User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 5:39:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Fact of life...Porn sells...just the way it is. People that cant live it can only view it, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 5:43:50 AM EDT
[#2]
1. Get a life, all you do is bring these types of topics up. I think you might just have some type of phobia about the female body.
2. It is Babe of the Day, not Babe Du Jour (We're not in France) 3. It is [b]NOT[/b] PORN 4. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 5:52:16 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: If porn is so great, why do people keep going "back to the trough to feed on it?" I think that most of it has to do with hormones - it's not like we all have the same amount of testosterone and sex drive. No matter how much some people try to avoid pornography, they will "give in" to their natural urges that, as human beings, we all have. Yes, very addicting indeed. But then there are many of us here who are "addicted" to firearms. However, we do not have our body chemistry to give us "urges" to seek out information and pictures of a HK-G36 carbine... just our curiosity and interest. Just my .02 Tyler |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 5:53:17 AM EDT
[#4]
AR15.com addiction.
I'm about to hit my 1000th post. Should I be proud of this or concerned. GM, we've noticed you have over 2150 posts. Maybe you should get some counseling, you know, maybe talking to someone will help. It's ok to reach out. We're here for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 5:55:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Garandman, did you make it 50,00[size=3][b]1[/b][/size=3]? LOL Don't sweat the petty stuff--pet the sweaty stuff, or something like that. [:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 5:55:45 AM EDT
[#6]
[>:/]
As new photos have been added to "Babe", it is natural to return to see what new has been added. The "Add to Post Count" is simply that. Although some of the replies have been funny, it doesn't compare, although I have posted to it 3-4 times. Apples and oranges... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:23:22 AM EDT
[#7]
One reason for the high post count is that some of us may have gone there 10+ times just because we didn't have time to view the whole thread at one sitting. I know I checked it a couple of times but only went through one page, and came back to see another.
As far as porn being addictive, you're right. This has already been proven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:27:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: As far as porn being addictive, you're right. This has already been proven. Is that a bad thing or not--I get so confused since I seem to be going blind! LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:37:50 AM EDT
[#9]
It's not pornography, and I really don't see anything wrong with looking at pictures of beautiful women.
Forgot to proofread |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:41:28 AM EDT
[#10]
boobies???
grandman post some boobies! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:47:04 AM EDT
[#11]
There's a difference between pornography and "cheesecake". That distinction is not always clear, but I haven't seen anything on the Babe of the Day thread (which I have visited about 4 times) that I consider porn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:49:18 AM EDT
[#12]
Rejected Dr. Seuss Books
Author: Unknown 1. The Cat in the Blender 2. Herbert the Pervert Likes Sherbert 3. Fox in Detox 4. Who Shat in the Hat? 5. Horton Hires a Ho 6. The Flesh-Eating Lorax 7. How the Grinch Stole Columbus Day 8. Your Colon Can Moo---Can You? 9. Zippy the Rabid Gerbil 10. One Bitch, Two Bitch, Dead Bitch, Blue Bitch 11. Marvin K. Mooney, Get the F--- Out! 12. Are You My Proctologist? 13. Yentl the Lentil 14. My Pocket Rocket Needs A Socket 15. Aunts in My Pants 16. Oh, the Places You'll Scratch and Sniff! 17. Horton Fakes an Orgasm 18. The Grinch's Ten Inches 19. Green Cheese & Spam 20. Who Flung Goo on Betty Sue? 21. Russell the One-Eyed Love Muscle 22. Feel It, Find It, Pick It, Flick It |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:50:20 AM EDT
[#13]
OK, for clarification, re: the clinical defintion of pornography -
Pornography is any graphical rendering designed with the intent of sexual stimulation. To me, if ANYONE is going to look at these pics for anything OTHER THAN sexual strimulation, THAT would be truly weird. [BD] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 6:54:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: OK, for clarification, re: the clinical defintion of pornography - Pornography is any graphical rendering designed with the intent of sexual stimulation. To me, if ANYONE is going to look at these pics for anything OTHER THAN sexual strimulation, THAT would be truly weird. [BD] So we're all okay then? Whew, that's a relief--thanks for the thumb's up!! I was getting kind of nervous about this bunch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:01:19 AM EDT
[#15]
grandmama:
We are sorry we've been such bad children. I'm sure with your moral guidence we'll all become better people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:03:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Name even one activity in which people engage for pleasure that is so "satisfying" that they need do it only once.
