Vort Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, BJ64 said: Unlike most people I understand that modesty means a lot more than just how much of the body is covered with clothes. Then why don't you teach modesty to boys, who by their nature are often the least modest of people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 17 minutes ago, Lost Boy said: Women find different things appealing about men. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 58 minutes ago, zil said: And yet when asked about teaching modesty, your reply was (emphasis mine): And all your subsequent discussion and examples have been about how people dress. That is because in the church when modesty is discussed we focus solely on how much skin is covered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Just now, BJ64 said: That is because in the church when modesty is discussed we focus solely on how much skin is covered. I don't recall all that being about what the Church teaches, but supposed to be about you knowing that's not what it's all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, BJ64 said: That is because in the church when modesty is discussed we focus solely on how much skin is covered. You focus on how much skin is covered. I certainly didn't in my discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Vort said: Then why don't you teach modesty to boys, who by their nature are often the least modest of people? I don’t see much need to teach dress modesty to young men because I don’t ever see a problem with immodesty among young men where I’m at. I certainly wouldn’t say they are the lest modest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, Grunt said: You focus on how much skin is covered. I certainly didn't in my discussion. You keep focusing on speedos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, unixknight said: I think we need a Church update on the trend of form-fitting leggings. Hoo-boy... I don’t see a problem with the human form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, BJ64 said: You keep focusing on speedos. I focus on immodesty. Speedos are just an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unixknight Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, BJ64 said: I don’t see a problem with the human form I don't either. BJ64 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 38 minutes ago, Grunt said: Actually, it is because we take upon the Savior's name and our dress shows our respect for ourselves and Him. The other is consideration for our brothers and sisters. Yet how many people show disrespect for their body by not caring for it by eating well and exercising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Just now, BJ64 said: Yet how many people show disrespect for their body by not caring for it by eating well and exercising. I had that discussion on here quite some time ago. It's amazing. Irrelevant to the discussion of immodesty, but still amazing. BJ64 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) Sorry for taking this thread off topic. My next post will be about becoming like God Edited May 17, 2018 by BJ64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, BJ64 said: 38 minutes ago, Vort said: Then why don't you teach modesty to boys, who by their nature are often the least modest of people? I don’t see much need to teach dress modesty to young men because I don’t ever see a problem with immodesty among young men where I’m at. I certainly wouldn’t say they are the lest modest. So you don't teach "dress modesty" to boys. Do you teach them modesty at all? Or do you associate the word "modesty" solely with what kind of clothes people wear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Vort said: So you don't teach "dress modesty" to boys. Do you teach them modesty at all? Or do you associate the word "modesty" solely with what kind of clothes people wear? See my post above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Vort said: So you don't teach "dress modesty" to boys. Do you teach them modesty at all? Or do you associate the word "modesty" solely with what kind of clothes people wear? He associates modesty with what he believes people want to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 16 hours ago, MormonGator said: 17 hours ago, Grunt said: How can you be "pro sin"? Great question. Like I mentioned, I'm against the government telling two people of the same gender they can't get married. Marriage, in the government sense, is a private contract. Marriage is an institution designed to preserve and strengthen society. From a secular point of view, that is the only purpose of marriage. Society is founded upon the union of the sexes. No union, no society. Take sexual morality completely out of the equation for the moment. Marriage -- the real, heterosexual kind -- is designed to foster that union between the sexes. Even if the husband is sleeping around. Even if the wife is sleeping around. Even if the husband has sexual boyfriends. These things are not good from a moral viewpoint, and are not healthy from a societal viewpoint, but a robust society can tolerate some level of filth and indiscretion as long as its foundation is sound. It is very much in society's best interest to promote marriage, meaning heterosexual marriage. Homosexual "marriage" ignores the very purpose of marriage, which is not merely to make a public contract of bed-sharing and genital stimulation between adults. wenglund and Grunt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Vort said: Marriage is an institution designed to preserve