Anyone one seen The Christ,
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
kellycummings
You suck
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Posts
- 2,000
Pure said:
I haven't seen the movie yet but I do know that Mel has said that he took artistic license with a few minor things. If those scenes really are in the movie then I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not they are minor.
On a personal note, I have noticed that since this movie has come out there has been an incredible amount of talk on tv and radio about religon. I look at that as a good thing and think that if the movie does nothing else it has at least gotten people to start talking and thinking openly about God.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
kellycummings said:
Yes, for one thing he has Jesus wearing Tevas sandals. Product placement is so lucrative for filmmakers, it's hard to believe that was entirely an artistic decision.
I saw a clip of the scene from the Garden of Gethsemene, where the devil is tempting Jesus to refuse death. To be honest, I thought the scene was over-acted to an embarrassing extent. The actor who plays Jesus was emoting all over the place; what a friend of mine calls "scenery chewing."
kellycummings
You suck
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Posts
- 2,000
Pure said:
There used to be this tshirt that had religions of the world on it and they all said "shit happens" like Hindus were "this shit has happened before"; Jews were "why does shit always happen to me" etc, etc.
Anyway, under Jehovah's Witnesses it said "Knock, knock...shit happens"
That one always killed me.
champagne1982
Dangerous Liaison
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Posts
- 7,672
In answer to some of the comments about why Jesus had to be perfect and why did he have to be a sacrifice at all, I offer:
On the feast of the Passover (Nissan 14 from sundown to sundown the way the Jewish calendar measures it) which is the first full moon after the spring equinox, it was Roman custom to grant the Jews their festival. The govenor, Pontius Pilate, also held to the custom that Rome would pardon any criminal of popular choice on that day.
The symbolic washing of his hands after answering the crowd's demands, was to A) illustrate his disgust that the populace had chosen Barrabus, a vile, murdering criminal, for release, over Christ, who was brought to Roman justice by the servants of King Herod and the Pharisees of the Temple and to B) deny culpability in the murder of Christ, Jesus had broken no Roman law.
During Passover, only the most perfect example of a lamb should be sacrificed and consumed. The Hebrews do this in rememberance of their deliverance out of the land of Eygpt and the privilege God granted them when the Angel of Death passed over the correctly marked houses of faithful Jews. The mark was the blood of the perfect lamb, the family had sacrificed that day, brushed on their door lintels.
The death of Christ, as the perfect lamb sacrifice on the day of the pass over, releases those who believe in Him from death and gives each one of the faithful a hope of a ressurection to paradise. In the sacrifice of Christ, those who believe that He is the Messiah are released from the Mosaic Laws, therefore, we need not make a blood sacrifice and burn our offerings to God, Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice.
edited to add
Faith is personal and so is this posting. As far as the movie goes? Who needs to see it, when, if you believe, you carry a knowledge of His sacrifice that will touch you deeper than any image on a screen ever could?
On the feast of the Passover (Nissan 14 from sundown to sundown the way the Jewish calendar measures it) which is the first full moon after the spring equinox, it was Roman custom to grant the Jews their festival. The govenor, Pontius Pilate, also held to the custom that Rome would pardon any criminal of popular choice on that day.
The symbolic washing of his hands after answering the crowd's demands, was to A) illustrate his disgust that the populace had chosen Barrabus, a vile, murdering criminal, for release, over Christ, who was brought to Roman justice by the servants of King Herod and the Pharisees of the Temple and to B) deny culpability in the murder of Christ, Jesus had broken no Roman law.
During Passover, only the most perfect example of a lamb should be sacrificed and consumed. The Hebrews do this in rememberance of their deliverance out of the land of Eygpt and the privilege God granted them when the Angel of Death passed over the correctly marked houses of faithful Jews. The mark was the blood of the perfect lamb, the family had sacrificed that day, brushed on their door lintels.
