Pat Thielen wrote:
Finding more religious texts proves god how...?

Actually, archeological digs are providing proof that the Bible was written extremely close to the timeframe that all these events occurred AND that the New Testament is accurate.  So we have time and location verification, witnesses verification.  Governmental leader verification.  The Bible has far more verifiable facts than many ancient rulers histories have yet no one questions them...

jeffgreen wrote:

You are trying to equate God with man and they two aren't equal.  For God to eliminate all pain and suffering would be for God to create robots.  God has given us a choice.  You chose not to believe in the one who created you... Good for you.  I choose to believe in the one who created me based on facts.  God created a perfect world full of peace and joy.  Man turned their back on God, not the other way around.

Of course all you want to do is keep God on a hook and try to prove how mean He is.

But he is mean! It's right there in your bible! And I fully expect a god to be at a certain ethical level, and this one doesn't measure up. Just because he's a god doesn't give him the right to be a sadistic bastard. In theory, me just a mere mortal, shouldn't be able to give ethical direction to a god. But trust me -- I sure have some lessons for this one.

  I'm not even remotely convinced that this god of yours created me or anything else. Just because the claims are made in some book and scrolls doesn't present any proof of this. Gods have been claiming creation status for thousands of years before the bible was even written. Why is this one any different?

  And your explanation does nothing to convince me... It's just another lame excuse for this rather deranged deity of "love and compassion." Yeah, right.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
You know...people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. I do recall you attacking me twice in this thread without provocation.

No, I attacked your silly position, not you.  

The O.P. asked a question about his religious views and photography.  Instead of simply stating your opinion you decided to attack MY belief (although not directly at me they are my beliefs that you attempt to thrash).

Clarence aka  Big C wrote:

Pat Thielen wrote:

Clarence aka  Big C wrote:
Back to the O.P.'s question

You really need to stop making assumptions and accusations about why I feel the way I do. I'm fully entitled to my beliefs, as you are to yours. I believe in science, and science goes against much of what the Bible says.



Kaitlin, science actually is proving the existence of God. Haven't you heard of the findings of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" Original bible passages on original fragments that they were written on in the ancient hebrew and Greek languages. Parts of the book of Isaiah were found by archaeologists in the 1940's. So, it seems to me that God may have created science and inspired man to know more about the world, his world (in my opinion) Also, there;s a program called Science of the Bible on National Geographic Channel (Programs not even produced by christians) where archaeologists find places and lost artifacts from Bible times. You should check it out, it's on Mondays 10pm, it repeats again 2am (eastern time) Now, it seems the world is embracing the idea that science proves God's existence.

Finding more religious texts proves god how...?

This quote somehow got messed up.. this one is mine.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
i just see something wrong with my husband watching an erotic movie and lusting after the ppl on there. most guys and girls get aroused watching that stuff so they definately wouldn't be lusting after whoever they are with    i think im going to puke

Just thinking how erotic some of the images in your folio are.

Pat Thielen wrote:
But he is mean! It's right there in your bible!

Of course it is... yawn...  Where?  When HIS creation turned their back on Him?  When civilization got so bad and wicked?  Where?  This generic "your religion and God are horrible... yadda yadda yadda" does not work.  If you can't cite then your point is moot.

jeffgreen wrote:
No, I attacked your silly position, not you.  

The O.P. asked a question about his religious views and photography.  Instead of simply stating your opinion you decided to attack MY belief (although not directly at me they are my beliefs that you attempt to thrash).

Semantics. Regardless of whether you attacked me or my position, you're not acting like all sweetness and light, so I don't think it's especially polite of you to give someone else shit for being aggressive.

BTW...like I've said already, I'd appreciate it if you showed me the same respect I'm showing you. I haven't called any of your beliefs silly. At most I've said I personally find them illogical. If you want to say the same, that's cool, but calling my beliefs flat out silly is pretty uncalled for.

jeffgreen wrote:

Actually, archeological digs are providing proof that the Bible was written extremely close to the timeframe that all these events occurred AND that the New Testament is accurate.  So we have time and location verification, witnesses verification.  Governmental leader verification.  The Bible has far more verifiable facts than many ancient rulers histories have yet no one questions them...

The new testament is accurate how exactly? And where is the proof of not only god, but of Jesus? These digs are simply uncovering more documents which is very cool to be sure, but they certainly do not make any more case for the existence of god. I also suspect that more texts will be discovered in the future as there were quite a few written. And what about the gnostic christians? Why were their teachings left out of the bible and why were they persecuted by the Roman christians...?

jeffgreen wrote:

Of course it is... yawn...  Where?  When HIS creation turned their back on Him?  When civilization got so bad and wicked?  Where?  This generic "your religion and God are horrible... yadda yadda yadda" does not work.  If you can't cite then your point is moot.

