# Meagan Good And Her Publicly Exposed Body While Married To A "preacher"



## kanozas (Feb 15, 2016)

I mean, she's regularly dressed to entice men to lust after her and I feel sorry she is so lost under his "leadership." 

Video
http://www.livestream.com/onechurchla/onelalive   (1:09:00 mark where audience member questions her exposing herself on a magazine)


He defended his wife stating that she can wear whatever she wants.  IMO,
they are false preachers.   There is a standard that is not of this world and all the hand-clapping on foolishness isn't going to change the standard that man did not set.  She does need to cover up.  Foolishness (referring to the audience's reaction to the question by the lady and no discernment on this issue..blindly following).  How do you let your wife show her body like that  (for lust) and then go and defend etc.  That lady was right.  I hope they realize what they are doing "in the name of Jesus" cuz it is as fake as their preaching, imo.  Modesty is a virtue and it doesn't take much to understand what that is for someone pushing religion.   Celibate but pimping your wife's nekkid body.  SMH.  I think that the truth exposes at "inopportune" times.  Rather than answer the question and explain their side, they bucked up and clapped back.  How is that "leading" anybody?


----------



## Nice Lady (Feb 15, 2016)

Thank God for balanced Christians such as Meagan Good and Devon Franklin. It's good that they are exemplary by waiting to have sex after marriage.  

Jesus comes in many different shapes. Sometimes, what we are calling JESUS isn't him. It's a undercover devil dressed in robes.


----------



## Kacie (Feb 15, 2016)

I saw something totally different in that video.  My heart hurts for Meagan...even if you couldn't feel her pain through the video it's clear that she was in tears.  Different people have different strongholds so I won't assume because it's easy for me to embrace modest apparel everyone should be able to do it at the drop of a dime.  Her husband is aware that she is still discovering her identity and strength is Christ and is allowing her to do so at her own pace.

The audience member even acknowledged how awesome Meagan's testimony was before proceeding to embarrass her.  Ironic that a woman (audience) who is not internally modest is terms of possessing quietness, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience is judging a woman who is immodest in apparel.

Meagan has a lot of scars associated with her physical appearance and rebels at direct "orders" so her hubby is leading her is a way that's effective for her.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 16, 2016)

I don't doubt they are kind people but they are misguided.  And this is the danger in christianity today...world standards in the pulpit.  That's why one biblical standard is so important.  He is rewriting the message to the world.   Are they ready to lead others just because they waited for sex after marriage?  That's the standard.  What about modesty in the marriage presented to the world they preach to?  I don't think they are ready to lead anybody.  I also think he is misleading Meagan.  Noticing this lack is not judging them unjustly, it's looking at the biblical standard and comparing that they are not ready to lead others spiritually.  I'm not afraid to say it.




Nice Lady said:


> Thank God for balanced Christians such as Meagan Good and Devon Franklin. It's good that they are exemplary by waiting to have sex after marriage.
> 
> *Jesus comes in many different shapes. Sometimes, what we are calling JESUS isn't him. It's a undercover devil dressed in robes.*




The irony of that statement and the inability of this couple to comprehend that promoting lust  towards his first lady of the church is very unwise and poor teaching.  In the journey of life, many learn a great lesson.  Those many are not all  qualified to lead early in the game.  The smoke of satan has infiltrated the church, from top to the bottom.  Husband said to the lady's question (no matter how rude, still valid questioning regarding her exposure), "hold up, no, no, she's gonna wear what she wanna wear...we're not here for that..."   It is a valid question and a valid observation....question being:  Why doesn't his wife dress modestly if he's a pastor of some sort?


----------



## kanozas (Feb 16, 2016)

If DeVon Franklin is a bonafide, ordained minister in SDA, why isn't he following their common principles?  Is he plugging a book for profit or is her spreading his sect, attempting to change it?  What?  

http://www.adventistreview.org/141516-18

"“Why would you do something to attract attention and then expect people to ignore it? [A girl’s] makeup and clothing can do the same thing. It is wishful thinking to believe that men can avoid looking at cleavage.”

One of SDA's revered prophetesses says:


Ellen white:

“I write with a distressed heart that the women in this age, both married and unmarried, too frequently do not maintain the reserve that is necessary. They act like coquettes. They encourage the attentions of single and married men, and those who are weak in moral power will be ensnared. These things, if allowed, deaden the moral senses and blind the mind so that crime does not appear sinful. Thoughts are awakened that would not have been if woman had kept her place in all modesty and sobriety. She may have had no unlawful purpose or motive herself, but she has given encouragement to men who are tempted, and who need all the help they can get from those associated with them. By being circumspect, reserved, taking no liberties, receiving no unwarrantable attentions, but preserving a high moral tone and becoming dignity, much evil might be avoided.”6


----------



## MomofThreeBoys (Feb 16, 2016)

Please stop. He isn't an ordained ministor


kanozas said:


> If DeVon Franklin is a bonafide, ordained minister in SDA, why isn't he following their common principles?  Is he plugging a book for profit or is her spreading his sect, attempting to change it?  What?
> 
> http://www.adventistreview.org/141516-18
> 
> ...




As been stated numerous times on this board and on the Internet, he is NOT an ordained minister in my church (SDA) or any other church. He is a member who occasionally will "preach" by sharing his testimony or a word from the Lord. Any member can do this if approved by your church's pastor to speak. I have done this myself and it doesn't make me a pastor or ordained minister.   I did see him speak once and it was because my pastor invited to come share his testimony. He happened to be shooting a film in Atlanta and attended services. Our pastor invited him up and he ended up taking the entire service. His testimony is very powerful. The gist of it is how he remained true to God while in college, interning for various companies and Hollywood stars and throughout his career. Not easy for a Christian in Hollywood.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 16, 2016)

MomofThreeBoys said:


> Please stop. He isn't an ordained ministor
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stop what?  Questioning motives? 

It's actually news to me. I didn't know and went searching on Google and found what is purported to be his statement that he was an ordained minister. If he agrees it's not correct, I don't know why he doesn't set the record straight. Even if he's not ordained, he's rather acting as a minister to others and his comments on her being able to dress anyway she wishes is iffy.  The issue is Meagan on display in the way she allows. 

One example that is on more than just BET:

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/02/06/devon-franklin-is-a-man-of-change.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
_One of the things that drives me is that one never knows how much time we have on this earth, and what I don’t want to have happen is that I had something that I could have done that was in my power to do, and I didn’t do it. I don’t want any gas left in this tank.

From working on movies like Pursuit of Happiness, Karate Kid, Sparkle and the upcoming film Heaven Is for Real, to writing my book, Produced By Faith, to speaking to thousands across the country to hosting TV shows — my goal is to inspire, bring hope and motivate as many people as humanly possible to have the faith to live the life that is destined and available for them.