By your way of thinking, eating at a favorite restaurant is an addiction, shooting is an addiction, following a particular TV show is an addiction, having sex with your wife (if you do it more than once) is an addiction, and so on... Actually, what I think you are getting at here is that you think "pornography" (which is, at best, a very subjective term) is bad. You also find you like something, by your own admission, that you think is bad. That makes for a first class case of dissonance. I see nothing wrong with "porn" as long as it features only adults who are voluntarily involved in its production. I'd hazard that your Christian beliefs are a large part of your feeling troubled on this issue. Describing it as an addiction strikes me as a two-fold fallacy. Firstly, it is an attempt to make it a "not my fault" situation ( a fallacy in itself, to me since I see no fault in the first place) , something we saw plenty of under the Clinton administration. Secondly, by classing it as an addiction, you are trying to work a scam on your own God. If it is an addiction, then it's not a sin, it's a medical disorder. God, if he exists, probably isn't so easily misled as that. I don't think it is a sin, but then I don't presume to speak for God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:25:11 AM EDT
[#17]
Golgo,
right on man. You said it. GM, Seems to me That you are a christian who finds everything sexually satisfying bad. Now, will someone please post a link to some porn!!! hehehe -CK |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:30:12 AM EDT
[#18]
Garandman, it is absolutely an addiction. Most addicts don't want to admit it though. Actually, admitting it is the first stage in curing it. Little rats in a cage with electrodes implanted in their brain will do ANYTHING to get their sexual pleasure center stimulated. Stimulating that area of the brain actually produces some pretty serious chemicals that scientists are trying to reproduce as they think they might work as pain killers. When I was a long distance runner and kept running when bone fragments were working their way through my knee, I couldn't see that I was in trouble. Two scriptures come to my mind. First, Garandman, don't throw your pearls before swine. Second, where their treasure is, their hearts will be also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:42:52 AM EDT
[#19]
...and let's not forget:
[size=3]"Judge not, lest ye be judged"[/size=3] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:43:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: As new photos have been added to "Babe", it is natural to return to see what new has been added. The "Add to Post Count" is simply that. Although some of the replies have been funny, it doesn't compare, although I have posted to it 3-4 times. Platform hit the nail on the head. I don't really care what's posted on the 'add one to your post count' - there's nothing there that really matters. It's just filler. Why would I want to repeatedly look at filler? However, if someone posts a picture of a beautiful woman, (and by the guidelines set by goatboy there's no nudity, and therefore not porn), then of course I'm going to look at it. As long as I have sight and time to click on the link I'm going to take the time to look at one of the most beautiful things God ever created, which is an attractive woman. Did you not consider the difference in the two topics, or were you just trying to raise a stink???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 7:50:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Is porn addicting?
Wrong question. Are some people addicted to porn? Yes. Some people are addicted to alcohol too, but most people who drink are not. Some people are addicted to drugs, but most people who smoke a joint every once in a while are not. Some people are (apparently) addicted to sex, but the vast majority of people who have sex on a regular basis are not "sex addicts." The people that worry me the most are the ones who assume that anyone who views pictures of scantily clad women is "addicted to porn." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 8:12:39 AM EDT
[#22]
I like porn because it expands my horizons, introduces me to new forms and figures...oh and sometimes it gives me a little stiffy. I figure that's just my little general trying to get his pushups for the day.