I believe he's referring to when God allowed the devil to torture his most loyal follower, who was not wicked and did not turn his back on God.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh please- none of my work is nude. i was a lingerie model for years and i don't see anything wrong with being sexy- it doesn't mean im for or against nudity or sex. There is no postitions that depict erotic behavior and if you actually look at my photos and see erotic- there is something wrong

No...that's not erotic at all...

erotic
One entry found for erotic.
Main Entry: erot·ic
Pronunciation: i-'rä-tik
1 : of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire

jeffgreen wrote:

Actually, archeological digs are providing proof that the Bible was written extremely close to the timeframe that all these events occurred AND that the New Testament is accurate.  So we have time and location verification, witnesses verification.  Governmental leader verification.  The Bible has far more verifiable facts than many ancient rulers histories have yet no one questions them...

Right.

jeffgreen wrote:

Of course it is... yawn...  Where?  When HIS creation turned their back on Him?  When civilization got so bad and wicked?  Where?  This generic "your religion and God are horrible... yadda yadda yadda" does not work.  If you can't cite then your point is moot.

If this god of yours is all-loving and all-compassionate then he wouldn't have caused the flood, destroyed cities, turned people to stone, killed the first born of the Egyptians, etc... An all-loving and all-compassionate being simply wouldn't do this. This god gets jacked-up on violence and death. You've read the bible... but you make all kinds of excuses for this god. Clearly, this god is not all-loving and all-compassionate. As near as I can tell, this is a classic war god and he has billions of people believing otherwise. Look around you -- would an all-loving and all-compassionate god allow people to murder and wage wars in his name?

  When you have the power to stop an evil act and do nothing you have committed an evil act.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh please- none of my work is nude. i was a lingerie model for years and i don't see anything wrong with being sexy- it doesn't mean im for or against nudity or sex. There is no postitions that depict erotic behavior and if you actually look at my photos and see erotic- there is something wrong

Er... many people find lingerie to be very sexy. When I was a kid I totally loved the lingerie advertisements. You don't have to be showing anything to be erotic. And what sort of emotion does "being sexy" inspire?

Pat Thielen wrote:

The new testament is accurate how exactly? And where is the proof of not only god, but of Jesus? These digs are simply uncovering more documents which is very cool to be sure, but they certainly do not make any more case for the existence of god. I also suspect that more texts will be discovered in the future as there were quite a few written. And what about the gnostic christians? Why were their teachings left out of the bible and why were they persecuted by the Roman christians...?

They have found the site and tomb of Jesus, it's on National Geographic right now..it's a documentary called. Jesus' Tomb (2005), you can probably find it on The National Geographic Channel's website. Or just watch it right now.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh please- none of my work is nude. i was a lingerie model for years and i don't see anything wrong with being sexy- it doesn't mean im for or against nudity or sex. There is no postitions that depict erotic behavior and if you actually look at my photos and see erotic- there is something wrong

E-rot-ic: Tending to arouse sexual desire.

Your avatar is pretty erotic with your dress pulled up. I can't quite tell if you're wearing panties or not. And the last pic in your folio is pretty hot.

Men in Japan find the nape of a womans neck to be very erotic.

Personally, having a woman speak softly in my ear is quite erotic.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh please- that was for a lingerie thing on a website not even a site that depicted erotic. to me erotic is either nude to posing provocative- i don't see that as erotic- sorry if u do but i honestly don't

Not to worry...I don't find your portfolio to be the least bit erotic.

Pat Thielen wrote:

Er... many people find lingerie to be very sexy. When I was a kid I totally loved the lingerie advertisements. You don't have to be showing anything to be erotic. And what sort of emotion does "being sexy" inspire?

i said they're was nothing wrong with being sexy- if there was i would see something wrong with modeling in general. And i said that for me erotic was either a type of nudity or depicting a certain behavior- if u find it to be erotic then by all means continue to do so- makes no never mind to me

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Not to worry...I don't find your portfolio to be the least bit erotic.

believe me what u think about me is the least of my worries

Clarence aka  Big C wrote:

They have found the site and tomb of Jesus, it's on National Geographic right now..it's a documentary called. Jesus' Tomb (2005), you can probably find it on The National Geographic Channel's website. Or just watch it right now.

If I had National Geographic I'd certainly watch it. But this doesn't convince me -- how do they know this particular tomb was his? Was there an angel in it, or a name plate? Sorry about the sarcasm, but they've also done shows where they've found Noah's ark, bigfoot, and all kinds of weird stuff. If ever I can watch the show I certainly will; it does sound interesting.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
i said they're was nothing wrong with being sexy- if there was i would see something wrong with modeling in general. And i said that for me erotic was either a type of nudity or depicting a certain behavior- if u find it to be erotic then by all means continue to do so- makes no never mind to me

Okay, I admit it -- I'm completely confused now.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Okay, I admit it -- I'm completely confused now.

