Miss World: ‘I’m pro-life’ and ‘Sex is for marriage’

October 14, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Viewers all over the globe appreciate the beauty of Miss World, Megan Lynn Young, but the reigning Miss Philippines recently told an interviewer that she appreciates the beauty of the unborn.

In August, Young told a Philippines-based broadcaster that she opposes abortion-on-demand, believes in abstinence before marriage, and sees marriage as a lifelong and unbreakable union.

I got a chance to view it. And I went back and viewed the other 2 in the series. Those were not as helpful as it didn't do much to help define the difference between God given sexual attraction and lust.

The guy in video two who said he had lusted after 100's of girls walking by that morning, probably hadn't lusted. He probably did little more than admire their beauty.

They acknowledged that looking at a pretty girl was not wrong. And then the only distinction they made between that and lust is that "your conscience knows the difference".

While most people's consciences are often pretty good indicators, there are many people that have a warped view. There are people who are convinced things are wrong that are clearly not according to scripture. And there are other people who are convinced things are okay that clearly aren't according to scripture. Scripture can help us hone the conscience but I'm not sure scripture does a good job of explaining the difference between God given sexual attraction and lust.

Clearly beauty and sexual attraction is from God. Song of Solomon even tells us to "Drink and imbibe deeply, O lovers."

In my mind, Lust is akin to Covetousness. Covetousness is defined as an "inordinate desire" "especially of something that belongs to someone else."

It's wrong to covet your neighbors truck. But it's not wrong to admire the beauty and form and usefulness of a truck. Or to go to Truck shows. It's not wrong to want a truck if you have a need for a truck. It's not wrong to want a truck even if you don't "need" a truck, unless that desire becomes overwhelming and no longer subjected to God's will, because then you've crossed the line to covetousness even if it's not directed at your neighbor's possessions.

That second link you provided defined lust as "when a person seeks or is motivated to meet the needs of sexual gratification in a "unlawful' manner that it becomes sin - fornication, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, etc."

That's a definition that I would agree with.

Further down in the white "Answer" section it says ""Lust" in this case means more than just a strong desire, it means a strong desire for something that is unlawful. In other words, to look at a woman with thoughts of wondering what she would be like in bed (i.e. outside of marriage) is lust.

I think they shouldn't have put "(i.e. outside of marriage)" in parentheses because that's an important clause. Separated like that it makes it read like just wondering what a woman would be like in bed is lust.

I don't think to wonder what a woman would be like in bed is necessarily wrong. It's probably nothing more than God given sexual attraction combined with our God given imaginations.

What guy ever married a woman without first wondering what it would be like to be in bed with her? And if it's not wrong to wonder that about your future spouse, then what about a woman whom you date, but who doesn't eventually agree to marry you? If the first isn't wrong, I don't see where the second is either. And if the second is not wrong, then what about a woman you haven't dated but that you would like to date and could possibly marry? Again I don't think that's wrong.

Now if that woman is your neighbor's wife, then you know that would be an unlawful situation. Even then, it's not the being tempted that is wrong, it's the giving in and dwelling on the temptation and not subjecting your thoughts to the law of God.

That's my opinion. Fortunately, if I'm wrong, or if I don't even live up to what I've written here, I'm still covered by Christ's sacrifice. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." and of course "The Lord chastises those whom He loves."

All of your points in this exceedingly well-written response are worth considering in a prayerful manner. I only hope that my reply comes close to the obvious thought you put into yours and isn't too disjointed. So here goes...

I'm now into my 70s (born in 1943) so there may be a generational lens that shapes my viewpoint. One of the phrases that our church of Christ preacher uses (probably borrowed from Billy Graham) when the topic involves sex and marriage is "...the new morality is the old immorality." To some, the 1960s were liberating but to me, I saw standards of behavior deteriorating. During my youth, men and women attired themselves modestly. In fact, everyone has seen the pictures of men and women in Ward and June Cleaver attire when sitting in the stands at baseball and football in th4 1940s and 1950s when my cultural norms were being shaped.

One of the things that was in the back of my mind when I initially posted to this thread were Free Republic discussions from earlier this year about Virginia legalizing cohabitation. Some of the remarks were rather cavalier (pun intended, it is Virginia after all) and you can see them here and here. Yes, I get some of the comments were light-hearted in the FR tradition. Furthermore, I fully understand why a state law on the books outlawing cohabitation may rankle those with a libertarian bent. Nevertheless, and based upon what you wrote, I think we can all agree that sex outside of marriage is adultery. No question about it in my mind.

That's a bit of background and might explain where I'm coming from and perhaps why the "guilty/not guilty" and "I'd hit it" threads touched a nerve. Now, after that detour, I'll try my best to swerve back to the matter at hand and quote a portion from you, Danny:

I don't think to wonder what a woman would be like in bed is necessarily wrong. It's probably nothing more than God given sexual attraction combined with our God given imaginations.

When all is said and done, I think there's actually not a whole lot of distance between our viewpoints. Yes, indeed, God gifted us with sexual attraction to fulfill his directive to "be fruitful and multiply." Where there may (or may not) still be some disagreement comes to down to how we should or would behave if Christ were again made flesh and walked among us. And here, I come back to some of what I see on occasion on Free Republic. If Christ in the flesh were sitting next to me as I browse this pro-God, pro-family, I wonder just how He'd react to some of the sexually-oriented threads, which -- on occasion -- do degenerate into soft porn.

