John Piper's website: Why Christians shouldn't watch filth like Deadpool

[ALAYMAN]

not what i asked...... but it seems to be in the same vein..... so from your answer i am assuming you wouldn;t tolerate it it was directed at you or your family...........

Then I must not understand your question.  Could you rephrase it?

again.... not even is that not what i asked..... but it;s not even related to it........

Again, could you rephrase the question then?

and if we were truly talking about what women wore in biblical days that made them immodest or identified them as harlots..... we would be talking about fine apparel ... gold.. jewels.... braided hair.......  etc.... or in the case of judah when he sought a harlot we would be talking about veils over their faces to hide their identity....

Nope, not a full picture.  Immodesty in Biblical times CLEARLY was not limited to gaudy dress.

[size=12pt]
and if we were talking what identifies themselves today we would talking about the one piece of clothing.... the only piece of clothing.... virtually all workers in the sex trade have in common........ high heeled shoes.... not only worn for effect... .... but also worn at inappropriate times..... ...

Intent is key to what you are identifying regarding the type of shoe.  The signal being sent by an executive on Fifth Avenue is not one of seduction.  Big difference.

[size=12pt]
but neither you or tarheel was talking about any of that.......... you were talking about something that is a problem for you personally

 

Excuse me?

and as far as seeing dead pool goes....... i would never go see it because i don;t like the genre..... and for the other reasons i listed...... but if someone else wants to go see it and enjoys that then who am i to say they can;t?.... or that they shouldn;t?........i don;t have to sit in there and see it with them.....  it;s between them an God....

So if it was a regular porno would you have the same hands-off attitude?

 

[ALAYMAN]

again.... not even is that not what i asked..... but it;s not even related to it............

the issue was gluttony.... the example was a picture of the fat preacher with a history of hatred towards women who couldn;t even stay awake on the church platform during the service...........  but why am not surprised you don;t remember...... .. like  said..... it;s not that big an issue for you......  or one you care to focus on.......  you are much more interested in focusing on immodesty.....

You still haven't asked me a question, regardless of all of your insinuations and rhetoric.  What is the question that I missed?

clearly in your mind........ but where exactly does the bible spell it out as clearly.... or explain modesty in scripture the way paul did?....

Is 47:2  2Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
3Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

oh.... so then it really is about intent of the wearer after all........ and not the article of clothing itself...... 

I've NEVER denied that intent is not a component, but if you think intent is the sole arbiter in whether somebody commits a sin or not you are sorely lacking in Biblical understanding. 

you read me right.........  and from what you said in the other thread about how seldom the issue gets preached on in baptist churches it  makes it even more confusing as to why you would focus on it to such with such a preoccupation intent here......

There is an accuser of the brethren, and you are perilously close to doing his work right about now.  Think about it and don't let your emotions control your fingers.

no i would not...... because as you stated earlier - the intent of the publisher.. wearer... or non wearer as the case may be ..  is the most important thing to consider..... and the purpose of pornography is clearly to either cause lust or to feed it....

but why the confusion?......is intent only important when we are talking about something you are compromised with like high heeled shoes?....... but not important when it;s issues like daisy duke shorts or even nudity which you feel properly separated from?........  ......... i believe there is a word for that kind of stand and position........ .... Jesus used it quite often during His time on earth...... and mentioned it a lot more often in His sermons than He mentioned modesty.......

So the question is not whether you would condemn another person's behavior, but rather that you use your own personal standards of judgment in doing so.  Why won't you allow the same latitude for others?  It's not like this is the first time in Christian history that one Christian has called into question the moral discernment of others who consume questionable pop culture/entertainment.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You still haven't asked me a question, regardless of all of your insinuations and rhetoric.  What is the question that I missed?

where are your sermons and links to sermons preached on gluttony - hypocrisy.... lust (without trying to blame it on what women are wearing)..... being judgmental towards other christians.... etc... ........ that;s what i asked for..... and if you and tarheel are truly balanced in the way you approach the topics of sin you should have no problem finding a few of them right here on this forum.......

