tried doing Matt 18 and it didn't go well. Who are the churchified, moral self appointed police you are referring to?
> 
> Modesty is an issue in our day! Both inside and outside the church and if you assume your position of perfection before you can correct anyone then we have no bases to correct anyone even our children. No one has assumed moral superiority though there are degrees to which this can be true, such as pedophiles and such.



Is it too much to ask you guys who criticize others to clean up you're own backyard first??? pedophiles are a different subject altogether


----------



## Lead Poison

reformedpastor said:


> Are we talking about a past before Christ or after. Very different I think.



Great question.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> Is it really too much to expect people who claim Christ to actually ACT like Christians???



And you are the final arbiter of what that is????


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Is it too much to ask you guys who criticize others to clean up you're own backyard first??? pedophiles are a different subject altogether



How do you know it is not cleaned up or being cleaned up?  I can assure you that I am not saying one thing and living another....  I am not saying these things and then packing up my thong to take to the Lake this weekend...NOR am I allowing my daughters to do such......

Have you ever even seen my backyard?


----------



## celticfisherman

Banjo said:


> Perhaps that is because you have never met a truly Reformed Presbyterian....
> 
> We actually drink beer and like it.



Amen! Wine and Scotch too....

Modesty is not a subjective standard. And to quote a preacher I heard the other day (no not RP but another of the Reformed Brethren) "we should teach ourselves to blush again."

I agree why is this so hard to understand. IF she is a Christian it's with a "c" and not a "C" that dominates her life and thoughts. But she is typical of most evangelicals these days.


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> And you are the final arbiter of what that is????



Nope....the Bible is....I just don't mind saying it.  

The world is laughing at the Church because she preaches one thing and lives another.....

ASK ANY ATHEIST...


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> How do you know it is not cleaned up or being cleaned up?  I can assure you that I am not saying one thing and living another....  I am not saying these things and then packing up my thong to take to the Lake this weekend...NOR am I allowing my daughters to do such......
> 
> Have you ever even seen my backyard?



Once again, you're dodging my question, read my last statement again. 

If you are the only person in the church these days that is sinless, then I appluad you, sir.


----------



## ambush80

Banjo said:


> Nope....the Bible is....I just don't mind saying it.
> 
> The world is laughing at the Church because she preaches one thing and lives another.....
> 
> ASK ANY ATHEIST...



That and the 6000 year old Earth thing.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> Nope....the Bible is....I just don't mind saying it.
> 
> The world is laughing at the Church because she preaches one thing and lives another.....
> 
> ASK ANY ATHEIST...



I would be interested to know if you hold the "bible standard" I sincerely doubt it, because if you did you would have much less time to criticize others


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> Modesty is not a subjective standard.



Is that why missionaries try to clothe indigenous people?


----------



## Jranger

Banjo said:


> Great point....I am a bit amused myself.
> 
> What motivates one to wear a bikini?



Do you wear makeup of any kind? What's the difference, where is the line? Do you decide where the line is? And what does Breast augmentation surgery have to do with any of this?


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> That and the 6000 year old Earth thing.



Careful!!!!


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I would be interested to know if you hold the "bible standard" I sincerely doubt it, because if you did you would have much less time to criticize others




That Bible saying about "splinters and logs in eyes" keeps getting used around this topic.  If someone has a log in their eye, does it change the fact that the other person still has a splinter in their eye?  If neither tells the other, they keep going around with crap in their eyes.

That's how I see it from Secular Humanist-ville.


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Once again, you're dodging my question, read my last statement again.
> 
> If you are the only person in the church these days that is sinless, then I appluad you, sir.




Do you correct your children?  If so, are you sinless?  If perfection is what is required of us in order to discern sin.....then we are in a mess of trouble.


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I would be interested to know if you hold the "bible standard" I sincerely doubt it, because if you did you would have much less time to criticize others



Johnny- you are over the top. You are Judging!!! How do you know what banjo knows? You are criticizing banjo, why, because of a standard of modesty that you obviously don't care for? 

This ones about done for me.


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> That Bible saying about "splinters and logs in eyes" keeps getting used around this topic.  If someone has a log in their eye, does it change the fact that the other person still has a splinter in their eye?  If neither tells the other, they keep going around with crap in their eyes.
> 
> That's how I see it from Secular Humanist-ville.



I will amen that!!


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I would be interested to know if you hold the "bible standard" I sincerely doubt it, because if you did you would have much less time to criticize others



Perhaps you would like me better if I just called for a group hug and a few stanzas of "Kum ba yah..."  We could all sit around in our bikinis and speedos and just tell one another how great we all are....


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

celticfisherman said:


> Amen! Wine and Scotch too....
> 
> Modesty is not a subjective standard. And to quote a preacher I heard the other day (no not RP but another of the Reformed Brethren) "we should teach ourselves to blush again."
> 
> I agree why is this so hard to understand. IF she is a Christian it's with a "c" and not a "C" that dominates her life and thoughts. But she is typical of most evangelicals these days.



Actually is is subjective, the baptists used to say it was a sin for women to wear pants. the muslims say wear a burka. Subjectivity at it's finest


----------



## ambush80

Jranger said:


> Do you wear makeup of any kind? What's the difference, where is the line? Do you decide where the line is? And what does Breast augmentation surgery have to do with any of this?



The line is dependent on regional culture (think naked Pigmies or nudie billboards in Europe), historical context or some ancient book (if you're into that kind of thing).  Breast augmentation is an outward expression of vanity or self loathing.  Augmentations done poorly are truly sinful.


----------



## earl

Banjo said:


> Perhaps you would like me better if I just called for a group hug and a few stanzas of "Kum ba yah..."  We could all sit around in our bikinis and speedos and just tell one another how great we all are....







Pics please !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Huntinfool

You don't WANT pictures of that scene brother!


----------



## Madman

> Do you correct your children? If so, are you sinless? If perfection is what is required of us in order to discern sin.....then we are in a mess of trouble. ...Banjo



Good point!  You got there before I did.


_We talk about heaven being so far away. It is within speaking distance to those who belong there. Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people. 

Dwight L. Moody_


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Actually is is subjective,




They're gonna make you sit at the Universalist table next to the icky Atheists and Agnostics.


----------



## ambush80

Why does Kum By Ya get such a bad rap around here?


----------



## Jranger

ambush80 said:


> The line is dependent on regional culture (think naked Pigmies or nudie billboards in Europe), historical context or some ancient book (if you're into that kind of thing).  Breast augmentation is an outward expression of vanity or self loathing.  Augmentations done poorly are truly sinful.



 ok, lets follow that line of thinking for a moment...

Then every piece of clothing, make-up, hair product, and skin conditioner must also be truly sinful because they are used as a way to augment the outward appearance and self image by every man, woman, and child.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> You don't WANT pictures of that scene brother!



Singin' leads to dancin', dancin' leads to CLOSE dancin', close dancin leads to....she said bikinis and speedos, right?


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> They're gonna make you sit at the Universalist table next to the icky Atheists and Agnostics.


----------



## Banjo

ambush80 said:


> They're gonna make you sit at the Universalist table next to the icky Atheists and Agnostics.


----------



## ambush80

Jranger said:


> ok, lets follow that line of thinking for a moment...
> 
> Then every piece of clothing, make-up, hair product, and skin conditioner must also be truly sinful because they are used as a way to augment the outward appearance and self image by every man, woman, and child.



Clothing is to cover up the naughty bits (to some that includes ankles and wrists)  All the rest is for vanity, according to my favoritest of all the Christians:  The Amish!!!!!!!!


----------



## reformedpastor

Jranger said:


> ok, lets follow that line of thinking for a moment...
> 
> Then every piece of clothing, make-up, hair product, and skin conditioner must also be truly sinful because they are used as a way to augment the outward appearance and self image by every man, woman, and child.



How so??? Aren't you confusing to enhance with augment? Who on here has a problem with beauty? Who would have a problem with a cleft palate being fixed with plastic surgery? Isn't a good form of augmentation?


----------



## Madman

> Why does Kum By Ya get such a bad rap around here?
> ...Ambush80



It is evident you have never heard it sang in a church with guitars and drums.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> Do you correct your children?  If so, are you sinless?  If perfection is what is required of us in order to discern sin.....then we are in a mess of trouble.



I'm sure you're intellect is better then that, there is a big differance between correcting children and telling grown adults what they can or can't say. 

BTW I seem to recall a thread here a few days ago, before the pctures came out, and a bunch of church types were praising her for standing up. y'all did'nt  have a problem with her plastic boobs or swimsuit then???


----------



## Jranger

reformedpastor said:


> How so??? Aren't confusing to enhance with augment? Who on here has a problem with beauty?



It serves the same purpose does it not? Enhance self image.
The question was what would drive someone to wear a bikini in the first place.

By the way banjo I'm still waiting on an answer.

Do you wear makeup of any kind? What's the difference, where is the line? Do you decide where the line is? And what does Breast augmentation surgery have to do with any of this?


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I'm sure you're intellect is better then that, there is a big differance between correcting children and telling grown adults what they can or can't say.
> 
> BTW I seem to recall a thread here a few days ago, before the pctures came out, and a bunch of church types were praising her for standing up. y'all did'nt  have a problem with her plastic boobs or swimsuit then???



I most certainly did not participate in that thread.....


----------



## Madman

> y'all did'nt have a problem with her plastic boobs or swimsuit then??? ..Greywolf



Some of us did.  



> I'm sure you're intellect is better then that, there is a big differance between correcting children and telling grown adults what they can or can't say. ...Greywolf



You seem to forget that by professing herself to be a Christian she has given consent to be "admonished" by the church.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> Johnny- you are over the top. You are Judging!!! How do you know what banjo knows? You are criticizing banjo, why, because of a standard of modesty that you obviously don't care for?
> 
> This ones about done for me.



You're off base there sir, I just asked if Banjo held his/herself to the same standard by which he/she judges others.

It has been my experiance that most people who spend a lot of time taking others inventory do not


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> Clothing is to cover up the naughty bits (to some that includes ankles and wrists)  All the rest is for vanity, according to my favoritest of all the Christians:  The Amish!!!!!!!!



A good friend of mine does some medical work with an Amish community. INTERESTING!


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> Who on here has a problem with beauty?
> 
> I do, and the artificial standards created by a ridiculous industry.
> 
> Who would have a problem with a cleft palate being fixed with plastic surgery? Isn't a good form of augmentation?



If it doesn't interfere with normal mouth function (eating, breathing) Then who cares?   Adopting that attitude is difficult.  There is a biological reason for finding deformity grotesque.  You don't want those genes passed on, so the deformity lessens one's "breeding capitol",unless the deformity somehow ends up benefiting the species, but I digress.


----------



## Banjo

Jranger said:


> It serves the same purpose does it not? Enhance self image.
> The question was what would drive someone to wear a bikini in the first place.
> 
> By the way banjo I'm still waiting on an answer.
> 
> Do you wear makeup of any kind? What's the difference, where is the line? Do you decide where the line is? And what does Breast augmentation surgery have to do with any of this?



I do wear makeup....but I can assure you it is never to cause men to lust over me in any way.  You honestly don't see the difference between some rouge and powder and a new set of double d's just because you weren't satisfied with what you had already been given?

I think breast augmentation is wonderful for those women who have lost their breasts due to cancer.  There is a huge difference between that and getting your new set of double d's six weeks before a beauty pageant so you can parade them around on the stage.....


----------



## Madman

> _God doesn't seek for golden vessels, and does not ask for silver ones, but He must have clean ones.
> Dwight L. Moody_



As Christians do we strive to be clean?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Some of us did.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to forget that by professing herself to be a Christian she has given consent to be "admonished" by the church.



Oh, I'm sorry does she go to you're church??


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I'm sure you're intellect is better then that, there is a big differance between correcting children and telling grown adults what they can or can't say.
> 
> BTW I seem to recall a thread here a few days ago, before the pctures came out, and a bunch of church types were praising her for standing up. y'all did'nt  have a problem with her plastic boobs or swimsuit then???



What's wrong with a fat guy telling a smelly guy that he smells?  Maybe they can do something about it together.


----------



## reformedpastor

> JOHNNY GREYWOLF- Is it too much to ask you guys who criticize others to clean up you're own backyard first??? pedophiles are a different subject altogether





> I would be interested to know if you hold the "bible standard" I sincerely doubt it, because if you did you would have much less time to criticize others



I beg to differ!


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> You're off base there sir, I just asked if Banjo held his/herself to the same standard by which he/she judges others.
> 
> It has been my experiance that most people who spend a lot of time taking others inventory do not



I stated that I do.....if you don't believe me, ask Reformedpastor....we've been married for almost 19 years.....

We met when he was judging Miss Universe and I took the crown....


----------



## Huntinfool

> I think breast augmentation is wonderful for those women who have lost their breasts due to cancer. There is a huge difference between that and getting your new set of double d's six weeks before a beauty pageant so you can parade them around on the stage.....



Is there?  Really?

So I assume, then that the sin is not contained in the "act", but in the "intent"....correct?

I know what you're saying.  But, honestly, if it's wrong to "mutilate" your body for purposes of vanity then it's wrong, regardless of the reason....isn't it?

I honestly haven't made up my mind.  I just think it appears a little inconsistent.


----------



## Madman

> Oh, I'm sorry does she go to you're church?? ..Grey Wolf



If she is a Christian she does.  
P.S. Its not my church, It is Christ's church.


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> We met when he was judging Miss Universe and I took the crown....



And you won even though you didn't participate in the swimsuit portion? 

That must have been one heck of an answer you gave to your question Banjo.


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> If it doesn't interfere with normal mouth function (eating, breathing) Then who cares?   Adopting that attitude is difficult.  There is a biological reason for finding deformity grotesque.  You don't want those genes passed on, so the deformity lessens one's "breeding capitol",unless the deformity somehow ends up benefiting the species, but I digress.



I am responding to the presumption that beauty isn't appreciated by christians. Beauty can be subjective. It does change from person to person. Beauty is outward but most of all inward.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> I do wear makeup....but I can assure you it is never to cause men to lust over me in any way.  You honestly don't see the difference between some rouge and powder and a new set of double d's just because you weren't satisfied with what you had already been given?
> 
> I think breast augmentation is wonderful for those women who have lost their breasts due to cancer.  There is a huge difference between that and getting your new set of double d's six weeks before a beauty pageant so you can parade them around on the stage.....



You know some church police will cite scripture saying ANY makeup is a sin


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> I beg to differ!



I'm sure you do.


----------



## Banjo

Huntinfool said:


> And you won even though you didn't participate in the swimsuit portion?
> 
> That must have been one heck of an answer you gave to your question Banjo.



It most certainly was.......I think it had something to do with world peace....


----------



## Madman

> You know some church police will cite scripture saying ANY makeup is a sin ...Greywolf



Who cares what the "church police" say?  What does God say?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> I stated that I do.....if you don't believe me, ask Reformedpastor....we've been married for almost 19 years.....
> 
> We met when he was judging Miss Universe and I took the crown....



