![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/gamecock/purposedriven2.jpg?t=1291159509")
A Christian publisher wouldn’t pubish “God and Boobs!”
Why, imagine THAT!
...the audacity of those repressed old fuddyduddy fundamentalists!
the government should force them to publish sex books, damnit!
Misguided soul.
TTIWWOP.
She can always go “hooking for Jesus” as those in the Children of God sex cult did.
Doesn’t mean that you are following biblical principles.
Maybe she wants on the show PREACHERS’ DAUGHTERS. And, no, I haven’t watched it.
That was a really generic disapproval. I get that the article wants Christians to dislike her ... but I don’t quite get why. I’d be interested to hear more specific complaints.
What does she mean by “religious opposition to a woman’s sexuality”? Does she actually advocate dressing like a hooker in public? Is she advocating sin? What ‘constraints’ is she complaining about? What did she say against ‘religion’ and ‘socially conservative men’?
SnakeDoc
Well, says she, “Some argue it’s anti-God because of a cover that displays a woman’s bare back and the word boobs.” But her soft-core book cover is not the problem, she says. It’s the “religious opposition to a woman’s sexuality.”
She misses the obvious point that Christians do not have a religious opposition to a woman’s sexuality, but that we are opposed to images and themes which degrade the female body to the status of a sexual object. God-given beauty is to be cherished and protected, not publicly flaunted like something cheap. People like her miss the distinction between repressed puritanism and biblical modesty.
Then why continually broadcast whose family you come from?
should religious publishers be forced to published porn?
The view (which is prevalent inside and outside Christian churches) has always amazed me.
Sex is a gift from God Almighty, it is good.
Marriage sexual activity is its own reward and it is good.
According to her blog, her daddy endorses her book. This may all be celebrity “scandal” merely to sell books.
“Angie has tackled a subject that few Christians are willing to talk about. It is a subject that is integral to our human existence yet is taboo in most Christian circles. She answers the question, ‘how do we balance faith and sexuality.’ She does it in a real and authentic manner. I am proud of the way she has addresses this sensitive subject head on.” -Rev. Dr. Robert A. Schuller
http://www.godandboobs.com/robert-schuller-endorses-god-and-boobs/
I'm pro.
“A certified “spiritual director” (whatever that is), Wyatt says her “passion for serving God was met by a desire to be a sexy, strong and self-aware woman” (whatever that means).
She wants to “have faith and femininity.” To “feel sensual without shame.” To “break free from religious constraints.””
As usual, it’s all about me, me, me, and what I want, not what God wants for me. That’s not serving God, it’s serving yourself.
What Miss Wyatt doesn’t like is herself. Anyone this desperate for attention and uncomfortable about who they are clearly needs some kind of counseling. She strikes me as the kind of woman who would gladly have pulled her drawers down for a quarter when she was younger.
Maybe its not the curch that is the “small minded” one
I don't get the desire to put her down with insults, though.
If what she says makes you think up ways to call her a whore, isn't that sort of proving her point? Certainly it's not refuting it.
Ditto for the interdenominational salvoes.
If you really think she's taken the wrong path, shouldn't you be praying for her and leave out the attacks?
When someone says a man or woman’s “sexuality” I hear “gay”.