> Why does coming out against gay marriage automatically make
> Carrie Prejean into a Christian role model?
It doesn't. It makes her a Christian expressing a particular belief on a particular subject--a reasonable one, but still a viewpoint. It's natural that those in agreement will want to make the most of her public image and prominence to amplify the viewpoint. A role model is not the same thing.
And it's not just conservative Christians, though they are probably the ones most inclined to be vociferous about it.
California's Proposition 8 passed, if narrowly. The state does not have a population of over 50% "conservative Christians."
> Does stating that one belief - which no one denies she
> has a right to hold - instantly excuse her from
> following biblical values/passages in other aspects of life?
Of course it doesn't. The problem in this is not her failure to "follow... Biblical passages." It is your clearly uninformed conclusion that she is.
Before you conclude these things, be sure you know the whole story. Extracting a passage here and there from the Bible that seems, out of context, to support that conclusion is bogus. Not that I'm drawing a parallel, just an illustration, but the 9/11 extremists justified their behavior in part by believing the parts of the Koran (spelling?) that suited them and conveniently ignoring the ones that don't. There are plenty of people, Christians and others, who indulge that kind of selectivity, and it's dangerous.
> Go ahead and defend, Carrie Prejean, Bible thumpers.
> Tell us why this woman is such a great role model.
OK, I will, though I don't really consider myself a Bible thumper.
Behavior that within a particular societal context does not lead otherwise moral people to sin and is not explicitly condemned by the word of God is acceptable.
She is a good role model because she is celebrating the beauty of the body and a sexual allure that is good and right. Who invented sex, anyway?
Sexual attraction is not evil. Only when it is calculated to attack the resolve of those trying to do the right thing does it become so. This doesn't. The few who might lose their way because of it have problems.
Maybe this will help a few folks who are headed toward prissy and prudish kinds of Christianity to see a more balanced view and actually bother to check and see what is and is not acceptable, who knows? That might be considered an example of a good role model. A lot of Christians would benefit from an uncontaminated knowledge of God's word.
There is such a thing as lewd, and sinful. This is a long way from that.
> Carrie Prejean is seen here in a photo from BL!SSS Magazine.
> Jesus loves sexy poses, right?!?
If his Father didn't, he'd have condemned it, and he didn't. Assumptions that he did derive mainly from interpretations of the Bible that are extrapolated from other assumptions or from the attitudes of certain influential people--just plain folks. Sure, in the time and society Jesus lived in, that caption's statement would be true (the sarcastic meaning, not the literal one). And Carrie would have been stoned to death (rocks, not drugs).
And a woman wearing a bikini today which is conservative enough to survive the demands of decency standards in 1950 would have gotten the same pretty damn quickly.
Hey, writer of these nonsensical captions: why haven't you filled up this site with photos of Christian women wearing swimwear on the beach that is considered stylish and yet decent by mainstream society, and then slapped the same nonsense on them?
Face it: you snap about her pictures because you don't like her opinions. Who's the hypocrite now?
It is not ungodly. There is a huge core of sexual negativity within the Christian church that derives from those such as Jerome, whose antipathy for sex is downright pathological, and Agustine, whose contributions to the growth of Christianity, though overall of great value, still contains some elements of inappropriately negative sexual ideas stemming from his own experiences. Too much of that is accepted by many Christians as if it came from the word of God.
God forbids what leads others to sin. If the mere sight of a model dressed this way qualifies, then the plethora of models and actresses everywhere dressing and behaving far more provocatively must be driving men to sin; there must be one heck of a lot of sinning going on that can be directly blamed on it, and would not be happening without it.
> Carrie Prejean loves showing off her nipples almost as
> much as she hates gay people. This is a pic from BL!SSS Magazine.
What a crock. She has said nothing--nothing whatsoever that expresses hate for gays. She has addressed the institution of marriage.
For some reason, over the past couple of decades, a convention has emerged that automatically defines any kind of disapproval of homosexual behavior as "hate." To claim that a gay person is the target of hate merely because someone believes they should behave differently is an affront to the victims of genuine hate, whether hate crimes or of that fraction who truly do hate.
If disapproval of a particular form of sexual behavior is automatically hate, then the friend or sibling or whatever of someone having an adulterous affair stating that they think it's wrong and should stop "hates" the other. Would you agree with that?