Is 47:2  2Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
3Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

that was addressed to "the virgin daughter of babylon".... someone who was used to being spoiled and accustomed to sitting on a throne...... and her nakedness was not being uncovered for the purpose of lust.... but for her own shame...... her finery she wrapped herself in and hid from the world in was being stripped away............ .........

take things out of context often?........  : 

I've NEVER denied that intent is not a component, but if you think intent is the sole arbiter in whether somebody commits a sin or not you are sorely lacking in Biblical understanding.

 

and i never said it was the only component of sin either.....  just that it was the most important..... ... but do go ahead and question my biblical understanding now that we have a disagreement ..... call me "sorely lacking" like i;m some kind of idiot..... ........  how very typical of what i;ve come to expect from men on this forum......

There is an accuser of the brethren, and you are perilously close to doing his work right about now.  Think about it and don't let your emotions control your fingers.

yes i know... i know there is an accuser of the brethren..... .... and in the past one of the people i have seen do his work most efficiently here when it came to accusing other brethren has been you...... and you have been doing it here again in this issue and on the modesty issue as well... ... but i guess you call accusing the brethren something else when you do it yourself.... or when those you agree with do it......  ...

but do go ahead and pull the emotional card on me too........  that is also something i;ve come to expect from men on this forum.........

So the question is not whether you would condemn another person's behavior, but rather that you use your own personal standards of judgment in doing so.  Why won't you allow the same latitude for others? It's not like this is the first time in Christian history that one Christian has called into question the moral discernment of others who consume questionable pop culture/entertainment.

and why are you even going there after that sermonette you preached a few minutes ago about someone being an accuser of the brethren?.... and of someone coming dangerously close to doing his work?....... ...... you continue to call the moral discernment of others into question even after warning me for doing the same..... accusing me of allowing emotion to guide my fingers..... of lacking biblical discernment.... accusing others while exonerating yourself....... did God grant you a special liberty in passing judgements He denied the rest of us?........

you point to a few inches in latitude i take in condemning some very obvious wrongful actions of others... that are clearly mentioned in scripture.... and then use that to ask me why i don;t appreciate the miles you travel sideways intruding into the spaces of others to condemn things that are not even mentioned in scripture at all?....... .....  you really don;t see anything wrong with that?.......

You crossed a line and you know it.  No sense in talking with you when you make such flippant and baseless depraved comments.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You crossed a line and you know it.  No sense in talking with you when you make such flippant and baseless depraved comments.

oh... so now disagreeing with your scripture twisting methods is depraved?....... your penchant for playing god really has no limits does it?....... what was that again you were saying about being an accuser of the brethren?......... . 

and what in the world are you talking about anyway?.......how did i cross a line?.......... . by calling you and tarheel out for having an apparent preoccupation with a single issue the bible barely mentions?... then twisting it to fit your purposes?........ how may times have you called out others here and accused them of similar things?..... 

but if you wanna talk about crossing lines.... you have crossed many lines with me here in the past year or so.... on several different issues.... made many statements that were nothing but degrading insults.....  . but not once have i ever called you depraved because of it........ 

and you and your friend tarheel both crossed another line when you started accusing women of dressing like whores when they were doing nothing more than being consistent with the culture they live in......... then you tried to brush it off as innocent pot stirring.......... ... but it seems to me if anybody here is depraved it would be the man who would say that kind of thing against anyone when he knows it;s a baseless lie...... or try to defend it based on what he calls his "sensibilities" ............ the pharisees would have been proud of you........

1) I never twisted any Scripture.  Nakedness that brings shame is what is in view in the Isaiah passage.  It doesn't matter whether God is shaming a Babylonian, Egyptian, or Jewish woman.  The language being used to depict shame is an uncovering of parts of the body that are not genitalia.

2) You continue to dig your heels in, trying to intentionally be offensive and make this personal because you have a different moral standard.  I'm done talking about it until you at least make an effort to NOT blow everything out of proportion and use loaded language.  That's my choice, because I value you as a poster here, otherwise, the way you've turned this conversation south and made it personal would bring out a lot more heat if it were anybody else.  I'm willing to discuss our differences, but not on the terms you're using.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Alayman said to Aleshanee:

I'm done talking about it until you at least make an effort to blow everything out of proportion and use loaded language.

Errrr, what?

LOL!

