Did Jesus Suffer Enough?

[cluelusshusbund]

well i don't think my parents were lying to me; that seems pretty obvious. do you think i'm lying to you?

No im farely sure you'r bein sincere about you'r relatonship wit the holey-spirit... but i thank its about as likely to be true as a Easter-Bunny or Tooth-farey... but like you said:::

"there are many things you could remain ignorant of if you don't seek. and why would you seek if you already have your mind made up?"

But see.... because you have you'r mind made up about the Easter-Bunny you coud be remainin ignorant of its true esistence... i jus thank its funy that you refuse to reckinize you'r double standard... ie... you realize how silly it woud be to atempt to sincerly talk to a Easter-Bunny you dont beleive in... but you thank i shoud talk to a holey-spirit in which i dont have beleifs that it esists.!!!

 

[Gremmie]

To Lori

Re underwear.

I do not have a problem with the human body. If I see a photo of any part of any human body, it is not innately sinful, or unchristian or anything like that. Just natural. I do not care if it is male or female, or top or bottom, or even whether the body looks good or looks ugly. It is all just a part of being human.

However, I do have to question the good taste of your icon. What do you think of us, your debate partners, if you choose to communicate by pointing your arse at us?

Re sin.

You seem to have a hang up on this. This is common among Christians, but I consider it to be quite irrational. What does it matter that we have little quirks like feeling lust towards a good looking person of the opposite gender?

If someone takes that lust too far, and engages in rape, then that is very, very bad. However, the vast majority of us will never do anything like that. I am male, and normally sexed. I see some sexy woman, and inside I go "Whooooah!" So what? She does not know, and my actions and thoughts harm no-one. Nor does that harm me in any way.

If your god exists, and is that concerned about trivial sins, then I have no time for him/her/it. Lets get real, and worry about the things that really matter.

To John

You do not seem to appreciate the question. Why does God inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on innocents?

Now, I agree that if a branch falls on someone's head, that is just nature. But I am a religious non believer. In the same way, I agree that something like appendicitis pain performs a natural service. But that is a non religious view. What do the religious say? I am asking those who believe in a Christian god, why that omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god permits pain, suffering, and even torment to afflict those who have done nothing to deserve it?

Skeptical...

I hope you aren't expecting a "rational" answer to your question...

Because I'm sure you won't get one..

More than likely, you will get some Bible verses, and delusional responses..

But, good luck..

 

[John99]

To John
You do not seem to appreciate the question. Why does God inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on innocents?

First it is important to realize that i am an Agnostic and have been for as long as i was able to understand the concept. This is important because i am not gong to give you a Religious perspective. Agnostics go either way but as you may be aware it is not the same as Atheism. If you are asking me for absolutes in relation to "God" that is where is where some confusion may come in. I still dont understand the question you are asking either or why you would think an answer even exists that someone can rationally provide in the context you are asking it.

If a person is standing on a beach at the precise time a big wave comes and sucks them in killing them we have to understand that A: there are big waves and B: The person just happened to decide to walk down to the edge of the water at that same time.

I am asking those who believe in a Christian god, why that omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god permits pain, suffering, and even torment to afflict those who have done nothing to deserve it?

Well we agree that pain\suffering serves a medical purpose so we cannot just omit it. I put the slash between pain and suffering because arent they virtually the same thing? You have physical pain and emotional pain.

It is important to differentiate pain caused by nature and pain caused by another person too. A religious person accepts the notion of evil and an evil person, given your criteria of why would God allow this, would only infict pain and suffering on themselves...which is not particularly evil or evil at all and can be mental problems. So the answer is i really dont know. Not to mention that religious people do believe in an afterlife and this ties into it all because the "evil" person will suffer for eternity in the afterlife.

Unless he goes to prison and asks for forgiveness then MAYBE.

Edit: i understand what you are saying now.

 

[Lori_7]

To Lori

Re underwear.

I do not have a problem with the human body. If I see a photo of any part of any human body, it is not innately sinful, or unchristian or anything like that. Just natural. I do not care if it is male or female, or top or bottom, or even whether the body looks good or looks ugly. It is all just a part of being human.

THANK YOU.

