glorydaz
Well-known member
Sin had not yet entered the world. Did you forget that they tried to cover themselves once it had? Their own conscience convicted them, but yours doesn't seem to. :think:
Are Glamour Models Immoral?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
- Status
Sin had not yet entered the world. Did you forget that they tried to cover themselves once it had? Their own conscience convicted them, but yours doesn't seem to. :think:
elohiym
Well-known member
That's just your lame way of running from points you can't address. Fine by me. Never thought you could handle the point. You can't even provide an example of modest beach attire when asked.
Why do you think I should believe you accept God?
Whatever paycheck the market will bear?:idunno:
elohiym
Well-known member
Therefore, being naked is not inherently sinful. My point!
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
why should I care what a retard thinks? :idunno:
glorydaz
Well-known member
She posed for the picture, didn't she? She might suffer some embarrassment, I wouldn't know, but I seriously doubt anyone will track her down and cause her any harm. But, I have to wonder what kind of a mind would lead someone to go off on all these nonsensical surmises that yours takes you on, Artie.
Does your conscience ever convict you of some wrong doing? Do you make excuses to yourself and tell yourself there was really nothing wrong with what you had done, or do you admit you erred? Does that wrong doing prevent you from stating what you see as immoral behavior, or are you so afraid of being called a hypocrite that you keep your mouth shut and focus on the "other guy"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
elohiym
Well-known member
I answered it. Modest dress is subjective. God created people naked and left them naked until sin entered the world because being naked isn't inherently sinful. Those in the Church are not to judge those outside the Church. If you have some moral dress code for those inside the Church, one where the women are dressed modestly, let's hear it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
A decent wage?
Interesting about this use of the word "decent". A "decent" wage for indecency....ya gotta love it. It's why I say decency is now UNCOMMON. So uncommon that most people don't know what it is.
A few of you missed that memo.:AMR:
So ... being that modesty tends to be in the eye of beholder, if a glamour model should *entice* some poor innocent man into lust after he seeks her out in a magazine, fashion show, web search, etc... who is to blame?
I am going with "the person who seeks her out". Anyone agree?
I am going with "the person who seeks her out". Anyone agree?
elohiym
Well-known member
I agree.
glorydaz
Well-known member
We are to judge all things. You're twisting what Paul said to justify your own unrighteousness in this matter, and modest dress is only "subjective" to those with no objective moral code.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So? I doubt she gave any permission for it to be used as it was, and why would someone do that anyway? You don't think there's anything creepy about pretending to have a model girlfriend on their profile? Seriously? I sincerely hope nobody does this woman any harm whatsoever as she doesn't deserve it.
Each and every day as it goes. I live with my own mistakes and the losses incurred as the crow flies and sleeps GD, and I make no excuses for it. Doesn't mean I can't comment on pompous prudish double standards and the like.
What exactly is "indecent"? It would seem that scantily clad women are okay as long as they 'fit the bill' of whatever poster has one as his "girlfriend" as long as they agree with you...
Interestingly enough, IMO, this actually plays into an attitude of "let's blame our actions on others" mentality.
When I say *actions*, I am speaking of actually acting on an impulse.
Say a married, business man attends a company function that includes a fashion show.
He sees an attractive, scantly dressed model and decides to flirt or cheat on his wife.
Who is responsible for his reaction?
Well yes, but sex sells. it's been that way forever
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No...
It's entirely her fault for being beautiful to begin with and not covering herself with a tent.
lain:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
True enough but you didn't have to spell it out...!
glorydaz
Well-known member
Elo's memos can't be trusted. Paul doesn't contradict himself as Elo would have us believe. We are to judge ALL THINGS.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
Only for those looking to buy it.
Example: Many cable and satellite companies offer ADULT channels that one actually has to choose and purchase. Without the request, a person may not view them.
Who is responsible when a person chooses to view them?
glorydaz
Well-known member
No...
It's entirely her fault for being beautiful to begin with.
You people are like little kids. Who is at fault? This one OR that one? Eeny meeny miney moe.....
Whenever there are TWO individuals involved, it's quite possible there is fault on both sides. Two individuals....two behaviors.....two different consequences.
- Status