For a brief background, former Victoria’s Secret model Kylie Bisutti had beaten out over 10,000 other beauty contestants to become a Victoria's Secret model. However, after doing the modelling circuit for a year with VS, she decided her work went against her convictions. In a video interview Bisutti explains why she has chosen faith and fidelity over fame and fortune, to do what is most honoring to her Lord and to her husband as well:[1]:
Victoria's Secret Model Kylie Bisutti Quits Runway, Says Her Body Belongs To Her Husband
Bisutti's story is being featured all over the Internet. A Huffington post article offers some telling quotes:
"Victoria's Secret was my absolutely biggest goal in life, and it was all I ever wanted career-wise. I actually loved it while I was there, it was so much fun and I had a blast. But the more I was modeling lingerie, and lingerie isn't clothing, I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith...I'm Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more convicted about it."[2]
Bisutti plans to continue modelling, but only in more modest apparel that meets her conditions for living a holy life. People who don't understand what it means to be a true Christian may find her decision shocking, considering she was just beginning her lucrative and glamorous contract position. Many Christians consider her decision to exemplify an example of someone living by personal convictions, as noted in a Twitter Tweet:
"I'm Christian and my dream is to become a VS angel but now that I read your story on Fox, I'm rethinking it! You are a Role Model!"[3]
What's at the heart of the story is the question of moral boundaries and how they are decided. In one sentence Kylie has stated more profound truth about moral boundaries than all of the hearings on waterboarding put together:
'My body should only be for my husband and it's just a sacred thing,'[4]
What is sacred? According to scripture, there are a number of sacred boundary lines that should not be crossed. These relate to the mind and the body. For example, Jesus said that our thoughts can cross a boundary line when we begin to lust after someone we are not married to.[5] Today, many people are addicted to pornography. But what exactly is porno? What passes for legitimate advertising today a few generations ago would have probably been considered nothing but free porno. At a bare minimum, sex that is unattached to a committed marriage relationship is considered fornication in scripture and sex is seen as a part of the sacred bond that gives glory to God. A film with actress Danielle Bisutti, No Greater Love, touches upon this subject.
In addition to the sacred line that is crossed when we lust for someone other than our spouse, physical fornication defiles our bodies which are considered sacred temples of the Holy Spirit for believers.[6] Because relativism is the governing moral approach in society today, we Christians have become morally illiterate to some extent. This can be demonstrated with the statistics of divorce, premarital sex and neoconservative political support. The Bible is based on moral absolutism and sacred boundary lines that do not change. According to scripture, we humans are created in the image of God. Because of this, the scriptures admonish us not to look down on the poor, because this is an insult to God who has created us all. Proverbs states, "He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker." (NIV)[7]
The basic respect for human life and dignity is known as "human exceptionalism", and this has served as a foundation for moral decisions in Western Civilization for quite some time. Theists maintain human exceptionalism and the belief in the sacredness of human life simply because God exists. A striking example of how the Church has lost her way is the widespread support of waterboarding by evangelicals. Physically abusing and torturing a person can never be morally justified if God exists as our Creator simply because, as Kylie pointed out, the human body's "just a sacred thing". Other subjects considered sacred according to scripture are the marriage between a man and a woman, a newly conceived child and the family unit. As a principle of moral guidance, Bisutti's testimony outlines a concept found in Jeremiah 31:33, a principle of the New Testament life: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts."(NIV)[8] Living a holy life according to the New Covenant means living by convictions in addition to living by the word of God.
References
[1] YouTube, Victoria's Secret Model Kylie Bisutti Quits Runway, Says Her Body Belongs To Her Husband, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CDKLrsUyco&feature=youtu.be
[2] Huffington Post, Kylie Bisutti, Victoria's Secret Model, Prioritizes Faith Over Lingerie (PHOTOS, VIDEO), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/kylie-bisutti_n_1262675.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Daily Mail, 'My body is only for my husband': U.S. Christian model Kylie Bisutti quit Victoria's Secret because it clashed with her faith, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2097793/Kylie-Bisutti-quit-Victorias-Secret-clashed-Christian-faith.html#ixzz1m6S4sUgG
[5] Matthew 5.28
[6] 1 Corinthians 6.19
[7] Proverbs 17.5a
[8] Jeremiah 31:33
Tags: What is sacred? What is holiness? What is moral relativism? Bisutti quits Victoria's Secret, Christians in modelling, Kylie Bisutti husband, changing morals in society, free porno, sex in advertising, sex sells advertising, living by convictions, living a holy life, why human life is sacred, our bodies are temples, what is the basis of morality?
(Post revised February 12, 2012)
Related
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
Why Christians Oppose Torture and the NDAA
I wish I understood what the point of the article was.
ReplyDeleteHow did Kylie choose faith and fidelity other fame and fortune? Her statement made her a superstar among conservatives and I doubt the her income will decrease because of the slight change in her portfolio. Not the I care much about her in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDunning–Kruger effect at full capacity as usual.
Are these atheists commenters stupid on purpose?
ReplyDeleteAd hominem attack. And I do feel a little funny when I debate with another anon 8)
ReplyDeleteI can understand why you wouldn't really appreciate the value of holiness as an atheist.
