Jump to content
LogicalFallacy

Side Gallary: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

Here we can discuss points raised in the discussion between @Joshpantera @LuthAMF and @Christforums (Who has been invited to take part in the discussion with Josh). This will save clogging up their thread with chatter.

 

Thread linked here:

 

So if you have anything you'd like to discuss in relation to the above thread fire away.

 

My first point relates to what Josh said regarding WLC as below:

 

Quote

Craig looks at some dated cosmological theoretic's (I'm privy to newer theoretical thinking than that) about the BB and concludes that the bible says there was a fixed beginning, science says there was a fixed beginning, therefore the bible has it right. And then, based on the first set of assumptions, Craig then moves forward arguing that everything that has a fixed beginning needs a cause. And then automatically inserts that the cause (based on a whole line of previous assumptions) is not just a god, but YHWH of the biblical tradition. 

 

Now I think Craig here makes a similar mistake as many god believers before him. It used to be Zeus caused lightening, the gods got angry and didn't send rain, demons caused mental illnesses. We now know that those things simply do not need a God explanation. Many of them explained by science. (One could argue they are all explained by science if we conclude that the people who figured out the truth about lightening did so using essentially the scientific method of investigation and observation etc) Moving on to Craig and his fixed beginning argument and how science proves the bible. I have heard him make this argument, I think against Sean Carroll. The thing is, science is not a set thing, it can and does change as new information comes to light. Craig faces the risk then that by tying what is scientific to the bible that it will change, and his story will therefore have to change. What if science finds the universe is in fact past eternal? (Some say this is simply impossible because if the universe is past eternal we could never get to where we are in the present moment - an interesting thought/discussion to be had there) But if it is, then there is no fixed beginning which makes the very verse "In the beginning" a complete moot verse.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William: However, I don't expect everyone to understand the text including myself. Wouldn't God provide a corrective insight if a Christian seeker started down the path of wrong understanding of scripture? 

 

William: After all many misunderstood Jesus Christ so why would I think anyone might understand me all the time? I don't understand how or why Jesus would allow people to not understand him.

 

Both of my questions should really start with: I'm old, possibly confused and it's late but..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, midniterider said:

William: However, I don't expect everyone to understand the text including myself. Wouldn't God provide a corrective insight if a Christian seeker started down the path of wrong understanding of scripture? 

 

William: After all many misunderstood Jesus Christ so why would I think anyone might understand me all the time? I don't understand how or why Jesus would allow people to not understand him.

 

Both of my questions should really start with: I'm old, possibly confused and it's late but..

 

Good questions. BTW, some of the questions or insights that people raise here may find their way into the isolated informal debate if they aren't too distracting to our focus.

 

I'll be watching this unfold and I'm sure our christian members will be doing the same. They should feel free to utilize whatever info pops up in the side gallery discussion. Christians who are not involved in the isolated informal debate should feel free to chime in here as well.

 

I find it hard to understand what the purpose of scripture or the purpose jesus would be, if correctly understanding either is hard or impossible? Wouldn't it seem as though sending a message is only relevant in so much as the message would be plain as day for all to understand clear and sound? 

 

Unless we're looking at a message that was dropped off in the past and meant to NOT be understood at all, traveling as a coded time capsule or something, until the time in the distant future when suddenly the coded message would be understood. 

 

But even then, why not deliver the message AT THE CORRECT TIME that it would be understood and not several thousand years earlier to generations of people who can't understand it, when we're looking at something that has the power to deliver the message any time throughout all of time? Which is unbound by time, as it were. 

 

Those are a few more questions to add to the mix. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On the first day of creation, the gods: 

 

1) Created from pre-existing conditions, that which didn't already exist. Heaven and Earth."

 

My question is, if god is the "uncaused cause", and created everything that had not previously existed, then where did the "pre-existing conditions" come from?  How did they get there? 

 

It seems to me that if "god created them", as I'm sure the christian would argue, then they would have been created prior to the "first day of creation" (being as they were pre-existing), rendering it not the first day of creation.  Contrariwise, they also could not have always existed, as that would make them also "uncaused causes".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"On the first day of creation, the gods: 

 

1) Created from pre-existing conditions, that which didn't already exist. Heaven and Earth."

