Lipitor. Lipitor side effects….

Cialis injury attorney ohio. Buy cialis. Cialis….

Buy cialis. Cialis best price buy online. Cialis….

Lipitor prescription side effects. Lipitor….

Generic cialis. Cialis….

Yet I think God has a pretty good idea of what He thinks those terms mean.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Yes, you claim you don’t, so how do you know that my idea is incorrect?

And how do you even know I don’t talk to God about this?

Are you sincerely and genuinely positing that beauty pageants never, ever cause people to view the woman in a lustful manner?

No, but then I’ve been arguing that only a burka never, ever causes people to view women in a lustful manner.

God didn’t define lust or provocative in the Bible, and you won’t either, so maybe he doesn’t.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Yet I think God has a pretty good idea of what He thinks those terms mean.

No, they use sex to their advantage. Even ugly people can be hookers and strippers.

True, but the good looking hookers and strippers make more money.

And where did God put it?

Ask Him – He’s waiting to give you an answer.

Neither are beauty pageants. Heck, the had a gay man judging.

Are you sincerely and genuinely positing that beauty pageants never, ever cause people to view the woman in a lustful manner?

That seems a pretty outrageous statement to make.

Well, you need to take that up with the guy upstairs since He seems to have a different opinion on the matter than you do.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM

God didn’t define lust or provocative in the Bible, and you won’t either, so maybe he doesn’t.

Hookers and strippers use their beauty to their advantage

No, they use sex to their advantage. Even ugly people can be hookers and strippers.

YOU were the one that started with “judging” as in a beauty contest (judging a woman by her IQ) then went to “judging” as in discerning.

That wasn’t the only way I meant it.

1) It’s not MY line – it’s God’s. Thus it’s not up to me to define it or defend it.

And where did God put it?

2) It’s not about ensuring that no one will sin, it’s about ensuring that you are not ENCOURAGING someone to sin. For those who would think lustful thoughts if you wore a trash bag or potato sack, then wearing jeans and a t-shirt isn’t ENCOURAGING them.

Neither are beauty pageants. Heck, the had a gay man judging.

And I disagree, both on what constitutes lust and what constitutes provocative.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Well, you need to take that up with the guy upstairs since He seems to have a different opinion on the matter than you do.

No offense intended, but this just shows that you don’t know what the theology is about. It argues the opposite, that it’s our job to redeem the right here and right now rather than waiting.

No, the point is that I’m not a believer in that type of theology.

But Esther didn’t sin. So, big difference.

The comparison isn’t valid because I’m not positing David as Esther.

I’m positing King Ahasuerus as David.

Esther is Bathsheba and the salvation of the Jews is Solomon.

Remember, I didn’t bring up the book of Esther, you did when you wanted to defend beauty contests.

So, for me, the whole discussion her about the Book of Esther is not about Esther, but about beauty contests.

I wasn’t claiming Esther sinned. I’m only pointing out that it has been biblical for a woman to use her looks to her advantage.

I would posit that there is a order of magnitude difference between the general statement of using one’s beauty to one’s advantage and being a beauty pageant contestant.

Hookers and strippers use their beauty to their advantage, but I’m sure we both agree that using it in that way is a sin.

So the point isn’t whether or not you use your beauty, but HOW you use it.

Not all judging involves a contest. I don’t even understand why you would claim it does. That sounds like a complete non sequitor to me.

YOU were the one that started with “judging” as in a beauty contest (judging a woman by her IQ) then went to “judging” as in discerning.

So what is it then? I told you where my line is, but you have done no such thing. You keep saying we need to err on the side of caution, but nothing aside from a potato sack will be enough on the side of caution to make sure you aren’t revealing your body in such a way that some man might go home and think of you when he’s alone.

1) It’s not MY line – it’s God’s. Thus it’s not up to me to define it or defend it.
2) It’s not about ensuring that no one will sin, it’s about ensuring that you are not ENCOURAGING someone to sin. For those who would think lustful thoughts if you wore a trash bag or potato sack, then wearing jeans and a t-shirt isn’t ENCOURAGING them.
3) In the end, it’s really about common sense, prayerful consideration and thinking about others before we think about ourselves.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM

And I disagree, both on what constitutes lust and what constitutes provocative.

