Skip to comments.Would Jesus Approve of SI’s Swimsuit Issue?
Posted on 02/16/2014 2:15:20 PM PST by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
The annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue arrives on newsstands Tuesday. It features three semi-nude babes on the cover.
The issue is eagerly awaited by much of SIs readership. However, let those of us who are Christ followers not deceive ourselves: the magazines swimsuit issue is nothing more than softcore pornography.
Indeed, SIs cover, celebrating the 50th anniversary of its swimsuit issue, actually is more sexualized than the cover of the latest issue of Playboy, which marks the skin magazines 60th anniversary, and which features the model Kate Moss in a bunny costume.
What particularly offends about SI is its hypocrisy.
The magazines writers and editors pride themselves in being on the right side of controversial social issues that transcend sport. But they have been silent about the sports medias shameless exploitation of young women for the lustful pleasure of men (and boys).
To wit: SI recently published a fawning cover story about Michael Sam, the former Missouri college football player who came out of the closet as a homosexual, who hopes to become the first openly-gay player in the NFL.
America is ready for Michael Sam, SI declared.
Then theres SIs campaign to compel the Washington Redskins to change its team name to comport with the magazines politically correct sensibilities. In fact, the mags NFL writer Peter King decided last football season he would no longer reference the franchises team name.
It has nothing to do with calling anyone racist. said King. Its just Im uncomfortable using the name.
Yet, SIs writers and editors think it perfectly acceptable to pander to its preponderantly male readership with lascivious pictorials of young women that are seminude or fully nude (save for body paint).
MJ Day, the madam of sorts who edits the mags swimsuit issue, even goes so far as to suggest that the cover shot of models Nina Agdal and Lily Aldridge, clad in orange thong bikini bottoms, as the New York Daily News described their skimpy attire, and Chrissy Teigen, in a barely-there pink bikini, was perfectly wholesome.
As to the models themselves, whove sold their souls for fame and fortune, Theyre really good girls, Day told the Newark Star-Ledger. Theyre the girl next door.
Well, really good girls do not take their clothes off for the titillation of millions of men. And girls next door dont strike come hither poses suggesting that theyre inviting a sex acts.
Of course, most of SIs male readers look forward to this Tuesdays arrival of the swimsuit issue. They cant wait to ogle the scantily clad models therein.
But for those us who are Christ followers first, sports fans further down the list (behind family, country, et al.) we are instructed to be not conformed to this world, where soft core pornography has been mainstreamed by the popular culture.
No, we will not go to hell by viewing the risqué photos in SIs swimsuit issue. But we certainly will be conducting ourselves outside of Gods will.
Indeed, in the Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus declared, You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Thats why the men among us who are committed Christ followers will bring every lustful thought into captivity to the obedience of God. And that means avoiding SIs soft core porn issue.
You actually put the picture on the blog page? What would Jesus say about your hypocrisy?
Heck, more to the point, would he approve of S. I. to begin with?
We don’t want the puritans getting hot n bothered. Bee keeper outfits please.
SI is still around? The last time I opened one was back in the early 80s.
It was never about the swimsuits. Years ago I would look at it to see what new styles of swimwear there were. I soon realized the “swimwear” was basically a couple of inches of fabric that no one would actually wear.
Matthew 5:28 seems to answer that question.
Yes. They’re hot and i would rather look at those 3 than another vomit-worthy picture of the obamas.
I see the cover used as an enticement to click on online ads.
ANY clothing would better than none, how is naked a “swimsuit”?
They have also had issues where the models are naked with some paint on
Don’t you need to have a swimsuit on in order to qualify as a swimsuit issue?
Personally, I enjoy the SI Swimsuit issue.
If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, don’t look at the pictures.
This is pretty much what conservatives tell liberals who don’t want to hear conservative radio. Don’t listen.
No one has tied you to a chair, propped your eyelids open with toothpicks and held the bikini pics up in front of you.
Typical politically correct liberals.
With those three gals on the S.I. cover, my eyelids don’t need toothpicks, they need VISEGRIPS!!!!!
