Plan B Forum

A popular Brazilian porn star has the country’s religious community in an outrage. Kamilla Werneck, one of Brazil’s hottest adult movie stars, went on live TV to declare that she is an Evangelical Christian and assert that God approves of her lifestyle... I think God sees inside our hearts. He judges the good and the bad things you do, and I do good things for people.”

Amen to that. And I say, yes. Apparently sister Kamilla likes to get up close and personal with her like-minded people and that's what religion is all about. Spiritual bonding in the 21st century.

Saving good Christians everywhere one video at a time. God bless her.

https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2017/ ... rofession/

I own't judge her, anymore than I would have cast a stone at the adulteress in the biblical account. Of course, some people live for outrage.

Big, did you forget the punchline in that bible story? Go and sin no more?

snailgate

Punch line. First of all, that is Jesus saying it, not one of the "holier than thou" people who wanted only to throw the stones. Second, there is no supplement that says--she went forth and sinned again, so now casting the first stone is justified whether your are a sinner or not.

As for the real punch line:

After jesus said "let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone" a woman walks out and beans her--then the rest finish her off. Jesus turns to the woman and says "Mom, you gotta stop doing that". (Granted, more for the RCs than other christian denominations).

Sinners sin - it's what we do.

However, the comparison is inapt. Here we should compare the "woman caught in adultery" and the porn star.

Did the WCIA say to Jesus, "Adultery is OK; I'm a righteous and faithful Jew and believe God approves of what I do". Presumably she did not because she was aware that God er... does not approve of what she did. Neither did he condemn her but he did, of course. instruct her to stop doing it. And that would be consistent with the scriptures of the time which show that God did not approve of adultery, not at all.

The lady with the Brazilians ("A huge number" GWB) is clearly not an evangelical Christian (or a Christian of any kind) if she believes that Jesus approves of whoring around.

David was condemned, not for whoring around, but for adultery, sleeping with the property of another man, and arranging the death of her husband.

Solomon was never condemned for even more enthusiastic whoring around.

And Jacob was blessed and praised for having two wives and two concubines (that we know of, only the ones who produced children were mentioned.)




yrs,
rubato

Did the WCIA say to Jesus, "Adultery is OK; I'm a righteous and faithful Jew and believe God approves of what I do". Presumably she did not because she was aware that God er... does not approve of what she did. Neither did he condemn her but he did, of course. instruct her to stop doing it. And that would be consistent with the scriptures of the time which show that God did not approve of adultery, not at all.

Again, we are talking about Jesus, not the self righteous people holding the stones. And jesus did not condition his admonition to them based on whether this was the woman's first or four hundredth offense, he told them do not throw that stone unless you are without sin. And after he told her to "go and sin no more", he did not say to those self righteous people, but if she does, I absolve you from my previous admonition and you can cast all the stones you want. The proscription on casting stones (unless you are sinless) still stands

So I will withhold my judgment on the person in the OP, leaving it to god (you know, the one the woman says " sees inside our hearts" and "judges the good and the bad things you do"). You (or I or anyone else) may not approve of what she does, but so what? Jesus never said to approve of what the adulteress did, jut that those listening to him should keep their stones (verbal or physical stones IMHO) to themselves. You may choose to minister to her and encourage her to stop some of her activity, but it must be in the context of concern for her, and not just hurling the stones of public condemnation--indeed, that's just what jesus did in the account.

rubato wrote:David was condemned, not for whoring around, but for adultery, sleeping with the property of another man, and arranging the death of her husband.

Solomon was never condemned for even more enthusiastic whoring around.

And Jacob was blessed and praised for having two wives and two concubines (that we know of, only the ones who produced children were mentioned.)

yrs,
rubato

That is not a sin but a cultural difference. Show me in the Bible where that is a sin. It wouldn’t be a sin today. Moslems practice polygamy in many parts of the world are they sinning.
And even if my enemy says it: it is still true: We are all sinners and with out the grace of Jesus Christ we are all lost. “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god“.

The liberal says polygamy is sin. Liberals can be such cultural bigots.