The death of Christ, as the perfect lamb sacrifice on the day of the pass over, releases those who believe in Him from death and gives each one of the faithful a hope of a ressurection to paradise. In the sacrifice of Christ, those who believe that He is the Messiah are released from the Mosaic Laws, therefore, we need not make a blood sacrifice and burn our offerings to God, Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice.
edited to add
Faith is personal and so is this posting. As far as the movie goes? Who needs to see it, when, if you believe, you carry a knowledge of His sacrifice that will touch you deeper than any image on a screen ever could?
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Champagne,
---
C: On the feast of the Passover (Nissan 14 from sundown to sundown the way the Jewish calendar measures it) which is the first full moon after the spring equinox, it was Roman custom to grant the Jews their festival. The govenor, Pontius Pilate, also held to the custom that Rome would pardon any criminal of popular choice on that day.
The symbolic washing of his hands after answering the crowd's demands, was to A) illustrate his disgust that the populace had chosen Barrabus, a vile, murdering criminal, for release, over Christ, who was brought to Roman justice by the servants of King Herod and the Pharisees of the Temple and to B) deny culpability in the murder of Christ, Jesus had broken no Roman law.
-----
The story if true, might mean something, but iirc, there is no evidence that that Pilate or any Roman Governor was periodically being 'nice' (pardoning) to the Jews or any other occupied people.
From the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (1996) a fairly mainstream source:
Lack of any evidence for the custom from other sources makes it impossible to evaluate the Godpel** tradition. (ed Achtemeier, 1996, p 103)
The crowd's choice of Bar Abbas Jesus, is highly confused. My theory is that it's to underscore the depravity and evil of the Jews, who prefer, as you said, 'a vile murdering criminal'. *And want to kill God's innocent sweet loving son instead.* In short it's bogus, likely an antisemitic canard. Launched again, by His Melness.
J.
**Correction 2-28 : should read, "Gospel"
---
C: On the feast of the Passover (Nissan 14 from sundown to sundown the way the Jewish calendar measures it) which is the first full moon after the spring equinox, it was Roman custom to grant the Jews their festival. The govenor, Pontius Pilate, also held to the custom that Rome would pardon any criminal of popular choice on that day.
The symbolic washing of his hands after answering the crowd's demands, was to A) illustrate his disgust that the populace had chosen Barrabus, a vile, murdering criminal, for release, over Christ, who was brought to Roman justice by the servants of King Herod and the Pharisees of the Temple and to B) deny culpability in the murder of Christ, Jesus had broken no Roman law.
-----
The story if true, might mean something, but iirc, there is no evidence that that Pilate or any Roman Governor was periodically being 'nice' (pardoning) to the Jews or any other occupied people.
From the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (1996) a fairly mainstream source:
Lack of any evidence for the custom from other sources makes it impossible to evaluate the Godpel** tradition. (ed Achtemeier, 1996, p 103)
The crowd's choice of Bar Abbas Jesus, is highly confused. My theory is that it's to underscore the depravity and evil of the Jews, who prefer, as you said, 'a vile murdering criminal'. *And want to kill God's innocent sweet loving son instead.* In short it's bogus, likely an antisemitic canard. Launched again, by His Melness.
J.
**Correction 2-28 : should read, "Gospel"
Last edited:
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Boota
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Posts
- 1,926
There is a theory that Jesus may have been married and had children. Not a bad theory, considering his teachings were not original. They were standard rabbinical teachings, which would lead one to the possibility that Jesus was actually a rabbi. As a rabbi, Jesus would have been encouraged to get married and have children.
Jesus was also supposedly descended from two kings of Israel, which could have made him the rightful king and led to a violent uprising should the Jews unite behind him.
The name Barabbas means 'son of the rabbi'. The theory states that Barabbas may have been the son of Jesus. That would explain why the crowd chose to crucify Jesus instead of Barabbas. It's the old expression, "The king is dead, long live the king." The duty is to protect the heir to the throne.
I first read this theory in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. A very interesting book written by three agnostics with nothing to prove either way. It's not my theory, but I think it is as good as any with this absence of all proof. They admit that it is just a theory and they were operating on the assumption that Jesus was a real person. They could find no actual proof that he ever existed, though.