Finally, I’d like to just point out that we surely can all agree that the media sucks, which was the point of the original post.

Laura on May 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Very much, and I’m sorry that we went so far off topic. We should have followed Religious_Zealot’s first point and left this discussion for another time.

It is clear from Jesus’ teaching that looking upon someone other than your spouse with lust is a sin.

It is also clear that we are not willingly and knowingly cause someone to stumble (sin).

Thus it is clear that we should not dress in a manner in which we know will cause people to lust after us.

Clearly there will always be a subset of people who will lust no matter what we wear.

But the point is whether we are dressing in a way that we know (or suspect) will ENCOURAGE others to look at us lustfully.

This is why the word “provocative” is so necessary in this conversation. It is a word that denotes a willing action to create a feeling and reaction in others.

I’ve already admitted that there are some grey areas here (i.e. when does flattering become provocative?)…

…but it is hardly a completely unclear situation where the only alternative is a burka (my wife likes to wear sweats and a loose sweatshirt which are hardly “provocative”).

I would also put out there for consideration the point that we will all have to stand before God on Judgment day and answer for our actions and inactions.

And I don’t think God is going to be swayed by the argument that it’s the OTHER person’s fault for looking at us lustfully.

God WANTING it to be redeemed doesn’t mean that those are jobs that He WANTS us to have.

The Redemption of Creation will come when Jesus comes again.

No offense intended, but this just shows that you don’t know what the theology is about. It argues the opposite, that it’s our job to redeem the right here and right now rather than waiting.

That point is not valid.

Obviously I disagree.

David sinned in taking Bathsheba as a wife.

But Esther didn’t sin. So, big difference.

BTW – “seducing” your husband is not a sin (in fact, I’m not even sure if the word is applicable in that situation).

I wasn’t claiming Esther sinned. I’m only pointing out that it has been biblical for a woman to use her looks to her advantage.

In other words, I can praise my wife’s beauty without her having to enter a contest.

Not all judging involves a contest. I don’t even understand why you would claim it does. That sounds like a complete non sequitor to me.

Just because they may be hard to figure out doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

So what is it then? I told you where my line is, but you have done no such thing. You keep saying we need to err on the side of caution, but nothing aside from a potato sack will be enough on the side of caution to make sure you aren’t revealing your body in such a way that some man might go home and think of you when he’s alone.

This, of course, misses the point entirely.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM

So say you, but then you’re using the word provocatively, something I already agreed was incorrect.

We DO get to define ourselves, and that means a certain amount of infighting, at the end of which everyone still isn’t going to agree.

We can argue all day about where people should draw the line and get nowhere. Bottom line: I know with reasonable certainty, based on my own subjective experience when I was younger and any number of scientific studies in the last thirty years, exactly how men are affected by women who look/dress a certain way and that it is the majority of men. None of that is really in doubt. The advertising industry lives off that fact. The survey I linked in the hijab post is a very practical example of it. But that is not really the indicator of where I, as a Christian, should proscribe my freedom to dress as I please.

Armed with that knowledge, I considered my wardrobe and took a hard look at my reasons for making those choices. My motives – not my clothing – were frankly unworthy of someone trying to follow Christ. THAT is the indicator of where I proscribe my own freedom; should I continue to sin so that grace may abound? Certainly not. Consequently I made the decision to dress more modestly.

This is not a process anyone can do for anyone else; the absolute most you can do is invite them to consider the idea that their wardrobe choices are one outward sign of the condition of their heart; where that is thoughtlessness of how they affect others all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum to the legalism of the burka.

My opinion of Prejean’s modesty or lack of, in relation to her faith, isn’t relevant – her own is. But we can’t know her motives or anyone else’s. I DO think that R_Z is right in that we generally need to be paying more attention to ensure we’re not being stumbling blocks to other people; what better illustrates self-sacrificing love for our brethren? But I think translating that from the general to the specific is oftentimes more divisive than the original complaint.

Finally, I’d like to just point out that we surely can all agree that the media sucks, which was the point of the original post.

However, the relevant part of Paul’s text about not offending are the words “my brother”. It is a guarantee that everything you do will offend some other person and give them a rationale to reject God. What Paul was very clearly saying is he would not do something that he knew would cause offense to someone he also knew.