and strengthen society. From a secular point of view, that is the only purpose of marriage. Society is founded upon the union of the sexes. No union, no society. Take sexual morality completely out of the equation for the moment. Marriage -- the real, heterosexual kind -- is designed to foster that union between the sexes. Even if the husband is sleeping around. Even if the wife is sleeping around. Even if the husband has sexual boyfriends. These things are not good from a moral viewpoint, and are not healthy from a societal viewpoint, but a robust society can tolerate some level of filth and indiscretion as long as its foundation is sound. It is very much in society's best interest to promote marriage, meaning heterosexual marriage. Homosexual "marriage" ignores the very purpose of marriage, which is not merely to make a public contract of bed-sharing and genital stimulation between adults. I absolutely agree. For me, however, that doesn't change my opinion that government shouldn't be involved in personal agency. I think @mormongator would agree, but I'm unsure if he opposes the government's involvement in marriage as I do, or actually supports gay marriage. Edited May 17, 2018 by Grunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, BJ64 said: See my post above I have seen lots of your posts above. They don't answer the question. Not sure why you're hesitant to answer. I'm not setting you up for a knockout punch; I'm trying to understand why you proudly claim not to teach modesty to boys, who are so often immodest and need to learn those important lessons about modesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Vort said: I have seen lots of your posts above. They don't answer the question. Not sure why you're hesitant to answer. I'm not setting you up for a knockout punch; I'm trying to understand why you proudly claim not to teach modesty to boys, who are so often immodest and need to learn those important lessons about modesty. This thread is not about modesty so out of respect for the OP, if you would like to continue the discussion on modesty switch over the the thread on modesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Grunt said: I absolutely agree. For me, however, that doesn't change my opinion that government shouldn't be involved in personal agency. On the topic of "agency", nothing the government (or any individual or group) does or can do will destroy personal agency. That is a lock whose key is held only by the individual. According to the US Constitution, it and the government it defines exist to: Form a more perfect union Establish justice Ensure domestic tranquility Provide for the common defense Promote the general welfare Secure the blessings of liberty upon us and our posterity Marriage -- the heterosexual kind -- aids in at least the bolded parts above by establishing a recognized, canonized intersexual covenant and bond. It is very much in the best interest of society, and very much a government concern, to see to strong marriages between heterosexual couples. Homosexual coupling does nothing to promote this, regardless of its moral or immoral implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, BJ64 said: This thread is not about modesty so out of respect for the OP, if you would like to continue the discussion on modesty switch over the the thread on modesty. No, this thread has indeed become at least partially about modesty. You made your statement on this thread, so I'm looking for clarification on this thread. Just answer the question, BJ64. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Vort said: On the topic of "agency", nothing the government (or any individual or group) does or can do will destroy personal agency. That is a lock whose key is held only by the individual. According to the US Constitution, it and the government it defines exist to: Form a more perfect union Establish justice Ensure domestic tranquility Provide for the common defense Promote the general welfare Secure the blessings of liberty upon us and our posterity Marriage -- the heterosexual kind -- aids in at least the bolded parts above by establishing a recognized, canonized intersexual covenant and bond. It is very much in the best interest of society, and very much a government concern, to see to strong marriages between heterosexual couples. Homosexual coupling does nothing to promote this, regardless of its moral or immoral implications. I understand your position, and waiver between that and my own all the time. At the end of the day, though, I don't want the government making those decisions. Maybe as the majorities shift, next year they decide organized religion doesn't promote the general welfare and shouldn't be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, BJ64 said: This thread is not about modesty so out of respect for the OP, if you would like to continue the discussion on modesty switch over the the thread on modesty. The OP has been absent for 8 days. The thread stayed on topic for a week. Without the OP coming back to respond, it naturally fizzled. It is also the nature of conversation to wander down side roads. Either way, without the OP, it's irrelevant. wenglund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, zil said: The OP has been absent for 8 days. The thread stayed on topic for a week. Without the OP coming back to respond, it naturally fizzled. It is also the nature of conversation to wander down side roads. Either way, without the OP, it's irrelevant. You are right. I thought Lost Boy was the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.