Anyone here a fan of moral equivalency? Do you enjoy it?

[The Rogue Tomato]

there are a lot movies and types of movies i refuse to see...... even some actors i will refuse to see a movie over if they happen to appear in it.... (will ferrel for example).... ..... but i don;t care what anyone else wants to go see as long as they don;t try to drag me into the theater and make me see it with them...... ......... but on a forum like this you can;t really avoid it........ if someone posts something.... and you click on the page.... there it is in front of you.... whether you like it or not.......... ..

and like admin said... ....  if kids walk up behind you when it flashes on the screen then they have seen it too........  ... and i would much rather be faced with explaining to a kid why i was looking at a man pretending to eat a big pile of donuts - than have to explain why i was looking at a picture of someone totally naked....... .......

but ..... as for myself...... i really wish i hadn;t even found that picture of boss hogg eating donuts now... coz the whole conversation got totally out of hand.......  but then i remember back on the old forum when certain factions tried to say there was no difference in being a child molester and smoking a cigarette those conversations got totally out of hand too....... 

Given the exact picture I posted, I personally wouldn't be afraid of my kids (when they were young) seeing it.  I'd simply explain that there is an area of fine art that includes photographs of naked people, because the body can be beautiful.  This picture demonstrates various ways of using lighting when taking such photographs. 

Now, there is a category of erotic fine art nudity, and I deliberately did NOT post an example of that.  The picture I posted had nothing whatsoever to do with eroticism.  Trust me, unless one has sex hang ups like Tim seems to have, nobody would view the picture I posted as erotic.  The woman in the picture was very plain looking, had no makeup on, no styled hair, and her body bore no resemblance to a woman trying to look sexy.  No cosmetic surgery, no "perky breasts", nothing. 

And the only reason I posted it in the first place is because Ransom tried to pretend nudity is not really nudity when it's fine art.  He had no complaints about me posting David and Adam and Eve nude.  It was only when it was a live model (still fine art, though) that things exploded. 

Maybe the Sistine Chapel should be R-rated, and not allow children to enter it. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why in the world must the subject of Christian liberty regarding viewing nudity become "my" issue? I am taking a stand on what one might call the opposing view that you and most on the forum present. Perhaps that stand did come from a long line of teachers, parents and preachers all dealing with a lust problem twisting scripture - but I find that hard to believe since many godly people find viewing nudity offensive and not proper for the Christian lifestyle. Even my own pastor has voiced his opposition when some of the younger adults wanted to attend a movie with low standards. Am I to assume he also has a lust problem simply because he has moral standards?

Genesis 2:25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 3:11 And he said, ?Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from??

Our changed nature is what makes being naked shameful.  When Adam and Eve were innocent, they were not ashamed of being naked. 

Titus 1:15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why in the world must the subject of Christian liberty regarding viewing nudity become "my" issue? I am taking a stand on what one might call the opposing view that you and most on the forum present. Perhaps that stand did come from a long line of teachers, parents and preachers all dealing with a lust problem twisting scripture - but I find that hard to believe since many godly people find viewing nudity offensive and not proper for the Christian lifestyle. Even my own pastor has voiced his opposition when some of the younger adults wanted to attend a movie with low standards. Am I to assume he also has a lust problem simply because he has moral standards?

Genesis 2:25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 3:11 And he said, ?Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from??

Our changed nature is what makes being naked shameful.  When Adam and Eve were innocent, they were not ashamed of being naked. 

Titus 1:15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.

Are you saying that a truly born again person will view nudity just as pure as Adam and Eve did before the fall? Not sure what you are saying, but last I checked we still wrestle with the flesh even as a born again person.

No, just because you're born again doesn't mean you're fully sanctified (made pure).  But I'm guessing getting to the point where nudity is not shameful is part of the sanctification process.  Maybe you'll get there someday.  I'm already there.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with the nudity in the picture I posted (lighting effects in fine art nude photography).  I don't see it as designed to incite lust.  I see it as a beautiful picture. 