[i]When watching porn,[/i] [b]Do YOU Have It?[/b] [img]www.auburn.edu/~littlcb/cocker.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 8:18:29 AM EDT
[#23]
What I find interesting is that the moderators are tracking "Some People" and noting which threads they visit. Would you mind telling me why? BTW: considering the number of times I've had to hit reload in order to get the whole page, I bet I'm up into the 100's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 8:20:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Garandman be glad there is free pornography to keep those so inclined busy. Otherwise they would have time on thier hands and be stalking our wives and daughters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:12:39 AM EDT
[#25]
garandman, I do agree with you that pornography can be an addictive behavior for some. Especially for any person who has expressed that they have a fetish for something.
The nature of pornography is that it's a stimulus, for some, with time and repeated exposure to a certain content after long enough that stimulus will no longer provide as much as a reward or desired effect. Usually that's when they move on to some other smut or stimulus so that they can get their jollies, in that way it is not much different than what are commonly referred to "gateway" drugs where people start with something simple like pot but after they've done so much of it that they can't get high from it anymore soon they'll move onto the harder substances. But with regards to the "babe of the day" thread, I hardly think it's any big deal. Heck, if a person were to just check the thread 2-3 times a day and you multiply that by a couple hundred people a day doing that then it hardly surprises me that it's grown as much as it has or it's been viewed as much as it has. I don't think we've got any fledgling porn addicts thanks to that one thread. While I know for a fact that there's a couple or maybe a few handfuls of people on the forum that "enjoy" porn, I still doubt that any of them are actually addicted to it in that they have multiple web browsers open and surfing for porn all at once or that they've spent an extrodinary amount of money to accumulate a collection of smut. Personally, I checked the page usually once an evening for the first 4-5 days till it just got to be too much to go through as I usually only spend 25-40 collective minutes throughout the day on the forums and I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend all of my time looking through one thread or reading what everybody's opinion of the "perfect gal" is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:17:23 AM EDT
[#26]
I know I haven't been around here long enough to post a position on something like this but as someone who runs 8 game servers along with a few friends, I understand the desire of the owner/admins to keep things relatively clean. On our game servers, we decided not to allow vulgar (our definition not the players) or otherwise offensive names nor players in game saying things we consider offensive either to us or other players. Many scream and write letters to the affect that we are denying them their right to express themselves as they please. I on the other hand consider these players to be guests of mine and expect them to live by the rules I set for "my house". I think the same should apply to a forum such as this. If the owner/admin allows porn, then that is their choice. If they don't, that too is their choice which I will respect and abide with or find another site which caters to my "needs". As for me, I come for the guns. [:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:18:05 AM EDT
[#27]
FWIW, I think the definition of pornography is properly expressed as a graphic representation designed [b][u]solely[/u][/b] for the purpose of sexual gratification! That way you can weed out the perverts who get turned on by innocent representations.
BTW, the [b]Hun Family Motto[/b], translated from the Classic Latin, and inscribed upon the family's coat of arms, goes something like this: [size=5]A Man's Bone is His Hassle.[/size=5] The Hun Family coat of arms is a French chicken on a field of azure, being ceremoniously choked by a gauntleted fist. Where these symbols come from and what they represent have been lost in the mists of time, and thus, we haven't a clue! Eric The(I'mBusyNow,GoAway!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:24:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Oh, its fun for a while, but ultimately it leaves people empty. If it didn't, why do y'all need to go back 50,000 times??? ... Well, let me explain that to you. Once the human male has 'emptied' himself, he needs time to recuperate, i.e. watch TV or eat a sandwich. Once the body's natural fluids have been replenished, he will return to the porno fields to repeat the action and repeat this cycle again and again... Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I guess I'm too immature for the topic! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:27:53 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: I just KNOW some of you are not mature enuf to have this discussion without mucking it all up by posting porn links, but I'm going for it anyway. The "Babe Du Jour" thread makes for soem interesting observation. ONLY 500 +/- posts, but over [b] FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND [/b] views. Comparatively, the "Post here and add to your post count " thread has about the same number of posts, and ONLY about 3,200 views. From that, we can tell some people are going to the "Babe" thread an AWFUL lot. Without contributing. Like a [b]scary [/b] # of times. Like an "addiction" perhaps. Now I don't say this to put anyone down. Left to my own devices, I'd be the biggest porn freak the world has known. I do indeed have a "thing" for the female body. (My wife will confirm this.) But, the above statistical observation causes me to wonder.... If porn is so great, why do people keep going "back to the trough to feed on it?" I suspect while it gives an initial "high" it ultimately leaves one "empty" and the needing to get another "fix." Plainly put, it just doesn't satisfy. Oh, its fun for a while, but ultimately it leaves people empty. If it didn't, why do y'all need to go back 50,000 times??? Comparatively, there ARE "things" in life that DO satisfy. Why a lack of interest in them, and a "addiction" to things that don't satisfy??? Hmmmmmm..... Actually I'd like to note a few things. Many of those views are people doing "edits" and others checking "content" to make sure it is within accepted guidelines. Additionally, unregistered "users" far outnumber the rest of us. They can view the thread but CANNOT post as they are not members. I am also getting sick of the "porn addict" crap. It is exactly like the "gun culture" bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:29:35 AM EDT
[#30]
I have only looked at the thread once when it was first posted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:30:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Personally, I have no problem with the "Babe" thread. The female body is the most wonderful creation on God's green earth. No suprise, I like to look at 'em.