However, I do have to question the good taste of your icon. What do you think of us, your debate partners, if you choose to communicate by pointing your arse at us?

don't be offended; it's not like that. i've been posting my face for years and not been received any better.

i'm just trying to make a point. it's a long story actually, but i thought it was one worth telling. i just wish some people would get the fuck over it, you know? like all of these pious religious people drowning in their sin. they're all so ashamed!

Re sin.

You seem to have a hang up on this. This is common among Christians, but I consider it to be quite irrational. What does it matter that we have little quirks like feeling lust towards a good looking person of the opposite gender?

If someone takes that lust too far, and engages in rape, then that is very, very bad. However, the vast majority of us will never do anything like that. I am male, and normally sexed. I see some sexy woman, and inside I go "Whooooah!" So what? She does not know, and my actions and thoughts harm no-one. Nor does that harm me in any way.

If your god exists, and is that concerned about trivial sins, then I have no time for him/her/it. Lets get real, and worry about the things that really matter.

i'm not talking about appreciating the beauty of the human body; i'm talking about appreciating the whole human. i'm talking about desiring sex with someone that you have (to your knowledge) no business having sex with.

i'm talking about thinking objectively, and not entertaining the desires of the flesh.

 

[Skeptical]

Lori said ;

"i'm talking about desiring sex with someone that you have (to your knowledge) no business having sex with."

I do not see the problem. I desire sex with lots of women. Even women I have never seen in the flesh. A film star in a movie I watch, maybe. So what? Desiring something is not the same as attacking or harming another human. I can desire a woman, and she will never, ever, find out that I lust after her. I will never even physically touch her. What is the harm?

If you believe in a god who created us with this lust in-built, and then condemns us for the fact that the lust is expressed, then I do not think much of your version of deity. He/she/it is not worth worrying about.

Sin is hurting other people(mostly). I am very sinful by your narrow definitions, but I never knowingly hurt other people. I regard myself as a good person. If you cannot see this, I mourn your narrowness of perception.

To John.

OK. I understand your agnosticism. Had I appreciated that earlier, I probably would have worded my replies differently. I am glad to see you now appreciate my point.

I also regard myself also as agnostic. I think of the Christian model of deity as highly unlikely, due to the innate contradictions. However, I am open to other models, if there is suitable evidence.

 

[Doreen]

oh, god forbid.

Which is precisely what most Christians thought and probably most today think. I really don't care what you have as an avatar. I just don't understand your epistemology or if you are a Christian.

i've been there. in a lawn chair in front of woman wearing a thong. they frame it pretty well in movies and in billboards, and magazine advertisements. how about the advertisement for those butt-shaper athletic shoes?

Which most Christians throughout history would have considered sinful. You are evading the issue.

people are stupid and evil. is this really news to you?

So most Christians are evil and here it can be seen because they would judge you as not being modest and proper in attire as they have been instructed to judge by the Bible. How do you know their interpretation of modest and proper attire is incorrect and shows that they are evil?

i think jesus would rather us all run around naked and unashamed

.
Something he did not do. How do you know this is the case? Wanna guess how adstar is going to weigh in on this issue?

but the bible deals with atonement for sin, in large part because we live in it. it also deals with the abolition of sin, which is what jesus is for.

This is not relevent. When you put things in that are not relevent to the issue - in the same sentence, no less, with something that is relevent, it makes me wonder if you really understand the issue and/or if you are trying to cloud over the issue by raising irrelevent points. Sure, the NT deals with abolishing sin, especially as interpreted later. But this is not the issue. If you thought it was sinful to show your pantied ass in this way, you would not defend it, I assume. So you don't, as you've said, so raising the issue of the abolition of sin has nothing to do with the issue.

 

[Doreen]

To Lori

Re underwear.

I do not have a problem with the human body. If I see a photo of any part of any human body, it is not innately sinful, or unchristian or anything like that. Just natural.

Just to be clear. I am not trying to convince lori or anyone else that her avatar is immoral. I am trying to get at how she knows this. She even goes so far as to respond that people are evil and stupid, when I raise the issue that most Christians in history would say she was being sinful - immodest and improper in attire. IOW the fact that they are evil and stupid - most Christians through history - and this can be seen, amongst other places, in their judging her behavior.

She also says that Jesus really wanted us to run around naked.

For me Lori's position raises epistemological issues. How the hell does she know all this? How can she blithely use the term 'sin' as a Christian, when her sense of what this word means has little to do with what Christians mean by the term?