Whether one believes that the particular kind of behavior is truly wrong or not, branding disapproval as hate is sophistry.
> This Carrie Prejean photo is courtesy of B!isss Magazine. Would
> Jesus really approve of such a pose?!?
Show me why he wouldn't. And don't bother automatically citing the mention of the word "lewd" or similar. That is a very subjective term, and subject to a number of variables that are not rooted in faith. If that word should apply to Carrie Prejean, it should apply to any other model.
Certainly, in the society in which Jesus lived, that would be a tough sell. But there is a difference between what is unacceptable in a particular society and what is unacceptable to God.
God forbids behavior that leads others to sin. If these pictures of Carrie Prejean qualify, then one must conclude the same for the myriad other actresses and models that grace print and video all over the place, many, if not most, revealing a heck of a lot more than this. Somehow, despite their beauty and allure, most of the world manages to enjoy them without jumping into sinful behavior.
Face it, this feeding frenzy of condemnation isn't about her photos; it's about her choice to not bow to political correctness for the sake of a pageant crown. The photos are an excuse to try to harness the views of the most conservative Christians to disgrace her. Without her statement at the pageant, nobody would make any issue about these photos at all.
>Keep flipping through that Bible, Carrie. Find the passage
>that supports fake boobs and topless pictures.
>Take as much time as you need...
No. Find the passage that condemns them, and ignore contrary blather that has its origin in the minds of influential people of centuries past.
If you are a believer, you should realize that what God does not legislate against is permitted. One need not find support for everything in the Bible; if it is not forbidden, it is acceptable (subject to practical human needs; the Bible does not forbid driving through a residential neighborhood at 80 miles per hour, granted.)
Can anyone here think of any mainstream actress or model who has no profession of religion and yet has been excoriated because of photos like this one? If not, why should her faith make any difference?
If some Christian voices want to condemn her for these photos, they are entitled to their opinions; just remember, that's all they are, not God's voice.
Comments by RHS CA
Controversial Carrie
One out of two ain't too good.
Revealed: Carrie Prejean Nude Photos!!!
> Carrie Prejean into a Christian role model?
It doesn't. It makes her a Christian expressing a particular belief on a particular subject--a reasonable one, but still a viewpoint. It's natural that those in agreement will want to make the most of her public image and prominence to amplify the viewpoint. A role model is not the same thing.
And it's not just conservative Christians, though they are probably the ones most inclined to be vociferous about it.
California's Proposition 8 passed, if narrowly. The state does not have a population of over 50% "conservative Christians."
> Does stating that one belief - which no one denies she
> has a right to hold - instantly excuse her from
> following biblical values/passages in other aspects of life?
Of course it doesn't. The problem in this is not her failure to "follow... Biblical passages." It is your clearly uninformed conclusion that she is.
Before you conclude these things, be sure you know the whole story. Extracting a passage here and there from the Bible that seems, out of context, to support that conclusion is bogus. Not that I'm drawing a parallel, just an illustration, but the 9/11 extremists justified their behavior in part by believing the parts of the Koran (spelling?) that suited them and conveniently ignoring the ones that don't. There are plenty of people, Christians and others, who indulge that kind of selectivity, and it's dangerous.
Great Values, Looks
> We just doubt that she belongs as a Christian role model.
And I just doubt that you know enough about Christianity--the real thing, not the picture painted by a few noisy hyperconservatives--to know.
Pic of Prejean
> Tell us why this woman is such a great role model.
OK, I will, though I don't really consider myself a Bible thumper.
Behavior that within a particular societal context does not lead otherwise moral people to sin and is not explicitly condemned by the word of God is acceptable.
She is a good role model because she is celebrating the beauty of the body and a sexual allure that is good and right. Who invented sex, anyway?
Sexual attraction is not evil. Only when it is calculated to attack the resolve of those trying to do the right thing does it become so. This doesn't. The few who might lose their way because of it have problems.
Maybe this will help a few folks who are headed toward prissy and prudish kinds of Christianity to see a more balanced view and actually bother to check and see what is and is not acceptable, who knows? That might be considered an example of a good role model. A lot of Christians would benefit from an uncontaminated knowledge of God's word.