“brother” does not necessarily mean intimacy and knowledge.

It is simply a way of addressing a fellow believer.

We’re not getting anywhere anyway, but my point still stands. If you have to err on the side of caution, that’s the only solution.

No.

A burka is NOT the ONLY solution.

There are hundreds of thousands of other solutions.

Just because they may be hard to figure out doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

I haven’t even once disagreed with this, and yet you never move forward from this argument.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM

You haven’t overtly disagreed with this, but you continue to argue that dressing provocatively is the sole problem of the few (if any) people who may look upon that person with lust.

This, of course, misses the point entirely.

You seem to be assuming that appreciating another person’s body in any manner is wrong. That is an incorrect assumption.

You have assumed wrong.

One basic point is that God wants to redeem all of creation, and that would include the seemingly non religious jobs. Christians tend to rate ministry work as somehow more important than working for a law firm, but God, the theology claims, wants all of it redeemed.

God WANTING it to be redeemed doesn’t mean that those are jobs that He WANTS us to have.

The Redemption of Creation will come when Jesus comes again.

So now it’s also sinful just to appreciate physical beauty?

You’re giving me whiplash from going between specific and general and back to specific.

The GENERAL point is that just because something is in the Bible that doesn’t mean it’s something that God lifts up. God often uses our sinful actions to accomplish a greater good.

Your original point was that Beauty Pageants MUST be OK since Esther was in one.

That point is not valid.

From the story of Esther, we can neither claim that these contests are OK or sinful.

We must draw upon other sources in the Bible to help us come to a conclusion.

Not at all the same.

-sigh-
Yes it is.

David sinned in taking Bathsheba as a wife.

Yet out of that sin came Solomon.

But that doesn’t mean that what David did with Bathsheba is OK.

Esther didn’t chose to be the King’s wife, but she was fully willing to seduce him at her uncle’s request. There was no other recourse provided to her or the Jews. What she did was righteous, not sinful.

Never said that what Esther did was sinful.

YOU brought up the story of Esther in order to defend beauty contests.

Unfortunately, that is not a tenable point.

BTW – “seducing” your husband is not a sin (in fact, I’m not even sure if the word is applicable in that situation).

No, it’s semantics again.

No, it’s not semantics.

Judging (quantifying, comparing, rating) is one thing.

Praising is something entirely different.

I can praise someone without giving them a score and parading them around with a bunch of other people in order to determine how much (if any) praise they should be given.

In other words, I can praise my wife’s beauty without her having to enter a contest.

I praise God, because he is worthy of praise. I’ve judged him worthy.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM

You’ve judged/discerned God to be worthy.

But you didn’t put him in a contest with other gods and have him dress up and dress down and grade him on how well he did.

I think of beauty contests the same way I feel of art exhibits or writing contests. They are all just ways of putting our God-given talents and God-aided determination to the test and so long as we give God the glory for the outcome and do not put ourselves above Him, then we have not erred.

Jimmie Bise, Jr on May 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Completely agree.

If you can’t avoid this then we simply can’t have a discussion.

We’re not getting anywhere anyway, but my point still stands. If you have to err on the side of caution, that’s the only solution.

You don’t even argue that it isn’t true, except to claim that some might actually get into it, which I really vehemently disagree with. As has already been proven through men using them to flee a crime, you can’t even tell gender from underneath them.

…it’s about understanding that as Christians we have a responsibility and obligation to ensure that others are not stumbling in their faith because of us.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM

I haven’t even once disagreed with this, and yet you never move forward from this argument.

Since the whole point of dressing provocatively is to get the opposite sex to appreciate your body, then there is never a time when dressing in such a way is not causing someone to stumble.

You seem to be assuming that appreciating another person’s body in any manner is wrong. That is an incorrect assumption.

However, the relevant part of Paul’s text about not offending are the words “my brother”. It is a guarantee that everything you do will offend some other person and give them a rationale to reject God. What Paul was very clearly saying is he would not do something that he knew would cause offense to someone he also knew.

I think of beauty contests the same way I feel of art exhibits or writing contests. They are all just ways of putting our God-given talents and God-aided determination to the test and so long as we give God the glory for the outcome and do not put ourselves above Him, then we have not erred.