That explains a lot


----------



## Banjo

ambush80 said:


> What's wrong with a fat guy telling a smelly guy that he smells?  Maybe they can do something about it together.



Ambush....You are on a roll today!  You need to seriously consider doing some stand up comedy.......


----------



## Banjo

My new avatar is a photo of me from the pageant....I am sure you can see why the other contestants never stood a chance.....


----------



## ambush80

Banjo said:


> I do wear makeup....but I can assure you it is never to cause men to lust over me in any way.  You honestly don't see the difference between some rouge and powder and a new set of double d's just because you weren't satisfied with what you had already been given?
> 
> I think breast augmentation is wonderful for those women who have lost their breasts due to cancer.  There is a huge difference between that and getting your new set of double d's six weeks before a beauty pageant so you can parade them around on the stage.....



Awwww, we were getting along so well but now I have to disagree with you.  Face paint is vanity, even just a little.  It's lower on the vanity continuum from surgical procedure but still.....For the cancer survivors I can sympathize, but were I to become horribly disfigured, I would hope that my inner sense of self would be developed enough to allow me to face the world without shame.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> If she is a Christian she does.
> P.S. Its not my church, It is Christ's church.



Ok so, pentecostals can "admonish" catholics, amish can "admonish" baptists. Or we can go back to when the northern baptists "admonished" the southern baptists over slavery. or how would you feel if an anglican "admonished" your pastor???


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> Awwww, we were getting along so well but now I have to disagree with you.  Face paint is vanity, even just a little.  It's lower on the vanity continuum from surgical procedure but still.....For the cancer survivors I can sympathize, but were I to become horribly disfigured, I would hope that my inner sense of self would be developed enough to allow me to face the world without shame.



I understand your disagreement, and your point is well taken. I actually think its wonderful that surgery can fix defects. Again, I know we hold to differing standards and just for the record the book Isiah chapter 53 Jesus is seen as a man of unbecoming appearance. Sort of squashes the idea of the blue eyed Jesus we see in must of the book stores.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Is there?  Really?
> 
> So I assume, then that the sin is not contained in the "act", but in the "intent"....correct?
> 
> I know what you're saying.  But, honestly, if it's wrong to "mutilate" your body for purposes of vanity then it's wrong, regardless of the reason....isn't it?
> 
> I honestly haven't made up my mind.  I just think it appears a little inconsistent.



You haven't made up your mind yet because you LIKES it.  You likes it alot, just like me.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Who cares what the "church police" say?  What does God say?



How would you know??


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Ok so, pentecostals can "admonish" catholics, amish can "admonish" baptists. Or we can go back to when the northern baptists "admonished" the southern baptists over slavery. or how would you feel if an anglican "admonished" your pastor???



I think MM is Anglican.


----------



## Jranger

Banjo said:


> I do wear makeup....but I can assure you it is never to cause men to lust over me in any way.  You honestly don't see the difference between some rouge and powder and a new set of double d's just because you weren't satisfied with what you had already been given?


Keep in mind that I am playing devils advocate here...
I'm not sure I understand why you wear make-up if not to enhance what you were given naturally. Of course, I see the difference in make-up and DD implants. However, they have the same biological effect, attract the opposite sex. I would ask a personal question, but I don't feel it would come across well. 

My point about breast augmentation is this... I would respect your opinion about implants being a bad thing if you were in fact an A cup. If you are not, then the possibility exists that you do not fully understand the self-esteem issues that can and do arise in women that feel they are substandard in that area. In my opinion, a woman who feels she needs implants is no worse off than a woman who feels she needs to apply make-up to look more attractive, or have a tummy tuck after bearing children.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Who cares what the "church police" say?  What does God say?



The church police are the subject here


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Who cares what the "church police" say?  What does God say?



GOD said "he that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"


----------



## Madman

> Ok so, pentecostals can "admonish" catholics, amish can "admonish" baptists. Or we can go back to when the northern baptists "admonished" the southern baptists over slavery. or how would you feel if an anglican "admonished" your pastor??? ...Greywolf



Now you are going to get everyone all ticked off at me, but if I am going to answer your question I will have to say it.

I have never been a big fan of the reformation because it seemed to give creedence to the private interpretation of the scriptures.

Hence Christendom become "fractured" with interpretation.

I belive my "Priest" would take admonishment from an Anglican.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Now you are going to get everyone all ticked off at me, but if I am going to answer your question I will have to say it.
> 
> I have never been a big fan of the reformation because it seemed to give creedence to the private interpretation of the scriptures.
> 
> Hence Christendom become "fractured" with interpretation.
> 
> I belive my "Priest" would take admonishment from an Anglican.



How about from a pentecostal??


----------



## Madman

> GOD said "he that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"



Is that all he said about sin and the church?

You know I'm not a big fan of proof texting?


----------



## Madman

> How about from a pentecostal??



He used to be a "pew jumper"  you will have to ask him.


----------



## Madman




----------



## Banjo

Jranger said:


> Keep in mind that I am playing devils advocate here...
> I'm not sure I understand why you wear make-up if not to enhance what you were given naturally. Of course, I see the difference in make-up and DD implants. However, they have the same biological effect, attract the opposite sex. I would ask a personal question, but I don't feel it would come across well.
> 
> My point about breast augmentation is this... I would respect your opinion about implants being a bad thing if you were in fact an A cup. If you are not, then the possibility exists that you do not fully understand the self-esteem issues that can and do arise in women that feel they are substandard in that area. In my opinion, a woman who feels she needs implants is no worse off than a woman who feels she needs to apply make-up to look more attractive, or have a tummy tuck after bearing children.



I am not sure that is true.....I have no need to attract the opposite sex...Like I said, I have been married for almost 19 years.

The main thrust of this argument from the beginning was this beauty queen being set forth as a fine Christian example....YET she has semi-nude photos circulating on the net.....the augmentation that she had six weeks prior to the pageant was just another nail in the coffin...and the parading around of them while bikini-clad for the world to see was confirmation...She is not a Christian role model....no matter what her view on marriage is.

If she really wanted to promote Biblical marriage, she would cover herself up.....


----------



## Madman

QUOTE]Keep in mind that I am playing devils advocate here...
[/QUOTE]

The devil don't need no advocates!!!!


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Is that all he said about sin and the church?
> 
> You know I'm not a big fan of proof texting?



Then cite sripture to support your position, Jesus' gospel is consistant, and the CPs I see piling on this poor girl along with the MSMs don't sound Christlike to me.

BTW If there are any episcopalian types involved here you are in no position to criticize anybody, seeing the sort of people you elect as bishops


----------



## Banjo

When did Jesus ever tell someone it was okay to remain in sin?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> He used to be a "pew jumper"  you will have to ask him.



Say what???


----------



## Madman

> BTW If there are any episcopalian types involved here you are in no position to criticize anybody, seeing the sort of people you elect as bishops
> ... Greywolf



I agree!!!!

What is an Episcopalian "TYPE?"


----------



## Banjo

I love this quote from another thread:

“We have wholeheartedly embraced the sentimental, watercolor Jesus that seems to spend most of His time holding lambs and patting children on the head with some faraway, glazed-over, dreamy look in His eye. And we tend to shy away from, or altogether ignore, the man who spoke the truth of God so boldly that conspiracies were hatched, witnesses were bribed, politicians were entreated to bring about His painful and public execution… What do we do with that Christ who puts down the lamb and mounts the temple steps with whip clenched in white-knuckled fist…?”


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> When did Jesus ever tell someone it was okay to remain in sin?



You're dodging the point again


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> I love this quote from another thread:
> 
> “We have wholeheartedly embraced the sentimental, watercolor Jesus that seems to spend most of His time holding lambs and patting children on the head with some faraway, glazed-over, dreamy look in His eye. And we tend to shy away from, or altogether ignore, the man who spoke the truth of God so boldly that conspiracies were hatched, witnesses were bribed, politicians were entreated to bring about His painful and public execution… What do we do with that Christ who puts down the lamb and mounts the temple steps with whip clenched in white-knuckled fist…?”



And he spake this parable unto certain which TRUSTED IN THEMSELVES THAT THEY WERE RIGHTEOUS and despised others
luke 18:9-14 go read the rest of it for yourselves


----------



## reformedpastor

> MAD MAN I have never been a big fan of the reformation because it seemed to give creedence to the private interpretation of the scriptures.



Your not in trouble with me, but, I think its the opposite. The Westminster Confession Ch.1 deals with this. 



> JOHNNY GREYWOLF- Then cite sripture to support your position, Jesus' gospel is consistant, and the CPs I see piling on this poor girl along with the MSMs don't sound Christlike to me.



Whats msm's? What do you want scripture for? Nudity?


----------



## reformedpastor

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> And he spake this parable unto certain which TRUSTED IN THEMSELVES THAT THEY WERE RIGHTEOUS and despised others
> luke 18:9-14 go read the rest of it for yourselves



You are on a crusade. I will stand with you and condemn self righteousness, but thats not happening here. 

Apostle Paul- 
1Co 5:1  It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 

1Co 5:2  And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 

1Co 5:3  For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 

1Co 5:4  When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 

1Co 5:5  you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 

1Co 5:6  Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 

1Co 5:7  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 

1Co 5:8  Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

1Co 5:9  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 

1Co 5:10  not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 

1Co 5:11  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 

1Co 5:12  For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 

1Co 5:13  God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."


----------



## Madman

> You're dodging the point again ...Greywolf



No.  You are trying to make an argument out of whole cloth.


----------



## Madman

> Your not in trouble with me, but, I think its the opposite. The Westminster Confession Ch.1 deals with this. ...Reformed



Yes, but look at the denominations that don't even read the Confession.  I don't want to gore anybodys sacred cow here, but you would be hard pressed not to admitt that there are some Christian denominations that adhere to some legalistic and other doctrines.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> You are on a crusade. I will stand with you and condemn self righteousness, but thats not happening here.
> 
> Apostle Paul-
> 1Co 5:1  It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.
> 
> 1Co 5:2  And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
> 
> 1Co 5:3  For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
> 
> 1Co 5:4  When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
> 
> 1Co 5:5  you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
> 
> 1Co 5:6  Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
> 
> 1Co 5:7  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
> 
> 1Co 5:8  Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
> 
> 1Co 5:9  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
> 
> 1Co 5:10  not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
> 
> 1Co 5:11  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
> 
> 1Co 5:12  For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
> 
> 1Co 5:13  God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."




I know y'all are into paul (who hated women anyway btw)
but when I quote the Lord Christ to a preacher, I would expect you to look to His words for your rejoinder.


----------



## Madman

All you ladies that are mothers.  Thank you.  You have difficult task, and you have my sincerest admiration.

May the ruler of the universe and author of our salvation 
give you strength and wisdom in your duties.
May He bless you and keep you on this Mother's Day
and in the days to come.
may He grant you peace in the knowledge of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> No.  You are trying to make an argument out of whole cloth.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

reformedpastor said:


> Your not in trouble with me, but, I think its the opposite. The Westminster Confession Ch.1 deals with this.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats msm's? What do you want scripture for? Nudity?



MSM=Main Stream Media....

Scrpture to support stone throwing


----------



## Madman

> I know y'all are into paul (who hated women anyway btw)... Greywolf



Have you been atending the Jesus Seminars again?


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> Yes, but look at the denominations that don't even read the Confession.  I don't want to gore anybodys sacred cow here, but you would be hard pressed not to admitt that there are some Christian denominations that adhere to some legalistic and other doctrines.



No sacred cows here! Yes, I will admit wholeheartedly, yet, that is hardly the fault of the Reformation, I would also point out the legalistic and other doctrines that spurred the reformation.


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I know y'all are into paul (who hated women anyway btw)
> but when I quote the Lord Christ to a preacher, I would expect you to look to His words for your rejoinder.



ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

Any thing Paul wrote in Holy Scriptures is HOLY SPIRIT inspired...

Your beef ain't with Paul...it is with God.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Madman said:


> Have you been atending the Jesus Seminars again?



What seminars???


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> Have you been atending the Jesus Seminars again?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> WHY? Your comments are condescending and always misleading. For example, your comment about control, because thats what its always about right? No one forces a person to join any church but while being a christian it requires a certain moral standard that must be sought after and lived up to at varying degrees and when thats not the case ones profession ceases to be valid. Control? Love? Tradition? License? Money? Numbers?
> 
> Obviously!



Um......
being a Christian requires nothing but belief in Christ.  That's what the book states.
Everything else is just a personal desire to be the best person you can be.

Now you are trying to state something else is required?

Condensending?  Misleading?
I'd say more like informed and realistic.

A group of believers, whatever the creed or belief system, are nothing more than a group of humans with common desires, wants and needs.  They are no better and no worse than anyone who is not a believer.
Good can be done, bad can be done.  

Religion is about control.  Control over what is taught, control over what is believed, control over resources, control over how members treat each other and even in some cases control over how members act outside of the circle.

That's why I find the concept of "church discipline" funny.
I've never seen more personal attacks and immature behavior than what a group of "believers" can do to each other.

And it is a shame.  Shouldn't this misspent energy used in judgement be better used in comforting the sick and elderly, ministering to the incarcerated (for they have committed the worst of crimes against humanity) and generally making the world a better place?


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Um......
> being a Christian requires nothing but belief in Christ.  That's what the book states.
> Everything else is just a personal desire to be the best person you can be.
> 
> Now you are trying to state something else is required?
> 
> Condensending?  Misleading?
> I'd say more like informed and realistic.
> 
> A group of believers, whatever the creed or belief system, are nothing more than a group of humans with common desires, wants and needs.  They are no better and no worse than anyone who is not a believer.
> Good can be done, bad can be done.
> 
> Religion is about control.  Control over what is taught, control over what is believed, control over resources, control over how members treat each other and even in some cases control over how members act outside of the circle.
> 
> That's why I find the concept of "church discipline" funny.
> I've never seen more personal attacks and immature behavior than what a group of "believers" can do to each other.
> 
> And it is a shame.  Shouldn't this misspent energy used in judgement be better used in comforting the sick and elderly, ministering to the incarcerated (for they have committed the worst of crimes against humanity) and generally making the world a better place?



Please quote a verse thats supports this ludicrous view. Let's change all of the love words to control and then you'll have proof. 

Control your neighbor as yourself!!!!!!


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Please quote a verse thats supports this ludicrous view. Let's change all of the love words to control and then you'll have proof.
> 
> Control your neighbor as yourself!!!!!!



Give fundamentalists the inside slot to DC and that's exactly what they will try to do.
Control their neighbors.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
> 
> Any thing Paul wrote in Holy Scriptures is HOLY SPIRIT inspired...
> 
> Your beef ain't with Paul...it is with God.



You're off base AGAIN...I never said I had a problem with paul...

As for my relationship with the Great Spirit  and the Lord Jesus.....YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THAT


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Banjo said:


> ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
> 
> Any thing Paul wrote in Holy Scriptures is HOLY SPIRIT inspired...
> 
> Your beef ain't with Paul...it is with God.



This is a classic example of avoiding the point. folks throwing more stones.