In addition to being an ordained preacher, motivational speaker and author, DeVon Franklin is the senior vice president of production for Columbia Tristar Pictures, a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment. His films include *Pursuit of Happiness*, *Sparkle*and *Jumping the Broom*.  His book, *Produced By Faith*, parallels each step of the film-making process with the faith-making process of turning your life into a success.


*The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of BET Networks.*_
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it seems to me that the record is not set straight in the media by Franklin.  That's hardly the audience's fault.  I believe that if one cannot question the motives nor the actions of those in "leadership" positions and he_ is_ ministering publicly to people, then maybe there is danger in that particular place.  His testimony on celibacy is one thing separate from his wife being on lustful display.  The church is the family of G-d and it's not "however you wish it personally."  It's truly a common observation and simple question:  Why are her breasts always on display if they are living a Christ-centered life?


----------



## momi (Feb 16, 2016)

kanozas said:


> I mean, she's regularly dressed to entice men to lust after her and I feel sorry she is so lost under his "leadership."
> 
> Video
> http://www.livestream.com/onechurchla/onelalive   (1:09:00 mark where audience member questions her exposing herself on a magazine)
> ...



Whether he is ordained or not dressing in this way is a poor example - not according to him as her husband but according to the Bible.  

Apparently people really con't care much anymore about what the Bible says.... I am not trying to become cynical  but it's growing increasingly more difficult.  Lord help me.


----------



## Nice Lady (Feb 16, 2016)

*When we talk about what the Bible says, we have to make sure we are doing the Bible*. _If we don't follow the Bible and have demonstrated a common disregard for God's Word--how can we ever talk about someone else._

*Modesty is subjective*. *She was covered in the house of the Lord in that video.* *We have to hold ourselves responsible before we look to other people...it reminds me of not trying to remove a speck in one's eye when you have a log. I'm glad most of the audience jumped to their feet in agreement*. *She was way out of line and place. Did she think Meagan would say: "Yeah, okay?" Devon checked the mess out of her. I would've done the same thing.*


----------



## kanozas (Feb 16, 2016)

momi said:


> Whether he is ordained or not dressing in this way is a poor example - not according to him as her husband but according to the Bible.
> 
> Apparently people really con't care much anymore about what the Bible says.... I am not trying to become cynical  but it's growing increasingly more difficult.  Lord help me.



I know and I am even concerned that people who do discern a problem are called "judgy" when it's not condemnation.  None of us are perfect. We ought know more about those we follow  spiritually because it can be a danger to us.  I dunno, @momi, we have shut our eyes to a lot of things.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 16, 2016)

Nice Lady said:


> *When we talk about what the Bible says, we have to make sure we are doing the Bible*. _If we don't follow the Bible and have demonstrated a common disregard for God's Word--how can we ever talk about someone else._
> 
> *Modesty is subjective*. *She was covered in the house of the Lord in that video.* *We have to hold ourselves responsible before we look to other people...it reminds me of not trying to remove a speck in one's eye when you have a log. I'm glad most of the audience jumped to their feet in agreement*. *She was way out of line and place. Did she think Meagan would say: "Yeah, okay?" Devon checked the mess out of her. I would've done the same thing.*



Nice Lady, can you ask yourself that first paragraph esp. in regards to harassing a fellow christian member here and attributing to them behavior they have not done?  Now, on to the subject.  I am not "talking" against them nor questioning if they have Christ.  As reiterated several times, it is a question about their standards as spiritual leaders which they DO take on the role of.

 I'm questioning their veracity as "ministers" because of how he allows his wife to present herself and also based upon the fact that they don't have an answer for it, truly. They regularly evade the question.  Her nipples are visible.  This is not different attire from her other days and this entices men to lust setagainst a common christian standard of ministry.  When it is your salvation, you should question.  If you cannot question your leaders or those who present to you, you are not safe.  This has nothing to do with condemnation and logs in eyes.  It has to do with them evading these questions.  Why don't they have an answer other than "she's grown, she can do whatever"?  That is not judging, my dear.  That is asking for accountability.  On the night she wore this dress, she presented a gospel award to the winner.   Modesty itself is not subjective but the expression of modesty is often subject to social standards.  Christians are saying that this is not the body of Christ standard they comprehend.


----------



## mensa (Feb 16, 2016)

momi said:


> Whether he is ordained or not dressing in this way is a poor example - not according to him as her husband but according to the Bible.
> 
> Apparently people really con't care much anymore about what the Bible says.... I am not trying to become cynical  but it's growing increasingly more difficult.  Lord help me.



Say it momi!!!


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 16, 2016)

A pastor's wife showing her nipples to the world can never  be appropriate


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 16, 2016)

Nice Lady said:


> *When we talk about what the Bible says, we have to make sure we are doing the Bible*. _If we don't follow the Bible and have demonstrated a common disregard for God's Word--how can we ever talk about someone else._
> 
> *Modesty is subjective*. *She was covered in the house of the Lord in that video.* *We have to hold ourselves responsible before we look to other people...it reminds me of not trying to remove a speck in one's eye when you have a log. I'm glad most of the audience jumped to their feet in agreement*. *She was way out of line and place. Did she think Meagan would say: "Yeah, okay?" Devon checked the mess out of her. I would've done the same thing.*




Jesus said it would be better for one who causes another one to stumble to have a millstone around his/her neck and tossed into the sea.

Modesty is not subjective.

There is a clear standard.

We cannot look like the world.  You can be feminine, holy and beautiful without wearing a tent.

Actually if many people are rushing to laud you on your position, you're probably on the wrong side.  Jesus was clear that people don't want to hear the truth, especially in the last days.

Modesty is often a sore subject for women.  Let's not pretend that women don't assault men daily with immodest dress.  They will be held responsible for it.

Another minister I like but who often dresses immodestly is Heather Lindsey.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 16, 2016)

kanozas said:


> I know and I am even concerned that people who do discern a problem are called "judgy" when it's not condemnation.  None of us are perfect. We ought know more about those we follow  spiritually because it can be a danger to us.  I dunno, @momi, we have shut our eyes to a lot of things.



It's always called judgement instead of correction.  Just like following the Word is now called bigotry and people are encouraged to be politically correct. #girlbye


----------



## delitefulmane (Feb 16, 2016)

@kanozas, @Belle Du Jour , @momi    
So many people have been sharing this video on my Facebook timeline, all with the same view point! It is refreshing to see those who truly understand God's standard standing with the Word.


----------



## Nice Lady (Feb 16, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> Jesus said it would be better for one who causes another one to stumble to have a millstone around his/her neck and tossed into the sea.
> 
> Modesty is not subjective.
> 
> ...


Lol


----------



## Nice Lady (Feb 16, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> Jesus said it would be better for one who causes another one to stumble to have a millstone around his/her neck and tossed into the sea.
> 
> Modesty is not subjective.
> 
> ...