And so on.

 

[Yosef]

There was the question about salvation in Islam. No one is going to enter paradise only by the good things that they do. It is all dependent on God's mercy. However, in order to win God's favor and blessings we need to believe in:

a. Him as the creator and sustainer
b. His prophets
c. His revelations
d. Angels
e. Day of judgment
f. Do the things we are asked to do: not tell lies, be moral, be humble, make good things, guide people to the straight path, like whatever good to our brothers / sisters as we like it happen to ourselves etc..
g. Do the prayers, fast the Ramadan, give money to the poor, pilgrimage to Mekka (for healthy people who can afford that).
h. reverence for the Lord is central

The path to God is pretty direct. But maybe Christianity is different..

As to Crucifixion God says in the Holy Quran:

"(156) (the Jews) and for their misbelief, and for their saying about Mary a mighty calumny, (157) and for their saying, 'Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God'.... but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure! (158) nay, God raised him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise! (159) And there shall not be one of the people of the Book but shall believe in him before his death; and on the day of judgment he shall be a witness against them." Holy Quran - The Women 4:156-159

As to use of Avatars. I have already expressed my opinion. I have nothing against anyone's body. People choose the Avatar they want on the forum. As for me, I am viewing the site without images. To do that you need Opera web browser > right-click the tool bar > click customize > buttons > browser view > drag the "show images" button to a preferred place on the tool bar > press OK > use the button when you need to browse without viewing images.

Particular images can be viewed individually by clicking on them by the right mouse button.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I will speek for Lori until she gets bak wit you.!!!

I just don't understand your epistemology or if you are a Christian.

I thank Lori consideres herself in the Christan catigory in that som of the Holey Bible is corect an Jesus plays a very importent roll in Gods plan of reincarnation to the end gole of communion.!!!

How do you know their interpretation of modest and proper attire is incorrect and shows that they are evil?

Those who have a personal relatonship wit the Holey Spirit have knowledge about such thangs that others dont.!!!

When you put things in that are not relevent to the issue - in the same sentence, no less, with something that is relevent, it makes me wonder if you really understand the issue and/or if you are trying to cloud over the issue by raising irrelevent points.

Makes discussion a chalenge... dont it

Just to be clear. I am not trying to convince lori or anyone else that her avatar is immoral. I am trying to get at how she knows this.

IOW the fact that they are evil and stupid - most Christians through history - and this can be seen, amongst other places, in their judging her behavior.

She also says that Jesus really wanted us to run around naked.

For me Lori's position raises epistemological issues. How the hell does she know all this? How can she blithely use the term 'sin' as a Christian, when her sense of what this word means has little to do with what Christians mean by the term?

The Holey Spirit talks directly to Lori an knowledge is imparted to her... an besides... lots of people call themselfs "Christans" but they inturpet the Holey Bible diferently an have beleifs which ant in the Holey Bible... i dont see why Lori doin the sam thang is a prollem :scratchin:

 

[Lori_7]

Lori said ;

"i'm talking about desiring sex with someone that you have (to your knowledge) no business having sex with."

I do not see the problem. I desire sex with lots of women. Even women I have never seen in the flesh. A film star in a movie I watch, maybe. So what? Desiring something is not the same as attacking or harming another human. I can desire a woman, and she will never, ever, find out that I lust after her. I will never even physically touch her. What is the harm?

If you believe in a god who created us with this lust in-built, and then condemns us for the fact that the lust is expressed, then I do not think much of your version of deity. He/she/it is not worth worrying about.

Sin is hurting other people(mostly). I am very sinful by your narrow definitions, but I never knowingly hurt other people. I regard myself as a good person. If you cannot see this, I mourn your narrowness of perception.

you're not very sinful. you're not a little sinful. you're as sinful as i, and everyone else is. i also don't think you're any more of a good person than anyone else. we all have our justifications and rationalizations for the things we do. and i think all of us turn a blind eye to the consequences of our actions too. that way you make sure you're not knowingly hurting other people. seriously, if only 10% of mankind is hurting each other, then why is 100% of mankind hurting? they're hurting a lot.

i also don't think that "a genetic condition" is a very narrow definition of sin when the implications of that are all-encompassing and pandemic. it's a lot less narrow than designating some particular acts or thoughts as sinful, and the rest as good.

in regards to lust, it's this simple...what is the point of entertaining thoughts of something that is not correct, or practical, or good? it's entertaining a lie in your mind. a bad imagination. and i absolutely believe that what we think about manifests, whether intentionally or not. i believe our thoughts and desires are very powerful. i actually think they're prayers. but i don't think you have to be a christian to understand or realize that.