G-man and I are good friends, probably the best of friends. We are alot alike. He loves his wife (who I thought was the finest young woman on the planet until I linked up with my mate) and she ain't hard to look at. I suspect he likes the womanly figure as much as any of us do, but tries to examine the reasons why we do what we do. He is very analytical. Bust on him if you must, but don't be afraid to question yourselves or others now and then. Sometimes it helps you stay on track. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 10:44:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: I am also getting sick of the "porn addict" crap. It is exactly like the "gun culture" bullshit. I agree, how many times do I hear the words "why do you need THAT many guns?" in one day. Sounds pretty similar to "why do you have to look at porn THAT many times?" While I don't equate gun ownership with the right to look at porn, the main issues are very similar in my mind: 1) why would other folks business bother someone else, as long as no one is getting hurt, and 2) again, if I'm not hurting anyone, I should be able to do any damn thing I like in my private world, without being hassled by others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 11:56:17 AM EDT
[#33]
I was just thinking this morning that it's been awhile since you stirred the pot garandman. I was trying to come up with something good myself, but this will do just fine.
I find your use of language both telling and disturbing. You should have said La Beauté Du Jour. Try not to mix languages. It sounds very leftist. Mixing languages is disrespectfull to both. ad·dic·tion Function: noun Date: 1599 1 : the quality or state of being addicted 2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful. por·nog·ra·phy Function: noun Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE Date: circa 1864 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction The use of the term "addiction" is irresposible and incorrect in this matter. But I do see where you are coming from. Using the term pornography to describe Babe of the Day is perhaps a slight stretch but possibly appropriate in some instances. However, if you include Babe of the Day in the category of pornography based on it's intent to arouse an emotional response, you must also add Rush Limbaugh's show to that category. The emotional repsonse is completely different, but they both have intent to cause emotional response. Of course we are much more familiar with the pornography of the modern "news"cast depicting the violence of ATF agents defending themselves from the occupants of spontaniously combusting buildings. Anyone who is versed in the intricacies of psycological disfunctions will tell you that any extreme is potentially harmfull to your mental health. If I obsess over "pornography" to the point that the removal of said porn causes a change (most likely painfull in some way) to my mental health, I would be addicted. However, a person who has such an addiction would most likely not be able to abstain from such deplorable activities as porn surfing long enough to counter your claim the it is a bad thing. Much more, that person would probably not recognize their particular circumstance as an addiction and would only travel in circles of people who were also addicted at the same level, if not a higher level as himself. The vast majority of the participants and I would propose the vast majority of the viewers of Babe of the Day carry on a normal daily life without surfing AR15.com for the latest erotic fix. There are other places for that where someone can find much more graphic examples of pornography. The Protestant ideology of self denial shows through almost all of your posts regarding pleasures. But since this is not a thread which presently revolves around religion I will not comment further on such things. However, if you would like to start another thread on the subject I would be more than willing to discuss the matter with you. My proposition of religious debate still stands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 12:12:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Just for clarification.... Quoted: I was just thinking this morning that it's been awhile since you stirred the pot garandman. I was trying to come up with something good myself, but this will do just fine. I like to pic my spots. You should have said La Beauté Du Jour. Try not to mix languages. It sounds very leftist. Mixing languages is disrespectfull to both. I enjoy disrespecting the French. [}:D] No intended disrespect to anyone else. The use of the term "addiction" is irresposible and incorrect in this matter. I only use that word as a better word would only serve to piss some people off. The