For such occasions there is even a prayer, courtesy the late great Lewis Grizzard:
“O Lord, I give Thee thanks for vouchsafing unto me, Thy most humble servant, this heavenly vision of but a few of the most beautiful creations which Thou hast made!”
even if it weren't morally offensive, its still sexist objectification which equals demeaning and belittling...
“the magazines swimsuit issue is nothing more than softcore pornography.”
That was a rhetorical question...right?
Lustful looks don’t spread STDs, nor do they create unwanted pregnancies.
Wow! Thanks without this blog and your reference to it, I would never have seen the pix!
What a stupid and idiotic question. Only imbeciles could or would come up with that.
Having Obama rape the country and lie to all Americans is much more damaging to God’s Creation. SI is the least of our concerns after experiencing the Obamanation. End times are near.
Praise God and Pray with me for Salvation, Amen.
Just out of curiosity, why did you include the cover pic on the blog?
Men of God have probably figured this out for themselves already.
The self life is just too tempting and that’s why most people choose it. “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”, comes not from the Christian Diarist. Those are the words of Christ - you know - the Son of God. The Christian Diarist did say, “That’s why the men among us who are committed Christ followers will bring every lustful thought into captivity to the obedience of God (actually just quoting II Cor. 10:5). This article is to committed followers of Christ. It’s not for anybody else. I think what some here might be missing is that true Christians think that there is nothing, nothing better than Jesus! They are radically in love with him and these little sacrifices to obey him his words are things done to show him our love. SI, professional sports, fast cars, rock music - nothing comes close to how great He is. True believers are ready to lay down their lives for him in complete surrender. Yes, it often takes time and certainly his empowerment, but it does happen. The Bible calls it “growth”. I think the only thing to be added is that once you truly experience his love and know his forgiveness you might understand the perspective from which the Diarist writes. He’s not trying to get people to do what they don’t what to do. He’s just trying to help believers do it better and not be compromised. If you don’t share that same perspective - then please, this article is not for you. God’s redemptive plan is available to all, but God is not naïve or some romanticist, he knows most will not be interested.
We did not post the full cover, but an edited picture. The full cover was considerably more risque than our edited version.
I don’t know, you didn’t show us the picture. I want to see the picture before passing judgement!!!!
Would Jesus even think about a magazine? For what reason?
Did not Jesus focus on people?
It looks like it’s on a beach somewhere, but it’s hard to tell because those girls are blocking the view.
America is ready for Michael Sam, SI declared.
What a stupid statement..
There have always been homosexuals. Get over your self..
The answer is Yes, no and no. Jesus was very clear that he especially disapproved of lusting after women who were married or betrothed.
Nina Agdal is unmarried nor scheduled to be married, nor is she believed to be dating. So for a man to admire her beauty, even on the very scant hope that someday he might become her suitor, would be acceptable. Though not if he was a real creeper about it, that is, if he was so driven by lust that he acted in a beastly manner.
The other two are married, so are off limits.
About the only argument Jesus had with Jewish law on the subject was that he had a much stricter view of divorce, especially casual divorce just to get new partners.
As a woman, I think they’re stunning.
Ooh. Women in bathing suits. Avert your eyes. Ooh.
Dont fall for this .... this is pharasitical display of self righteousness... Like you need to tell others what he would approve of or not? Isnt this the log in your eye thing?
This reads like something one of those muzzie ayatollahs might write.
uh yeah no
I am not a person that flashes a lot of flesh or that objectifies others
the SI swimsuit edition is sexualized garbage
Ok so would that also include michaelangelos David? Have you been protesting that? Or can only women be “Objectified?”
They often lead to things which do.
“Sometimes a swimsuit is just a swimsuit.” — Sigmund Freud
Of course not.
Would he approve of anyone's swimsuit? Did they have swimsuits in his day?
LOL I thought this was about Si on Duck dynasty.
While that may be true my family saw it 6ft tall projected on the wall at a chinese restaurant the other night. They were playing fox news. we looked away but we didnt choose to see it in the first place.
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.