It seems to me that Miss Prejean has been just about the model Christian through this entire incident.

Look, if you can’t take a deep discussion wherein you might be incorrect about your interpretation about scripture…

Being wrong is one thing. Being treated like someone who knows nothing about Christianity is another. It’s about respect.

I’ve given it to you.

The job description of supermodel doesn’t seem especially conducive to building up treasure in heaven.

Guess you’re not a Creation Theologist.

One basic point is that God wants to redeem all of creation, and that would include the seemingly non religious jobs. Christians tend to rate ministry work as somehow more important than working for a law firm, but God, the theology claims, wants all of it redeemed.

God uses our sinful ways and bends them to His wishes.

So now it’s also sinful just to appreciate physical beauty?

But God used what happened to bring forth Solomon.

Not at all the same. David could have had a Solomon if only he’d been a good father, but he was a horrible one. One daughter was raped by her brother, and the other was rising up against him.

David had another way out. The Jews did not.

Esther didn’t chose to be the King’s wife, but she was fully willing to seduce him at her uncle’s request. There was no other recourse provided to her or the Jews. What she did was righteous, not sinful.

What David did was completely sinful.

These are two different things.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM

No, it’s semantics again. What word would you use if you’ve judged a woman (positively of course) with a high IQ? Praise is merely a positive judgment.

I praise God, because he is worthy of praise. I’ve judged him worthy.

Which, as I said, can only mean a burka. Anything else, and it’s subjective.

Again with the extremes.

If you can’t avoid this then we simply can’t have a discussion.

Fine, wrong word choice, but I didn’t think we were having a semantics discussion.

We weren’t, but if we can’t agree on what the meaning is of the words we use, then we can’t have a conversation.

I don’t see how that helps. It’s all subjective. My argument was that you use that and dress accordingly.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:13 PM

It helps because the point isn’t really about what YOU think about what you wear (and “you” is being used here generally, not specifically toward you, Estheir)

…it’s about understanding that as Christians we have a responsibility and obligation to ensure that others are not stumbling in their faith because of us.

Seriously? If you’re not going to treat me like a serious Christian, then you don’t want to have this conversation with me.

Look, if you can’t take a deep discussion wherein you might be incorrect about your interpretation about scripture…

…then maybe you shouldn’t engage people in these discussions.

Not at all my point. I’m simply arguing, that we’re ceding all of those jobs and saying no Christian should go there. Is that really what we want?

Part of being a Christian is making a choice between building up treasure here on earth and building up treasure in heaven.

Any and all jobs that ONLY build up treasure here on earth we SHOULD be ceding (and JOYFULLY ceding).

The job description of supermodel doesn’t seem especially conducive to building up treasure in heaven.

Even though this pageant was the only path God gave the Jews for saving themselves?

God uses our sinful ways and bends them to His wishes.

The most famous example of this is Joseph, whose brothers acted in an evil manner toward him.

But God used their sin to provide salvation for his family.

This is best summed up in Genesis 50:20 “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.”

Time after time God uses our bad, wrong and sinful actions to enact His will.

That doesn’t make the actions themselves righteous, though.

Another example is David and Bathsheba. David DEFINITELY sinned by seducing her and having her husband killed.

But God used what happened to bring forth Solomon.

Thus, we have to look more closely at what is happening before we conclude that such-and-such a thing is right or wrong.

So it’s not then? We’re not to praise people with high IQs either?

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:07 PM

You changed verbs.

Your initial verb was “judge”, then you changed it to “praise.”

These are two different things.

If we’re not sure, then we sure err on the side of caution.

Which, as I said, can only mean a burka. Anything else, and it’s subjective.

Since the definition of “provocative” means “to provoke”, and to dress provocatively means to provoke attention and sexual feelings in others, then your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Fine, wrong word choice, but I didn’t think we were having a semantics discussion.

The better debate is over what constitutes dressing provocatively.

I don’t see how that helps. It’s all subjective. My argument was that you use that and dress accordingly.

Sure, but again, it depends on the person. Not everyone will lust after a woman if he sees her in her bikini. Some will. That’s where it’s conditional.

God isn’t judging us by what the majority of people think/believe.

God is judging us by how we live by His teachings.

And His teachings are pretty clear about causing others to stumble (sin).