Jesus was also supposedly descended from two kings of Israel, which could have made him the rightful king and led to a violent uprising should the Jews unite behind him.
The name Barabbas means 'son of the rabbi'. The theory states that Barabbas may have been the son of Jesus. That would explain why the crowd chose to crucify Jesus instead of Barabbas. It's the old expression, "The king is dead, long live the king." The duty is to protect the heir to the throne.
I first read this theory in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. A very interesting book written by three agnostics with nothing to prove either way. It's not my theory, but I think it is as good as any with this absence of all proof. They admit that it is just a theory and they were operating on the assumption that Jesus was a real person. They could find no actual proof that he ever existed, though.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
The idea that the creator of all things would demand blood sacrifices to appease him was probably my first inkling as a young Baptist that I wasn't going to make a good Christian. I just didn't buy the contradiction: a loving and understanding God who has "his eye on the sparrow" wanting us to kill one and burn it just for the symbolism. I do think there is a god, but he's above that sort of thing.
G
Guest
Guest
Celluloid Brutality
This essay is by Geza Vermes, emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford, author of several books on Jesus, and a translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I've read The Changing Faces of Jesus and recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in the historical Jesus.
Perdita
This essay is by Geza Vermes, emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford, author of several books on Jesus, and a translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I've read The Changing Faces of Jesus and recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in the historical Jesus.
Perdita
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Boota,
you said, _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ is by
//"three agnostics with nothing to prove either way." //
They did prove that books of wild and pretty bizarre conspiracy theories, linking Jesus, the Masons, Elvis, the Pope, the Trilateral Commision, and Knights of Malta sell like hotcakes.**
But the 'bar abbas' name is significant, as you say. Much discussed.
**Perhaps the next installment will feature Osama!
you said, _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ is by
//"three agnostics with nothing to prove either way." //
They did prove that books of wild and pretty bizarre conspiracy theories, linking Jesus, the Masons, Elvis, the Pope, the Trilateral Commision, and Knights of Malta sell like hotcakes.**
But the 'bar abbas' name is significant, as you say. Much discussed.
**Perhaps the next installment will feature Osama!
champagne1982
Dangerous Liaison
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Posts
- 7,672
Good morning,Pure said:
I reread the gospel of Luke, chapters 22 and 23. The crowd that called for the release of Bar.abbas were from Herod's palace and were prejudiced against the release of Christ, which Pilate was going to do. Their job was to please Herod through having the man killed by the Romans, under the guise of a legal execution.
I think the cry for the release of the other criminal was to test the govenor. If they could get him to break Roman law and release Bar.abbas, who was convicted of murder and sedition, then they (and Herod) could be sure the Roman govenor was going to be maleable and sympathetic to the ruler.
My comments about the festival had come from my own (apparently flawed) recall. I recant the statement in italics above. As far as "a vile, murdering criminal" goes, sheesh! I get a little dramatic. You, however, added the portion between asterisks. I emphasize again, Jesus had broken no Roman law that would warrant the punishment the crowd called for.
Christian faith includes accepting the Bible, both old and new testaments, as the Word of God. The artistic embellishments in my post are the word of Carrie. By no means am I asking for your faith.
P.S. I haven't seen the movie so why did you insinuate I'd been influenced by Mr. Gibson and his (if any) anti-Semitism? The statements I made were influenced by my personal interpretation of the gospel.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
champagne1982 said:
The Romans were an occupying force, and if someone was the center of a public uproar, whether by his own doing or not, there's no reason to assume they would have waited for him to break a law.
I think Pure's point is that the Gibson film is thought by some to be emphasizing the role of "the Jews" in Christ's death. To an extent, the scriptures themselves do this, but Gibson's "artistic license" extends to elaborating on scripture and making Pilate appear as if he were intimidated by the Jews, when there is no historical reason to believe that he would have been. He had absolute power over their lives, and didn't need to placate their leaders to keep peace. As illustrated by the fact that the Romans once crucified 6,000 slaves to put down a rebellion.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
I apologize. I don't mean to stir up trouble or insult any Christians. As a graduate of The Argument Clinic, it's hard to stop.