 

[Lori_7]

Which is precisely what most Christians thought and probably most today think. I really don't care what you have as an avatar. I just don't understand your epistemology or if you are a Christian.

well, if i was to reference some scripture, i would go back to genesis, where a big point is made by describing adam and eve as naked and unashamed before they fell, and ashamed and covering themselves, and hiding from god, after their fall.

and then i would refer to the biblical ideology that christ was sinless, and because of that, it's through him that we are redeemed, healed, and restored. the sin will be removed from our bodies once again one day, and that day may be tomorrow.

Which most Christians throughout history would have considered sinful. You are evading the issue.

i'm not evading the issue. it's pretty clear that i think they're projecting.

there's a difference between a woman taking off her clothes to appeal to the lusts of men, and a pediphile, or a rapist, enjoying the view at a public swimming pool.

So most Christians are evil and here it can be seen because they would judge you as not being modest and proper in attire as they have been instructed to judge by the Bible. How do you know their interpretation of modest and proper attire is incorrect and shows that they are evil?

the bible actually instructs us not to judge each other because we're all evil. none of us are good. perhaps that's why modest and proper attire is recommended. to try to compensate for that. i just feel like it's time to move on. so i'm protesting.

Something he did not do. How do you know this is the case? Wanna guess how adstar is going to weigh in on this issue?

because his whole purpose is to restore us to a state of sinlessness. jesus could look at my naked butt all day long and not be lustful.

i wouldn't feel comfortable guessing about adstar's opinion but we could ask him.

This is not relevent. When you put things in that are not relevent to the issue - in the same sentence, no less, with something that is relevent, it makes me wonder if you really understand the issue and/or if you are trying to cloud over the issue by raising irrelevent points. Sure, the NT deals with abolishing sin, especially as interpreted later. But this is not the issue. If you thought it was sinful to show your pantied ass in this way, you would not defend it, I assume. So you don't, as you've said, so raising the issue of the abolition of sin has nothing to do with the issue.

it is relevant because of some personal things that have happened to me, via the spirit. i happen to believe that the kingdom of christ is at hand, and so i haven't been able to keep from moving on mentally. i think there's a good reason for it, and i think there's a good reason for a lot of people to change their perspectives.

 

[Skeptical]

To Lori

About sin

You and I do not share the same concept here. I see things as right and wrong, rather than sinful or not sinful. Since I am not a religico, I do not see wrong as being wrong against some deity.

Wrong is doing something that harms another human. Simple.

In this sense, if I look at a woman with feelings of lust, that is simply a natural feeling expressing itself. As a normal, red blooded heterosexual guy, lust is the 'proper' response to the sight of a sexy woman. It does no harm, so is not wrong.

However, if that lust drives me to action that causes harm to someone, then that is wrong. I do not expect you to agree, since your views are so strongly influenced by religious superstition, and weird ideas of things being sinful even if they exist only within a person's mind.

You asked, what is the good of entertaining lustful thoughts? I amswer it in two ways.
1. It is not really a choice. It is a natural response.
2. It actually does do good. I read an article describing an experiment in which endorphin levels were measured in guys before and after seeing a beautiful woman. Endorphin levels rose, showing that the sight of a beautiful woman brings genuine pleasure.

Re my own 'goodness'.

I am not trying to make myself into anything special. I believe that 90% of the human species is essentially decent. This 90% is made up of good people who will not knowingly cause harm to others. They may commit minor wrongs - such as not telling a supermarket checkout operator that he/she has given too much change. However, nothing that can be called serious harm.

I am just one of that mob. Not especially good, but definitely not evil. I regard myself as an essential decent human, in the same class as 90% of humanity. Do you see this as an arrogant view?