ReplyDeleteAtheists may not understand why holiness would mean anything more than just following rules, but, in reality, holiness in life allows for a deeper and more joyful relationship with God for believers and it also allows for a stronger and more fulfilling marriage.
Rick: ...in reality, holiness in life allows for a deeper and more joyful relationship with God for believers
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether it becomes deeper and more joyful, a relationship with "God" is a relationship with yourself - there is no other person involved.
Rick: and it also allows for a stronger and more fulfilling marriage.
Is that why there are studies showing divorce among evangelicals to be basically the same as the national average in the US?
This "holiness" doesn't seem to actually have any effect Rick - almost as if God didn't exist and Christianity were false :-)
Havok,
DeleteIt seems that if anyone around here is false, it is you.
For example, how many times do I have to document your lies about me before you will apologize?
Let's review your last comments from this article:
How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/dawkins-evolution-justifies-racism-and.html#comment-form
You call me a liar for showing that Dawkins is not opposed to eugenics:
Why do you need to lie Rick? (Feb 22, 2012 08:34 PM)
But keep lying for Jesus Rick! :-) (Mar 1, 2012 01:43 PM)
I soundly refute the point you offered and ask for an apology for calling me a liar:
I wrote, "Havok, any time you would like to apologize for calling me a "liar for Jesus" you are welcome to." (Mar 2, 2012 09:49 PM)
But, the reality seems to be that don't believe slander is wrong and/or you simply don't want to address your problem with lying. Which is it Havok.
And you still haven't apologized for your slander in the comments of this article:
The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle
Havok,
Very interesting.
After posting off-topic at my most recent article (The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle), for the sole purpose of slandering me, I asked you to post some evidence of the alleged valid critical comments I supposedly ignored (or at least one) with dates, but in response you have not even posted one.
It's interesting how you wrote I 'smeared' Dawkins for posting actual, documented reviews describing his work as pseudoscience (Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine - December 6, 2011 1:32 PM ), but you smear me with the following unfounded comments at my most recent article and you can't seem to back up your own slanderous comments with any evidence. I suppose this is an example of hypocrisy. Let's review your colorful commentary:
"Rick, all of the supposed proofs you've posted have been flawed. The many of the flaws have been pointed out to you. You have, as far as I can tell, generally ignored the flaws and continued to claim, illogically, that your logical arguments are valid and sound." (December 4, 2011 11:00 PM )
(My response: Havok, you did not produce any serious criticisms of my Identity/logic/physics proof.)
"Yes I did Rick, as did many other commenters." (December 5, 2011 2:03 AM )
(Rick: If so, if you have anything, what date was your point or proof on?)
"Go back and look youself Rick. You ignored and didn't respond to the criticisms the first time around, I'm not going to do your work for you." (December 5, 2011 2:03 AM )
"Rick, you've demonstrated a complete inability to understand critiques of your points, to understand basic logic, or to modify your beliefs due to additional data...Apart from the fun of reading your often incoherent rantings, there really is no need to interact with you." (December 5, 2011 2:31 PM )
- I asked you, Havok, to post just one example to justify your slander "Take the very best point that I supposedly did not address in defense of the above proof and post it here for all of us to see." (How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence - December 7, 2011 5:10 AM) And all you have done is offer some new critiques.
So, Havok, if you cannot back up your slanderous accusations with actual dated comments, you should probably apologize for your slander. I have no problem addressing your new points, but I don't think you should so quickly attempt to sweep your deleterious slander under the rug. :-)
Poor Rick. Caught in a lie he feels he cannot repudiate.
DeleteAs far as I'm aware, I went back a produced further comments to justify my claims (especially concerning your lame "proof" of God - still waiting for you to back up your claims there).
I'm not sweeping anything under the rug Rick. I'm happy for you to advertise your lies, misunderstandings and inability to deal with critiques of your claims as widely as you feel the need to :-)
>As far as I'm aware, I went back a produced further comments to justify my claims
Delete- Then obviously you are not very aware, Havok.
Anyone may return to the comments of these points and see that you have not provided once such example to back up your slander.
On multiple occasions now, Havok, you have been called to the carpet but instead of admitting your mistakes and apologizing you've done nothing but to increase the lying slander. You've because nothing but a spammer for Satan. Anyone who desires to can see your lies laid out and documented. This is one reason why I prefer written debates to Skype ones, the record is clear.
Jesus' words in John 8.44 seems to apply to you:
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Anonymous, why don't you adopt a pseudonym to avoid confusion? :-)
ReplyDeleteWell, there is enough people bashing at Rick s stupidity right now. I will refrain from posting for now and just enjoy the show. Besides, I am too lazy to register anyway 8)
ReplyDeleteIs it my imagination or has the title of this post been changed?
ReplyDeleteNope, Rick has again made some adjustments to his article. Though, this time he did not mention it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, he has no idea what fashion and pornography used to be in the past. He is also advocating the thought police principle of christianity against "lusting". Of course, Rick s interpretations of his Bible are the only right ones as usual. So having a healthy libido is "bad" 8)
oh! Reynold, you might be interested in how Rick is trying to rationalize genocide.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
Marvelous, what a web site it is! This weblog presents useful
ReplyDeletefacts to us, keep it up.
my web site; wholesale polo shirts