Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kate Upton"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(RonaldB and Elessar)
(re:)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
::::::You are right, I didn't know she has a fiancé. And she actually has a photo of both nude. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:33, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
 
::::::You are right, I didn't know she has a fiancé. And she actually has a photo of both nude. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:33, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::::Honestly, one really shouldn't be taking nude photos to begin with. Even if only intended for one's spouse, there are risks involved. Taking the risk that a hacker would access them must not be worth the reward in a marriage setting; on the contrary it seems plain meshugga.--[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::::Honestly, one really shouldn't be taking nude photos to begin with. Even if only intended for one's spouse, there are risks involved. Taking the risk that a hacker would access them must not be worth the reward in a marriage setting; on the contrary it seems plain meshugga.--[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
I have changed my views over the years. I am done judging individuals based on the level of their faith. I would point to pages describing what is proper and just, like homosexuality is a sin, but to call somebody's faith into question is not up to me. I'm going to remove the pious sentence. I'd rather her show skin and be Christian than to be an atheist role model and no skin showing.--Jpatt 21:24, 13 July 2017 (EDT) 
  
 
== RonaldB and Elessar ==
 
== RonaldB and Elessar ==

Revision as of 20:24, 13 July 2017

"Modest dress is an integral part of practicing any Abrahamic religion"

That's true, but there are two errors in the article now:

Do you wanna dispute her belief in God only because she is clothing more nude?
She isn't doing totally nude shoots, but with lingerie and so

So please correct it if you don't wanna let me.

--Elessar (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

I'll take your word about the photoshoots because I'm not going to look at them, but I heard she did nude ones. However, a distinction has to be made between belief and practice, and as this isn't Wikipedia the truth must be told to the reader. Claiming one who engaged in such vulgarity to be a "person of God" is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. --Ronald (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
Nude photos of her (and other female celebrities) were leaked in 2014, I read. She made nude photos, but she did not choose to make them public. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
If you haven't ever seen lingerie pictures or videos of her, how do you know you wouldn't like them? She's very beautiful, funny and lovely. And why do you wanna forbid her making private nude photos (which she isn't going to make public)? --Elessar (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
I don't think RonaldB is referring to how her body looks. Making nude or mostly-nude pictures of oneself (at least those that are made public) is sinful behavior (for both Christianity and Judaism). That is how he does not like them. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
1990'sguy is correct. I've seen one of these pictures of her on a supermarket magazine, and it was rather revealing. I had heard about the nude photos in passing. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about her body, but the bare and mostly bare body should be reserved for the bedroom with one's own (opposite sex) spouse. --Ronald (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
Quite to the contrary, I believe that she is an extremely beautiful woman, but it appears she's engaged so she would ideally reserve her most intimate beauty for her fiancé as the Lord has commanded once they marry, rather than making it public.--Ronald (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
You are right, I didn't know she has a fiancé. And she actually has a photo of both nude. --Elessar (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
Honestly, one really shouldn't be taking nude photos to begin with. Even if only intended for one's spouse, there are risks involved. Taking the risk that a hacker would access them must not be worth the reward in a marriage setting; on the contrary it seems plain meshugga.--Ronald (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

I have changed my views over the years. I am done judging individuals based on the level of their faith. I would point to pages describing what is proper and just, like homosexuality is a sin, but to call somebody's faith into question is not up to me. I'm going to remove the pious sentence. I'd rather her show skin and be Christian than to be an atheist role model and no skin showing.--Jpatt 21:24, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

RonaldB and Elessar

I encourage you to use the talk page in your latest edit war on this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

If Elessar agrees to my latest revision, I think it's problem solved. I just believe that this site shouldn't fall into the liberal trap of moral relativism as Wikipedia has. --Ronald (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
RonaldB's current version is alright. But RonaldB I recommend you not to revert just cheeky without an edit summary but if, then debate over a matter, please. --Elessar (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I agree that, especially in disputes like this, editors must use an edit summary. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
And I wanna add I didn't want to do moral relativism. I just deleted the quotes in secular Christian because she actually believes in God. The quotes would dispute her belief. --Elessar (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
Now, I disagree with you on that statement. Being a Christian is more than believing in God. Believing that a god exists could also make someone part of numerous other religions. Please see Romans 10:9 for how one becomes a Christian. It involves more than intellectual knowledge. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I agree, therefore she is a secular Christian. That hasn't to have quotes. If she believes in Jesus Christ she is saved. --Elessar (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
That's fair. At the same time, one's actions serve as evidence on whether one is saved. However, we cannot say whether she is on her way to hell. I will stay neutral on this dispute, at least for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I don't see why she should be on a path to hell. Making nude/nearly-nude photos of oneself is a venial sin. And also don't forget John 8: 7. --Elessar (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
Of course all people are sinful, but if someone says they are a Christian and they continue in persistent, unrepentant sin, such as making nude photos, it is a sign that they were never saved in the first place. Please see Romans 6:1-2, for example. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
Maybe Kate has a strong sex drive? That's a natural drive you cannot control very well. You cannot presume all sexually uncontrolled Christians to be on the path to hell. Maybe they repent, maybe also Kate does. --Elessar (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I never said that she or other Christians like her were. I only said that it is a sign, an indication. Please see 1 John 1:6-7. Of course, real Christians do struggle with things like this. I am not denying that. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm just concerned because moral relativism tends to creep in slowly and subtly, and then liberal bias comes in with moral relativism. Despite what liberals may claim, lust and uninhibited sexuality is not Kosher and never will be Kosher. --Ronald (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

I would suggest being a little less eager to make judgments on this imperfect mortal. I could quote several places in scripture on this topic, but I won't bother. Except to say that Roman 10:9 doesn't say anything about being free of sin. It is not our place to say that she isn't a Christian. It's not even our place to relegate her to the ranks of "secular Christians". We can judge her behavior (in a forgiving way), that's all. SamHB (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
We can note when someone is inconsistent with their stated Christian faith. Also, SamHB, if you're referring to me about Romans 10:9, I never said that it mentioned being free of sin. One is saved through surrendering to Christ and trusting Him through faith alone. If someone continues in sinful ways, it is an indication (not solid proof) that they never were actually saved. However, true believers do struggle with sin. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
Also, the current revision doesn't even call her a secular Christian. It says that professing to believe in God while doing those photoshoots is a trait of secular Christianity. However, virtually all non-Reform Rabbis have said that lusting after the flesh isn't Kosher. --Ronald (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2017 (EDT)