Well Paul said : "Let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband.” (I Corinthians 7:2), and he was hardly a liberal.

I cannot (and will not) judge what is in this womans heart as I don't know what is in her heart.
And I have no idea if "her God" approves of her lifestyle as he/she/it has not told me.
I doubt many "religious" people approve of her life style, but I am willing to bet that many (or at least some) of those same religious people who condemn her have watched her (or other porn stars) perfomances. And I am willing to bet that her movies/downloads/pornsite have recieved an uptick in purchases/hits since her "coming out".


The religious pray because they don't want to go to hell.
The spiritual pray because they have been there.

liberty wrote:The liberal says polygamy is sin. Liberals can be such cultural bigots.

Care to point out where rubato says that polygamy is a sin? More of the village idiot putting words into the mouths of other posters.

Thanks sue, when he used "the liberal" I thought he meant it generically.

Even if he meant it generically, I would be very curious to know what "liberal" he could quote that has defined polygamy as a "sin".

I'd agree with you on that. However, there may be some women's rights advocates who would call it wrong (and campaign to make it illegal), if not a "sin".

The guy is a semi-coherent (that may be generous) idiot nothing more needs to be said

Big RR wrote:

Did the WCIA say to Jesus, "Adultery is OK; I'm a righteous and faithful Jew and believe God approves of what I do". Presumably she did not because she was aware that God er... does not approve of what she did. Neither did he condemn her but he did, of course. instruct her to stop doing it. And that would be consistent with the scriptures of the time which show that God did not approve of adultery, not at all.

Again, we are talking about Jesus, not the self righteous people holding the stones. And jesus did not condition his admonition to them based on whether this was the woman's first or four hundredth offense, he told them do not throw that stone unless you are without sin. And after he told her to "go and sin no more", he did not say to those self righteous people, but if she does, I absolve you from my previous admonition and you can cast all the stones you want. The proscription on casting stones (unless you are sinless) still stands

So I will withhold my judgment on the person in the OP, leaving it to god (you know, the one the woman says " sees inside our hearts" and "judges the good and the bad things you do"). You (or I or anyone else) may not approve of what she does, but so what? Jesus never said to approve of what the adulteress did, jut that those listening to him should keep their stones (verbal or physical stones IMHO) to themselves. You may choose to minister to her and encourage her to stop some of her activity, but it must be in the context of concern for her, and not just hurling the stones of public condemnation--indeed, that's just what jesus did in the account.

Again, I am NOT talking about Jesus - nor about self-righteous people holding stones etc. Nor am I "judging" the Brazilian lady. What interests me is by what measure she judges that her activity is God-approved given her claim to be an "evangelical Christian". ECs are, b'golly, Bible believers and believe it is the word of God. That book says what she is doing is wrong; ergo, an evangelical Christian does not think God approves of what she is doing. Nor does an evangelical Christian think that God weighs the good in the heart vs the bad in the heart and if the good is 51% then all is well. It's not graded on the curve and there is no "pass" mark that can be achieved by works - no matter how good. Her argument for continuing in sin on the grounds that God likes it is (probably) little more than a publicity stunt, considerably tongue in cheek (and elsewhere too as well furthermore)

rubato wrote:David was condemned, not for whoring around, but for adultery, sleeping with the property of another man, and arranging the death of her husband.

Solomon was never condemned for even more enthusiastic whoring around.

And Jacob was blessed and praised for having two wives and two concubines (that we know of, only the ones who produced children were mentioned.)




yrs,
rubato

Based on the context of what you are saying it appears you are referring to the seven hundred wives and concubines of Solomon. That wouldn’t be whoring around that would be polygamy. And I don’t think the seven hundred actually means seven hundred wives. I believe it is an honorific. For a man to have so many wives he had to be a very wealthy man. It was as a way to raise the status of King Solomon and show how greatly God had blessed him.

Crackpot wrote:The guy is a semi-coherent (that may be generous) idiot nothing more needs to be said

It is not my problem you lack analytical ability.

Or your lack of analytical ability It is not my problem.

So you are unable to point to where rubato says that polygamy is a sin. Colour me completely unsurprised.