Habenero Photography wrote:

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.

Yep -- that's why I mentioned the Gnostic texts. There was a lot more going on back then than one christian faith. And the Gnostics were persecuted out of existence by the early Roman christians. Gotta love that -- they were fighting themselves from the very beginning. Go figure.

elisabeth eagle wrote:

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

I give up...What are you doing?

elisabeth eagle wrote:

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

I think the "problem" is that you don't really understand much about what is "erotic" or what "arouses" sexual desire.

Nihilus wrote:

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...

Exactly.

  BB.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I give up...What are you doing?

elisabeth eagle wrote:
these to me are erotic they are nude photos so only for 18 and over
http://www.kuprikov.ru/banners/2photo.jpg
http://www.deepslit.com/cutiesintights/ … s/tn16.jpg

http://myangelasfun.com/softcore/teens/g014/tn15.jpg

So do you spend a lot of time on the internet looking for teen porn?

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh and i suppose u do? well think whatever- im not deleting my photos just because you THINK they are erotic- sorry- even if u look up erotic on the internet- no lingerie photos come up without showing some sort of nudity- most of which will show you sex acts-

Hey, don't blame me...I'm on record as agreeing that your port is not the least bit erotic or arousing.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh and i suppose u do? well think whatever- im not deleting my photos just because you THINK they are erotic- sorry- even if u look up erotic on the internet- no lingerie photos come up without showing some sort of nudity- most of which will show you sex acts-

That isn't true. You can have a totally erotic photo that doesn't show anything. I think you may be thinking porn=erotica when in fact it doesn't. A couple of the sample photos you linked to are to me porn (not that there's anything wrong with porn either). And of course the definition gets incredibly muddy here. Basically, to me, if a person looks at a photo and says "that's hot" you might have a photo that is at least mildly erotic.


[edit] Most of the time, the depiction of sex acts would be considered porn and not erotica.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
yes, my whole day- after all thats what makes the world go round- nothing like nudity of people that arent really even teens......

Hey...you posted it...not me.  I'm beginning to think your experience with "perverts" is a little closer than just down the street from you.

Pat Thielen wrote:
I think you may be thinking porn=erotica when in fact it doesn't.

Bingo.

Pat Thielen wrote:

That isn't true. You can have a totally erotic photo that doesn't show anything. I think you may be thinking porn=erotica when in fact it doesn't. A couple of the sample photos you linked to are to me porn (not that there's anything wrong with porn either). And of course the definition gets incredibly muddy here. Basically, to me, if a person looks at a photo and says "that's hot" you might have a photo that is at least mildly erotic.

good 4 u and thats ur opinion- i have already stated what i feel erotic is. if that was true- boy theres a lot of erotic models on mm then cuz i see a lot of very beautiful models- some of which are only beautiful because of their personality

Nihilus wrote:
Did the OP ever solve his dilemma? I was going to suggest filling a void in the niche of attractive naked women wearing nothing but a rosary...

I like it! Or just point out that the woman in that burkha is completely naked under her clothes...

Hubba hubba!

Nihilus wrote:
Did the OP ever solve his dilemma? I was going to suggest filling a void in the niche of attractive naked women wearing nothing but a rosary...

I already suggested fetish -- he's not into it.  Shame, isn't it?

elisabeth eagle wrote:

good 4 u and thats ur opinion- i have already stated what i feel erotic is. if that was true- boy theres a lot of erotic models on mm then cuz i see a lot of very beautiful models- some of which are only beautiful because of their personality

Absolutely -- there are a lot of erotic models on MM. So I think we've discovered the problem here, and it's a semantic one. Right -- from now on when you mention erotic we need to translate that to porn. That was easy.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
oh and i suppose u do? well think whatever- im not deleting my photos just because you THINK they are erotic- sorry- even if u look up erotic on the internet- no lingerie photos come up without showing some sort of nudity- most of which will show you sex acts-

I never suggested that you delete your photos. I hope you don't and I actually hope you post more. I'm only suggesting that you lighten up a bit because "Erotic" does NOT equal porn, and  arousal is NOT a bad thing.