There is such a thing as lewd, and sinful. This is a long way from that.
Prejean Picture
Sexy Carrie
Just where do you get your theology from? A few televangelists with hyperconservative views?
If you think she's a bad role model, care to identify the people who are being corrupted by her?
From BL!SSS Magazine
> Jesus loves sexy poses, right?!?
If his Father didn't, he'd have condemned it, and he didn't. Assumptions that he did derive mainly from interpretations of the Bible that are extrapolated from other assumptions or from the attitudes of certain influential people--just plain folks. Sure, in the time and society Jesus lived in, that caption's statement would be true (the sarcastic meaning, not the literal one). And Carrie would have been stoned to death (rocks, not drugs).
And a woman wearing a bikini today which is conservative enough to survive the demands of decency standards in 1950 would have gotten the same pretty damn quickly.
Hey, writer of these nonsensical captions: why haven't you filled up this site with photos of Christian women wearing swimwear on the beach that is considered stylish and yet decent by mainstream society, and then slapped the same nonsense on them?
Face it: you snap about her pictures because you don't like her opinions. Who's the hypocrite now?
Carrie Prejean Naked
> Sorry, Bible thumpers. But there's no getting around that fact.
No need to. There is nude and there is lewd. This is just a fraction of the former and none of the latter.
Totally Topless
God forbids what leads others to sin. If the mere sight of a model dressed this way qualifies, then the plethora of models and actresses everywhere dressing and behaving far more provocatively must be driving men to sin; there must be one heck of a lot of sinning going on that can be directly blamed on it, and would not be happening without it.
Nipple Pic
> much as she hates gay people. This is a pic from BL!SSS Magazine.
What a crock. She has said nothing--nothing whatsoever that expresses hate for gays. She has addressed the institution of marriage.
For some reason, over the past couple of decades, a convention has emerged that automatically defines any kind of disapproval of homosexual behavior as "hate." To claim that a gay person is the target of hate merely because someone believes they should behave differently is an affront to the victims of genuine hate, whether hate crimes or of that fraction who truly do hate.
If disapproval of a particular form of sexual behavior is automatically hate, then the friend or sibling or whatever of someone having an adulterous affair stating that they think it's wrong and should stop "hates" the other. Would you agree with that?
Whether one believes that the particular kind of behavior is truly wrong or not, branding disapproval as hate is sophistry.
Carrie Prejean Topless Photo
BL!SSS Magazine Spread
> Jesus really approve of such a pose?!?
Show me why he wouldn't. And don't bother automatically citing the mention of the word "lewd" or similar. That is a very subjective term, and subject to a number of variables that are not rooted in faith. If that word should apply to Carrie Prejean, it should apply to any other model.
Certainly, in the society in which Jesus lived, that would be a tough sell. But there is a difference between what is unacceptable in a particular society and what is unacceptable to God.
God forbids behavior that leads others to sin. If these pictures of Carrie Prejean qualify, then one must conclude the same for the myriad other actresses and models that grace print and video all over the place, many, if not most, revealing a heck of a lot more than this. Somehow, despite their beauty and allure, most of the world manages to enjoy them without jumping into sinful behavior.
Face it, this feeding frenzy of condemnation isn't about her photos; it's about her choice to not bow to political correctness for the sake of a pageant crown. The photos are an excuse to try to harness the views of the most conservative Christians to disgrace her. Without her statement at the pageant, nobody would make any issue about these photos at all.
Revealed: Carrie Prejean Nude Photos!!!
>Keep flipping through that Bible, Carrie. Find the passage
>that supports fake boobs and topless pictures.
>Take as much time as you need...
No. Find the passage that condemns them, and ignore contrary blather that has its origin in the minds of influential people of centuries past.
If you are a believer, you should realize that what God does not legislate against is permitted. One need not find support for everything in the Bible; if it is not forbidden, it is acceptable (subject to practical human needs; the Bible does not forbid driving through a residential neighborhood at 80 miles per hour, granted.)
Can anyone here think of any mainstream actress or model who has no profession of religion and yet has been excoriated because of photos like this one? If not, why should her faith make any difference?
If some Christian voices want to condemn her for these photos, they are entitled to their opinions; just remember, that's all they are, not God's voice.