Talk:Kate Upton

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 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)