Pellegrino wrote:

I never suggested that you delete your photos. I hope you don't and I actually hope you post more. I'm only suggesting that you lighten up a bit because "Erotic" does NOT equal porn, and  arousal is NOT a bad thing.

I fully agree with this statement.

Pat Thielen wrote:

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.

Respectable, you should reserve your opinion til' after you see it. I think they presented some very interesting facts, but I'm gonna wait to watch it again because I din't see the beginning. Ok. we'll talk again.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
yes and apparently its ok for u to joke but not me-
now i suggest that if u don't find my port at all erotic or sexy or whatever that u quit bothering me about it- im not going to change just because it aggravates you or that u think its upsetting me because in reality- ur doing nothing but making me smile

Evidently a lot of things upset you.  As for what makes you smile...Well let's just say thinking about it is rather unsettling.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
nope- porn to me is something different- and like i said b4- i don't care what u think so why don't u just drop it then? you want to think its erotic fine- i really don't give a crap- you think its crap fine doesn't bother me either. i could be wearing coats, gloves, a scarf, hat, boots , and 3 shirts with 2 pair of pants on and someone would say its erotic- just because they want me to feel like i lied by saying i didn't shoot erotic.... whatever-

Now you're just being silly.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Evidently a lot of things upset you.  As for what makes you smile...Well let's just say thinking about it is rather unsettling.

no you're not upsetting me- are u here do u know how i feel? no u don't- and trust me i have a lot of patience and this could go on all day without even making me care one bit about what u think

elisabeth eagle wrote:
nope- porn to me is something different- and like i said b4- i don't care what u think so why don't u just drop it then? you want to think its erotic fine- i really don't give a crap- you think its crap fine doesn't bother me either. i could be wearing coats, gloves, a scarf, hat, boots , and 3 shirts with 2 pair of pants on and someone would say its erotic- just because they want me to feel like i lied by saying i didn't shoot erotic.... whatever-

Oooooh, I thinnk boots are Sooooo erotic.

elisabeth eagle wrote:

no you're not upsetting me- are u here do u know how i feel? no u don't- and trust me i have a lot of patience and this could go on all day without even making me care one bit about what u think

You're right about one thing...I haven't the faintest clue as to what you're feeling or thinking...Because I don't think you have a very clear idea either.  As for you caring about what I think -- well we've been through that already.

Pat Thielen wrote:
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?

My proof is in the accuracy of the Book.  The New Testament was written by MANY witnesses of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  They either knew him personally or were close to one who did.  The New Testament has been proven accurate based on ALL that we hold historical documents to.  What we have with you and others is that you want to change the qualifications between the Bible and other historical documents.  You will allow less reliable and credible evidence for them but when the Bible has more evidence you refuse it.

jeffgreen wrote:
My proof is in the accuracy of the Book.  The New Testament was written by MANY witnesses of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  They either knew him personally or were close to one who did.  The New Testament has been proven accurate based on ALL that we hold historical documents to.  What we have with you and others is that you want to change the qualifications between the Bible and other historical documents.  You will allow less reliable and credible evidence for them but when the Bible has more evidence you refuse it.

Show me the evidence and proof. Specifically, what historical documents?

elisabeth eagle wrote:
just keep running ur mouth- i know who i am- i know how i feel- i don't need u trying to tell me how i feel or what i know and don't know. i don't believe the same things u do- big deal get over yourself and move on to the next model to pester

gotcha.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Job's just the easiest one to tear apart as clearly retarded...lol

I think you can make a case for The Boook of Joshua!
The shedding of Blood and procurement of Money are all that matter.

6:19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.

6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

This is my favourite passage. God of Peace and Love????
6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

6:24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Pat Thielen wrote:
Show me the evidence and proof. Specifically, what historical documents?

Well, I'm still waiting for the evidence that I requested earlier.  Go fetch it and then we can talk some more.  Don't feel like providing your proof?  Bow out then as I do not have time for people to sling out silly "it's in the bible" statements without one shred of proof.  I have weighed my evidence and continue to weigh my evidence and find it outweighing anything that others provide as "proof" that Christ and God don't exist.