Don't get in the way of a stoning, the church police will stone you next


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Got to sign off now folks, enjoyed it.

Banjo and Pastor, I'll bring y'all some more rocks monday, since you guys gotta be running out by now


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> Again, I know we hold to differing standards and just for the record the book Isiah chapter 53 Jesus is seen as a man of unbecoming appearance. Sort of squashes the idea of the blue eyed Jesus we see in must of the book stores.



Actually, no, the Book of Isaiah chapter 53 is not speaking of Jesus, but is speaking of the Jews... but that's for another thread....


----------



## Madman

> Um......
> being a Christian requires nothing but belief in Christ. WTM45



UM No!  Satan believes in Christ.  Don't think he is a Christian.


----------



## Banjo

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> You're off base AGAIN...I never said I had a problem with paul...
> 
> As for my relationship with the Great Spirit  and the Lord Jesus.....YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THAT



I thought you called Paul a woman-hater.....I just assumed you had a problem with that.


----------



## Madman

> if it is our final home, we should Steward it, shouldn't we??  ...WTM45



Being the Bible Scholar you are then you know that God is going to destroy the earth.  There will be new heavens and earth.

You silly goose you are just trying to trick us of lower intelligence.

Good try but not this time.


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> Actually, no, the Book of Isaiah chapter 53 is not speaking of Jesus, but is speaking of the Jews... but that's for another thread....



You have to know I will disagree!! For another thread.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> You have to know I will disagree!! For another thread.



Of course


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Being the Bible Scholar you are then you know that God is going to destroy the earth.  There will be new heavens and earth.
> 
> You silly goose you are just trying to trick us of lower intelligence.
> 
> Good try but not this time.




Wanna tell us all where I said that, and where you got that "quote?"


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Please quote a verse thats supports this ludicrous view.



John 3:16 simplifies it, correct?


----------



## Madman

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Then cite sripture to support your position,



What position would that be?
That if she is a Christian or that its not my church it is Christ's Church?


----------



## Ronnie T

ambush80 said:


> Ok, talk about what she's doing today.  Is it Christlike to be in a beauty pageant?




Ambush,,,,,,,,,,,,,, your an ATHEIST, why do you care????


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> Ambush,,,,,,,,,,,,,, your an ATHEIST, why do you care????



Because hypocrisy turns my stomach, particularly in people who think they are better than others.

I'm not an atheist.  I don't care either way if God exists or not.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Because hypocrisy turns my stomach, particularly in people who think they are better than others.
> 
> I'm not an atheist.  I don't care either way if God exists or not.



Understood.

But watch out!  Here comes Pascal's Wager at you at full speed!  I see it coming!


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> Understood.
> 
> But watch out!  Here comes Pascal's Wager at you at full speed!  I see it coming!



What if Pascal places his bet on the wrong horse.


----------



## christianhunter

So who wants to say it among the Believers?"She is not a Christian because of her actions."
I'll come back to check on any responses,if there are any who would dare say that.Otherwise I'm through with this one!


----------



## Ronnie T

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> I think you're missing my point. Point is, most of the churchified, self appointed moral police I've met are always on the bandwagon about "modesty" all the while being guilty on one or several of "the seven deadlys" themselves
> 
> As the Master said " he that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her"




Amen and praise the Lord.

It's usually the substandard and the backbiters who are out judging everyone else in the world.

A Christian should be glad this young lady, when faced with a decision, made the correct decision in how she replied to the sexual pervert.  All her decisions might not be as they should be.  Maybe she's learning and growing.
I pray that God will bless her and strengthen her in her life.


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo said:


> I don't take anything that is said on here personally...don't worry.  I know you don't know me personally....but I would love to welcome this girl into my home or church.  She needs another Christian to love her enough to teach her what a Godly woman looks and acts like.  She claims Christ; she should imitate Him.




She needs what you and I need.


----------



## Ronnie T

reformedpastor said:


> Johnny- you are over the top. You are Judging!!! How do you know what banjo knows? You are criticizing banjo, why, because of a standard of modesty that you obviously don't care for?
> 
> This ones about done for me.



No brother, I believe he's trying to point out that Banjo is judging a particular person that she has no business judging.


----------



## Jighead

I have messed up and found myself in this part of the forum, only to see the religious crowd throwing stones. I agree this girl shouldn't pose topless if this happened before conversion, but shouldn't we  pray for the Holy Spirit to convict her or send someone in her path to correct her. If you believe in God, shouldn't you believe in His power to handle this if asked, instead of pointing out her faults. And I've never heard anything more selfish from a Christian saying the Lord cannot come back soon enough. I personally feel God has much work for me to do to reach as many lost as I can before I go or He comes back.If some of you exerted as much energy reaching the lost as you do pointing and bashing, we as children of The Most High One woul be a force to reckon with. I walk out my own salvation with fear and trembing.


----------



## Banjo

Ronnie T said:


> No brother, I believe he's trying to point out that Banjo is judging a particular person that she has no business judging.



Speaking out against public sin is NOT judging, especially when that person claims Christ.  You are a pastor....you should know this.  I never said she wasn't a Christian......but the fruits I do see (and most of the world saw)....smell.  Again...this woman should not be haled as some kind of role model for our young Christian girls, just because she spoke out against gay marriage.  

Her hypocrisy is blatant.  No wonder the church in America doesn't have much influence on our culture....We are just like them.


----------



## Banjo

Jighead said:


> I have messed up and found myself in this part of the forum, only to see the religious crowd throwing stones. I agree this girl shouldn't pose topless if this happened before conversion, but shouldn't we  pray for the Holy Spirit to convict her or send someone in her path to correct her. If you believe in God, shouldn't you believe in His power to handle this if asked, instead of pointing out her faults. And I've never heard anything more selfish from a Christian saying the Lord cannot come back soon enough. I personally feel God has much work for me to do to reach as many lost as I can before I go or He comes back.If some of you exerted as much energy reaching the lost as you do pointing and bashing, we as children of The Most High One woul be a force to reckon with. I walk out my own salvation with fear and trembing.



Why is pointing out sin "BASHING????"  Isn't the New Testament full of this.....Without an understanding of sin, how can there be true repentance?


----------



## Banjo

Ronnie T said:


> Amen and praise the Lord.
> 
> It's usually the substandard and the backbiters who are out judging everyone else in the world.
> 
> A Christian should be glad this young lady, when faced with a decision, made the correct decision in how she replied to the sexual pervert.  All her decisions might not be as they should be.  Maybe she's learning and growing.
> I pray that God will bless her and strengthen her in her life.



Well...I have been called everything else....why not a backbiter and substandard????

You call the homosexual a sexual pervert.....but have no problem with the woman who posed seminude and parades around on stage in a string bikini enticing men to lust????  This is so backwards.

Let me ask you this:

Is parading around in front of millions of men in a string bikini not sexual perversion?  Is getting a breast augmentation six weeks before the pageant so you can "fill out" your tiny bikini not some type of sexual perversion?  When you are being judged to win this contest largely on your "sexual assets"....is this not a type of sexual perversion?  Answer honestly.


----------



## reformedpastor

Ronnie T said:


> No brother, I believe he's trying to point out that Banjo is judging a particular person that she has no business judging.



Didn't you just call someone a sexual pervert a few posts back? And banjo is judging? This is insane!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> John 3:16 simplifies it, correct?




I don't think so, but, I don't think that will change your mind. The rest of scripture would commentary that verse, correct?


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> Wanna tell us all where I said that, and where you got that "quote?"



Thank you WTM45.  You have proven to me, that the average pagan, that would be you, has no integrity or character.  Without God you have no need for the truth. You have no "plum line" to measure truth, so truth is what you make it. 

You, I and God may be the only ones that ever saw your post but that is alright, all three know you posted it.  As I said you have shown me first hand your lack of character and your insincerity, henceforth I will deal with you as I would with anyone that lies and misleads.  

I may be the first to call you on it but I am sure I am no the first to notice it, I have seen some previous posts on other threads alluding to the same.

If I knew your name I would use it when I pray for you, until then God in His infinite knowledge knows who WTM45 is.

"Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo said:


> Speaking out against public sin is NOT judging, especially when that person claims Christ.  You are a pastor....you should know this.  I never said she wasn't a Christian......but the fruits I do see (and most of the world saw)....smell.  Again...this woman should not be haled as some kind of role model for our young Christian girls, just because she spoke out against gay marriage.
> 
> Her hypocrisy is blatant.  No wonder the church in America doesn't have much influence on our culture....We are just like them.



If I were to speak out against her, I'd want to do it in a letter to her.
Role models come in all shapes and sizes.
I knew a young lady who was in such a pageant as this one,  and today she's working as a missionary in S. America.


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo said:


> Well...I have been called everything else....why not a backbiter and substandard????
> 
> You call the homosexual a sexual pervert.....but have no problem with the woman who posed seminude and parades around on stage in a string bikini enticing men to lust????  This is so backwards.
> 
> Let me ask you this:
> 
> Is parading around in front of millions of men in a string bikini not sexual perversion?  Is getting a breast augmentation six weeks before the pageant so you can "fill out" your tiny bikini not some type of sexual perversion?  When you are being judged to win this contest largely on your "sexual assets"....is this not a type of sexual perversion?  Answer honestly.



Please believe me that I didn't intend to imply that you're are a backbiting substandard Christian.  But I've seen it so often in my life.


----------



## Big7

*Yall still beating this horse?*

Yall still beating this horse? 

I edited my post.

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3547834&postcount=134

Compare HERE:
http://forum.gon.com/posthistory.php?do=compare&p=3547834


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Thank you WTM45.  You have proven to me, that the average pagan, that would be you, has no integrity or character.  Without God you have no need for the truth. You have no "plum line" to measure truth, so truth is what you make it.
> 
> You, I and God may be the only ones that ever saw your post but that is alright, all three know you posted it.  As I said you have shown me first hand your lack of character and your insincerity, henceforth I will deal with you as I would with anyone that lies and misleads.
> 
> I may be the first to call you on it but I am sure I am no the first to notice it, I have seen some previous posts on other threads alluding to the same.
> 
> If I knew your name I would use it when I pray for you, until then God in His infinite knowledge knows who WTM45 is.
> 
> "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."




It was not me that posted that.  It was roothog.  He deleted his post.

You incorrectly "quoted" to begin with, putting words into my mouth in your post, #306.
Ask a moderator to verify.  They can see what has been edited and what has been deleted.
Talk about a lack of character.......

I'll await an apology.  I doubt it will be forthcoming.

Im gonna say this openly, and without reservation.
Whatever you have, Madman, I do not want it.  



I'M ASKING ANY MODERATOR WHO READS THIS TO VERIFY MY STATEMENT.

PROVE I AM LYING, AND I WILL LEAVE PERMANENTLY.

THANKS.


----------



## WTM45

Banjo said:


> Is parading around in front of millions of men in a string bikini not sexual perversion?  Is getting a breast augmentation six weeks before the pageant so you can "fill out" your tiny bikini not some type of sexual perversion?  When you are being judged to win this contest largely on your "sexual assets"....is this not a type of sexual perversion?  Answer honestly.



Simply put, NO.
"Sexual assets?"  "Enticing men to lust?"
Come on.
It's called working out and eating right.  Augmentation, where allowed by rule, is only a small part of that competition.
Personally, I do not think augmentation should be allowed in such competitions, or at least scoring deductions should be given.  Including facial plastic surgery and other enhancing procedures.

Why is the human body so dog gone taboo to some?  It's because they have the warped sense of sexual understanding.

Are you gonna also say that men posing in bodybuilding competitions are not "acting" Christian?
Good for the goose, good for the gander........


----------



## Madman

WTM45 if you didn't say it I apologize and stand corrected.

I honesgtly believed I cut it from your posts.  All you had to do was clarify it in your original response.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> WTM45 if you didn't say it I apologize and stand corrected.
> 
> I honesgtly believed I cut it from your posts.  All you had to do was clarify it in your original response.



Wanna explain to me why I would have to clarify anything someone else posts incorrectly?

You went on a namecalling rant over your own error.
It weakens your credibility tremendously.


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

I keep reading that we are not to judge others, but at what point can we point out sin. I would hope that if I am sinning in any way someone would be loving enough to point it out to me. As a christian, I do not want to do anything that brings shame to Christ. I want to do everything I can to please Him. 

I find it interesting that this young woman claims Christ, yet parades herself half naked around a stage for millions of people to look at her. Why does she participate in this event? To draw attention to herself. If she posed for topless pictures before she was a Christian, that is one thing. But she is still flaunting her half naked body around while claiming the name Christ. Even is she stood up for traditional marriage, do you think she was bringing glory to Christ's name by showing off her brand new tatas?


----------



## WTM45

Gold Dust Woman said:


> Why does she participate in this event?



She would like to win the competition.  It is a pretty significant resume builder.  It's a pretty elite club.
She is not claiming to be a spiritual leader, missionary or a guru.  She wants to be Miss America.  Simple.


----------



## Madman

WTM45...

Say what you want.  I cut a post that I thought was yours.  You have no obligation to clarify ANYTHING I simply made a suggestion that rather that getting on your high horse all you had to do was give the credit to roothog.  Maybe something like this.



> It was not me that posted that. It was roothog. He deleted his post.  WTM45  #331



It MAY have been an error but it was no rant.  I apologized, accept it or not.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> WTM45...
> 
> Say what you want.  I cut a post that I thought was yours.  You have no obligation to clarify ANYTHING I simply made a suggestion that rather that getting on your high horse all you had to do was give the credit to roothog.  Maybe something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> It MAY have been an error but it was no rant.  I apologized, accept it or not.




"High horse?"  "Rant?"
Did you read your own post #327 BEFORE you pressed ENTER?


----------



## Madman

Get over yourself.  

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.
   									Dr. Seuss
    (Somes some pretty thoughtful things)

Have a happy mother's day


----------



## Israel

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I keep reading that we are not to judge others, but at what point can we point out sin. I would hope that if I am sinning in any way someone would be loving enough to point it out to me. As a christian, I do not want to do anything that brings shame to Christ. I want to do everything I can to please Him.
> 
> I find it interesting that this young woman claims Christ, yet parades herself half naked around a stage for millions of people to look at her. Why does she participate in this event? To draw attention to herself. If she posed for topless pictures before she was a Christian, that is one thing. But she is still flaunting her half naked body around while claiming the name Christ. Even is she stood up for traditional marriage, do you think she was bringing glory to Christ's name by showing off her brand new tatas?




I will reiterate if need be.
Has anyone even tried to approach this woman about what many feel to be her shortcomings? 
I take a very different view of those who seek to teach and instruct according to what they believe are the doctrines of the faith from one who simply confesses Christ.
As mentioned, I have no qualms regarding discussion in general about the expediency of sisters participating in such competitions, and manner of dress and the like.
But if one wants to specifically accuse another of sin for wearing a bikini, the obligation is to at least attempt to contact said bikini clad sister about her offense.