But don’t lose site of the point that Paul wasn’t saying Christians couldn’t do this if there were no Christians who would sin if they did.

That’s an important point.

How/when do we know that no other people will sin because of our actions?

If we’re not sure, then we sure err on the side of caution.

And if it doesn’t, then it’s at your discretion.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Since the definition of “provocative” means “to provoke”, and to dress provocatively means to provoke attention and sexual feelings in others, then your statement makes absolutely no sense.

The whole point in God’s teaching is to be careful and wary about what we do around others and what our actions/words cause in others.

Since the whole point of dressing provocatively is to get the opposite sex to appreciate your body, then there is never a time when dressing in such a way is not causing someone to stumble.

This is not a workable position.

The better debate is over what constitutes dressing provocatively.

But again, wearing only short, flimsy undies is definitely provocative.

Are you suggesting that if we can be the biggest, richest, most popular people in our chosen field than we’re failures?

No.

Or are you suggesting that Christians should care more about success in THIS world than success in the NEXT?

Seriously? If you’re not going to treat me like a serious Christian, then you don’t want to have this conversation with me.

Not at all my point. I’m simply arguing, that we’re ceding all of those jobs and saying no Christian should go there. Is that really what we want?

She became a national spokesperson because of her faith and because she’s beautiful. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.

BTW – Esther did not willingly enter that contest.

I’m well aware. How does that change my argument?

And just because a beauty pageant is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s something God approves of.

Even though this pageant was the only path God gave the Jews for saving themselves?

Who said it was OK for an intelligent woman to be judged on her IQ?

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM

So it’s not then? We’re not to praise people with high IQs either?

With regard to nudity, bathing suit contests, and skimpy clothing generally – it’s really not in doubt how that sort of thing affects the majority of men.

Laura on May 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Nudity yes. Bathing suits, no, I have to disagree.

Sure, there are some who look at women like that and keep mental images for later, but most don’t. Most can see a woman in a bikini, think she’s hot but otherwise care little about it.

In fact in countries with nude beaches, it’s such a cultural norm, that you don’t see pervy men just gaping at women unless they’re tourists.

If we’re to protect even those men, then maybe it’s never permissible to wear sandals, since you do not know about a stranger’s foot fetish.

Actually, that’s what I meant. It would be something, but it’s not supermodel status and never could be.

So?

Are you suggesting that if we can be the biggest, richest, most popular people in our chosen field than we’re failures?

Or are you suggesting that Christians should care more about success in THIS world than success in the NEXT?

So then she was unbiblical to start off with?

Again, I keep going back to Esther. She’s the Bible’s beauty pageant winner. If it weren’t for her good looks and her ability to seduce a king, her people would have been slaughtered.

So what if I am suggesting that?

BTW – Esther did not willingly enter that contest.

Esther 2:8 ” When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem.” (emphasis mine)

Esther was beautiful, but she didn’t choose to be a beauty pageant contestant.

And just because a beauty pageant is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s something God approves of.

Why is it any worse for a beautiful woman to be judged on her looks, something God gave her, than for an intelligent woman to be judged on her IQ, something else God gave her?

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Who said it was OK for an intelligent woman to be judged on her IQ?

But it’s NOT conditional because he was writing to a community where it WAS happening. It wasn’t a hypothetical situation.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that all Christians thought this was sin. That’s what it was conditional on.

How much MORE valid is the teaching, then, for actions that ARE sins?

Sure, but again, it depends on the person. Not everyone will lust after a woman if he sees her in her bikini. Some will. That’s where it’s conditional.

Or, to sum up everything Paul wrote there – if the action itself is not a sin, yet it causes someone else to sin, then you still have sinned.

I’m not disagreeing with that. You’re not saying no to me.

But don’t lose site of the point that Paul wasn’t saying Christians couldn’t do this if there were no Christians who would sin if they did.

That’s an important point.

If dressing provocatively causes others to sin, then we should not dress in such a way.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM

And if it doesn’t, then it’s at your discretion.

I don’t see how you can justify her being in the pageant at all.

I’m not justifying it. I don’t think that being in a beauty pageant is the act of a mature Christian (and that’s not really a function of chronological age.) That said, I am not saying she’s not a Christian, or even that she had bad motives. And I’m especially not saying that God’s not using her in this situation to accomplish his purpose; I think that he is.