I saw all these strong words as "judging,...harassing,..", etc. I didn't make those implications. Meagan follows the word. I'm thankful that she wasn't a teen mom and has an upstanding husband.* A picture doesn't make up for Christians that steal money from employers, cheat, murder, live a double life, doesn't withstand evil, lie, and do all sorts of things in Jesus name*. *Where are the breast popping out because I thought I'd see nipples? How does her cleavage stop prostitutes from getting saved, sex trafficking of young children or any other evil?*Anyway, I could quote Scriptures and have a book published but I'm not responding.  I stand by my opinon. Have a wonderful night!


----------



## Nice Lady (Feb 16, 2016)

God bless everyone!


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 16, 2016)

Nice Lady said:


> I saw all these strong words as "judging,...harassing,..", etc. I didn't make those implications. Meagan follows the word. I'm thankful that she wasn't a teen mom and has an upstanding word.* A picture doesn't make up for Christians that steal money from employers, cheat, murder, live a double life, doesn't withstand evil, lie, and do all sorts of things in Jesus name*. *Where are the breast popping out because I thought I'd see nipples? How does her cleavage stop prostitutes from getting saved, sex trafficking of young children or any other evil?*Anyway, I could quote Scriptures and have a book published but I'm not responding.  I stand by my opinon. Have a wonderful night!



Please do quote scriptures.


----------



## MomofThreeBoys (Feb 16, 2016)

kanozas said:


> Stop what?  Questioning motives?
> 
> It's actually news to me. I didn't know and went searching on Google and found what is purported to be his statement that he was an ordained minister. If he agrees it's not correct, I don't know why he doesn't set the record straight. Even if he's not ordained, he's rather acting as a minister to others and his comments on her being able to dress anyway she wishes is iffy.  The issue is Meagan on display in the way she allows.
> 
> ...


Stop calling him an ordained minister in the SDA church. He isn't. 

You can question his motives all you want. 
I don't care.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 16, 2016)

kanozas said:


>



Just re-posting this photo because apparently this is considered "following the Word" and "upstanding."

I must be missing something.  She looks trashy here. Point blank.  And if she was trying to convince me to be chaste, I'd give her a long side eye.

I also don't get why people are so fainthearted: since when does calling out bad behavior somehow negate the fact that other Christians also sin?  That's a given. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Nice Lady (Feb 16, 2016)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> Please do quote scriptures.


*Sis, I got the call from God to say no more. I know my Bible. It's how I live, breathe and do everything... continue your walk with God. Have a wonderful night.*


----------



## Miss_C (Feb 17, 2016)

Boy with all the venom in here I'm glad that Jesus does the judging and doesn't  outsource it to some of the ladies in this thread. I mostly lurk in the Christian forum and find it to be a blessing but this thread gave me pause because of the harsh tone. Megan Good did nothing to deserve this vitrol regarding her dress. She is still a new Christian no? I don't know many who go from 0 to 60 with everything. She seems to be a doer of the word and she probably  struggles with this area but I mean she works in Hollywood- loops are important. God may eventually lead her to change up her look but right now she may be attracting some young women  to Christ, yes even dressing not to OP's standard of modesty. She is a living example that you can be sexy-looking, balanced Christian and still love the Lord. What a compelling testimony  for women who are hesitant to "give up" their beauty/sexiness to follow the Lord because of scathing judgements and unyielding  stances  like the ones in this thread.
 God made women beautiful creatures  that are pleasing to the eye. We can't even help it, even when dressing modestly. She is acting modest with her husband and that's what matters more than how she's dressed.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 17, 2016)

Again, I see nothing but vitriol to the people who are standing on the Word of God asking women to be modest and sober-minded.  She is not representing Christianity well at all in that outfit no matter how many people try to defend her.  Also, if she is a new Christian, she should be more open to correction, no? Her husband is not doing her any favors by defending her.  A true leader should be able to correct his wife and cover her the way Christ did for us.  I can't imagine Jesus saying to anyone "you just go ahead and do you boo! They just hating!"  Nope.  He said "your sins have been forgiven.  Go and sin no more."

One more thing, this obsession with being sexy: is THAT Godly? Where on the Word are we called to entice men with our beauty or our bodies? Nothing wrong with being beautiful, as I believe that naturally draws people to you, but aiming to be sexy is aiming to appeal to the spirit of lust.  We all know as Christians, or should know  that we shouldn't be courting the spirit of lust. 

But I know this is one area women will defend to the death, defying every scripture in the bible on modesty.  So sad the world's standards have crept into the church.


----------



## IronButterfly (Feb 17, 2016)

kanozas said:


> I mean, she's regularly dressed to entice men to lust after her and I feel sorry she is so lost under his "leadership."
> 
> Video
> http://www.livestream.com/onechurchla/onelalive   (1:09:00 mark where audience member questions her exposing herself on a magazine)
> ...


I do believe Jesus consorted with prostitute and thieves.  If he only administered to the "good" ppl, he wouldn't have had much of an existence, would he?  I do believe the DEVIL comes in many disguises included overbearing judgmental ppl.


----------



## Miss_C (Feb 17, 2016)

I think you may be misinterpreting vitrol for shock and confusion, at least where I'm concerned. I'm gonna leave this thread after I post this and go back into lurking but I will say this. As Christians  we're to call people to Christ. Screaming hell fire and damnation  at every little correctable  thing that comes along with spiritual  maturity  isn't going to compel most people to Jesus and can drive many away unless he opens their hearts. Which is of course the point. 

I hope that everyone  sitting in judgment of this couple can look inside themselves and locate a trait or behavior  that others may view as not Christ like or could be corrected. If you can't  find one then it's  pride so look harder.  I'm sure you will find something  God should be working on  within you, as he is working in me.


----------



## IronButterfly (Feb 17, 2016)

Miss_C said:


> Boy with all the venom in here I'm glad that Jesus does the judging and doesn't  outsource it to some of the ladies in this thread. I mostly lurk in the Christian forum and find it to be a blessing but this thread gave me pause because of the harsh tone. Megan Good did nothing to deserve this vitrol regarding her dress. She is still a new Christian no? I don't know many who go from 0 to 60 with everything. She seems to be a doer of the word and she probably  struggles with this area but I mean she works in Hollywood- loops are important. God may eventually lead her to change up her look but right now she may be attracting some young women  to Christ, yes even dressing not to OP's standard of modesty. She is a living example that you can be sexy-looking, balanced Christian and still love the Lord. What a compelling testimony  for women who are hesitant to "give up" their beauty/sexiness to follow the Lord because of scathing judgements and unyielding  stances  like the ones in this thread.
> God made women beautiful creatures  that are pleasing to the eye. We can't even help it, even when dressing modestly. She is acting modest with her husband and that's what matters more than how she's dressed.



When a like is not enough.