Both men and women should be modest about the gifts of God, and most women are not unaware of God's grace in making them very desirable creatures, both to the eye and to the heart of men.
Feigned ignorance, or worse, denial that love gives grace to prevent occasion for tempting another, should never be used as an excuse.
Jesus willingly walked in humility not parading his glory. We should do likewise.


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

I agree that someone should go to her and explain, if they haven't already, that parading around barely dressed is not the best way to represent Christ. Although, I have a feeling this young lady already knows that. 

If we are to do all things for the glory of God, one should ask herself, "If I get on stage and parade my half naked body around knowing that many men will be lusting after me, am I bringing glory to God?"  

It is very discouraging that the "christian community" is holding this young lady up as a champion for the christian cause. Just b/c she stands for marriage between a man and a woman does not make her a shining example of what christianity is. Morality does not necessarily equal christianity. Just ask the atheist.


----------



## Ronnie T

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I agree that someone should go to her and explain, if they haven't already, that parading around barely dressed is not the best way to represent Christ. Although, I have a feeling this young lady already knows that.
> 
> If we are to do all things for the glory of God, one should ask herself, "If I get on stage and parade my half naked body around knowing that many men will be lusting after me, am I bringing glory to God?"
> 
> It is very discouraging that the "christian community" is holding this young lady up as a champion for the christian cause. Just b/c she stands for marriage between a man and a woman does not make her a shining example of what christianity is. Morality does not necessarily equal christianity. Just ask the atheist.



I'm not sure the christian community is "holding this young lady up".
So far, all I've seen is liberals and Christians throwing rocks at her.


----------



## Gold Dust Woman

Many pro-family and christian groups are "holding her up" for her brilliant answer to Perez Hilton's question. I have seen many christians blast other christians for being so called judgemental about the beauty queen while calling Hilton a pervert. That is just as judgemental. Why do we get to call homosexuality a sin, but not immodesty? That is just as hypocritical. 

The whole crux of the matter, as has been stated before,is  she claims Christ yet acts in way that is not Christ-like by being immodest. If she was a pagan, and many take the traditional marriage view, the point to this thread would be moot.


----------



## Ronnie T

I personally applaud her for saying what she believed even though she had to have known it wasn't going to be a popular answer.  There's not much else that I can say about her personally.

It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to classify Perez Hilton as a sexual pervert.  He likes to be with men in the way that normal men like to be with women.  God detest the sight of Mr. Hilton for his blatant disregard for the natural relationship between man and woman.  Not only is his disregard blatant, he flaunts his lifestyle.  Christians don't have to judge him, God already has.


----------



## earl

I love to go swimmin' wit' bowlegged wimmin .......
A naked woman was one of God's better creations. If that dang Eve hadn't screwed it up , they 'd still be naked !!!!!


----------



## Banjo

Gold Dust Woman said:


> Many pro-family and christian groups are "holding her up" for her brilliant answer to Perez Hilton's question. I have seen many christians blast other christians for being so called judgemental about the beauty queen while calling Hilton a pervert. That is just as judgemental. Why do we get to call homosexuality a sin, but not immodesty? That is just as hypocritical.
> 
> The whole crux of the matter, as has been stated before,is  she claims Christ yet acts in way that is not Christ-like by being immodest. If she was a pagan, and many take the traditional marriage view, the point to this thread would be moot.



Oh Gold Dust Woman.....Your posts are a sight for sore eyes.....I was thinking that I was the minority and then  you, Dominic and Pigpen show up.....I think Liberty University had this woman speak...as she got up on the stage the Christian students cat called....I think Focus on the Family also endorsed her in some kind of way...

I appreciate your stand.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

I just want to point out that we heathens, atheists and agnostics are sittin' over here just watchin', learnin' and listenin' to y'all tear each other apart....  kinda hard to believe you're all on the same team.... or supposed to be, anyway......


----------



## Havana Dude

Gold Dust Woman said:


> I keep reading that we are not to judge others, but at what point can we point out sin. I would hope that if I am sinning in any way someone would be loving enough to point it out to me. As a christian, I do not want to do anything that brings shame to Christ. I want to do everything I can to please Him.
> 
> I find it interesting that this young woman claims Christ, yet parades herself half naked around a stage for millions of people to look at her. Why does she participate in this event? To draw attention to herself. If she posed for topless pictures before she was a Christian, that is one thing. But she is still flaunting her half naked body around while claiming the name Christ. Even is she stood up for traditional marriage, do you think she was bringing glory to Christ's name by showing off her brand new tatas?



INMHO, a christian does not need to have their sins pointed out to them. They(we) know what they(we) are doing. It is a personal choice to do anything we do. Most know it is a sin, even before it is committed. To answer your question, no, I don't want some holier than thou type telling me what I'm doing wrong.


----------



## Jighead

Dixie Dawg said:


> I just want to point out that we heathens, atheists and agnostics are sittin' over here just watchin', learnin' and listenin' to y'all tear each other apart....  kinda hard to believe you're all on the same team.... or supposed to be, anyway......



Can't disagree with that one. I guess that's why we have 400 denominations. Maybe someone can start a new thread as to why their denomination or church is better, this one is getting old.The horse has been beaten to hamburger by now.


----------



## Big7

Jighead said:


> Can't disagree with that one. I guess that's why we have 400 denominations. Maybe someone can start a new thread as to why their denomination or church is better, this one is getting old.The horse has been beaten to hamburger by now.



400.... Try 35,000. Give or take a few....

Plus - That horse has been beaten, rode hard
AND put up wet.


----------



## WTM45

Dixie Dawg said:


> I just want to point out that we heathens, atheists and agnostics are sittin' over here just watchin', learnin' and listenin' to y'all tear each other apart....  kinda hard to believe you're all on the same team.... or supposed to be, anyway......



Can a newly labeled "pagan" stand on the sideline with the "heathens, atheists and agnostics?"

I would feel much safer and more comfortable!


----------



## Ronnie T

Dixie Dawg said:


> I just want to point out that we heathens, atheists and agnostics are sittin' over here just watchin', learnin' and listenin' to y'all tear each other apart....  kinda hard to believe you're all on the same team.... or supposed to be, anyway......



Allow me to introduce you to the new modern age church of Christ.  
We now choose sides.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

WTM45 said:


> Can a newly labeled "pagan" stand on the sideline with the "heathens, atheists and agnostics?"
> 
> I would feel much safer and more comfortable!



Sure thing... 'pagan' falls in with the heathen crowd.... come on over, we have cookies!!!


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Ronnie T said:


> Allow me to introduce you to the new modern age church of Christ.
> We now choose sides.



That's sad.... I thought you were all on the same side...


----------



## ambush80

Jighead said:


> Can't disagree with that one. I guess that's why we have 400 denominations. Maybe someone can start a new thread as to why their denomination or church is better, this one is getting old.The horse has been beaten to hamburger by now.



I vote for the AMISH!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> Can a newly labeled "pagan" stand on the sideline with the "heathens, atheists and agnostics?"
> 
> I would feel much safer and more comfortable!



Had enough Christlike love and humility?  

I'm just kidding, I think it can be very loving to tell someone about their faults, like in an intervention.   It's stupid and hypocritical for someone who is blatantly flaunting their sexuality to rail on others about their sexuality, though.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Had enough Christlike love and humility?



The actions of a few do not represent the whole, I will admit.
Some are downright scary.


----------



## Ronnie T

Dixie Dawg said:


> That's sad.... I thought you were all on the same side...



We're on different sides of the same side.


----------



## footjunior

I'll admit I didn't read all 8 pages, but I'll give my worthless 2 cents anyways. Banjo keeps talking about modesty. My thought is that modesty is different for each individual. I don't know about Presbyterians, but when I was a Congregational Holiness church member I always would say that it's up to your personal convictions as long as it's within the scriptures. Sometimes the scriptures do not give perfectly specific details about what you can and cannot do. Sometimes it does. Does the Bible specifically say that girls cannot wear bikinis? No. But it does say...

1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.

What is "modest apparel"? I would say that there is no objective definition. It is subjective and based on culture. Wouldn't you agree? I've always thought it should be determined by convictions when there is ambiguity of scripture. If you feel convicted about wearing a certain item of clothing, then don't wear it. If you don't feel a conviction about wearing a certain item of clothing, then wear it if you want to. As soon as you feel an ounce of doubt about wearing it, don't wear it anymore. Ask God for guidance.

This issue came up a lot at my old church. Some women would feel that they shouldn't wear certain clothes because they thought it was immodest. For example many would wear only skirts and dresses instead of pants. However some women would come in with pants on. They simply did not feel convicted about wearing pants. They did not feel that wearing pants (normal pants, not super tight pants) is considered immodest. Quite honestly I didn't either. I grew up in public schools and everyone wore pants. When normal people see a woman in pants they don't say, "Oh look. A woman _wearing pants_." They say, "Oh look. A woman." If you've seen women in bikinis since you were a child, then seeing women in bikinis isn't really a big deal. It's not like, "Wow. That woman is wearing _a bikini_." It's just, "Another woman in a bikini." 

Let's play the judging game some more. Banjo... if I remember correctly, I've seen you wearing pants before in your avatar. I think you were about to go hunting and you had camo on. Regardless, you had pants on. Your pants-wearing may cause some of your brothers in Christ to "lust after you" in their minds and therefore committing adultery with you (Matthew 5:28). You shouldn't dress _so_ immodestly. I would never have my children wearing what you wear. No _real_ Christian would wear pants like you do. Maybe you should get the log out of thine own eye.

Or... Banjo. I see you are showing your face in your avatar. You could cause men to stumble in their walk with God because of this. You should cover yourself and be modest. Obviously you are not modest, otherwise you would be wearing a burka.

See how ridiculous it can be?

Romans 14:13 - Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Banjo. Maybe I missed it since I didn't read the entire thread... but what scripture do you have that backs up your view that women should "cover themselves up".

And answer this (with scriptures): How much should they cover? Are ankles too much? What's next? Burkas? Are the Amish too liberal? How far will you take it? Until your specific, subjective view of modesty is satisfied? 

If Ms. California doesn't feel convicted about wearing bikinis or participating in beauty pageants and as long as her behavior is not explicitly prohibited by scripture, then I can see no reason why she should change her ways. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.


----------



## pigpen1

footjunior said:


> I'll admit I didn't read all 8 pages, but I'll give my worthless 2 cents anyways. Banjo keeps talking about modesty. My thought is that modesty is different for each individual. I don't know about Presbyterians, but when I was a Congregational Holiness church member I always would say that it's up to your personal convictions as long as it's within the scriptures. Sometimes the scriptures do not give perfectly specific details about what you can and cannot do. Sometimes it does. Does the Bible specifically say that girls cannot wear bikinis? No. But it does say...
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
> 
> What is "modest apparel"? I would say that there is no objective definition. It is subjective and based on culture. Wouldn't you agree? I've always thought it should be determined by convictions when there is ambiguity of scripture. If you feel convicted about wearing a certain item of clothing, then don't wear it. If you don't feel a conviction about wearing a certain item of clothing, then wear it if you want to. As soon as you feel an ounce of doubt about wearing it, don't wear it anymore. Ask God for guidance.
> 
> This issue came up a lot at my old church. Some women would feel that they shouldn't wear certain clothes because they thought it was immodest. For example many would wear only skirts and dresses instead of pants. However some women would come in with pants on. They simply did not feel convicted about wearing pants. They did not feel that wearing pants (normal pants, not super tight pants) is considered immodest. Quite honestly I didn't either. I grew up in public schools and everyone wore pants. When normal people see a woman in pants they don't say, "Oh look. A woman _wearing pants_." They say, "Oh look. A woman." If you've seen women in bikinis since you were a child, then seeing women in bikinis isn't really a big deal. It's not like, "Wow. That woman is wearing _a bikini_." It's just, "Another woman in a bikini."
> 
> Let's play the judging game some more. Banjo... if I remember correctly, I've seen you wearing pants before in your avatar. I think you were about to go hunting and you had camo on. Regardless, you had pants on. Your pants-wearing may cause some of your brothers in Christ to "lust after you" in their minds and therefore committing adultery with you (Matthew 5:28). You shouldn't dress _so_ immodestly. I would never have my children wearing what you wear. No _real_ Christian would wear pants like you do. Maybe you should get the log out of thine own eye.
> 
> Or... Banjo. I see you are showing your face in your avatar. You could cause men to stumble in their walk with God because of this. You should cover yourself and be modest. Obviously you are not modest, otherwise you would be wearing a burka.
> 
> See how ridiculous it can be?
> 
> Romans 14:13 - Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
> 
> Banjo. Maybe I missed it since I didn't read the entire thread... but what scripture do you have that backs up your view that women should "cover themselves up".
> 
> And answer this (with scriptures): How much should they cover? Are ankles too much? What's next? Burkas? Are the Amish too liberal? How far will you take it? Until your specific, subjective view of modesty is satisfied?
> 
> If Ms. California doesn't feel convicted about wearing bikinis or participating in beauty pageants and as long as her behavior is not explicitly prohibited by scripture, then I can see no reason why she should change her ways. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.


----------



## footjunior

pigpen1 said:


>



Would you like to construct a few sentences that explains why you think I'm crazy? Did you read Romans 14:13?


----------



## WTM45

Right on line, Footjunior.
Fundamentalists are astounded when us "pagans, heathen, atheists and agnostics" reflect an understanding in useage of their own holy book.  Judeo-Christian, Islam or any other system, does not matter.


----------



## earl

WTM45 said:


> Right on line, Footjunior.
> Fundamentalists are astounded when us "pagans, heathen, atheists and agnostics" reflect an understanding in useage of their own holy book.  Judeo-Christian, Islam or any other system, does not matter.





But we really don't understand !!!!! No Holy Spirit ,no savvy.


----------



## Ronnie T

WTM45 said:


> Right on line, Footjunior.
> Fundamentalists are astounded when us "pagans, heathen, atheists and agnostics" reflect an understanding in useage of their own holy book.  Judeo-Christian, Islam or any other system, does not matter.



As an atheist, you can't even begin to understand.