Being a mere human, born into sin, my failings and shortcomings are numerous. There's probably not a second that goes by when I miss the mark set by the Lord. Still, as much as possible for this old, flawed vessel, I try to consider how Christ as a worldly companion would measure my behavior and thoughts.

Since my response has been something of a scattershot, I'll wrap things up with another reading from yet another church of Christ congregation. This one's from the church in Moody, AL and is titled, Immodest Dress. No, the text doesn't advocate burquas nor do I. :)

Yeah, I don't think we're that far apart.

I'm a Southern Baptist. Growing up they taught us to be aware of our witness and that moderation was key. The local Catholic church used to host a youth dance every Saturday night. And our church was fine with our going to it. They just advised us to have fun but to also be conscious of how we danced and not to dance or dress in a way designed to provoke lust.

Sex outside of marriage is either Adultery of Fornication. Fornication is when neither party is married.

On Immodesty... A lot of what is considered "immodest" is what people are used to. Our society has gotten used to a fair amount of skin and I don't think it still has the same effect as it used to when cultural norms were stricter. And frankly, if I had my choice, I'd much rather live in a society with relaxed standards of dressed than an uptight one.

You are right about the standards of behavior have declined. I'm not convinced that the dress standards are a causative factor. I suspect they are more symptomatic than causative.

I was recently talking to my 16 year old daughter about how when I was young the churches were engaged in active battles against pornography. And there was tension between freedom of speech and pornography. And she asked me if we won. And I realized it's not a simple yes or no.

No we didn't get pornography banned completely like we wanted.
Yes we did get the stores to put it behind the counter and cover the pictures, so our kids wouldn't have to see it every time they visited a store.
In some ways we've become a lot more open about sexual issues and problems than we were back then, and that's a good thing. I suspect that's more to do with improved communications of all types and not with pornography.
Yes, we did get rating systems on movies, so you could at least avoid it.

We might actually be surprised at how Christ would react to some things if we could actually sit and talk to him in the flesh. Apparently before the fall, nudity was fine and God didn't have a problem with it. And then you have Kind David led by the spirit to dance nude in front of all Israel. Since God invented the body with all of it's "features" and is also the inventor of sex, I suspect He may not be nearly as prudish as we imagine. He has a holy nature which absolutely condemns sin, but He's able to clearly see the proper role of sexuality and when's the heart crosses the line.

I think some and possibly all of the "shame of nudity" is related to our fallen condition. Now I'm not saying we should be nudists. I wouldn't want to live in a society where nudity is common and can't be avoided. But I'm not really convinced that nudity provokes lust as much as we think. The burka communities don't seem to have reduced rapes and appear to have as many ongoing battles with lusts as we do (impression not studies), even though it often means death in those communities.

I think lust provoking has more to do with the deviation from the cultural norm, than the cultural norm itself. And probably more with the choices that a man makes instead of either the cultural norm or whether there are provocations in that culture.

I think the decline in standards of behavior have a lot less to do with dress and more to do with men rebelling and rejecting God altogether.

That's a touchy subject here on Free Republic and, if you don't mind, I'd like to pursue the subject of smut and porn just a bit further.

If you check my posting history, I'm very proud of Texas -- quick to defend the Lone Star state when attacked or cast in an unfavorable light. I'm a Texan by deliberate choice as opposed to by birth. Since I made a conscious decision to move here more than four decades ago, my pride in all things Texas might even be stronger than those lucky enough to have been born here. So that's some background on where I'm coming from.

As one enters the state on heavily traveled I-35 from the north and crosses the famous Red River, what's the very first thing you see upon entering Texas?

A very garishly lit and tacky-to-the-extreme smut shop. The signs are very prominent and can't be missed touting the "adult" videos available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I cringe when my grandchildren travel with me as when they celebrate our returning to Texas -- but have it marred by a porn outfit just a few hundred yards away from the "Welcome Center" at the state line.

Frankly, I'm conflicted since the porn shop is a legal business and in the spirit of free enterprise, who's to call for them getting shut down? And when I drive past, there are plenty of vehicles in the parking lot -- a lot of long-distance truckers evidently find the place appealing and I surmise it turns a tidy profit. And to your point, "Yes we did get the stores to put it behind the counter and cover the pictures, so our kids wouldn't have to see it every time they visited a store", if nothing else, I'd settle for it moving a few miles south so it not the first impression one gets of our state. But we ain't too big on zonin' around here so the smut palace is probably a permanent fixture.

I've pinged a handful of other well-spoken Texans to get their opinions. Well, sir, I just hope don't get laughed off the forum for being an old fuddy-duddy! :)

The Supreme Court's definition of "porn" is, "I know it when I see it", and I'll settle for that here.

The only way I know, the defense bar being as well-greased as it is, to discourage a bunch like that seriously (and all the big outlets are both fronts for prostitution and run by the Vegas Mob -- or so said CBS News 20 years ago, when they described the Mob's decision to push porn in the faces of every citizen of the U.S., in order to get to the young men) is to organize a well-run, very tight marshmallow-roast ring. Or something like that. There's no legal way to fight it any more, courtesy of the liberal Supreme Court justices of the 1960's.

The same problem the poster has with supersmutshops up by Gainesville (I know the place you're talking about), other States and Indian reservations have with big liquor stores and fireworks stands. Coming soon: Drug shops.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.