----------



## IronButterfly (Feb 17, 2016)

Miss_C said:


> I think you may be misinterpreting vitrol for shock and confusion, at least where I'm concerned. I'm gonna leave this thread after I post this and go back into lurking but I will say this. As Christians  we're to call people to Christ. Screaming hell fire and damnation  at every little correctable  thing that comes along with spiritual  maturity  isn't going to compel most people to Jesus and can drive many away unless he opens their hearts. Which is of course the point.
> 
> I hope that everyone  sitting in judgment of this couple can look inside themselves and locate a trait or behavior  that others may view as not Christ like or could be corrected. If you can't  find one then it's  pride so look harder.  I'm sure you will find something  God should be working on  within you, as he is working in me.



I have to say you are one of the extremely rare true Christians I have ever heard from.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 17, 2016)

And now we've crossed the line to the ridiculous.  Telling women to dress modestly and protect the beauty God has given them is now tantamount to preaching hell fire and damnation. Ok then. The word did say in the last days people would be lovers of themselves and not open to correction. I'm ashamed that I have to defend modesty to other Christian women


----------



## kanozas (Feb 17, 2016)

Miss_C said:


> I think you may be misinterpreting vitrol for shock and confusion, at least where I'm concerned. I'm gonna leave this thread after I post this and go back into lurking but I will say this. As Christians  we're to call people to Christ. Screaming hell fire and damnation  at every little correctable  thing that comes along with spiritual  maturity  isn't going to compel most people to Jesus and can drive many away unless he opens their hearts. Which is of course the point.
> 
> I hope that everyone  sitting in judgment of this couple can look inside themselves and locate a trait or behavior  that others may view as not Christ like or could be corrected. If you can't  find one then it's  pride so look harder.  I'm sure you will find something  God should be working on  within you, as he is working in me.




There needs to be a little more critical thinking and reading in this thread and less emotionalism.  I'm catholic, ma'am.  We don't scream hell-fire and damnation and I have not done such.  I question the validity of their "ministry" and wonder if it isn't false preaching.  Where is the vitriol?   Sitting in judgment means condemnation, which you mentioned about screaming hell-fire and damnation and which Jesus opposes - that has _not_ occurred here.  I am no one to doubt whether these people love Christ.  It's obvious they do love Him.  There's also something else obvious...that of immodest dress.   

Anyone could be loving and kind...I know some...but be a "false teacher..."  I know some of those.  They mean well.  Their message is antithetical to the gospel and yet, they are loving and kind individuals who desire to help others.  I don't believe the Franklins are entirely antithetical but I do have to wonder about their proclaimed "expertise" when celibacy/purity is the standard prescribed by scripture.  It's been the standard from before Moses.  And far too often, people who just found their truths are running to claim expertise months in.  They are 3 years in.  Their calling is not mine...but if we cannot question WHY, then that is nothing I'm interested in following.  Being able to question is a basic religious right, or should be.  

As far as traits...I have  traits that are not Christ-like and it's open record here (colourful language at times) so there's no hiding.  The issue is, still, *a minister's wife put on sexual display for the lustful eyes of other men *and I still ask, validly, are they ready for ministry when they either evade the question or respond angrily or flippantly such as, "we're all different...she can wear whatever...?"   Just as I wouldn't expect a nun to don a tight/or mini skirt and low-cut cleavage and stripper heels, I wouldn't expect a minister's wife to do so either.  We are certain to abide by the decorum and etiquette of the establishments of our work places but we can develop amnesia when it comes to the most important work we'll ever do in this life.  And just to note, I believe the lady's  question was  correct - not necessarily the delivery - although, when darkness comes to light, it's rarely done in a opportune time according to the offender.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 17, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> Just re-posting this photo because apparently this is considered "following the Word" and "upstanding."
> 
> I must be missing something.  She looks trashy here. Point blank.  And if she was trying to convince me to be chaste, I'd give her a long side eye.
> 
> I also don't get why people are so fainthearted: since when does calling out bad behavior somehow negate the fact that other Christians also sin?  That's a given. The two aren't mutually exclusive.




On "sexiness," I'm convinced we've got it all wrong.  There are people in marriage who think sex is dirty...and people outside marriage who think  fornication isn't sin.  We just don't have sex nor sexiness right.
Women exude a certain amount of natural sexiness and so do men in their own way.  It's natural and human and meant that way.  If we didn't have the strong sexual drive, how would we multiply and be plentiful?  LOL.  Sex feels good.  Being or looking sexy attracts the opposite sex in a natural way for the formation of families to bring life into the world and G-d's purpose for that is to create the human family and individuals to follow Him.  BUT...we have largely crossed the line into LUST as that natural sexiness and there is a huge difference.

If I were to compare that blue dress to someone in the Kalahari with breasts exposed, I wouldn't assume the Kalaharian were immodest and neither would be  an Amazonian Indigenous with nothing on but a waist cinch or string covering the groin.  I wouldn't say that American women breast-feeding in public are immodest unless they had it in mind to go against the social standards just to shock and scandalize.  We know when we're immodest according to our cultures, either in dress or behavior.  We know.  But to a simple question...."why are they doing that if it's not the common ministerial standard" and it brings charges of condemnation.  Well, that might point to something deeper than this surface discussion for which I'm neither guilty nor can alleviate.  It's not like I didn't and still don't have a myriad of questions for the catholic faith...starting with Mary or the Eucharist lol.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 17, 2016)

MomofThreeBoys said:


> Stop calling him an ordained minister in the SDA church. He isn't.
> 
> You can question his motives all you want.
> I don't care.




It was my bad and I stopped after your post...I only went by the media which makes mention of his being ordained and I don't see where he corrected that.  I am not SDA and am not protestant.  We've heard from the SDA reps in the thread. Hopefully, you comprehend why many arrived at that conclusion...the media record, which is why I gave the explanation.  Thank you for the information.


----------



## Flourishnikov (Feb 17, 2016)

I agree that Meagan presenting a gospel award in this dress was in poor taste and I think, that in retrospect, she and Devon realize it was a mistake. However, I think its sad that there is so much emphasis on this one dress that it is overshadowing their overall message when it is so sorely needed in a world where sexuality and promiscuity is often promoted. We must remember that these are young people. Young people that are both still growing in Christ and have offered up themselves as conduits of Christ's message. God is not through with Devon and Meagan and Im sure that he is dealing with them dutifully and *mercifully*. I think that we forget that it takes a lot of courage to be in the public eye and open up about one's personal life and religion. It saddens me that more Christians arent being more *compassionate* with these young people. Devon and Meagan are in my age group, so their message speaks directly to my own personal struggles. There is a delicate balance between judgement and correction within the body of Christ and it is the responsibility of Meagan and Devon's spiritual teachers to correct them with love. 