correct word would be "sin." However, if you include Babe of the Day in the category of pornography based on it's intent to arouse an emotional response, you must also add Rush Limbaugh's show to that category. I didn't say "emotion response" - I said "sexual response." Perhaps beekeepers affliction afffects you as well. [:D] Anyone who is versed in the intricacies of psycological disfunctions will tell you that any extreme is potentially harmfull to your mental health. This is my point. As I said in a private conversation related to this thread, the classic defintion of a Leftist is someone incapable of controlling themselves (porn would be ONE instance) being convinced that the rest of us are incapable of controlling ourselves, and therefore our guns should be taken away. If I obsess over "pornography" to the point that the removal of said porn causes a change (most likely painfull in some way) to my mental health, I would be addicted. However, a person who has such an addiction would most likely not be able to abstain from such deplorable activities as porn surfing long enough to counter your claim the it is a bad thing. Much more, that person would probably not recognize their particular circumstance as an addiction and would only travel in circles of people who were also addicted at the same level, if not a higher level as himself. The vast majority of the participants and I would propose the vast majority of the viewers of Babe of the Day carry on a normal daily life without surfing AR15.com for the latest erotic fix. There are other places for that where someone can find much more graphic examples of pornography. I agree with the majority of this statement, and appreciate your willingness to consider my comments rationally, with a little self-examination. The Protestant ideology of self denial shows through almost all of your posts regarding pleasures. . while it has nothing to do with "protestant ideology" I suppose this is the highest compliment one could pay me - consistency in my views. And in reality, it ONLY relates to pleasures which God, the Creator of mankind, has already defined as harmful to mankind. He made us - He should know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 12:21:56 PM EDT
[#35]
first off i'd like to say i don't believe psychological addictions exist. Just weak people. Lord knows in my younger and dumber days i did my share of drugs alcohol and porn. I have since walked away from it and never missed it a bit. Sure i still enjoy a nudie pic and a beer.
I feel the term Addiction is used to describe an excuse for not wanting to quit a behavior. Physical addiction is a different thing. Having said this I have yet to see any porn in the babe of the day thread. Girls in bikini's and skimpy outfits are not porno!! mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 12:28:28 PM EDT
[#36]
This thread is a good example. I looked at the other one numerous times to see if another pic was posted. I have looked at this one to see what responses would come from the previous posts. I am far from addicted to this thread.
Btw, Where you been Gman? You been out of pocket? Scott Edited so as not to compare Gman to someone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 12:44:13 PM EDT
[#37]
After careful thought I must agree on one point. If anyone is actually using Babe Of The Day as a source for "pornography", given what is available on the internet, they really might actually have a problem. But that problem is stupidity and not addiction.
Also, to me, and I think most others, Babe Of The Day is diversion. I veiw pictures like these the same way others must view the works of classical art(which usually bores the crap out of me.) When I see "babe" pictures I get a sense of enjoyment and calm. The appreciation is very much stress relief, but of a non sexual nature. I really have a tough time believing ANYONE actually whips out their penis and sexually gratifys themselves to the images on Babe Of The Day. Do you really find the images in Babe of the Day so provacative, that you find yourself filled with "urges"? Do these pictures actually compete for your wifes attention? I would doubt it, but if they do, you may have a problem. Just an example, my wife renews my Playboy subscription every year. I enjoy the pictures and even occasionally read an article. But most of the time it makes me think of, and appreciate my wife. When I see the current issue on the counter, I remember how cool she is. The women inside are beautiful and often remind me of what I have at home. My wife mostly just looks at it and says "You need to buy me the lingerie "she" is wearing." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 12:52:27 PM EDT
[#38]
It's visual stimulation for spanking the monkey.