----------



## Ronnie T

footjunior said:


> I'll admit I didn't read all 8 pages, but I'll give my worthless 2 cents anyways. Banjo keeps talking about modesty. My thought is that modesty is different for each individual. I don't know about Presbyterians, but when I was a Congregational Holiness church member I always would say that it's up to your personal convictions as long as it's within the scriptures. Sometimes the scriptures do not give perfectly specific details about what you can and cannot do. Sometimes it does. Does the Bible specifically say that girls cannot wear bikinis? No. But it does say...
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
> 
> What is "modest apparel"? I would say that there is no objective definition. It is subjective and based on culture. Wouldn't you agree? I've always thought it should be determined by convictions when there is ambiguity of scripture. If you feel convicted about wearing a certain item of clothing, then don't wear it. If you don't feel a conviction about wearing a certain item of clothing, then wear it if you want to. As soon as you feel an ounce of doubt about wearing it, don't wear it anymore. Ask God for guidance.
> 
> This issue came up a lot at my old church. Some women would feel that they shouldn't wear certain clothes because they thought it was immodest. For example many would wear only skirts and dresses instead of pants. However some women would come in with pants on. They simply did not feel convicted about wearing pants. They did not feel that wearing pants (normal pants, not super tight pants) is considered immodest. Quite honestly I didn't either. I grew up in public schools and everyone wore pants. When normal people see a woman in pants they don't say, "Oh look. A woman _wearing pants_." They say, "Oh look. A woman." If you've seen women in bikinis since you were a child, then seeing women in bikinis isn't really a big deal. It's not like, "Wow. That woman is wearing _a bikini_." It's just, "Another woman in a bikini."
> 
> Let's play the judging game some more. Banjo... if I remember correctly, I've seen you wearing pants before in your avatar. I think you were about to go hunting and you had camo on. Regardless, you had pants on. Your pants-wearing may cause some of your brothers in Christ to "lust after you" in their minds and therefore committing adultery with you (Matthew 5:28). You shouldn't dress _so_ immodestly. I would never have my children wearing what you wear. No _real_ Christian would wear pants like you do. Maybe you should get the log out of thine own eye.
> 
> Or... Banjo. I see you are showing your face in your avatar. You could cause men to stumble in their walk with God because of this. You should cover yourself and be modest. Obviously you are not modest, otherwise you would be wearing a burka.
> 
> See how ridiculous it can be?
> 
> Romans 14:13 - Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
> 
> Banjo. Maybe I missed it since I didn't read the entire thread... but what scripture do you have that backs up your view that women should "cover themselves up".
> 
> And answer this (with scriptures): How much should they cover? Are ankles too much? What's next? Burkas? Are the Amish too liberal? How far will you take it? Until your specific, subjective view of modesty is satisfied?
> 
> If Ms. California doesn't feel convicted about wearing bikinis or participating in beauty pageants and as long as her behavior is not explicitly prohibited by scripture, then I can see no reason why she should change her ways. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.




Modesty has very little to do with Christian behavior.
It has to do with right and wrong.

You listed the following verse:
Romans 14:13 - Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

A person must ensure that what they wear, or don't wear, will not cause a person stumble.
Stripping, see-thru's, and the such fall into that category.


----------



## redwards

Israel said:


> I will reiterate if need be.
> Has anyone even tried to approach this woman about what many feel to be her shortcomings?
> I take a very different view of those who seek to teach and instruct according to what they believe are the doctrines of the faith from one who simply confesses Christ.
> As mentioned, I have no qualms regarding discussion in general about the expediency of sisters participating in such competitions, and manner of dress and the like.
> But if one wants to specifically accuse another of sin for wearing a bikini, the obligation is to at least attempt to contact said bikini clad sister about her offense.
> 
> Both men and women should be modest about the gifts of God, and most women are not unaware of God's grace in making them very desirable creatures, both to the eye and to the heart of men.
> Feigned ignorance, or worse, denial that love gives grace to prevent occasion for tempting another, should never be used as an excuse.
> Jesus willingly walked in humility not parading his glory. We should do likewise.


But Israel,
Brother, you and I just don't understand. To do as you suggest (express disagreement directly to the source) would not have generated nearly as much comment as this thread has.


----------



## PWalls

Telling someone they are in violation of Scripture is not "judging". That is called informing or rebuking or teaching.

Did she do good and express a Christian opinion on the sanctity of marriage on national TV and in front of a hostile judge? Yes. Kudos to her. I believe God used her at that moment.

Should she have been there in the first place? I don't think so. There is plain Scripture on modesty and temptation. Majority of it has already been posted here.


One thing about the whole "context" issue with the modesty/temptation issue. God had those words inspired and included a couple thousand years ago. He knew how men were tempted. He knew and still knows how men operate and think (using the wrong brain most of the time). That has not changed in 2000 years. So, if telling women to wear modest apparel in a time when women stayed at home, wore long and unrevealing clothes and maintained sexual purity was the context those verses were written, then how can anyone say that the verses no longer apply today? Women are wearing less and less and less. Why are we surprised at the sexual impurity that is rampant in our society?


----------



## Banjo

footjunior said:


> I'll admit I didn't read all 8 pages, but I'll give my worthless 2 cents anyways. Banjo keeps talking about modesty. My thought is that modesty is different for each individual. I don't know about Presbyterians, but when I was a Congregational Holiness church member I always would say that it's up to your personal convictions as long as it's within the scriptures. Sometimes the scriptures do not give perfectly specific details about what you can and cannot do. Sometimes it does. Does the Bible specifically say that girls cannot wear bikinis? No. But it does say...
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
> 
> What is "modest apparel"? I would say that there is no objective definition. It is subjective and based on culture. Wouldn't you agree? I've always thought it should be determined by convictions when there is ambiguity of scripture. If you feel convicted about wearing a certain item of clothing, then don't wear it. If you don't feel a conviction about wearing a certain item of clothing, then wear it if you want to. As soon as you feel an ounce of doubt about wearing it, don't wear it anymore. Ask God for guidance.
> 
> This issue came up a lot at my old church. Some women would feel that they shouldn't wear certain clothes because they thought it was immodest. For example many would wear only skirts and dresses instead of pants. However some women would come in with pants on. They simply did not feel convicted about wearing pants. They did not feel that wearing pants (normal pants, not super tight pants) is considered immodest. Quite honestly I didn't either. I grew up in public schools and everyone wore pants. When normal people see a woman in pants they don't say, "Oh look. A woman _wearing pants_." They say, "Oh look. A woman." If you've seen women in bikinis since you were a child, then seeing women in bikinis isn't really a big deal. It's not like, "Wow. That woman is wearing _a bikini_." It's just, "Another woman in a bikini."
> 
> Let's play the judging game some more. Banjo... if I remember correctly, I've seen you wearing pants before in your avatar. I think you were about to go hunting and you had camo on. Regardless, you had pants on. Your pants-wearing may cause some of your brothers in Christ to "lust after you" in their minds and therefore committing adultery with you (Matthew 5:28). You shouldn't dress _so_ immodestly. I would never have my children wearing what you wear. No _real_ Christian would wear pants like you do. Maybe you should get the log out of thine own eye.
> 
> Or... Banjo. I see you are showing your face in your avatar. You could cause men to stumble in their walk with God because of this. You should cover yourself and be modest. Obviously you are not modest, otherwise you would be wearing a burka.
> 
> See how ridiculous it can be?
> 
> Romans 14:13 - Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
> 
> Banjo. Maybe I missed it since I didn't read the entire thread... but what scripture do you have that backs up your view that women should "cover themselves up".
> 
> And answer this (with scriptures): How much should they cover? Are ankles too much? What's next? Burkas? Are the Amish too liberal? How far will you take it? Until your specific, subjective view of modesty is satisfied?
> 
> If Ms. California doesn't feel convicted about wearing bikinis or participating in beauty pageants and as long as her behavior is not explicitly prohibited by scripture, then I can see no reason why she should change her ways. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.



Go back and read all eight pages....


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> As an atheist, you can't even begin to understand.




I call foul on that.  Big Time.
Understanding is beyond a blind faith and belief.  
It requires working towards an answer of the tough questions, not avoiding them or accepting some old rhetoric.

I've said it before, I'm not an athiest.


----------



## Ronnie T

PWalls said:


> Telling someone they are in violation of Scripture is not "judging". That is called informing or rebuking or teaching.



I agree totally.  It is our duty as Christians.  I've been involved in that very thing many many times.
I'm always impressed with people who love me enough to let me know they are concerned about something I've said or taught.

But, ripping this young lady apart on this forum is NOT a Godly act.  This is not the way Jesus did it.
If someone in your church does wrong, go to them.  Don't come on this forum to set them straight.
Same things goes for all the words that have been directed against this girl.
Write her a letter!
Find her web site, if she has one!

There are proper ways to deal with matters like this one.  For us, the proper thing to have done would have been to lead and encourage this girl and others who will come after her.
All we've done is prove that we're better Christians than she.
Yeah.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> All we've done is prove that we're better Christians than she.
> Yeah.





I know that was tongue in cheek, but it was golden!


----------



## footjunior

Banjo said:


> Go back and read all eight pages....



As per your request/cop-out, I have gone back and read all eight pages. Here's what I found...



			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> By the way....the Bible is pretty clear on women being modest. I have a strong suspicion that topless photos and string bikinis don't "fit the bill" of what constitutes modesty.



Many people at my old church strongly suspected that wearing pants "don't fit the bill" of what constitutes modesty. Maybe I should get some on here and let them "judge" you. Maybe we should get some Amish on here (Amish on computers?  ) to tell you how much better they are than you. What makes you right and them wrong? You more in tune with God than Amish or Pentacostals?



Banjo said:


> I do wear makeup....but I can assure you it is never to cause men to lust over me in any way.



What is the purpose of you putting on makeup?



> You honestly don't see the difference between some rouge and powder and a new set of double d's just because you weren't satisfied with what you had already been given?



You aren't satisfied with your skin you have been given? So vain. (Jeremiah 4:30) To answer your question: Yes. There is a difference, but the principle is the same. You are seeking to artificially enhance your looks. Again I ask why you wear makeup?



			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> The main thrust of this argument from the beginning was this beauty queen being set forth as a fine Christian example....YET she has semi-nude photos circulating on the net.....the augmentation that she had six weeks prior to the pageant was just another nail in the coffin...and the parading around of them while bikini-clad for the world to see was confirmation...She is not a Christian role model....no matter what her view on marriage is.



Yet again, you do not back it up with scripture. You're simply saying that you "strongly suspect" that wearing bikinis falls under the category of "immodesty" and you're prepared to judge another human being (Romans 14:13) based only on that suspicion.

Please provide scripture that explains specifically why breast augmentation is vain yet wearing makeup is not.

In fact, please provide scripture for anything you have said, because unless I'm mistaken, you haven't even used scripture once this entire thread. It's all been your opinions based upon your subjective definition of modesty and your holier-than-thou attitude.


----------



## Banjo

Footjunior....

You crack me up.  Why do you even care?  Anyhoo.....here goes:  

Feel free to round up all your Amish and Pentacostal friends.  I love a good debate and find that I learn much from them.  I have a sneaking suspicion that they will agree with me concerning the bikini-clad beauty queen.....But who knows???  I figured most Christians would have a problem with it too.....but according to this thread, I was wrong.

I do wear makeup and have since I was sixteen.  Perhaps it is just a cultural thing???  Would I be devastated if I couldn't wear it....nope.  As a matter of fact, most days I don't even bother putting any on.  It is really not that big of a deal to me.  Is it vanity?  I don't think so....I can take it or leave it.  My heart is not consumed with my looks....nor am I willing to sin in order to achieve some sort of "perfection."

For an atheist to ask me to provide Scripture is pretty interesting.  If you are looking for a "Thou shalt not have a breast augmentation," well...we won't find it.  The Bible has plenty to say about sexual purity, lusting, lasciviousness etc.... If I thought you actually would consider what the Scriptures said...I would look them up and post them.....but since you have openly voiced your disdain for the Bible in other threads....I won't waste my time. 

Holier-than-thou????  Not really.  Willing to point out the hypocrisy running rampant in the Church...Yes.  I will leave you with one Scripture that comes to mind concerning the  Christian Beauty Queen.

Proverbs 11:22 

"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion."


----------



## Banjo

> In her response, 21-year-old Prejean said she thinks “it’s great that Americans are able to ... choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage."
> 
> "And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she continued. "No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman."



Hmmm....Where is God mentioned in Ms. Prejean's comment?  How about what God thinks?  She even says "I think I believe...."  Strong convictions???


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> Why is pointing out sin "BASHING????"  Isn't the New Testament full of this.....Without an understanding of sin, how can there be true repentance?



I think, Banjo, that there is nothing wrong with pointing out sin.  In fact (as you've pointed out) it is biblical.

The issue I think that most have is that the way you write it up in your posts, you seem to point it out with such disdain; with such seeming disgust for the person and not for the sin.  You don't seem to show any compassion toward the sinner and I think that is the issue with a lot of folks.

Jesus pointed out sin and he calls us to do the same.  No question about that.  But it's the motivation behind it that determines "Christian" or "Pharisee".  

Jesus loved the sinner even though the sin was there and was uncontionable.  Pharisees condemned the sinner because of the sin and were the first ones in the public square to point it out and mock or condemn.  There was no movitation of love or compassion in their "pointing out".

Jesus does not simply call us to point out the sins of others.  He calls us to have compassion on them and be concerned for the condition of their hearts.  "Discipline" is not for the purpose of discipline.  It is for the purpose of bringing that person back into fellowship with the body and with Christ.

I don't question your motivation.  I think I know who you are.  But I think the way you post about stuff like this leads people to believe that you are simply disgusted that the sinner is not quite as righteous as you are.


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> Go back and read all eight pages....









He doesn't need to Banjo.  He wasted so much time typing when all he ever needs to post is this:

"If it's good for you....then do it.  Everything is relative."

It sure would save a lot of time.


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo said:


> Hmmm....Where is God mentioned in Ms. Prejean's comment?  How about what God thinks?  She even says "I think I believe...."  Strong convictions???



If you go on to read the rest of her commentary over the following several days, she talked about God and her religious convictions over and over again.


----------



## Banjo

> I don't question your motivation. I think I know who you are. But I think the way you post about stuff like this leads people to believe that you are simply disgusted that the sinner is not quite as righteous as you are.



I am disgusted.  I am disgusted with the way modern evangelicalism winks at sin.  This woman was even up on stage with her pastor reading Bible verses at her church....

There is no standard for holiness; everyone does what is right in his/her own eyes and NOBODY better tell them what they are doing contradicts the teachings of the Bible.....or they are labeled a stone throwing, holier-than-thou, stuck up, substandard, back biting, worker of Satan.


----------



## Huntinfool

But that's what I'm talking about.  You should be disgusted....with the sin.

But you seem to have no concern for the person at all.  Just the sin.  You seem to only care that they sinned and have no concern for whether or not they will join you in eternity. 

All that comes across is disdain for "Christianity" and the "Church"...

I didn't lable you any of those things.  I guess I'm simply asking, do you actually care about whether she'll be there with you?  Or are you just angry that the Church is letting you down?


----------



## Madman

Huntinfool said:


> But you seem to have no concern for the person at all.  Just the sin.  You seem to only care that they sinned and have no concern for whether or not they will join you in eternity.
> 
> All that comes across is disdain for "Christianity" and the "Church"...




I do see Banjo's concern for this young lady, but it has become overshadowed by some of the brethren wanting to merley "look the other way" so not to appear judgemental.

If some christians believe Ms. Prejean's attire is an example of christian modesty than so be it, but I believe they are going to have a difficult time defending that position.

It is the responsibility of the church to judge the church and if Ms. Prejean  presents herself as a member of the church she opens the door.

I see a lot of "don't offend anyone" being passed around.  The Gospel is offensive.

_I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth. 
							                            Martin Luther	_


----------



## hevishot

Lets just stone her to death and get it over with...Banjo, cast the first stone......this thread is so funny. Makes my skin crawl to think people can make such a big deal over this....and claim they are doing it as Christians. Reminds me of ladies in the office who just can't stand the ones who are more attractive than they are....they just can't stand it!