I believe God can use the least of us and the best teachers will not always be the most perfect. A message from an imperfect messenger should not be rendered void. As Christians, we have to *forgive* Meagan for her misstep and c*over them both in prayer and love*, so that they can continue/begin to deliver His message in a way that is conducive to His word. I believe Devon's response was in defense of his wife and as a good husband he should be her protector. Neither of them were prepared to answer the question regarding Megan's attire, so he was naturally defensive. Devon should be given a pass and the opportunity for both of them to prepare a statement regarding her attire.  We can not harden our hearts toward these young people at a time when the enemy will most come against them.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 17, 2016)

I don't think it's one dress but most of her formal attire..very low cleavage and breasts on display (this was, by far of what I've seen as the worst lol).  There is a habit, though.  As for those who follow their message and religion, no, I don't think people should harden their hearts if that is a ministry they are being edified in.  I'm not a protestant so I'm from the outside looking in and I have no contact with these people at all.  That said, well, what is being said in a lot of places is that there is a standard already in place and that the source is G-d, not man.  But I can certainly agree that they shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater although my question and observation are very valid and not at all unique.  Being that they are Hollywood, we've all seen their version of the "gospel" trampled upon right and left with people misleading others.  I've read some of the articles and this very issue comes up in the comment section. Well,  I don't throw out all my priests either because a few of them, compared to the thousands of faithful and righteous, have abused children and women.  As far as them being "young," they are 34 and 37, not exactly "young."  38 is middle-aged.  They probably appeal to actual young people in their teens and 20's.  

I appreciate your gracious entry here )  @Chocoluxe and those of several others.  Forgive my matter-of-factness and straight-to-it style.  I dig in and just say what's on my mind.  I do not hate Meagan, I just do not believe her husband is protecting her as he should.


ETA:  Wasn't too sure where to place this...here or there...but 






She had an augmentation and they look very natural and nice.  Still, though.  Maybe it's the insecurity of keeping relevant in the biz to keep work so that the roles she's normally plugged into will be available to her and that they don't write her off as "the pastor's wife."


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 17, 2016)

Her 'sexiness' should be reserved for her husband alone and not for all to see, she has always been a provocative dresser and has continued her style of dress even more so since marriage, however, when she is in the house of God she is suitably covered up so she is aware on what is proper and what is not.

Blue dress aside she is consistent and he obviously enjoys seeing her that way, both of them have the ability to influence masses of people, what a job to undo the damage that has already been done.

and btw, in every interview I have heard him give, he was introduced as a Pastor, if he is not, it would be right for him to correct whoever refers to him as such.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 17, 2016)

kanozas said:


> I don't think it's one dress but most of her formal attire..very low cleavage and breasts on display (this was, by far of what I've seen as the worst lol).  There is a habit, though.  As for those who follow their message and religion, no, I don't think people should harden their hearts if that is a ministry they are being edified in.  I'm not a protestant so I'm from the outside looking in and I have no contact with these people at all.  That said, well, what is being said in a lot of places is that there is a standard already in place and that the source is G-d, not man.  But I can certainly agree that they shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater although my question and observation are very valid and not at all unique.  Being that they are Hollywood, we've all seen their version of the "gospel" trampled upon right and left with people misleading others.  I've read some of the articles and this very issue comes up in the comment section. Well,  I don't throw out all my priests either because a few of them, compared to the thousands of faithful and righteous, have abused children and women.  As far as them being "young," they are 34 and 37, not exactly "young."  38 is middle-aged.  They probably appeal to actual young people in their teens and 20's.
> 
> I appreciate your gracious entry here )  @Chocoluxe and those of several others.  Forgive my matter-of-factness and straight-to-it style.  I dig in and just say what's on my mind.  I do not hate Meagan, I just do not believe her husband is protecting her as he should.
> 
> ...




wow she sure went from flat to fluffy (as is her right)...what I've found with some people who have implants their boobs are always on display.


----------



## Divine. (Feb 17, 2016)

This is a side note, but I believe if we are to have discussions like this scripture should be used when necessary to support the response. If not, we all just sound like we're bickering back and forth. It's difficult to argue scripture. If we believe God's Word is the truth, then no further discussion is needed. We're not the only people on this forum.

Regarding the OP, it's difficult for me personally to receive their ministry because the fruit doesn't line up with the tree in some areas. God's Word specifically says to beware of false prophets in sheep's clothing. We have the right to take heed of this warning. That isn't judging. That is using discernment. I don't feel comfortable taking counsel from any person in ministry who doesn't fully follow the standards God has put into place. Eternity is on the line, so I can't just be listening to everybody.

What I will say is that I know their hearts are in the right place. I don't think they're bad people. But if you've taken on the responsibility of leading God's children, you need to lead by example. Even if Megan didn't go into this marriage wanting to be an example to other Christian women, she still reflects DeVon. They are one flesh. It's his responsibility to wash her with the Word and teach her.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 18, 2016)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> *Her 'sexiness' should be reserved for her husband alone and not for all to see, she has always been a provocative dresser and has continued her style of dress even more so since marriage,* however, when she is in the house of God she is suitably covered up so she is aware on what is proper and what is not.
> 
> Blue dress aside she is consistent and he obviously enjoys seeing her that way, both of them have the ability to influence masses of people, what a job to undo the damage that has already been done.
> 
> and btw, in every interview I have heard him give, he was introduced as a Pastor, if he is not, it would be right for him to correct whoever refers to him as such.



The bolded...This is what God intended.   Your post is totally on point.

_The wife does not have authority over her own body *but yields it to her husband*. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body *but yields it to his wife*.

I Corinthians 7:4

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I Thessolanians 5:22

I'm just getting started.  Bottomline, Meagan Goode is not presenting a 'Good' example of a modest Christian woman.   She's not and this isn't being judgmental.  It's a clear, obvious fact.

We can't 'validate' nor justify her immodesty with 'she's a babe in Christ...Umm.. no.  That won't cut it.  She is flat out in rebellion doing what 'she'...Meagan wants to do.    

Her career is not an excuse either, for the Word of God says, 

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?"

Mark 8:36

Wrong is wrong... no judgment.   Their choices judge themselves...period.

_


----------



## NICOLETHENUMBERONE (Feb 21, 2016)

I get that people think Megan's attire at times is not modest. However, haven't you all ever heard the saying, people don't care about how much you know, until they know how much you care. You can't just come at someone any old kind of way and expect them to hear what you're saying. That lady was wrong and any husband would defend his wife. If I am visiting my mom, sometimes she'll say, don't wear those skinny jeans to her church. I respect that because its my mom but you can't be a stranger, talking bout the Holy Spirit told you this and that but you're not coming at me in the right manner.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 22, 2016)

@NICOLETHENUMBERONE   I'm sure we all think that lady was kinda rude but she verbalized what many of us think...and a lot of people.  I've seen comments all over the net.


----------



## dicapr (Feb 22, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> Jesus said it would be better for one who causes another one to stumble to have a millstone around his/her neck and tossed into the sea.
> 
> Modesty is not subjective.
> 
> ...