 

[ALAYMAN]

isn;t that what i said?........ naked meant to cause shame?......yet you are still trying to tie it in with "immodesty" meant to cause lust....... and by doing so you have taken it totally out of context and misinterpreted it  for your own purposes........

And "naked" is being described for the purpose of describing shame inflicted on a person who is clothed, but not clothed modestly or appropriately (as the term "naked" elsewhere in Scripture also conveys an inappropriate state of dresss associated with shame).  And one note of exception, I am not saying that the immodesty of Isaiah is meant to cause lust, but rather that there is a description of immodesty related to being partially covered.

....and in this thread you made the asinine accusation that i was making depraved comments..... what is that about?........ you are really one to talk about somebody else being an accuser of the brethren......

I offer my apologies.  I just reread the quote in reply#67 where you had said....
[size=12pt]
but neither you or tarheel was talking about any of that.......... you were talking about something that is a problem for you personally and accusing women of dressing like harlots based on a single piece of clothing who were not dressing anything like harlots either past or present...... who were actually wearing such things at very appropriate times.....  and whose intent for wearing them had absolutely nothing to do with the harlotry he made reference to and you aligned with........   


I interpreted the underlined portion in a way that you were claiming that I had some sort of personal sin issue relating to the topic under consideration.  I came to that wrong conclusion on the basis that you have made statements about "obsession" with the topic (which I do disagree with on my behalf if you look at the vast majority of thread topics I start), but I now see that you meant "I had a problem" more in the sense that "I have a beef with" those who have standards that may differ from my own.  If that is indeed how you meant it then I misunderstood your intent and again, sincerely apologize for making the statements about you crossing a line and claiming your intents with that statement were "depraved".  The written medium, particularly of an internet forum, is painfully flawed, and I have said for years that I would rather have conversations face to face so that such miscommunications could be avoided.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

John Piper's website: Why Christians shouldn't debate with ALAYMAN

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Alayman]Your pastor must love you!
[/quote]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.[/quote]

*from the thread Admin locked*

Alayman - where did I say the post was appropriate? And you want to call aleshanee an accuser while you spread blatant lies about others....

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=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.[/quote]

*from the thread Admin locked*

Alayman - where did I say the post was appropriate? And you want to call aleshanee an accuser while you spread blatant lies about others....
[/quote]



You defended the post by saying it wasn't offensive (your words "erotica").  Do I need to repost your exact quote?

 

[rsc2a]

Sure...re-post it. Never mind. I will...

"I didn't find it erotic, merely artistic."

No where does that say anything about the appropriateness or lack thereof...well, no where except fundie black and white land.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Sure...re-post it. Never mind. I will...

"I didn't find it erotic, merely artistic."

No where does that say anything about the appropriateness or lack thereof...well, no where except fundie black and white land.

...waiting for the usual fundie double-speak from ALAYMAN.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sure...re-post it. Never mind. I will...

"I didn't find it erotic, merely artistic."

No where does that say anything about the appropriateness or lack thereof...well, no where except fundie black and white land.

Cut to the chase ratboy.  Was the nudie post appropriate?

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Cut to the chase ratboy.  Was the nudie post appropriate?

Translation: 
"I won't admit I was wrong in falsely accusing you, so I'm going to deflect and ask you if what I wrongly accused you of is accurate."

 

[ALAYMAN]

Cut to the chase ratboy.  Was the nudie post appropriate?

Translation: 
"I won't admit I was wrong in falsely accusing you, so I'm going to deflect and ask you if what I wrongly accused you of is accurate."

Translation "I still imagine I'm king of the junior high locker room!  Hear me roar!!!"

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Translation "I still imagine I'm king of the junior high locker room!  Hear me roar!!!"

Translation:
"I still refuse to admit I'm wrong, so I'll just try to be insulting."

 

[rsc2a]

Sure...re-post it. Never mind. I will...

"I didn't find it erotic, merely artistic."

No where does that say anything about the appropriateness or lack thereof...well, no where except fundie black and white land.

Cut to the chase ratboy.  Was the nudie post appropriate?

Nope. Anything else, little satan?

 

[ALAYMAN]

isn;t that what i said?........ naked meant to cause shame?......yet you are still trying to tie it in with "immodesty" meant to cause lust....... and by doing so you have taken it totally out of context and misinterpreted it  for your own purposes........