 

[Doreen]

well, if i was to reference some scripture, i would go back to genesis, where a big point is made by describing adam and eve as naked and unashamed before they fell, and ashamed and covering themselves, and hiding from god, after their fall.

and we are still after the Fall. Or are you, Lori, not affected by the eating of the fruit? Further, the NT includes the statement that women should dress modestly and properly.

and then i would refer to the biblical ideology that christ was sinless, and because of that, it's through him that we are redeemed, healed, and restored. the sin will be removed from our bodies once again one day, and that day may be tomorrow.

Again, this is irrevelent. This would be true of murder, etc. also.

i'm not evading the issue. it's pretty clear that i think they're projecting.

What portion of their own psyche are they projecting?

there's a difference between a woman taking off her clothes to appeal to the lusts of men, and a pediphile, or a rapist, enjoying the view at a public swimming pool.

What does this have to do with the Biblical injunction for women to dress modestly and properly?

the bible actually instructs us not to judge each other because we're all evil.

That is not what Christ said. And are you not judging those other Christians, who you have referred to as stupid and evil and now projecting? ARe you not judging them?

none of us are good. perhaps that's why modest and proper attire is recommended. to try to compensate for that. i just feel like it's time to move on. so i'm protesting.

Actually I believe it was women who should dress like that. I believe men are instructed not to cross dress.

because his whole purpose is to restore us to a state of sinlessness. jesus could look at my naked butt all day long and not be lustful.

That's the BS they tell us about the guy.

 

[Doreen]

I will speek for Lori until she gets bak wit you.!!!

Ok, I'll play.

I thank Lori consideres herself in the Christan catigory in that som of the Holey Bible is corect an Jesus plays a very importent roll in Gods plan of reincarnation to the end gole of communion.!!!

This would mean that the Spirit, which she claimed wrote the Bible - in another post to me - was only partially correct.

Those who have a personal relatonship wit the Holey Spirit have knowledge about such thangs that others dont.!!!

Sure, but once you open that door 'Lori' it means that the Bible is simply another book and the key thing is to have this connection and surely there are other texts and sources of inspiration.

Makes discussion a chalenge... dont it

Yes, not that I think she is conscious of what she is doing.

The Holey Spirit talks directly to Lori an knowledge is imparted to her... an besides... lots of people call themselfs "Christans" but they inturpet the Holey Bible diferently an have beleifs which ant in the Holey Bible... i dont see why Lori doin the sam thang is a prollem :scratchin:

The problem I see with Lori's position is that the Bible is written by Spirit and is fallible. I don't think that is tenable. I also noted that Adstar and Lori bonded briefly around the coming rapture and the 144,000 good people who will be saved, each thinking they are one of these. However I will bet good money that very few people who think they are part of that 144,000 - who would tend to be fundamentalists - will appreciate Lori's butt shot and I doubt Adstar would. So something confusing is going on that I am trying repeatedly to move into her field of vision.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Sure, but once you open that door 'Lori' it means that the Bible is simply another book and the key thing is to have this connection and surely there are other texts and sources of inspiration.

don't fall into the trap of rating the bible either valid or invalid..there are valid things in there,even if there are invalid things in it..(i think its more of a 'things we don't understand' thing)..
ppl tend to see the bad and forget about the good..

The problem I see with Lori's position is that the Bible is written by Spirit and is fallible. I don't think that is tenable.

how so?..
the spirit talks to man..man translates it into something he can understand..man then communicates such thing to another. that person translates it into something they can understand..there are MANY oppertunities for it to get misstranslated, and that is how it can be fallible..IOW the spirit is not mistaken..its in the translation process that it gets screwed up..

I also noted that Adstar and Lori bonded briefly around the coming rapture and the 144,000 good people who will be saved, each thinking they are one of these.

current world population..6,865,726,953
144000..thats 2.10 % of current world pop..
something aint right about it..yes i have read it in the bible..but the bible also says 'test ALL things'..and i bet 90% of the world pop say they are the 2%...

However I will bet good money that very few people who think they are part of that 144,000

90%

- who would tend to be fundamentalists -

maybe the 2%..

will appreciate Lori's butt shot

lori..your causing ppl to think about your butt..if that makes them an adulterer..what does that make you?

So something confusing is going on that I am trying repeatedly to move into her field of vision.

try flashing her...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Ok, I'll play.

This would mean that the Spirit, which she claimed wrote the Bible - in another post to me - was only partially correct.