Modesty is subjective. A modest Orthodox Jewish woman's attire, a modest Muslim woman's attire, and a modest Christian woman's attire are different. That being said Megan dresses a little too sexy for my taste but that is between her and God. There are plenty of covered women having sex outside of marriage who are proud and boastful which negates any outward modesty they may project to the world. Outward modesty is only one part of the equation.  I also don't buy into the idea that woman can make a man lust. The bible states that lust is conceived in the heart not brought on by a short hem line.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 22, 2016)

dicapr said:


> Modesty is subjective. A modest Orthodox Jewish woman's attire, a modest Muslim woman's attire, and a modest Christian woman's attire are different. That being said Megan dresses a little too sexy for my taste but that is between her and God. There are plenty of covered women having sex outside of marriage who are proud and boastful which negates any outward modesty they may project to the world. Outward modesty is only one part of the equation.  I also don't buy into the idea that woman can make a man lust. The bible states that lust is conceived in the heart not brought on by a short hem line.



While modesty is subjective,  Megan's attire could never be called modest. Again, pointing out immodest behavior does not imply that Christians don't also sin.  A sinner can identify sinful behavior in another dinner. That's not judgement. If you really don't believe that a scantily clad women can plant the seed of lust in a man's heart you are being intentionally naive...God made men visual and highly sensitive and reactive to our bodies.  Let's not pretend that women don't affect men.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 22, 2016)

Shimmie said:


> The bolded...This is what God intended.   Your post is totally on point.
> 
> _The wife does not have authority over her own body *but yields it to her husband*. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body *but yields it to his wife*.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to miss heaven for a few fleeting moments of being perceived as sexy on earth. No ma'am.  Not worth it. If the world at large is applauding what you are doing chances are you are on the wrong side...


----------



## dicapr (Feb 22, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> While modesty is subjective,  Megan's attire could never be called modest. Again, pointing out immodest behavior does not imply that Christians don't also sin.  A sinner can identify sinful behavior in another dinner. That's not judgement. If you really don't believe that a scantily clad women can plant the seed of lust in a man's heart you are being intentionally naive...God made men visual and highly sensitive and reactive to our bodies.  Let's not pretend that women don't affect men.



Men seeing a woman who they find sexually attractive isn't lust. Lust comes from dwelling on and fostering impure thoughts from that attraction. The bible teaches us that men not women are responsible for their lustful spirit.  However over the years the church has rationalized this responsibility away from men. And while covering may help to some degree unless you are advocating a burka there will always be something exposed a man could lust after. 

Personally I think outward modesty has merit but seeing how little the bible addresses modesty I wonder why it's such a hot button topic among Christians. I can't help but think it has a lot to do with looking right rather than living right.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 22, 2016)

dicapr said:


> Men seeing a woman who they find sexually attractive isn't lust. Lust comes from dwelling on and fostering impure thoughts from that attraction. The bible teaches us that men not women are responsible for their lustful spirit.  However over the years the church has rationalized this responsibility away from men. And while covering may help to some degree unless you are advocating a burka there will always be something exposed a man could lust after.
> 
> Personally I think outward modesty has merit but seeing how little the bible addresses modesty I wonder why it's such a hot button topic among Christians. I can't help but think it has a lot to do with looking right rather than living right.



I'd say the bible addresses the subject of modesty more than "a little."  

There is a wide gulf between a burka and hot pants. I'm not advocating either extreme, and I suspect you already know that...a woman can be beautiful, modest and classy and yes, a man may still lust after her.  But a woman who *intentionally* dresses in a seductive way to *entice* men is liable to judgement.  I didn't say it--Our Lord did.  But again, this is one area where people will defend to the death, no matter wat the Word says.  Sad.


----------



## dicapr (Feb 22, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> I'd say the bible addresses the subject of modesty more than "a little."
> 
> There is a wide gulf between a burka and hot pants. I'm not advocating either extreme, and I suspect you already know that...a woman can be beautiful, modest and classy and yes, a man may still lust after her.  But a woman who *intentionally* dresses in a seductive way to *entice* men is liable to judgement.  I didn't say it--Our Lord did.  But again, this is one area where people will defend to the death, no matter wat the Word says.  Sad.



I actually looked up the word modesty in a bible concordance and there were only a handful of references. Even Paul's declaration of a modest Christian woman had everything to do with her attitude and behaviors. He did not mention dress at all. There are no biblical references about dress except the wearing of jewelry and covering ones head.  I did a study last year on modesty letting go of what I had been taught and actually reading what the word said. I'm not ignoring the bible at all. The bible focuses on internal modesty. Christianity has linked causing our brothers to stumble with covering women. Jesus himself said if a man looks at a woman to lust upon her the man is guilty.

I do believe that a woman who sets out to cause someone to fall is guilty. However I don't believe we are capable of judging someone's intentions. One person may wear an outfit to entice where another person may wear the same outfit because they finally lost 80 lbs. One person's intentions were wrong while the second person is blameless.

I reject the whole dressing to cause men to lust line because you can't do that. There are men who like feet and toes-should I not wear sandles this summer. Does not causing them to lust become irrelevant because they are not the typical boobs or butt men. If we as women are going to dress to not entice men we can't pic and choose who we cover for.


----------



## NICOLETHENUMBERONE (Feb 22, 2016)

kanozas said:


> @NICOLETHENUMBERONE   I'm sure we all think that lady was kinda rude but she verbalized what many of us think...and a lot of people.  I've seen comments all over the net.


@kanozas

That woman did not display the fruit of the spirit. 
But the *fruit of the Spirit* is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.
She was manipulative and ambushed them by complimenting her beauty and then went on talk about her breasts being out. And when you thought it was over, she tried to choke hold Megan and her husband into agreement by saying, "we gone cover up right?" I believe God looks at where you are and sees if you are trying, then based on that he'll work all the other things out but it's a process and doesn't happen overnight. I do believe Megan is genuine in her faith though. I honestly only saw her in one revealinv vneck dress and that was years ago but people are still talking about it.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 22, 2016)

NICOLETHENUMBERONE said:


> @kanozas
> 
> That woman did not display the fruit of the spirit.
> But the *fruit of the Spirit* is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.
> She was manipulative and ambushed them by complimenting her beauty and then went on talk about her breasts being out. And when you thought it was over, she tried to choke hold Megan and her husband into agreement by saying, "we gone cover up right?" I believe God looks at where you are and sees if you are trying, then based on that he'll work all the other things out but it's a process and doesn't happen overnight. I do believe Megan is genuine in her faith though. I honestly only saw her in one revealinv vneck dress and that was years ago but people are still talking about it.