 

My question is, if god is the "uncaused cause", and created everything that had not previously existed, then where did the "pre-existing conditions" come from?  How did they get there? 

 

It seems to me that if "god created them", as I'm sure the christian would argue, then they would have been created prior to the "first day of creation" (being as they were pre-existing), rendering it not the first day of creation.  Contrariwise, they also could not have always existed, as that would make them also "uncaused causes".

 

At the moment I'm assuming William means that the pre existing conditions were the gods and "their" dwelling. Like the gods dwelling in heaven. 

 

The Heaven and Earth part seems to refer to the multi-layered universe model of the near east at the time. I'm guessing that maybe the writer meant that the 7th heaven where the gods dwell was pre-existing? But I don't know if William is even thinking about the cosmology of the writer in question. Or the parts of the story that are lifted from near eastern mythology. We are certainly looking at it differently than William is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there's no sense continuing. You have to shoehorn "all this other stuff" into the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Christforums said:

No, there's no sense continuing. You have to shoehorn "all this other stuff" into the text.

What is "all this other stuff"; and why would shoehorning it in make you not want to continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What is "all this other stuff"; and why would shoehorning it in make you not want to continue?

 

There's a difference between exegesis and eisegesis. 

 

Now that I answered you I have to go wash my hands.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Christforums said:

There's a difference between exegesis and eisegesis. 

Yes, but that doesn't answer the questions I asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christforums said:

No, there's no sense continuing. You have to shoehorn "all this other stuff" into the text.

 

image.jpeg

 

 

The writer was of the E priest class according to scholarship. And that it obvious. Because he uses Elohim. Equally obvious is that the writer had some cosmology and indeed expressed that cosmology through his writing. Which cosmology? Well it's obvious enough that it wasn't today's cosmology. It was contemporary. And there a lot of illustrations available which illustrate the cosmology of genesis and even go further to compare it with all of the other near eastern cosmological ideas in the contemporary period. This is simply scholarly discussion we're having. It doesn't stray off too far from what the writer was writings about and what the writer may have meant. 

 

But it does stray away from modern ideas about the ancient writer was writing about and what the ancient writer meant. And WLC is a primary example of taking that direction. He's trying to shoe horn the ancient texts into a modern lens. 

 

Here's some citation specifically about Genesis 1: 1-2 and creation ex nihilo: http://stevendimattei.com/topics/does-the-bible-support-the-claims-of-creationists/

 

 <snipped from article>

 

Quote

Despite strong traditional and often authoritative interpretative claims that were formed centuries after this ancient text was written and devoid of knowledge about its historical and literary context, the opening of Genesis 1 does not depict a creatio ex nihilo, that is a creation out of nothing. The Hebrew text is clear on this point and recognized by all biblical scholars. Rather, what the text of Genesis 1:2 informs us is that when God began to create, earth—that is the material substance earth; the Hebrew ’eretz (earth) never means the planet Earth (see below)—already existed as a desolate, formless, inhabitable waste—a tohû wabohû in Hebrew—in the midst of a dark surging watery abyss (tehôm). This is the initial primordial state of creation that the creator deity inherits so to speak, and it is a prominent cultural feature in other ancient Near Eastern creation myths, from Egypt to Mesopotamia.

 

Steven is a member here, btw. We've had these discussions in the past. And we pretty much came to agreement on this in the main thread. It's not really a creation from absolute nothing. And the scholarly approach to analyzing religious texts is precisely to analyze them against their time and place in the contemporary period in which they arose. These texts did not arise in a vacuum did they? So when discussing the texts we can certainly allow and hear from your strictly theological views Williams, as well as contrast those theological views with scholarship. 

 

I don't know why we can't just proceed all the way through a discussion without having to suddenly stop. 

 

@LuthAMFhasn't even really begun. So maybe he'd like to tap in for a while until you catch a break?  

 

 

 

image.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

LuthAMFhasn't even really begun. So maybe he'd like to tap in for a while until you catch a break?  

Coming I promise. I'm paying attention but I'm preparing a statement if that's ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

Coming I promise. I'm paying attention but I'm preparing a statement if that's ok.

 

I figured you were just trying to come in when you were ready. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joshpantera said:

 

I figured you were just trying to come in when you were ready. 