----------



## Huntinfool

Thanks for stopping by hevi.


----------



## Banjo

Huntinfool said:


> But that's what I'm talking about.  You should be disgusted....with the sin.
> 
> But you seem to have no concern for the person at all.  Just the sin.  You seem to only care that they sinned and have no concern for whether or not they will join you in eternity.
> 
> All that comes across is disdain for "Christianity" and the "Church"...
> 
> I didn't lable you any of those things.  I guess I'm simply asking, do you actually care about whether she'll be there with you?  Or are you just angry that the Church is letting you down?



Of course I care.  If this girl is a Christian (and I have never said she is not), the Church has really let her down.  I don't know her personally....I just see the public persona and am not too impressed.  I also see all the Christians "goo goo gaa gaaing" over her response to a homosexual judge concerning what marriage is....I am still not so impressed.  

Where are the Christians who will voice the truth without compromise?  These are the heroes to be imitated.


----------



## footjunior

> I do wear makeup and have since I was sixteen.  Perhaps it is just a cultural thing???  Would I be devastated if I couldn't wear it....nope.  As a matter of fact, most days I don't even bother putting any on.  It is really not that big of a deal to me.  Is it vanity?  I don't think so....I can take it or leave it.  My heart is not consumed with my looks....nor am I willing to sin in order to achieve some sort of "perfection."



You can draw an analogy of your makeup wearing to her bikini wearing.

You say wearing makeup is a cultural thing and that you've done it since you were young.
I say wearing bikinis is a cultural thing and that many girls have been wearing them since they were young.

Would most girls be "devastated" if they couldn't wear bikinis? I doubt it. However, I can't speak for the masses. I can only speak for a few girls that I knew that were not allowed to wear bikinis when they wanted to. It did not devastate them. It really wasn't a big deal to them.

Is wearing makeup vanity? I would say yes. What else can it be? You've yet to provide an alternative reason for it. You're artificially enhancing your "God-given" looks. Why don't you just admit the obvious?

You say you're not willing to sin in order to achieve some sort of perfect look, but many would consider your makeup wearing and pants wearing to be sinful. Why do you wear them then? Looks like unrepentant sin to me.



> For an atheist to ask me to provide Scripture is pretty interesting.  If you are looking for a "Thou shalt not have a breast augmentation," well...we won't find it.  The Bible has plenty to say about sexual purity, lusting, lasciviousness etc.... If I thought you actually would consider what the Scriptures said...I would look them up and post them.....but since you have openly voiced your disdain for the Bible in other threads....I won't waste my time.



I find it interesting that you've continuously talked about the Bible verses but have yet to post them. And this is while you were talking to Christians. Look at your post #21. I've asked you to post them. I have a feeling you don't want to post them because you know it takes a specific interpretation of the scriptures for them to back up your convictions about bikini wearing yet at the same time condoning your makeup wearing.



> I will leave you with one Scripture that comes to mind concerning the  Christian Beauty Queen.
> 
> Proverbs 11:22
> 
> "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion."



Define discretion. Does the definition cover pants wearing, makeup? Or does it only cover the things which you personally despise such as bikinis?

Here's my point: You're taking your conservative cultural views on how Christians should look and act, then you're taking a specific interpretation of the scripture, then you combine them and impose them on another Christian. However, you have not provided scripture which explicitly prohibits such behavior. Much in the same way the Amish are taking their ultra-conservative cultural views, combining them with a specific interpretation of the scriptures, and imposing those views on themselves. 

These views are subjective because their based on culture, not scripture. The scripture can be interpreted to support or prohibit certain items of clothing. You've evidently decided that the scriptures prohibit bikini wearing but not makeup and pants wearing. The Amish have evidently decided that almost everything is prohibited. And Ms. California has evidently decided that the scripture does not prohibit bikini wearing or breast augmentation. She is no more correct than you are or the Amish are. You all come to these conclusions based off your individual cultural experiences combined with your subjective interpretations of the scripture.


----------



## Banjo

fj.....

I cannot see the analogy at all...Not so sure makeup would stir up the same kind of response that a bikini and topless modeling do.

Does a woman in a tiny bikini parading around in her high heels cause the average man to lust?  

How 'bout makeup on a woman?


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> He doesn't need to Banjo.  He wasted so much time typing when all he ever needs to post is this:
> 
> "If it's good for you....then do it.  Everything is relative."
> 
> It sure would save a lot of time.



Cheap shot.   Atheists, holding intellectualism in the highest esteem (as demonstrated in a thousand posts on the subject), would not likely do something that is just "good for them" if it were detrimental to society.  



Madman said:


> If some christians believe Ms. Prejean's attire is an example of christian modesty than so be it, but I believe they are going to have a difficult time defending that position.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the church to judge the church and if Ms. Prejean  presents herself as a member of the church she opens the door.
> 
> [/I]



What's appropriate and modest attire?  I know what gets me riled and it isn't always just skin (though alot of skin will work almost every time).  Nun's habit?  How about a habit that shows the ankle when the wind blows?  A little wrist perhaps?  Lips; they will cause a man to stumble every time especially when painted just so....MMMMM!  we might aught to cover them up as well.

I have no problem with sexuality.  What I hate is industries that use it to create some ridiculous standard, sell their stupid products and make women think that the most important part of them is their bodies.  Miss Prejean does all those things.  While I don't really care if she's a bad Christian (though I find her hypocrisy offensive)  I do care that she is stupid and has allowed herself to be objectified.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> (though I find her hypocrisy offensive)  I do care that she is stupid and has allowed herself to be objectified.




What hypocrisy do *you* see?

I'll bet she would find being called stupid offensive.


----------



## ambush80

footjunior said:


> Here's my point: You're taking your conservative cultural views on how Christians should look and act, then you're taking a specific interpretation of the scripture, then you combine them and impose them on another Christian. However, you have not provided scripture which explicitly prohibits such behavior. Much in the same way the Amish are taking their ultra-conservative cultural views, combining them with a specific interpretation of the scriptures, and imposing those views on themselves.
> 
> These views are subjective because their based on culture, not scripture. The scripture can be interpreted to support or prohibit certain items of clothing. You've evidently decided that the scriptures prohibit bikini wearing but not makeup and pants wearing. The Amish have evidently decided that almost everything is prohibited. And Ms. California has evidently decided that the scripture does not prohibit bikini wearing or breast augmentation. She is no more correct than you are or the Amish are. You all come to these conclusions based off your individual cultural experiences combined with your subjective interpretations of the scripture.



I dunno, Foot. My brief exposure to the Bible leads me to believe that there is a certain kind of behavior that is expected of followers.  Granted the details are all up to interpretation but I would contend that the intent or "spirit" is less ambiguous.  I have an idea of what I would call modest dress.  I think most people would agree with it.   If I were to be Christian I would feel compelled to act as the Amish.  They seem like the ones who are truly walking the narrow path, as I understand it.



Banjo said:


> fj.....
> 
> I cannot see the analogy at all...Not so sure makeup would stir up the same kind of response that a bikini and topless modeling do.
> 
> Does a woman in a tiny bikini parading around in her high heels cause the average man to lust?
> 
> How 'bout makeup on a woman?



Some women are more attractive without makeup.  You know, that Earthy granola, natural sexy?   Maybe they should be forced to wear makeup to subdue their God given "lust maker".

Nudity will always cause a reaction; it's hardwired. That's why its such an effective advertising tool.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> What hypocrisy do *you* see?
> 
> I'll bet she would find being called stupid offensive.



I think that Christianity promotes modesty.  She doesn't behave modestly, indeed she is a role model for immodesty.   Hypocrite.

If she smelled bad and I called her smelly would that be offensive?


----------



## Double Barrel BB

Being a Christian and calling yourself a Christian are not the same...

Here is a rule of thumb that I try to live my life by... I don't always succeed but I try....

Don't do "it", say "it", listen to "it" or be around "it" if you would be ashamed for God to see or hear it...

DB BB


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> I think that Christianity promotes modesty.  She doesn't behave modestly, indeed she is a role model for immodesty.   Hypocrite.
> 
> If she smelled bad and I called her smelly would that be offensive?




We agree. 

I have no problem with what many people call "offensive" 
I believe it is honesty.  Just checking.

I have a friend who is Australian.  He says yanks think they are rude, they think we are liers.

He uses the example of a family eating out.  They sit at the table and complain among themselves that the tea is not sweet enough, or the chicken is burnt, but when the server comes by to check on how they like their food they say that eveything is "fine."


----------



## footjunior

Banjo said:


> fj.....
> 
> I cannot see the analogy at all...Not so sure makeup would stir up the same kind of response that a bikini and topless modeling do.
> 
> Does a woman in a tiny bikini parading around in her high heels cause the average man to lust?
> 
> How 'bout makeup on a woman?



I was hoping you would respond to the rest of my post, but I have a feeling you don't plan on doing so.

Amish boys get a kick out of seeing ankles. Some men lust after women who wear makeup. Some lust after women in bikinis. People who live in nudist colonies don't lust after women who walk around completely nude. If you grow up living in a nudist colony, is it such a big deal to see a woman nude? I think not.

I think it's funny how you add "average" as an adjective to "man". So you're worried about what causes the "average" man to lust? A woman with a pretty face can cause the average man to lust. If a woman is wearing makeup and that causes a man to lust, should the woman not wear makeup anymore? It seems that she should not.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Nudity will always cause a reaction; it's hardwired. That's why its such an effective advertising tool.



It's much more so a survival of the species effective.

What some explain away as being "lust" to others is only a natural reaction to the internal program of procreation of the species.  That is not a bad thing.  It ensures another generation.


----------



## Madman

footjunior said:


> I think it's funny how you add "average" as an adjective to "man". So you're worried about what causes the "average" man to lust? A woman with a pretty face can cause the average man to lust. If a woman is wearing makeup and that causes a man to lust, should the woman not wear makeup anymore? It seems that she should not.



men do lust, we are visual.

That is why Job made a "covenant" with his eyes.

You have to admit, cities are able to support many more mens clubs than ladies clubs.


----------



## ambush80

footjunior said:


> People who live in nudist colonies don't lust after women who walk around completely nude. If you grow up living in a nudist colony, is it such a big deal to see a woman nude? I think not.




I've met some nudists.  I think they are dishonest (from nuance in conversation) when they say that the nudity doesn't arouse them.  You're supposed to have a reaction to exposed naughty bits.  Not having a reaction is manufactured.  If Miss Prejean walked through a nudist colony I think it would be a "big deal".


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> It's much more so a survival of the species effective.
> 
> What some explain away as being "lust" to others is only a natural reaction to the internal program of procreation of the species.  That is not a bad thing.  It ensures another generation.



Its a good thing unless you use it to create paranoia like they do in advertising.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Its a good thing unless you use it to create paranoia like they do in advertising.




Or a religious belief system tries to make it naughty or dirty.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Cheap shot.



Cheap shot?  I thought it was pretty good!

Every single answer given is some variation of "It's all relative"..."It's all cultural"..."It's all open to however you interpret it."

There is never a single solitary stance.

I was just saying, he could save some time typing.  Just copy/paste.

Come on....I'm just poking fun for the most part.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> You're supposed to have a reaction to exposed naughty bits.  Not having a reaction is manufactured.




Actually, a human reaction (positive or negative) to nudity is what is manufactured, taught at a young age and controlled by parents/teachers/leaders.
Visual stimulation should be the smallest part of arousal.

Nudity has been part of daily life in many cultures.  Ours has developed a serious phobia and control issue over it.


----------



## Ronnie T

I think all Christians know for a fact that a Christian should not get on stage wearing a bikini in an atmosphere of being judged for your physical beauty.  Especially since it's being viewed by millions of people.  It simply is not what a Christian should do.

If I were her pastor, I've have voiced these feeling very strongly to her.
But I'm not.  And no one on this forum is her pastor.  
That makes us ignorant of the situation.


----------



## hevishot

a bikini?? Seriously?  Ya'll are that hung up on a woman wearing a bikini? Prayers sent....


----------



## Big7

*Timeline of the Carrie Prejean Controversy*

Timeline of the Carrie Prejean Controversy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519795,00.html




"She's being attacked for her opinion; she's getting creamed for just giving her perspective. It's just another example of the intolerant left.... There seems to be greater scrutiny on her now that she's given that answer," said Daley, whose non-profit Evangelical organization also does not support gay marriage. "I guess in some people's eyes she's become this pariah."

More HERE:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519796,00.html

Carrie Prejean is a beautiful woman, I don't particularly like 
the California look and standing beside the winner of the contest, 
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, she is
really not that good-looking to me. But... That's just me.


Men looking at women: Not a problem.
Women looking men: Not a problem

Men looking at men,
women looking at women:
BIG PROBLEM!


----------



## footjunior

WTM45 said:


> Actually, a human reaction (positive or negative) to nudity is what is manufactured, taught at a young age and controlled by parents/teachers/leaders.
> Visual stimulation should be the smallest part of arousal.
> 
> Nudity has been part of daily life in many cultures.  Ours has developed a serious phobia and control issue over it.



Exactly. Perhaps my example of nudist colonies was not the best example. Maybe a more natural example would be primitive tribes. Other male animals do not walk around "excited" just because their female counterparts are uncovered. Neither do males in these tribes.

Much like religion has indoctrinated various reactions in people in response to varying subjects and situations, culture has also indoctrinated us to react in certain ways to nudity.


----------



## footjunior

Ronnie T said:


> I think all Christians know for a fact that a Christian should not get on stage wearing a bikini in an atmosphere of being judged for your physical beauty.  Especially since it's being viewed by millions of people.  It simply is not what a Christian should do.



Is that really an explanation of why she shouldn't do it? Just because "it simply is not what a Christian should do"? Where is the rigorous proof of why she shouldn't do it? Where is the scriptures?


----------



## WTM45

Big7 said:


> Men looking at women: Not a problem.
> Women looking men: Not a problem
> 
> Men looking at men,
> women looking at women:
> BIG PROBLEM!



Define "look."

I've tried to develop, through hard work, arms developed and with the strength of Joe Wieder and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  I have failed miserably.
It is not lust, coveting or sexual in nature at all.
It was a challenge I quickly realized was not within my abilities.

Nothing wrong with looking.  Nothing wrong with competing.  Nothing wrong with attempting to make yourself better physically.

It is taught in religious belief systems the body is a "temple."  Make it better.  Be proud of what you have.  Treat it well.
A creator would be pleased, right?


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Every single answer given is some variation of "It's all relative"..."It's all cultural"..."It's all open to however you interpret it."
> 
> There is never a single solitary stance.
> 
> Come on....I'm just poking fun for the most part.



This seems to hold true of Christians as well.    That's the real "lesson".  Three days in a fish. Now that's funny. backatcha.



WTM45 said:


> Actually, a human reaction (positive or negative) to nudity is what is manufactured, taught at a young age and controlled by parents/teachers/leaders.
> Visual stimulation should be the smallest part of arousal.
> 
> Nudity has been part of daily life in many cultures.  Ours has developed a serious phobia and control issue over it.