My brotehr-in-law says I'm a godless communist. No, I tell him, I'm a religionless socialist. Godless and religionless are different.
My brotehr-in-law says I'm a godless communist. No, I tell him, I'm a religionless socialist. Godless and religionless are different.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Champagne said,
C: P.S. I haven't seen the movie so why did you insinuate I'd been influenced by Mr. Gibson and his (if any) anti-Semitism? The statements I made were influenced by my personal interpretation of the gospel.
No such insinuation was meant: If you haven't seen the movie, youre only influenced by the gospels and various Christian teachers, I assume.
I said,
P: My theory [of the Bar Abbas story] is that it's to underscore the depravity and evil of the Jews, who prefer, it's said, 'a vile murdering criminal'. *And want to kills God's innocent sweet loving son instead.* In short it's likely an antisemitic canard. Launched again, by His Melness.
I said the allegation of the crowds "choice" *against* God's son and of an innocent, is a canard; a tall tale; not a harmless one since it shows the crowd are of not merely bloodthirsty, but evil Jews (as, I gather in Mel's film).
Presumably you repeat it out of 'faith' or believing what you're told, or whatever; I have no evidence about antisemitism in you.
I assume you're a fine person, unless some skeletons from your closet are revealed
.
There is a suggestion about anti-sem't'm regarding Mel, of course, in view of his father. Further Mel is promoting this probable 'tall tale' --and a vicious one--against the Jews. Though he did not influence you.
The only 'plus' to the release of the movie, that I see so far, is that the common Christian obsession with blood, redemption by lots of physical blood, fascination with torture and death is certainly highlighted.
The weird theory that torture of God's Son-in-Human-Form, till his human death (losing buckets of blood, shows Mel) is going to 'redeem sinners' (atone), somehow, is brought out front and center.
Clearly if God wanted a 'general amnesty' for sinners, or at least those who throw themselves at his feet, He, in His Omnipotence could simply say. "Let it be so. Man is freed of the wages of sin." After all, he is the one judging! (This could appear in miraculously printed, glowing documents [holy texts] on golden stands, held by angels, carrying the 'news' around the world. Without a drop of blood being shed.)
AND, here's one true thing his Melness said: They are blaming me [regarding Jews, crucifixion, etc.] when they should be 'blaming' the Gospels. (quote from memory).
J.
C: P.S. I haven't seen the movie so why did you insinuate I'd been influenced by Mr. Gibson and his (if any) anti-Semitism? The statements I made were influenced by my personal interpretation of the gospel.
No such insinuation was meant: If you haven't seen the movie, youre only influenced by the gospels and various Christian teachers, I assume.
I said,
P: My theory [of the Bar Abbas story] is that it's to underscore the depravity and evil of the Jews, who prefer, it's said, 'a vile murdering criminal'. *And want to kills God's innocent sweet loving son instead.* In short it's likely an antisemitic canard. Launched again, by His Melness.
I said the allegation of the crowds "choice" *against* God's son and of an innocent, is a canard; a tall tale; not a harmless one since it shows the crowd are of not merely bloodthirsty, but evil Jews (as, I gather in Mel's film).
Presumably you repeat it out of 'faith' or believing what you're told, or whatever; I have no evidence about antisemitism in you.
I assume you're a fine person, unless some skeletons from your closet are revealed
.There is a suggestion about anti-sem't'm regarding Mel, of course, in view of his father. Further Mel is promoting this probable 'tall tale' --and a vicious one--against the Jews. Though he did not influence you.
The only 'plus' to the release of the movie, that I see so far, is that the common Christian obsession with blood, redemption by lots of physical blood, fascination with torture and death is certainly highlighted.
The weird theory that torture of God's Son-in-Human-Form, till his human death (losing buckets of blood, shows Mel) is going to 'redeem sinners' (atone), somehow, is brought out front and center.