More like a year and a half ago.   I'm not all that focused on the lady, though.   She only verbalized what many others actually witness continually.  Surely, she was rude...but the bigger issue here is Meagan's immodest dress.  I have to agree with @Shimmie and several others in that we don't get a pass because we didn't read the manual when the task is already known to include following the manual when leading others.  It doesn't take rocket science to see that a lot  of her formal attire (not the one she wore during the interview) is inappropriate, preacher's wife or not.   I think we often forget that the call to modesty is older than christianity.  Here's some Jewish wisdom on the subject:

LINK
*Modesty (Tz’ni’ut)*
*Discretion in appearance and speech is designed to protect our souls from assault by a coarse world.*
*By Rabbi Maurice Lamm*
  

_Reprinted with permission from The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage_ _(Jonathan David)._

Modesty is the foundation of Jewish values and is one of the fundamental underpinnings of the Jewish family. It is popularly thought to apply primarily to women, but it is a desirable quality in men as well. Although the term is generally used for relations between men and women, it is meant to apply to people in all situations.

_Tz’ni’ut_ means modesty, simplicity, a touch of bashfulness, and reserve. But perhaps above these, it signifies privacy. It is the hallmark of Jewish marriage, and the rabbis refer to it as the specific quality to look for in the ideal mate.

The classical symbol of _tz’ni’ut _is the veil. It bespeaks privacy, a person apart; Isaiah (3:18) calls it _tif’eret_ (“glory”). The Assyrians ruled that a harlot may _not_ wear a veil, to imply that she is on _public_ exhibit (Code of Hammurabi). The veil was instinctively donned by Rebecca as soon as she observed her future husband in the distance (Genesis 24:65). That is one reason why the ceremony immediately prior to the wedding celebration is the _bedeken_, or the veiling of the bride by the groom, who blesses the bride with the ancient words spoken to Rebecca.

The principle of _tz’ni’ut _rejects all nudity, not only in public, but also before family members at home. (Thus one must not pray or recite the Sh’ma prayer while one is naked or standing in the presence of a naked person.) The rejection of nudity recalls Adam and Eve who, after committing the first sin, realized they were naked and instinctively felt ashamed and hid (Genesis 2:25). The same attitude reappears when Noah curses Ham, who saw his father exposed (Genesis 9:21-27).

_Tz’ni’ut_ also implies modesty in dress. Traditionally covered parts of the body should not be exposed, although one can dress stylishly. This attitude issues from a very highly refined sense of shame, an emotion often denigrated today in the name of freedom. Not only did the Bible prohibit removing all clothing, it did not permit wearing any garments belonging to the opposite sex (Deuteronomy 22:5), as this might lead to unnatural lusts, lascivious thoughts, and a freer intermingling between the sexes.

*Modesty is About More than What One Wears*
_Tz’ni’ut_ means discreet habits, quiet speech, and affections privately expressed, and infers the avoidance of grossness, boisterous laughter, raucous behavior, even “loud” ornaments. This is not merely a series of behavioral niceties, a sort of Bible’s guide to etiquette, but a philosophy of life.

This concept of modesty does not imply a rejection of the body. On the contrary, the Jewish people are taught to respect the body. Hillel [an early rabbinic sage] did not bathe solely for hygienic reasons, but to care for the body–the most magnificent creation of God (Leviticus Rabba 34:3). Rabban Gamaliel [a second century sage], on seeing a beautiful person, praised God (Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 9:1). One consequence of this concept is the emphasis on the need for marriage and on healthy sexual relations between husband and wife.

_Tz’ni’ut_ was intended to preserve the sanctity of the inner human being from assault by the coarseness of daily life. The Bible (Psalm 45:14) says _kol k’vudah bat melekh p’nimah_ (“the whole glory of the daughter of the king is within”–some translate it playfully as “the whole glory of the daughter is the royalty within”). Dignity comes not from exposure and indecent exhibition, but from discretion and the assurance that the human being will be considered a private, sensitive being, not merely a body.

*Modesty’s Opposite*
The antonym of _tz’ni’ut_ is _hefkerut_, abandon, looseness, the absence of restraint and inhibition. In its extreme, it is gross immorality, _gilui arayot_ (the uncovering of nakedness). _Tz’ni’ut_ is covering, vulgarity is uncovering. Vulgarity that is repeated ceases to astonish us or to shock our moral sensibilities. Thus the canons of taste have degenerated as immorality has increased. Those who would rather be clothed than exposed are considered square and puritanical, victims of the centuries-old repression of healthy instincts.

Privacy, in contemporary parlance, refers primarily to property. Sarah Handelman observed that “privacy refers to ‘property,’ not to ‘person.’ Our homes are our inviolate castles: ‘Private Property-No Trespassing.’ Our gems, stocks and bonds are hidden away in vaults. But our bodies, and the precious inner jewels of our personalities, are open to all comers. Nothing is inviolable there. God forbid that someone should know your bank balance, but a casual meeting with a stranger at a bar is warrant for immediate sexual intimacy” (Sheina Sarah Handelman, “The Paradoxes of Privacy,” _Sh’ma_, November 10, 1978).

The [Babylonian] Talmud (Bava Batra 57b) has an interesting comment on privacy as it relates to persons and property: Privacy was required for women who did their laundering in a brook, because they had to uncover their legs. The Talmud ruled that private property rights had to be violated to protect the privacy of persons, “because Jewish women cannot be expected to humiliate themselves at the laundering brook.” Because of such legal decisions, moral principles are still relevant to Jews. It is said (in BT Yevamot 107a) that _ein b’not yisrael hefker_, (the daughters of Israel are not in a state of abandonment, available for every public use). The vulgarities of society can be symbolized by the biblical phrase _nezem zahav b’af hazir_ (“a gold ring in the swine’s snout”). That which is pure gold, the God-given ability to reproduce, is so often used for wading through the public mud.

“A man should always be watchful of the possibility of moral abandonment … for it will cause all he owns to go to waste … as a worm in a sesame plant who eats everything within, without anyone noticing it, and all that is left is the shell” (BT Sotah 3b). The gradual abandonment of _tz’ni’ut_ has proceeded virtually unobstructed and undetected, until all that remains is only an outer shell of morality.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 22, 2016)

Here are some more recent pics...there is a theme:




















There are many more on a simple Google search and these pics are not at all "old."  I mean, I guess he doesn't mind sharing with other men.    Shrugs.  BTW, he won't correct the media on his being a "pastor" nor "ordained minister" and allows this imagery to continue.  So, just imagine those in the mainstream wondering why she gets away with it and not to mention this fiasco of leaked nude photos meant for her husband but sent over the same network with failed privacy controls.  Where is the common sense?  He's pushing 40 and she's mid 30's.  That's why I question their readiness to lead others.  Some things are just plain common sense to most people, esp. to those who don't want bad images of themselves while they are spiritually leading others.

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2014...ts-fans-reposting-leaked-nude-photos-ashamed/


----------



## sweetvi (Feb 22, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> Jesus said it would be better for one who causes another one to stumble to have a millstone around his/her neck and tossed into the sea.
> 
> Modesty is not subjective.
> 
> ...