[img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/shocker.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 12:59:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: I only use that word as a better word would only serve to piss some people off. The correct word would be "sin." Only if you 1)believe in the concept of sin and 2)believe that looking at pictures of scantily clad beautiful women is sin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 1:08:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: I have only looked at the thread once when it was first posted. same here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2001 1:19:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: The use of the term "addiction" is irresponsible and incorrect in this matter. I only use that word as a better word would only serve to piss some people off. The correct word would be "sin." Please say what you mean. The incorrect use of language is confusing. The semantics of the issue must be universal. If you mean sin, write sin. If you write something else, the only choice we have is to read what you write. We cannot read between the lines without jumping to conclusions. Quoted:I didn't say "emotion response" - I said "sexual response." Perhaps beekeepers affliction afffects you as well. [:D] This again is directly related to your misuse of the English language. Quoted:I agree with the majority of this statement, and appreciate your willingness to consider my comments rationally, with a little self-examination. You're welcome. However, I think you should understand that self-examination independent of long held ideologies is the only way that we as the human race can progress. This holds in both a religious and non religious environment. Quoted:while it has nothing to do with "protestant ideology" I suppose this is the highest compliment one could pay me - consistency in my views. And in reality, it ONLY relates to pleasures which God, the Creator of mankind, has already defined as harmful to mankind. He made us - He should know. Well, I suppose I should have said Judeo-Christian ideology so as to throw a broader base around what I believe your religious views to be. However, it would appear that you have reversed your argument. If it has nothing to do with your religious ideologies, how can it relate to pleasure defined by god? Please, either directly define your religious orientation or desist your references as such. Just so that we are in full understanding of each other, please define how god defines pornography and how it is harmful to mankind. BTW I've decided not to capitalize the word god anymore. This is not a form of disrespect. In fact it is intended to be exactly the opposite. In my research I have come to find that the term god as used in the Judeo-Christian Biblical texts has been misinterpreted to be a proper noun or name. The word, for several hundred years in fact and until recently, was meant as a reference to god without having to write his name. It was believed that writing the name of god was an unclean act as the written word was considered sinful but necessary. If you would notice, the word god is usually written both capitalized and not in most dictionaries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2001 9:27:19 AM EDT
[#42]
Grandman:
So we are sinners and going to burn in he!! b/c we looked at some porn? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2001 9:59:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Grandman: So we are sinners and going to burn in he!! b/c we looked at some porn? I suppose this one does need answering. No. Sort of. A person only burns in hell because they choose to. God's free gift of salvation is available to all. Did I mention it is free??? If someone offers you a free gift, and you turn it down, and you later find out that gift was of immeasurable value, who's fault is it that???? Ultimately, we go to hell because we are sinners by nature, and when offered the free gift of God's salvation, we choose to reject His offer, usually because we put too much importance on approx. 70 years of living on this earth, as compared to spending eternity with God. Specific sins (like lust) are only symptoms of the problem - our sin nature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2001 10:39:01 AM EDT
[#44]
I believe I viewed the thread once.
Porn, sex, what ever can be addictive. Being and addict let me say the pics here only constitute eye candy. And more in line with the premise of exhibiting the beauty of the female gender. These pics wouldn't make a pimple on porns butt, and the internet has far and away a steamier selection sexual tidbits for those that are truly addicted. Take no offense but if you consider these pics porn you obviously suffer from premature ejaculation and can't handle the intensity of real sex. For my fellow addicts let me share what I have found to be the best therapy for this disorder. Regular and repeated treatment session, by a nurse who understands your affliction and truly believes you are one sick individual. A good nurse will aid her patient no matter how sick he is or how big his problem just may be. In fact the bigger the problem the more attentive she will be. Oh, and when a good nurse can't be found Candy-stripers do just fine. (If they are at least 18) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