Clearly if God wanted a 'general amnesty' for sinners, or at least those who throw themselves at his feet, He, in His Omnipotence could simply say. "Let it be so. Man is freed of the wages of sin." After all, he is the one judging! (This could appear in miraculously printed, glowing documents [holy texts] on golden stands, held by angels, carrying the 'news' around the world. Without a drop of blood being shed.)
AND, here's one true thing his Melness said: They are blaming me [regarding Jews, crucifixion, etc.] when they should be 'blaming' the Gospels. (quote from memory).
J.
G
Guest
Guest
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Thank rhino,
your balanced contributions have been great, and it's wonderful that one person of this thread has seen the movie the rest of us praise or damn without first hand info.
thanks for supplying it.
also, I do hope the thread lives as more people see the movie.
your balanced contributions have been great, and it's wonderful that one person of this thread has seen the movie the rest of us praise or damn without first hand info.
thanks for supplying it.
also, I do hope the thread lives as more people see the movie.
English Lady
Erotic English Rose
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Posts
- 48,011
You know something means alot to you when you get really angry and frustrated reading a thread where lots of people are coming up with arguments against it!
I am just not sure why the blood is such a barrier to folks,maybe I am just far more accepting of it(I've been a christian since well nigh on birth) It maes total sense to me. God is perfect...man buggers up and is no longer perfect....God needs some way to connect with those he made in his image and so he comes up with the blood thing....the odd lamb doesn't seem like a bad exchange for communication with God to me. I'm not a vegetarian though.
Also the whole science disproving God thing made me chuckle. We believers in Christ see Him in everything because we believe. You who do not believe do not see Him in anything because of that belief. (And if you like it or not that is a belief!)
I am tempted like the good(and probably ultimately more sensible) Rhion to leave this thread be. It gets my blood pressure up and not in a good way BUT I have read some amazing testaments of faith here so I'm going to keep looking. I'm going to keep putting forwad my views (personal and not very scholarly) because this is the first itme in a long while my beliefs have had an excercising!
(I'll miss you in here Rhino...you've said some great things)
Oh and pure...Any gift from you would be marvelous
I am just not sure why the blood is such a barrier to folks,maybe I am just far more accepting of it(I've been a christian since well nigh on birth) It maes total sense to me. God is perfect...man buggers up and is no longer perfect....God needs some way to connect with those he made in his image and so he comes up with the blood thing....the odd lamb doesn't seem like a bad exchange for communication with God to me. I'm not a vegetarian though.
Also the whole science disproving God thing made me chuckle. We believers in Christ see Him in everything because we believe. You who do not believe do not see Him in anything because of that belief. (And if you like it or not that is a belief!)
I am tempted like the good(and probably ultimately more sensible) Rhion to leave this thread be. It gets my blood pressure up and not in a good way BUT I have read some amazing testaments of faith here so I'm going to keep looking. I'm going to keep putting forwad my views (personal and not very scholarly) because this is the first itme in a long while my beliefs have had an excercising!
(I'll miss you in here Rhino...you've said some great things)
Oh and pure...Any gift from you would be marvelous
Dirt Man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 800
shereads said:
Yes, it is more than obvious that you come from a Baptist upbringing. As they emphasis reading the New Testement for the young in Sunday school, more than the Old Testement. And I understand why they take this approach as the Old Testement is pretty long winded when it comes to God's Laws, the begates, and all of that measuring stuff about the Ark of the Covenent, and the Temple, and add infinitum. (The Old Testement though is used more often out on the pulpit during services, for all of those fire, and brimstone sermons.) And the Baptists aren't the only ones who use this approach in Sunday School. And they do it for that time when as teenagers we start to question everything, even our God, and our faith, or even our need for a savior.
However, there was a good reason for this verbosity in the Old Testement. Especially concerning the Ark of the Covenent, and the Temple of God. They were to resemble as much as possible, down here on Earth, the one in heaven where God truely lives. Let me presume for a moment that you've seen the Indiana Jones movie: "Raider's of the Lost Ark." The Ark in Heaven is exactly the same as the real Ark down here, and sits right in front of God, just below this throne. As seen in the movie there are two Cherubs on top of it.