I follow Heather!!!  What don't you like about her dressing. I personally think she brags about the brand of clothings she wears (burberry,etc.), but she dropped a few gems that I needed..


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 23, 2016)

sweetvi said:


> I follow Heather!!!  What don't you like about her dressing. I personally think she brags about the brand of clothings she wears (burberry,etc.), but she dropped a few gems that I needed..



IMO She had worn some inappropriate clothing.  She dresses feminine and modest at times, but at other times she has worn backless,  strapless and other items that I don't believe are appropriate for a Christian let alone a minister. I also agree about the label dropping.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Feb 23, 2016)

dicapr said:


> I actually looked up the word modesty in a bible concordance and there were only a handful of references. Even Paul's declaration of a modest Christian woman had everything to do with her attitude and behaviors. He did not mention dress at all. There are no biblical references about dress except the wearing of jewelry and covering ones head.  I did a study last year on modesty letting go of what I had been taught and actually reading what the word said. I'm not ignoring the bible at all. The bible focuses on internal modesty. Christianity has linked causing our brothers to stumble with covering women. Jesus himself said if a man looks at a woman to lust upon her the man is guilty.
> 
> I do believe that a woman who sets out to cause someone to fall is guilty. However I don't believe we are capable of judging someone's intentions. One person may wear an outfit to entice where another person may wear the same outfit because they finally lost 80 lbs. One person's intentions were wrong while the second person is blameless.
> 
> I reject the whole dressing to cause men to lust line because you can't do that. There are men who like feet and toes-should I not wear sandles this summer. Does not causing them to lust become irrelevant because they are not the typical boobs or butt men. If we as women are going to dress to not entice men we can't pic and choose who we cover for.



Of course Paul didn't need to mention clothing in that scripture. Women at that time were clothed, right?  They weren't wearing cut offs and midriff baring tops. If you are trying to get around the fact that there are clothing choices that are inappropriate and offensive to God then I recommend that you pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit--He will guide us in all righteousness.  If God was standing before you, would be comfortable wearing your breasts or backside out? 

Ladies, sacred things are hidden and veiled. Even our bodies are designed that way.  I'm tired of this circular argument because I know that what I believe is backed by the Word and thousands of years of history. Only recently is it widely acceptable to walk around naked.  I pray the God will form our consciences to include humility and respect for others. Blessings to all.


----------



## LivingInPeace (Feb 23, 2016)

Aren't there cultures in which the women are not covered? Why isn't inciting lustfulness a problem for them? Or is that they aren't Christian? If they become Christian, is that when their bodies become a problem for God and men?


----------



## dicapr (Feb 23, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> Of course Paul didn't need to mention clothing in that scripture. Women at that time were clothed, right?  They weren't wearing cut offs and midriff baring tops. If you are trying to get around the fact that there are clothing choices that are inappropriate and offensive to God then I recommend that you pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit--He will guide us in all righteousness.  If God was standing before you, would be comfortable wearing your breasts or backside out?
> 
> Ladies, sacred things are hidden and veiled. Even our bodies are designed that way.  I'm tired of this circular argument because I know that what I believe is backed by the Word and thousands of years of history. Only recently is it widely acceptable to walk around naked.  I pray the God will form our consciences to include humility and respect for others. Blessings to all.



If you want to go on how women dressed modestly in biblical times or even the last century most Christian women today are immodest. Do you show your ankles?  Are your arms covered to the wrist? 

I have my own personal standard of modesty which is probably in line with the average Christian. What I refuse to do is pretend that I know my Christian sisters intentions and put the blame of men's lust on her. 

I understand that every generation has its norms for modesty.  When women first started showing their ankles there was an uproar in the church over the nakedness of the women and how it incited men to lust. There was a time that short sleeves were deemed unchristian and immodest.  And while I do agree that we should give some consideration to modern interpretations on modesty they are not an absolute.


----------



## kanozas (Feb 23, 2016)

LivingInPeace said:


> Aren't there cultures in which the women are not covered? Why isn't inciting lustfulness a problem for them? Or is that they aren't Christian? If they become Christian, is that when their bodies become a problem for God and men?



This was already addressed in post #32.  Even in some Indigenous cultures where clothing is very limited, there are still standards of modesty.  For example, in some cultures, men must wear a palm sheath on their penises.  In others, women must wear a string around their waists or one between the folds of their labia, from front to back.  Yet others, a woman must wear a neck plate above her breasts.  Without it, they are immodest.  There are always standards of modesty in all cultures.


----------



## kikigirl (Feb 23, 2016)

......,


----------



## felic1 (Jan 8, 2019)

The breasts are sex organs. What purpose do we have if we are showing our breasts, nipples to others? Why are these glances not available for the husband only? The word does say that the Husband is to be ravished by a wife's breasts. Let's not make excuses about why we want to be viewed as looking good by showing more of our person than is necessary. That does not mean that a woman cannot wear a street length dress. We should not wear bedroom looking attire out of the house, not to church and certainly not to minister to others.


----------



## MomofThreeBoys (Jan 9, 2019)

felic1 said:


> The breasts are sex organs. What purpose do we have if we are showing our breasts, nipples to others? Why are these glances not available for the husband only? The word does say that the Husband is to be ravished by a wife's breasts. Let's not make excuses about why we want to be viewed as looking good by showing more of our person than is necessary. That does not mean that a woman cannot wear a street length dress. We should not wear bedroom looking attire out of the house, not to church and certainly not to minister to others.


No they are not.


----------



## kikigirl (Jan 9, 2019)

At some point last year, didn’t she release a movie where she was prominently featured naked in some sex scenes (didn’t watch, but read some of the thread comments)?

There is no way to mistake a sex scene in a movie for what it isn’t. Megan ain’t broke. She could earn money in other ways or through other projects.

So, that “baby believer” is growing, learning and being transformed by the Holy Spirit or.....

ETA: General comment— I feel black people are so used to being marginalized and criticized by whites that *we* ensure some people deserving of criticism among ourselves never receive it. I’m talking amongs ourselves, not in mixed races company.

Look at our churches where people will stick with “leaders” like that Jamal dude, Mr. Coat, and Megan Goode’s husband (yes, his choice of wife and her career choices indicate what he really values). Some of us would rather die than say those men shouldn’t be in their positions.

Outside of church, R Kelly, the lousy men in our own families, etc...

Sometimes you have to admit that some of your own people are messed up. Otherwise, how do you redress the situation?!


----------



## Ms. Tarabotti (Jan 11, 2019)

MomofThreeBoys said:


> No they are not.




Isn't that their secondary purpose after nourishing children?  Didn't God design them to give pleasure to both sexes?


----------



## Sharpened (Jan 24, 2019)

Put me in the "we got bigger fish to fry" category. Christendom is losing its influence, and people want to throw stones at the results of it, like that's going to help.


----------