You and me both...

  Er...?

elisabeth eagle wrote:

believe me what u think about me is the least of my worries

You're obviously worried about what a lot of people think...As evidenced by the fact that you continuously qualify and re-qualify everything you say as well as your portfolio.

Besides, I thought you didn't want to be seen as erotic...Did I miss something?

Pat Thielen wrote:
The new testament is accurate how exactly? And where is the proof of not only god, but of Jesus? These digs are simply uncovering more documents which is very cool to be sure, but they certainly do not make any more case for the existence of god.

Wrong.  They are uncovering sites of where cities used to be.  Archeologists have long claimed that certain locations in the New Testament were not correct, therefore it made it hard to see it as an accurate book.  These digs have uncovered proof that these cities were where they said they were and were named correctly.  Dipping pools found in the Bible have been uncovered.

BTW, read ancient writings like the book of Antiquities.  Pardon me if it is misspelled... I should have been asleep hours ago.  Numerous ancient writings refer to Christ.

Pat Thielen wrote:

If I had National Geographic I'd certainly watch it. But this doesn't convince me -- how do they know this particular tomb was his? Was there an angel in it, or a name plate? Sorry about the sarcasm, but they've also done shows where they've found Noah's ark, bigfoot, and all kinds of weird stuff. If ever I can watch the show I certainly will; it does sound interesting.

Cool. Wow, we finally could agree on somethingw/out arguing. When you watch it, they will explain how they discovered it was his tomb in great deatil, I'm still watching...

elisabeth eagle wrote:

i said they're was nothing wrong with being sexy- if there was i would see something wrong with modeling in general. And i said that for me erotic was either a type of nudity or depicting a certain behavior- if u find it to be erotic then by all means continue to do so- makes no never mind to me

You said there was "something wrong with my husband watching an erotic movie and lusting after the ppl on there."

Who's husband is looking at you?

jeffgreen wrote:
Numerous ancient writings refer to Christ.

None that are externally and historically verifiable. But feel free to trot out the antiquated Josephus reference...or Tacitus, Seutonius...

...bah...and perhaps we shouldn't derail the thread either...

Pat Thielen wrote:

The new testament is accurate how exactly? And where is the proof of not only god, but of Jesus? These digs are simply uncovering more documents which is very cool to be sure, but they certainly do not make any more case for the existence of god. I also suspect that more texts will be discovered in the future as there were quite a few written. And what about the gnostic christians? Why were their teachings left out of the bible and why were they persecuted by the Roman christians...?

Many of the newer finds are of Gnostic texts.  They reveal much about the politics of the early church.  But still no direct evidence that any of the bible is anything more than an anthology of poorly written texts has been found.

Pellegrino wrote:

You said there was "something wrong with my husband watching an erotic movie and lusting after the ppl on there."

Who's husband is looking at you?

what are they doing in an erotic movie? exactly- what am i doing in a photo that im clothed in? if someones husband looks at those photos and gets aroused there is a problem

jeffgreen wrote:

Wrong.  They are uncovering sites of where cities used to be.  Archeologists have long claimed that certain locations in the New Testament were not correct, therefore it made it hard to see it as an accurate book.  These digs have uncovered proof that these cities were where they said they were and were named correctly.  Dipping pools found in the Bible have been uncovered.

BTW, read ancient writings like the book of Antiquities.  Pardon me if it is misspelled... I should have been asleep hours ago.  Numerous ancient writings refer to Christ.

Fine. That's fine and it's not surprising these places are turning up. They uncovered the city of Troy when it was the Trojan War was thought to be just a myth. But finding places mentioned in the bible does not prove the existence of either god or Jesus. It only shows these places existed. Nothing more. So, where exactly is the proof of god in this?

Clarence aka  Big C wrote:

Cool. Wow, we finally could agree on somethingw/out arguing. When you watch it, they will explain how they discovered it was his tomb in great deatil, I'm still watching...

It sounds interesting because I dig archaeology (get it? Dig? Har har). I'm not convinced that this was the tomb of Jesus, and they better have some damn good evidence that it was. National Geographic runs shows that are not scientific but are speculative, like the shows on Noah's Arc and Bigfoot. So, I will reserve my opinion until after I've seen the show and had the evidence presented.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
i qualify and requalify? what does that mean? and i can't help if someone looks at a completely dressed picture and thinks erotic. several ppl can look at a nude girl and think something besides sex as u've already pointed out so im sure ppl can look at a lingerie picture and think erotic.... besides how did it come to my port out of a thread that was suppose to be about bible vs. erotic/glamour nude shots? if the op thought erotic wasn't nude, he wouldn't have posted it that way.

huh?