These two Cherubs have names, one is Justice, the other is Mercy. And again if you've seen the movie "Raider's of the Lost Ark," you know that they face each other constantly on top of the Ark. They are, in a manner of speaking, the character of God, and they are a constant reminder that his judgements, and laws are held responcible to them. And the consequence of disobeying any of God's Laws is death. (There is a reason for this, but you didn't ask for that.)
Justice sits atop the Ark to uphold the Laws of God. Justice therefore requires proof that the punishment of death has been satisfied, and the only proof it will accept is the blood of death. As any forensic doctor will tell you there is a difference between the blood of a living being, and the blood of a dead one. Thus when Adam and Eve were tricked into disobeying God they immediately were sentenced to death by Justice. Tricked or not they had free will, and ignorance as we all know is no excuse, or defense against the law. And like it or not that's just a fact of life. However they were not ignorant of this law.
On the other hand, there is the other Cherub atop of the Ark whose name is Mercy, right. And its power is as infinite as Justice's, as it too is the character of God, so to speak. Had God's Mercy not intervened Adam and Eve would have died no later than with the end of that day in payment for their sin of disobeying God's only Law concerning them at that time. Law#1 given by God only to Adam and Eve stated: "To not eat fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil." Now they could eat any other fruit in the garden of Eden, even the fruit from the "Tree of Life," if they so wished. Just not from the "Tree of knowledge of good, and evil." Now since God's Mercy is also infinit, and just as demanding as Justice, God was forced to come up with a plan to first temporarily gratify Justice's demands for death, and still allow Adam, and Eve to live a full life, and later their offspring. God's wrath is fierce, but his love never is never ending. Now God has infinit wisdom too, so when he came up with the plan of using innocent blood to appease the demands of Justice, I have to believe that as an all knowing God it would have to be the best possible plan of all to satisfy both his sense of Justice, and Mercy both at the same time. And it does. So God replaced the figleaves that Adam and Eve had put on with the skins of dead innocent animals, and expelled them from the Garden of Eden so that they wouldn't be able to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, and without eating that fruit their bodies would eventually die in corruption.
Now if your sensibilities abhore the sight of blood, and especially the blood of innocents I'm really sorry. (If you're an animal lover you're probably a vegetarian, right?) Imagine if you will what it does for a loving God, our real father in heaven, and the creator of all things. If you aren't one already, then imagin being a parent, and having your child misbehave, or say that they don't love you. Then multiply that by the amount of people who have ever lived, and those who will live after us. Your pain by comparison with God's would be as insignificant as a grain of sand on one dead and forgotten planet in a vast universe, wouldn't it. Yet your pain seldom lasts because the two of you eventually reconcile your differences. However as the adult you knew all along that your child didn't mean to disobey, nor did they stop loving you. It just hurt, and by God it hurt you a great deal when it happened, didn't it. In fact when we become parents we find that we become angry when our children disobey us, and more so when it is for no apparent reason. In fact we can get so irrationally angry at times that we have to litterally get away from the child, or send it to its room before we might end up doing any real harm to it for its transgression. We know that with a little time and space between us that when we do get back together we can assign a fair and just punishment for their offense. We also know that neither the child or us will like the punishment, but we at least know that it has to be given, and we also know that it is much less punishment than the offender really deserves.
You see, we were made in the image of God, and like him Justice, and Mercy are a part of our character they always sit before us staring at each other demanding our attention. Oh sure, many people manage to cover them up so that they don't see them, but they never go away. And they never stop demanding. Hey, he could have made us like robots. But God didn't want Robots folks, he wants our loving companionship. That's one of the reasons why he gave us free will, and made us in his image of himself. And something my dad always said was: "You want to live in my house? Then you live by my rules!"
As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man
Dirty Slut
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 3, 2003
- Posts
- 525
Dirt Man, I don't know if anyone else has said this to you, but you really Rock the Joint, don't ya.
Ds
Ds