And "naked" is being described for the purpose of describing shame inflicted on a person who is clothed, but not clothed modestly or appropriately (as the term "naked" elsewhere in Scripture also conveys an inappropriate state of dresss associated with shame).  And one note of exception, I am not saying that the immodesty of Isaiah is meant to cause lust, but rather that there is a description of immodesty related to being partially covered.

....and in this thread you made the asinine accusation that i was making depraved comments..... what is that about?........ you are really one to talk about somebody else being an accuser of the brethren......

I offer my apologies.  I just reread the quote in reply#67 where you had said....
[size=12pt]
but neither you or tarheel was talking about any of that.......... you were talking about something that is a problem for you personally and accusing women of dressing like harlots based on a single piece of clothing who were not dressing anything like harlots either past or present...... who were actually wearing such things at very appropriate times.....  and whose intent for wearing them had absolutely nothing to do with the harlotry he made reference to and you aligned with........   


I interpreted the underlined portion in a way that you were claiming that I had some sort of personal sin issue relating to the topic under consideration.  I came to that wrong conclusion on the basis that you have made statements about "obsession" with the topic (which I do disagree with on my behalf if you look at the vast majority of thread topics I start), but I now see that you meant "I had a problem" more in the sense that "I have a beef with" those who have standards that may differ from my own.  If that is indeed how you meant it then I misunderstood your intent and again, sincerely apologize for making the statements about you crossing a line and claiming your intents with that statement were "depraved".  The written medium, particularly of an internet forum, is painfully flawed, and I have said for years that I would rather have conversations face to face so that such miscommunications could be avoided.

ok... and i will accept your apology for that....... ... but if you can remember how that misunderstanding made you feel....... then maybe you can get an idea of how i have felt every time you compare one of my beliefs to some vile and repugnant thing it;s not even related to..... but which you know very well i will find offensive.....

it has happened many times before in other threads not even related to this same issue.... but issues that nonetheless did seem to always have something to do with gender.... gender differences...  and the way women are viewed and treated differently because of it.... .. and .. from my viewpoint... it seems to be a tactic you can;t help employing and apparently see nothing wrong with....... ...... but it is a very dirty tactic.... and i believe it is one of the main reason so many women on the old forum..... who refuse to come to this one..... saw you as a misogynist

Yes, I realize how you feel when this subject is discussed, but no, it is not my intent to solicit or incite those feelings, ever. 

The main point of emphasis I'd distinguish is that though it may be inferred that I am attempting to demean women in my beliefs, that is the furthest thing from the truth, and God is my witness for that.  For instance, you make the direct connection that because Tarheel and I allude to the fact that the Bible says there is some attire that delineates that of a harlot, and that we think that Daisy Dukes are immodest, that the two are inextricably related, but that is an inference on your part that is not intended on mine.  Yes, I believe that sexuality and seduction can be adduced from the phrase "attire of a harlot", but the Bible doesn't spell those things out in terms of hemline length and such for a reason.  I've already said that I am comfortable in leaving those decisions (as a matter of public policy and practice) in the hands of the individual believer.  But if asked for my own personal standard on the matter of what I believe regarding clothes making a statement of sexuality (intended by the wearer or not) I may give those opinions, and I have reasons for believing in such a manner.  If you don't believe that same standard ought to apply, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.  As I said, I will only answer for me and my house, and you yours.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sure...re-post it. Never mind. I will...

"I didn't find it erotic, merely artistic."

No where does that say anything about the appropriateness or lack thereof...well, no where except fundie black and white land.

Cut to the chase ratboy.  Was the nudie post appropriate?

Nope. Anything else, little satan?

Well, yes.  I'd say my pastor does love me, especially when I call out blatant sin like that which TRT arrogantly and callously displayed.

 

[rsc2a]

False accusations, failure to apologize, calling out others for supposed "blatant sins"...

...aren't you the good pharisee?

 

[rsc2a]

Translation "I still imagine I'm king of the junior high locker room!  Hear me roar!!!"

Translation:
"I still refuse to admit I'm wrong, so I'll just try to be insulting."

Pretty much.