Now, SOME of the nudity in Deadpool (SOME, not all) is designed to incite lust.  It doesn't incite lust in me because I find it boring, not because I'm "pure" (although maybe that has something to do with it, I don't know).  (There's a scene where the dramatically disfigured Wade Wilson fights naked... that's hardly a scene to incite lust!)

 

[FSSL]

If Tomato has created doubt for you in this area, it's time for you to take a break from the forum and get into Scripture.

The lighting picture was pure eroticism. It was not fitting Philippians 4.8.

Tomato owes the forum an apology.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If Tomato has created doubt for you in this area, it's time for you to take a break from the forum and get into Scripture.

The lighting picture was pure eroticism. It was not fitting Philippians 4.8.

Tomato owes the forum an apology.

You won't get one.  Just because you have a perverted view of what constitutes eroticism doesn't mean I share that view. 

 

[rsc2a]

I didn't find it erotic, merely artistic.

 

[FSSL]

You won't get one.  Just because you have a perverted view of what constitutes eroticism doesn't mean I share that view.

Then enjoy your temporary ban. I will reopen your account in one week.

Even my secular hosting company has a better understanding of what is/isn't appropriate.

 

[rsc2a]

You won't get one.  Just because you have a perverted view of what constitutes eroticism doesn't mean I share that view.

Then enjoy your temporary ban. I will reopen your account in one week.

Even my secular hosting company has a better understanding of what is/isn't appropriate.

That's a bit high handed...

 

[FSSL]

So be it. Explain to my daughter why I was looking at a nude woman.

It violated my conscience (and others)
It violated the TOS of my server.

A temporary ban, as late as it was, was pretty lenient.

No one should fear opening up the forum with their spouse and children around.

If you want to post nudes, there are other forums.

 

[rsc2a]

Thus the reason it was high handed.  You didn't ban him when it might have been appropriate (i.e. when he posted initially posted the picture). You banned him days later when he challenged your authority.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Thus the reason it was high handed.  You didn't ban him when it might have been appropriate (i.e. when he posted initially posted the picture). You banned him days later when he challenged your authority.

Both are legitimate reasons for being censured.  TRT pushed the envelope that he knew would get him excess attention, then rubbed it in the mods noses.  His house, his rules.  TRT is an attention whore and getting what he was looking for.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

You didn't ban him when it might have been appropriate (i.e. when he posted initially posted the picture). You banned him days later when he challenged your authority.

BINGO!  Not that a ban for challenging the authority of the WM is wrong, but at least don't say the actual ban is for something other than what it was really for. 

 

[FSSL]

Thus the reason it was high handed.  You didn't ban him when it might have been appropriate (i.e. when he posted initially posted the picture). You banned him days later when he challenged your authority.

I let the situation mature in my mind and gave him an opportunity to apologize. The ban is his own doing.

I am not here to protect my authority. Bans and edits are few and far between. I have a duty to other posters in this forum.

Eroticism is eroticism. It will be treated as such.

 

[rsc2a]

Thus the reason it was high handed.  You didn't ban him when it might have been appropriate (i.e. when he posted initially posted the picture). You banned him days later when he challenged your authority.

Both are legitimate reasons for being censured.  TRT pushed the envelope that he knew would get him excess attention, then rubbed it in the mods noses.  His house, his rules.  TRT is an attention whore and getting what he was looking for.

Your pastor must love you!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Your pastor must love you!

Obtuse much?

You don't even recognize the error of posting nudity on a Christian website, and you lead people in worship.  I wish I was just yanking chains, but I fear for the people you influence.  But be sure you'll answer for your teaching.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

But be sure you'll answer for your teaching.

....I was wondering when the fundy threat of God's judgement was going to show up in all of this.  Took longer than I thought.

 

[ALAYMAN]

But be sure you'll answer for your teaching.

....I was wondering when the fundy threat of God's judgement was going to show up in all of this.  Took longer than I thought.

So you don't think that teachers of the word will be judged more strictly?

 

[FSSL]

I am closing this thread as it has become moribund.