Smell was pretty important, til we quit walking on our knuckles.  I've read some very interesting things on how strong visual stimulation is.  When someone is swollen just right and in "season", they will draw a reaction even in Pigmy land.



WTM45 said:


> Define "look."
> 
> I've tried to develop, through hard work, arms developed and with the strength of Joe Wieder and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  I have failed miserably.
> It is not lust, coveting or sexual in nature at all.
> It was a challenge I quickly realized was not within my abilities.
> 
> Nothing wrong with looking.  Nothing wrong with competing.  Nothing wrong with attempting to make yourself better physically.
> 
> It is taught in religious belief systems the body is a "temple."  Make it better.  Be proud of what you have.  Treat it well.
> A creator would be pleased, right?



There are many reasons one might want to draw attention to their physicality.  It might be interesting to explore what those reasons might be.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> This seems to hold true of Christians as well.    That's the real "lesson".  Three days in a fish. Now that's funny. backatcha.



I knew you'd come back with that! 




At least we're interesting in our variation!



> Three days in a fish



Kinda crazy, huh?  Kinda like some cosmic explosion of gases that resulted in life as we know it!


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Smell was pretty important, til we quit walking on our knuckles.  I've read some very interesting things on how strong visual stimulation is.  When someone is swollen just right and in "season", they will draw a reaction even in Pigmy land.
> 
> There are many reasons one might want to draw attention to their physicality.  It might be interesting to explore what those reasons might be.



That is pretty good!


Second one is simple, at least for me.  I simply wanted to be able to throw a Volkswagon around.
It sure was not to attract mates.  I'm old enough to know that's when real problems in life start!


----------



## Double Barrel BB

celticfisherman said:


> "we should teach ourselves to blush again."


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Big7

*Today "The Donald " did a GOOD thing.*

Today "The Donald " did a GOOD thing. 

The "fair and balanced" story HERE:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519931,00.html

Only thing I didn't like in his/their statement was
when he was asked if the cake boy would be welcomed back as a judge.
He said something to that effect (not quoting him)

Why would the even need a cake boy to judge a ladies "beauty"
contest? 

Sounds to me like he need to go "judge" some men's bodies if
he likes them so much. 

I am glad they allowed her to keep her title as Miss Calif.
Still think Miss North Carolina is a better looking woman
with more of a "southern" twist. 

Maybe this (and she) will be left alone now.

As is the case so much with this type stuff, examples:
American Idol, Dancing With he Stars, etc...
It is not necessarily the "winners" that win.

This girl is practically a household name now and fame and
fortune will follow soon.

Just hope she don't get side-tracked and get into nude modeling
or drugs and the other stuff that younger people sometimes can't handle 
when a lot of fame and tons of money hit them all at once.

I'm sure Hugh Hephner has already made or will make her an offer.
She could resign her title and make a fortune now, because
of a "trick question" from a "cake boy" that there was no "politically correct" answer to. 
Plus he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Let's pray she will stay on track and not be tempted.


----------



## Ronnie T

footjunior said:


> Is that really an explanation of why she shouldn't do it? Just because "it simply is not what a Christian should do"? Where is the rigorous proof of why she shouldn't do it? Where is the scriptures?




If you were a Christian you would know them.

But understand this, I am not one of those who've been beating this young lady up.  She will hopefully turn out to be a great example in years to come.


----------



## earl

Smell was pretty important, til we quit walking on our knuckles 





> knuckle dragger right here !!!! If you need an explanation ,you ain't doing something right .


----------



## Big7

*Banjo*

Where is Banjo - after the good news?....


----------



## Slewfoot

*Lil Sis*

I say that the rest of us believers should support and pray for our sister as she struggles like the rest of us.   There is far too much self righteousness here.  

In addition, why do we make fodder for non believers to make hay of?


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

*like gandaddy says.."it takes all kinds, what kinds are you". WE ALL TEND TO PICK AND CHOOSE OUR OWN SIN NOW.....DON'T WE?

THATS A GOOD SIGN, you dont come to church clean...you come as you are.....IF there is more bad than good in the church, than thats the way HE wants it. UN-GODLY CHURCHES DONT PROSPER, AT LEAST NOT BY GODS DEFINTION. *


----------



## footjunior

Ronnie T said:


> If you were a Christian you would know them.



I'm not a Christian, and I posted some of the scriptures.

My point of posting them is that those same scriptures can also be used to judge Banjo on various things such as pants wearing and makeup wearing. Various denominations of Christians choose varying degrees of "modesty" from those scriptures. Much like Banjo does not feel convicted about wearing makeup or wearing pants, Ms. California does not feel convicted about wearing bikinis.


----------



## Banjo

Big7 said:


> Where is Banjo - after the good news?....



Here I is.... I have been busy hatching chickens....

I must have missed the "good news."

Enlighten me.


----------



## Ronnie T

footjunior said:


> I'm not a Christian, and I posted some of the scriptures.
> 
> My point of posting them is that those same scriptures can also be used to judge Banjo on various things such as pants wearing and makeup wearing. Various denominations of Christians choose varying degrees of "modesty" from those scriptures. Much like Banjo does not feel convicted about wearing makeup or wearing pants, Ms. California does not feel convicted about wearing bikinis.




I'm sorry you don't understand.
But it doesn't actually apply to you any way.  When you begin to seek God and Jesus Christ, you'll see that it isn't as complicated as you make it to be.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> But it doesn't actually apply to you any way.



Dismissed as out of hand........


----------



## Ronnie T

WTM45 said:


> Dismissed as out of hand........






Yes


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

Slewfoot said:


> I say that the rest of us believers should support and pray for our sister as she struggles like the rest of us.   There is far too much self righteousness here.
> 
> In addition, why do we make fodder for non believers to make hay of?



Right you are, brother, right you are


----------



## Ronnie T

Slewfoot said:


> I say that the rest of us believers should support and pray for our sister as she struggles like the rest of us.   There is far too much self righteousness here.
> 
> In addition, why do we make fodder for non believers to make hay of?




Thanks.   I agree with you.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> Yes



Just as long as you know others have observed the clear avoidance.  It is disrespectful to the other poster.


----------



## Big7

Big7 said:


> Where is Banjo - after the good news?....





Banjo said:


> Here I is.... I have been busy hatching chickens....
> I must have missed the "good news."
> 
> Enlighten me.



http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3561483&postcount=410

PS - You would make more money selling pen raised quail
to "plantations" so the "rich folks" could "hunt" some birds
they "might" have a chance of hitting!


----------



## rjcruiser

Big7 said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3561483&postcount=410
> 
> PS - You would make more money selling pen raised quail
> to "plantations" so the "rich folks" could "hunt" some birds
> they "might" have a chance of hitting!



That is why she is raising 'em.  So her and her husband can kill some bigguns for the quail contest in the bird forum


----------



## Ronnie T

WTM45 said:


> Just as long as you know others have observed the clear avoidance.  It is disrespectful to the other poster.




If any of the Christians think I'm wrong they'll post and let me and you know.


----------



## Banjo

> That is why she is raising 'em. So her and her husband can kill some bigguns for the quail contest in the bird forum



hehehe.....Boy....I was brought up on a plantation where we NEVER stooped to buying pen raised birds....They were no challenge; I could sling a rock and hit them.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> If any of the Christians think I'm wrong they'll post and let me and you know.



It's just a common ground rule and courtesy to a debate regardless of a person's belief system.

Rather than taking a person's opinion or point and dismissing it as out of hand, wouldn't it be best to say nothing at all?


----------



## Israel

The believer is to be moving toward the image and likeness of the Lord in all things, thought, word, and deed.
Along the way there are many occasions for tune-ups, and one of these always involves our own sense of right and wrong, propriety vs impropriety.
The Lord uses these instances to help expose, cleanse, purify and reveal the image of his son in us.
How we address these issues, our responses after addressing these issues, and the very motives for our addressing these issues come to light in the light of Christ...and we are to grow.
It is not uncommon for the spiritual babe to imagine he is simply zealous for the Lord's name, that his own motives are pure, and that what he sees is the whole of it. But it is only in the open hearted discussion of such that the child moves on to manhood, the babe moves into maturity.
Jesus didn't come to expose sin, but to die for it.
Jesus didn't come to display himself as the only one right amongst all that are completely wrong.
That these things may be seen as the truth in Christ does not change his motive for doing and being amongst us all that he was and is.
Are all our defects quite evident in the light of Christ?
Yes.
Is Jesus the only man without sin who is able to lead us through the morass to salvation?
Yes.
But we discover that in all he says, does, seeks for us, there is one underlying and pervasive impetus...our redemption, and it is in that redemption the Father is glorified.
Simply put, Jesus came to die for us. 
And we often discover that in our attempts to follow, we are not as accepting of our own deaths on behalf of others as we might imagine, or first believed. But that is ok, as this is all part of the Lord's work in us...to show us the way, even when we are completely convinced we are already totally devoted to it.
There are many things a believer can emulate without possessing,  a sense of true righteousness, obedience in an outward display of piety, soberness in the midst of  incontinent self indulgence.
But there seems to be one test of obedience at which we often stumble (and not unusually must probably be written off to inconsequence as it seems so rarely embraced)...and very difficult to mimic:

Leaping for joy when we are reviled, and gladly bearing insult for the Lord's sake.

We are very inclined to see and address the faults of others. We usually like to call that not being afraid to address sin.

Ministering as the sighted to the poor and  needy blind among us. We usually call that being compassionate to the weak.

Taking a "bold stance for the Lord".
We usually call that defending the faith.

We often make many provisions in our appraisal of our own doings and motives that...not unsurprisingly...allow us to view ourselves in a most favorable light!

The test always come, however...
Do we leap for joy when we are resisted and disparaged...or does that nasty beast of self defense come out of its cave to display who and what's really been at work?

Lord, help me...


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> Just as long as you know others have observed the clear avoidance.  It is disrespectful to the other poster.





Ronnie T said:


> If any of the Christians think I'm wrong they'll post and let me and you know.





WTM45 said:


> It's just a common ground rule and courtesy to a debate regardless of a person's belief system.
> 
> Rather than taking a person's opinion or point and dismissing it as out of hand, wouldn't it be best to say nothing at all?



WTM45, do you just make this stuff up on the fly? Common ground rule?

Rebuking foolishness is the kind, instructive thing to do. Some of the stuff posted on this forum is so off-base, it begs for scorn.

 While many accord a certain respect to all posters, that which is posted in ignorance, blatant sarcasm, or evil intent (trolling) may not deserve any respect. Most of us here fully support the right to dismiss any or all offerings posted here, out of hand. The mods have their rules and there are other protected rights not specifically spelled out. The notion that dismissing or attacking the thoughts and ideas posted here are personal attacks is ridiculous. If anyone is so invested in their post as to take personal offense when challenged on the "worthiness" of their idea, perhaps they are too thin skinned and would be better served by spending their time in other pursuits.

I type this for all here.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Ronnie T, I got your back on this one.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> WTM45, do you just make this stuff up on the fly? Common ground rule?
> 
> Rebuking foolishness is the kind, instructive thing to do. Some of the stuff posted on this forum is so off-base, it begs for scorn.
> 
> While many accord a certain respect to all posters, that which is posted in ignorance, blatant sarcasm, or evil intent (trolling) may not deserve any respect. Most of us here fully support the right to dismiss any or all offerings posted here, out of hand. The mods have their rules and there are other protected rights not specifically spelled out. The notion that dismissing or attacking the thoughts and ideas posted here are personal attacks is ridiculous. If anyone is so invested in their post as to take personal offense when challenged on the "worthiness" of their idea, perhaps they are too thin skinned and would be better served by spending their time in other pursuits.
> 
> I type this for all here.
> 
> That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
> 
> Ronnie T, I got your back on this one.



And, you would be dead wrong with your premise.

Dismissing another debater's ideas and opinions as out of hand, attacking the messenger, attempting to push others out of the discussion, "scorn" and "rebuking" a poster is NOT the position to take by any poster.
REGARDLESS.
It is poor debate decorum, and should not be tolerated.

"Rebuking foolishness" is a person taking the stance where they are the ultimate and sole correct stance over another based on their interpretation.  They very well might be the one that is incorrect, or off base.

The goal if debate should not be to "win."  Most often, there are no right or wrong answers.

Express your beliefs and opinions, present your evidence and make your statements.  Any comment that does not address the subject of a post and is directed at a person as insulting or belittleing is uncalled for.

If you find a post that is, in your words, "posted in ignorance, blatant sarcasm, or evil intent (trolling) may not deserve any respect"  DON'T RESPOND IF YOU CAN NOT MAKE A REASONABLE PRESENTATION.

If you have nothing to say regarding the subject matter of the post, or feel attacking the messenger is going to be the tactic it would be better off if the fingers stayed off the keyboard.

ALL POSTERS DESERVE RESPECT.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> And, you would be dead wrong with your premise.
> 
> Dismissing another debater's ideas and opinions as out of hand, attacking the messenger, attempting to push others out of the discussion, "scorn" and "rebuking" a poster is NOT the position to take by any poster.
> REGARDLESS.
> It is poor debate decorum, and should not be tolerated.
> 
> Express your beliefs and opinions, present your evidence and make your statements.  Any comment that does not address the subject of a post and is directed at a person as insulting or belittleing is uncalled for.
> 
> If you find a post that is, in your words, "posted in ignorance, blatant sarcasm, or evil intent (trolling) may not deserve any respect"  DON'T RESPOND IF YOU CAN NOT MAKE A REASONABLE PRESENTATION.
> 
> If you have nothing to say regarding the subject matter of the post, or feel attacking the messenger is going to be the tactic it would be better off if the fingers stayed off the keyboard.
> 
> ALL POSTERS DESERVE RESPECT.



Agreed, all POSTERS should be accorded a measure of respect, until and if they prove themselves unworthy of respect. It is not an unalienable right to be accorded respect on a continuous basis. It is usually granted by one individual to another and revoked by same.

All posts do not deserve respect. This forum is so far from formal debate as to consider a cartoon wrapped around bubblegum to be great literature. It is what it is. One should be able to separate the messenger from the message. Some MESSAGES are not worthy of respect. If it is so stated, how is that an attack on the messenger? If disrespect is directed at a particular post, only the weakest of minds would necessarily think the disrespect accrued to the poster.

What is so difficult to understand about that?


----------



## WTM45

People can (and do) do whatever they want here.  That's clearly understood.  All posts and posters deserve respect.  Folks can refute and point out differences of opinion, sure.  Dismissal out of hand, grandstanding and insult are simply poor techniques.

Those who do not follow decent and respectful debate decorum weaken their own arguments and opinions.  That is unavoidable.


----------



## Ronnie T

gtparts said:


> Ronnie T, I got your back on this one.



Thanks, I need it.
I get involved in discussions sometimes that I don't even want.
I regard this as a place to discuss spiritual matters.
Not a place to defend spirituality.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> Thanks, I need it.
> I get involved in discussions sometimes that I don't even want.
> I regard this as a place to discuss spiritual matters.
> Not a place to defend spirituality.