The the corect parts of the Holey Bible was inspired by the Holey-Spirit... the rong paarts was not inspired by the Holey Spirit.!!!
---------------------

Yes, not that I think she is conscious of what she is doing.

I disagree... i thank shes crazy like a crazy fox.!!!

I also noted that Adstar and Lori bonded briefly around the coming rapture and the 144,000 good people who will be saved, each thinking they are one of these.

Im 1 of 'em also :shrug:

However I will bet good money that very few people who think they are part of that 144,000 - who would tend to be fundamentalists - will appreciate Lori's butt shot and I doubt Adstar would. So something confusing is going on that I am trying repeatedly to move into her field of vision.

Well... the people who disagree wit Loris beleifs are rong... but they will have mor chanses to get it rite durin ther future reincarnations.!!!

 

[Doreen]

The the corect parts of the Holey Bible was inspired by the Holey-Spirit... the rong paarts was not inspired by the Holey Spirit.!!!

Well, 'Lori', then saying Spirit wrote the Bible would be at best misleading.

I disagree... i thank shes crazy like a crazy fox.!!!

Are you attracted to her or do you mean the canid?

Im 1 of 'em also :shrug:

Well, when are we gonna see your ass?

Well... the people who disagree wit Loris beleifs are rong... but they will have mor chanses to get it rite durin ther future reincarnations.!!!

Now you are just fibbing about her beliefs.

 

[Doreen]

don't fall into the trap of rating the bible either valid or invalid..there are valid things in there,even if there are invalid things in it..(i think its more of a 'things we don't understand' thing)..
ppl tend to see the bad and forget about the good..

I'm not falling into a trap, I am just trying to get a handle on Lori's beliefs.

how so?..
the spirit talks to man..man translates it into something he can understand..man then communicates such thing to another. that person translates it into something they can understand..there are MANY oppertunities for it to get misstranslated, and that is how it can be fallible..IOW the spirit is not mistaken..its in the translation process that it gets screwed up..

But she said, in a post elsewhere, that Spirit wrote the Bible. IOW made it through all these fallible humans.

current world population..6,865,726,953
144000..thats 2.10 % of current world pop..
something aint right about it..yes i have read it in the bible..but the bible also says 'test ALL things'..and i bet 90% of the world pop say they are the 2%...

I think you need to check your math. It's less than that.

try flashing her...

hey, if Jesus wants us all to run around naked as she says, flashers are holy men. Except they tend to become rapists and sexual assaulters

but other than that.

 

[Lori_7]

To Lori

About sin

You and I do not share the same concept here. I see things as right and wrong, rather than sinful or not sinful. Since I am not a religico, I do not see wrong as being wrong against some deity.

Wrong is doing something that harms another human. Simple.

In this sense, if I look at a woman with feelings of lust, that is simply a natural feeling expressing itself. As a normal, red blooded heterosexual guy, lust is the 'proper' response to the sight of a sexy woman. It does no harm, so is not wrong.

However, if that lust drives me to action that causes harm to someone, then that is wrong. I do not expect you to agree, since your views are so strongly influenced by religious superstition, and weird ideas of things being sinful even if they exist only within a person's mind.

You asked, what is the good of entertaining lustful thoughts? I amswer it in two ways.
1. It is not really a choice. It is a natural response.
2. It actually does do good. I read an article describing an experiment in which endorphin levels were measured in guys before and after seeing a beautiful woman. Endorphin levels rose, showing that the sight of a beautiful woman brings genuine pleasure.

Re my own 'goodness'.

I am not trying to make myself into anything special. I believe that 90% of the human species is essentially decent. This 90% is made up of good people who will not knowingly cause harm to others. They may commit minor wrongs - such as not telling a supermarket checkout operator that he/she has given too much change. However, nothing that can be called serious harm.

I am just one of that mob. Not especially good, but definitely not evil. I regard myself as an essential decent human, in the same class as 90% of humanity. Do you see this as an arrogant view?

imo, there is a difference between appreciating beauty and lust. do you think so?

i wouldn't call your view arrogant. i would call it normal...mainstream.

 

[Doreen]

imo, there is a difference between appreciating beauty and lust. do you think so?

i wouldn't call your view arrogant. i would call it normal...mainstream.

What the heck is wrong with lust?
A definition of lust might keep us from going to far astray.