Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Komando
If a certain con minister was "caught" posting pictures of Apostolic women in "slits" while at a camp meeting and then posting them on a certain con ministerial forum for other men to see - would you file charges on this Holiness policeman? Would this be for harassment? stalking? something else? or just plain FREAKY weird?
Personally, I might be LIVID if this minister was just taking pictures of my daughter's skirt and lower torso.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Komando
Is that your final answer, FreeatLast?
It would be consistent that if I thought, having been taught so by this minister, that the slit on the skirt was an issue of immodesty that this male minister would turn around the other way as not bring 1. more shame to these women and 2. not to allow the eye to be tempted - rather than capture the "holiness crime scene" with a camera and then share these immodest pictures with his male peers.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanas
Boy, all the righteous indignation on this thread has stirred itself up to a real tempest in a virtual teapot.
The simple truth is that the man was taking pictures of "slits" to criticize the worldliness of the campmeeting, and not of women's legs.
This "pervert" talk is just plain silly. Do you think that if he really had a lower leg fetish that he'd post it on a preacher's forum?
He may be dumb, but I really doubt he's a danger to apostolic women.
|
The obfuscation Stephanas has so adamantly sought to present to us on this thread regarding this pathetic episdode of legalism and backbiting "gone amuck" in as just concerned man of God taking pictures of WORLDLINES and posting them for grief-ridden commentary is the same dishonesty that we have grown accustomed to by those who seek to protect the "good ol' boys" network.
If these were pictures of young apostolic males in dreadlocks, wearing saggy jeans, with t-shirts of gangster rappers making lewd gestures, and wearing an inordinate amount of bling-bling (jewelry) a legitimate discussion about worldliness creeping into the Church might be warranted. I might even agree.
However, we are dealing with a grown man and minister who took pictures of which attention and detail would have to be given to the lower torso of women wearing apparrel that, in their view, is revealing and ultimately IMMODEST.
We know skirts with slits by themselves are not worldly but wear one and many have argued in our movement that slits exposing the upper leg are definitely immodest. While other have vehemently preached that to avoid any appearance of evil and impropriety, and in the name of shamefacedness that it is best not to wear a skirt with a slit - AT ALL.
Granted, having not seen the pictures in question it is difficult to gauge the extent of the photographer's intent or if a revealing areas were viewed by the photographer while "on assignment" or posted for the inspection of this forum tribunal.
Yet, if the photographer 'MAN OF GOD' spent significant amounts of time peeping through his camera's view hole at women of which he believes, preaches and teaches are dressed immodestly then the various questions of a sexual nature are not "off the reservation" and are legitimate - even FAIR GAME.
When this is compounded with the fact the pictures of immodestly dressed women were posted, inspected and commented by his peer in a private forum - more questions and plausible conclusions arise.
The apostolic writer, Paul, tells us to abstain from the appearance of evil (
1 Thes. 5:22) and not to engage in situations that might make a "weaker" brother stumble (
Romans 14)
Does this covert police activity keep in line with this barometer of Christian conduct?
Stephen Gregory simple but powerful remark that he felt that his wife would dislike him being involved in any aspect of this affair is good common sense.
Would taking a half dozen or a dozen focused pictures of women at the church wearing skin-tight clothing and then posting them for inspection, analysis and commentary on an internet raise an eyebrow?
Would taking a half dozen or a dozen focused pictures of women at the church revealing cleavage and then posting them for inspection and commentary on an internet raise an eyebrow?
I'll reiterate:
It would be consistent that if I thought, having been taught so by this minister, that the slit on the skirt was an issue of
immodesty that this male minister would turn around the other way as not bring:
1. more shame to these women and
2. not to allow the eye to be tempted - rather than capture the "holiness crime scene" with a camera and then share these immodest pictures with his male peers.
Linear Mode