When the discussion stays open and respectful, everyone benefits.  Some might just learn something from it.
To convince others it works, you must convince them it exists.


----------



## Banjo

Miss California--Persecution or Consequence?

If you are not familiar with the recent flap over Miss California Carrie Prejean's comments regarding marriage, then you must either be a missionary in a remote part of the Ecuadorian rain forest, or have otherwise vowed to refrain from any contact with any form of media--print, radio, or video. The ensuing blog and video commentary by her primary retractor, one depraved and lost Perez Hilton, has garnered just as much attention from both the saved and unsaved world. The heated, even caustic, debate centers on Miss California assertion (in keeping with her professed Christian beliefs) that marriage is to remain as God intended, between one man and one woman.

The pro-homosexual side of the debate sees Miss California as a bigoted homophobe who is receiving the just desserts of her bigotry. The Christian side of the debate sees her as one suffering persecution for her faith. I would like to put forward a third position. She is neither a bigoted homophobe, nor is she being persecuted for her faith.

I believe Miss Prejean is experiencing the consequences of sin--in her case, the sin of immodesty.

Segments of the Christian community have elevated Miss Prejean, who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ, almost to the point of being a living martyr. The most popular "Support Miss California" Facebook page (and there are several), which has over 25,000 members (Christians and non-Christians), over 2,200 wall comments, and more than 40 different discussion topics states the following.

After expressing her personal beliefs, Miss California Carrie Prejean's chances of winning the Miss USA 2009 pageant came to an end.

Miss California responded to a question regarding nationwide legalization of gay marriage with an answer that conflicted with the views of one of the Miss USA 2009 judges, Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton later admitted to penalizing her and posted a video criticizing her performance and describing her with profanity.

Miss California had sacrificed much and dedicated years of her life to reach the top of her competitive industry. It's unfair for her score to suffer after she truthfully responded to a political wedge issue. Mr. Hilton was using the pageant as a platform to express his own political agenda and more Americans should be upset with his bullying tactics after he didn't get from her the response he was looking for.

Join this group to support Miss California's willingness to stand up for her beliefs and against vocal, activist bullies of the Hollywood scene, even if it cost her the pageant crown. Invite everyone you know to join in support of her courage and personal strength.

While I haven't read all of the 2,000+ comments (not even close), what I saw was very supportive of Miss Prejean, holding her up as a role model to young Christian women, and women in general. Is she?

First, anyone who thinks that Miss Prejean was in anything other than a very difficult position has either: 1) never been in such a position; or 2) they are ignorant to the point of running the risk of slipping into a delusional state. The eyes of the world were upon her. It was likely the biggest night of her life. When she heard the question pass from Perez Hilton's lips, she had to know that her hopes, dreams, and ambitions would either be realized or dashed by what she said next. Behind the bright smile and sparkling eyes had to be fear and trepidation.

I have no doubt that she did the very best she could, given the circumstances. She asserted her "politically incorrect" yet biblical beliefs regarding marriage. As some of my friends from another part of the world might say, "Good on ya, Miss Prejean!" That was a courageous thing to do. She could have compromised. She could have denied her beliefs. She could have violated her conscience. But she didn't. She was honest about what she believed. Well done.

But should Miss Prejean have been in that position to begin with? I believe the biblical answer is no.

What seems to be lost in the passionate debate over Miss Prejean's assertion regarding marriage is the issue of modesty and Miss Prejean's utter failure to live up to a God-honoring, faith-validating standard of respectability, modesty, and self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-10).

Miss Prejean, at least for the moment, cannot and will not be a role model for my daughters. The reason is that my wife (the most beautiful and modest woman I know) and I have tried to raise our three beautiful daughters to flee from sin and to pursue righteousness and godliness (1 Timothy 6:11-12).

We have spent many tearful moments explaining to them that if they pursue friendship with the world they will make themselves out to be enemies of God (James 4:4).

We've trained them and pleaded with them to present their bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, and not to be conformed to this world (Romans 12:1-2); instead of presenting their bodies as sexual objects for the purpose of enticing sinful men, or for the purpose of appeasing their own sinful vanity as they seek the praises of those same sinful men.

Our hope and prayer for our daughters is that they will be Proverbs 31 and Titus 2 women; not women of the world who profess faith in Christ with their lips; but deny their faith through worldly, ungodly behavior.

So, for now, Miss Prejean cannot be a role model to my daughters because she does not exemplify the description of the godly and modest woman found in Scripture.

While I feel for Miss Prejean--after all, I never like to see someone vilified for taking a biblical position on an issue--I cannot see her as one who is suffering persecution for her faith. Had she not committed the sin of immodesty in the first place, she wouldn't have found herself in the position she did.

"Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God . . . For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God" (1 Peter 2:16-20).

Yes, what Miss Prejean said regarding marriage was good. But what she had to do, what she had to compromise to get to the place of making the pithy statement about marriage was not good.

Yes, it took courage for Miss Prejean to assert a biblical understanding of marriage. But what would have been more courageous would have been for Miss Prejean, when her name was called during the swimsuit portion of the competition, to walk out on stage fully clothed and say, "Young women of America, God does not want you to be a sexual object. He wants you to be women of virtue, respectability, modesty, and self-control. I know I will lose this competition, but it is more important to me to honor and glorify Christ with my life--and that includes my body and the apparel I put on it."

Do I believe Miss Prejean is born again? No. I've talked to far too many people who have said the exact same things I've heard Miss Prejean say about Christ who don't know Christ. Does that mean she is not born again? No. There's only one Lawgiver and Judge. There is only One who is able to save and destroy (James 4:12). And His name is not Tony.

Do I wish I could consign her to he77 for participating in a worldly competition that accentuates vanity and flesh? No. But, if she is born again, I think she should humble herself, repent, and pursue Christ-likeness. If she is not born again, I hope she will repent, believe the gospel, and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I wish the same for Perez Hilton, too.

Contrary to what some who read this might think, I do not hate Miss Prejean. I care about her just as I would any other human being. The fact that I think she sinned, that she made a mistake by participating in a worldly competition that glorifies vanity, doesn't mean I am ascribing to her the kind of judgment described in the oft-misused passage in Matthew 7. I am not judging her in such a way as to deem her condemned, while ignoring my own he77 worthy sinfulness. My hope is that she will examine and test herself to see if she is in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5)--just as I and every other professed follower of Christ should.

*I expect to receive a considerable amount of flak for this post, from both Christians and unbelievers. So be it. All I ask is that you bring something more to the table by way of argumentation than emotionalism, pragmatism, logical fallacy, or the tired misinterpretation and misapplication of Matthew 7:1-5.
*
And, whether or not you disagree with my position, I hope you will take the time to listen to a wonderful message by C.J. Mahaney titled The Soul of Modesty, which is an expositional study of 1 Timothy 2:8-10. He is a much better teacher than I am. And this is one of the best sermons I have ever heard dealing with the issue of modesty.

http://thelawmanchronicles.blogspot.com/2009/04/miss-california-persecution-or.html


----------



## WTM45

Banjo said:


> Do I believe Miss Prejean is born again? No.



That said volumes.
It's all a stupid move to pass judgement of the eternal kind.

Is this horse beaten into a pulp yet?  Let it go.


----------



## Banjo

WTM45 said:


> That said volumes.
> It's all a stupid move to pass judgement of the eternal kind.
> 
> Is this horse beaten into a pulp yet?  Let it go.



This was just another insightful article I found today over on the Law Man Chronicles....  I didn't write this, but do agree with it.  

WT....everyone is going to be judged....and yes, it will be of the eternal kind.

The author went on to say that he can't know for sure whether or not Ms. Prejean is a Christian...only God does.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> That said volumes.
> It's all a stupid move to pass judgement (sic) of the eternal kind.
> 
> Is this horse beaten into a pulp yet?  Let it go.



How is it that you don't seem to understand that Banjo nor the author of this blog has the authority to "pass judgment of the eternal kind"?


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> How is it that you don't seem to understand that Banjo nor the author of this blog has the authority to "pass judgment of the eternal kind"?




THEN WHY DO THEY EVEN SAY IT?  It's because they want to feel superior to others in some way.  Simple.

I find it total hogwash.


----------



## WTM45

Banjo said:


> The author went on to say that he can't know for sure whether or not Ms. Prejean is a Christian...only God does.




I read the article.  Even with his caveat, he should have kept his unsolicited and unofficial opinion on that subject to himself.

Why say it?  It gives his readers a sense of his self-awarded superiority which is false.


----------



## Banjo

WTM45 said:


> THEN WHY DO THEY EVEN SAY IT?  It's because they want to feel superior to others in some way.  Simple.
> 
> I find it total hogwash.



Hmmmm......and you don't feel like you are "superior" to Christians.....Oh enlightened one.......

Am I superior to Ms. Prejean..........based on her actions perhaps I am her superior when it comes to the idea of modesty.....

However, she has me licked hands down when it comes to external beauty....

I can live with that.


----------



## WTM45

Banjo said:


> Hmmmm......and you don't feel like you are "superior" to Christians.....Oh enlightened one.......



It's not me that's throwing the stones, my friend.
I'm just laughing at the entertainment.

Done.


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo

*I noticed that you haven't made a single comment to this thread:

Father Alberto Cutie 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Falling from the Churche's Grace.
It is a shame, probably the most popular and well spoken priest I have ever known personally, as well as Bible kowledgeable.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...896581,00.html 
__________________
"Blessed is He Who Comes In The Name Of The Lord" 

*This man should upset you the most.


----------



## pop-gun elder

Banjo said:


> Hmmmm......and you don't feel like you are "superior" to Christians.....Oh enlightened one.......
> 
> Am I superior to Ms. Prejean..........based on her actions perhaps I am her superior when it comes to the idea of modesty.....
> However, she has me licked hands down when it comes to external beauty....
> 
> I can live with that.



Sounds a little uppity to me,  But I try not to throw rocks since I know I live in a glass house.




Banjo said:


> Perhaps that is because you have never met a truly Reformed Presbyterian....
> 
> We actually drink beer and like it.




A lot of Christians would say that you're not born again because you drink...
just saying...


----------



## pigpen1

pop-gun elder said:


> A lot of Christians would say that you're not born again because you drink...
> just saying...



 The Bible does not teach that a drink in moderation is sinful, but it does teach that being unmodest is sinful.

 So A lot of shallow Christian that do not know what the Bible teaches would say even as you have.


----------



## pop-gun elder

pigpen1 said:


> The Bible does not teach that a drink in moderation is sinful, but it does teach that being unmodest is sinful.
> 
> So A lot of shallow Christian that do not know what the Bible teaches would say even as you have.



I'd consider myself "unmodest" if I said I was superior another in _anyway._


----------



## Ronnie T

I personally see a huge difference in the drinking of wine 2,000 years ago and a Christian having a six-pack of their favorite brewsky in their fridge.
That's just me though.  Maybe I just like to point out other people's sins that I have no connection with.  It makes me look better.  Know what I mean?


----------



## Banjo

pop-gun elder said:


> I'd consider myself "unmodest" if I said I was superior another in _anyway._



Why?  The idea of superiors, inferiors and equals is evident throughout the Scriptures.  

My husband is my superior in his theological understandings....however, give me a four year old and a book and I become the superior when it comes to teaching children to read....

Egalitarianism has been extremely detrimental to  Christianity and this nation as a whole.


----------



## Banjo

Ronnie T said:


> Banjo
> 
> *I noticed that you haven't made a single comment to this thread:
> 
> Father Alberto Cutie
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Falling from the Churche's Grace.
> It is a shame, probably the most popular and well spoken priest I have ever known personally, as well as Bible kowledgeable.
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...896581,00.html
> __________________
> "Blessed is He Who Comes In The Name Of The Lord"
> 
> *This man should upset you the most.



I don't think that I have even read it....I have stated that those in leadership positions who lead God's people astray are more accountable....Woe to the Joel Osteen's, Rick Warren's, Crevlo Dollar's and anybody else who leads the fold astray, especially to line their own pockets with the ignorant saints' money.


----------



## Banjo

Ronnie T said:


> I personally see a huge difference in the drinking of wine 2,000 years ago and a Christian having a six-pack of their favorite brewsky in their fridge.
> That's just me though.  Maybe I just like to point out other people's sins that I have no connection with.  It makes me look better.  Know what I mean?



Just out of curiousity....I must ask:

What is the difference....Alcohol is Alcohol....moderate drinking is never condemned and even lauded as a gift from God.....

‘Thou doest cause the grass to grow for the cattle....and wine to gladden the heart of man..' Psalm 104:14


----------



## Jeffriesw

pop-gun elder said:


> Sounds a little uppity to me,  But I try not to throw rocks since I know I live in a glass house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of Christians would say that you're not born again because you drink...
> just saying...





Where do they get that idea?


----------



## crackerdave

Banjo said:


> Even the secularists get it....Why can't the Church?
> 
> “Only in America would the notion of a nearly-naked fundamentalist Christian beauty queen tossing her processed hair as she parades brand new, pageant-bought plastic breasts across a Las Vegas stage in front of millions of television viewers with all the modesty of a blue ribbon heifer at a county livestock fair (the same fundamentalist Christian beauty queen who would later tell a television reporter that she heard God whispering in her ear as she answered a celebrity-worshipping Internet gossip columnist’s question about gay marriage) be treated as anything other than an occasion for high comedy and mirth.”
> 
> –Huffington Post
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/at-least-anita-bryant-cou_b_195386.html



I honestly had not read this thread until now.I still haven't read all the posts,but I know y'all are jus' DYIN' to know what th' Krazy Kracker has to say about Christianity and beauty pageants.


----------



## Ronnie T

Banjo said:


> Just out of curiousity....I must ask:
> 
> What is the difference....Alcohol is Alcohol....moderate drinking is never condemned and even lauded as a gift from God.....
> 
> ‘Thou doest cause the grass to grow for the cattle....and wine to gladden the heart of man..' Psalm 104:14




I really don't know.
I know and admit that the Gospel doesn't even come close to condemning the drinking of fermented drink.
But a lot has changed.  The reason for fermenting has changed.  The preferred drink has changed.  The extent of drinking has changed.  The repercussions of drinking has changed.
It has become a crutch for many people, including Christians.
I just think it would be better for the church as a whole if we did not drink alcoholic drinks at all except for medicinal purposes.  

1Tim 5:23No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

Romans 14:21
It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

1 Timothy 3:8
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine 

Titus 2:3
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,



I think there are drinks that are just as enjoyable as beer/booze.  Why not drink them?

Don't worry, I don't preach that drinking is a sin.


----------



## crackerdave

Ah,yes - the medicinal purposes! [Took me a while to find out where the topic had got off to on this thread - I see we have left the beauty pageant and are now at Joe's Bar&Grill knockin' back a few bottles of medicine. ]


----------



## ambush80

Is lipstick Godly?


----------



## Banjo

ambush80 said:


> Is lipstick Godly?



Not on a man.


----------