That’s why I say you must treat people differently, because it’s not just one thing and changes from Christian to Christian.

Agreed. Years ago I knew a guy with a foot fetish. When he came over, I always put on socks. With regard to nudity, bathing suit contests, and skimpy clothing generally – it’s really not in doubt how that sort of thing affects the majority of men. When I presented myself that way, it was purposeful, and I knew just how effective it was so I certainly can’t claim innocence. If Prejean really doesn’t “get” it (and surely sometime in her life she’s heard the same arguments I’m making and evidently been unmoved) then I’m content to wait until God convicts her heart about it.

That’s conditioned on the friend, not on the eating. That’s what I meant. If it causes him to sin. That’s a big difference.

But it’s NOT conditional because he was writing to a community where it WAS happening. It wasn’t a hypothetical situation.

And the general point is still true and valid – don’t encourage someone or help someone to sin.

Yes, but he was talking about specific actions that by themselves were not sins.

How much MORE valid is the teaching, then, for actions that ARE sins?

As he admits, eating the food is not a sin. That’s the point.

No.

The point is that one’s actions, whether correct or sinful, should never be a stumbling block to others.

Our freedom of actions is bounded by its impact on others.

Or, to sum up everything Paul wrote there – if the action itself is not a sin, yet it causes someone else to sin, then you still have sinned.

This would imply that to the idol meat eaters, he may eat the meat so as to win them over, so long as doing so doesn’t hurt his Christian friends of course.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Of course, but that really has nothing to do with posing provocatively or dressing in a manner that would knowingly produce lustful thoughts in others.

Our freedom to dress provocatively, then, is bounded by its impact on others.

If dressing provocatively causes others to sin, then we should not dress in such a way.

It’s not that complicated.

1) Actually, most aren’t. Most modeling jobs are for things like Sears catalogs and Target flyers.

Actually, that’s what I meant. It would be something, but it’s not supermodel status and never could be.

2) A Christian should refuse anything that takes them away from the Lord, regardless of the monetary impact.

I haven’t disagreed. I just disagree that it takes them away from God.

3) Maybe Christians SHOULDN’t take part in beauty pageants. Enjoying the beauty of the human body is one thing, to become a slab of meat that’s compared to other slabs of meat is something else entirely different.

So then she was unbiblical to start off with?

Again, I keep going back to Esther. She’s the Bible’s beauty pageant winner. If it weren’t for her good looks and her ability to seduce a king, her people would have been slaughtered.

See, you just answered your own question about where we can draw the line.

Yes, I know where I draw it. You just seem to be wavering somewhere much further up there. That’s what seems too cloudy for me.

I’m not about to start picking up stones, but I think there are better things for a beautiful Christian woman to do than to parade around and be judged almost solely on their looks.

Religious_Zealot on May 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Why is it any worse for a beautiful woman to be judged on her looks, something God gave her, than for an intelligent woman to be judged on her IQ, something else God gave her?

Really doubt that.

One shouldn’t doubt the lustfullness of the human mind.

Most are, and if a Christian will refuse them, then she can’t do much outside of posing for Walmart catalogs. She certainly wouldn’t be able to compete in a beauty pageant.

1) Actually, most aren’t. Most modeling jobs are for things like Sears catalogs and Target flyers.
2) A Christian should refuse anything that takes them away from the Lord, regardless of the monetary impact.
3) Maybe Christians SHOULDN’t take part in beauty pageants. Enjoying the beauty of the human body is one thing, to become a slab of meat that’s compared to other slabs of meat is something else entirely different.

If that’s what you’re going for in your outfit, you’ve crossed the line. If all you want is for a man to do a double take, then I have no problem with it.

See, you just answered your own question about where we can draw the line.

But why is Fredrick’s worse than the swimsuit competition?

I think this is one of those questions that if you have to ask it, then no answer will help you.

Honestly, I’m not trying to argue, but the way you and Laura are talking, I don’t see how you can justify her being in the pageant at all.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Maybe we can’t justify her being in the pageant.

I’m not about to start picking up stones, but I think there are better things for a beautiful Christian woman to do than to parade around and be judged almost solely on their looks.