Yes sir. I must say my mind has not been this preoccupied upon one thing in a long time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Christforums said:

No, there's no sense continuing. You have to shoehorn "all this other stuff" into the text.

So was I premature in welcoming you in? 

You have the benefit of history here so I understand if an early exit is inevitable for you. It seems you've been round and round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to see William take off. I did find this comment of his worthy of thought: "I do believe the very best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture."

 

Does this mean surrounding context should be our guide? Or does it indicate that each individual reader is the best interpreter. Or something else. I think it's fair for William to not want to get bogged down with a lot of extra-bibilical writings. Maybe William, Josh and Luth could agree on specific extra-biblical writings to be available in this discussion with all others being excluded. Or should the Bible be the only acceptable writing to be allowed in the discussion. I think I've heard non-believers say that the Bible refutes itself. What more do you need? :)

 

Perhaps only one version of the bible should be used as well. No concordances. No Cliff's Notes. :) 

 

Logic, reason and critical thinking are pretty much important to everyone, though different people call different things logic. Both sides could use those tools.  

 

..........

 

Luth is concerned with : Inspiration and Authority of Scripture.

 

"Having already abandoned scripture and disallowing its use to "prove" something, what is a Christian left to work with?

So, again, not to disrupt the premise of this debate The bible: Demonstrably false or not? but I don't see how we can jump into Gen 1:1."

 

The above  are some of his concerns and points that stood out to me. 

 

What else is there in Christianity besides scripture?  I dont know. 

How can we start with Gen 1:1? Well, you have to start somewhere, I guess. 

 

We could all start with the assumption that the Bible is God's Authoritative Word. But then all the atheists would have to be hypothetical theists, or we could all say that the Bible is nonsense but well, Christians just dont do that. I think I do see the 'frustration (?)' from Luth's point of view. Luth is aware that whenever he tells an atheist some scripture that is  near and dear to his heart, us non-believers just think it's Harry Potter bullshit. I can see why he would not want to engage at all. I'm not blaming anyone either. It is what it is.  

 

So Luth, do you think there is a better place to start the discussion? Or a better way to start it? Or is it just an exercise in futility? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Logic, reason and critical thinking are pretty much important to everyone, though different people call different things logic. Both sides could use those tools.  

 

And yet two parties can be disagreed, working against one another while using logic, reason, and critical thinking. Why do you think that two parties are taking two opposite sides?

 

You're correct, I don't want to engage others here, call me Jonah. Let me first answer a common objection before my exit. Why are there so many denominations, various interpretations, and then there's the problem of which source is best to differentiate whatever as orthodox? If we reject the author of Scripture then surely we will not agree that the author is the best person to seek clarification (Scripture interprets Scripture). Not everyone listens to the author, nor does the author distribute the same gifts, as some are laymen, Pastors, Teachers, Missionaries, etc. Scripture suggests that we test the spirit of a person because not all of us are of the same Spirit. That is, not everyone that claims to be a genuine Christian is a genuine Christian.

 

Back to Josh who is pointing towards cultural myths other heresies and known cultist. I get it, most here on this board have only engaged Christianity under the guise of horrible translators, theologians, charismatic leaders, and cultist churches. The thing that gets me is that you'll continue their legacy by not only rejecting the truth but by spreading the lies. Perhaps deep down inside it makes you all warm and fuzzy to reject what you don't want to believe so you wont be accountable? Perhaps the notion that your entire worldview might collapse has you struggling and holding on to only what you know? As for me I believe the natural man is at enmity against God and they are dead in sin and trespass. 

 

Anyhoot, Josh points and continually suggest Elohim means gods rather than God. He'll persist in any way to substantiate his position by referring to every heretic out there. He'll point out that there are 40,000 denominations which differ. The thing that Josh won't admit is that all 40,000 denominations agree, that is, unity exists in Christianity, all denominations agree to the Nicene Creed which conveys the essentials truth of the faith from Scripture. The very Creed which all 40,000 denominations are opposed is his heresy. The very thing they all agree upon is that the very heresy he points to and parrots was rejected now for millenniums. If whatever church doesn't agree they fall outside a denomination and are a Sect or Cult.

 

Salvation is monergism. We all have presuppositions and none are neutral. We are volitional creatures which may decide to either side with the very presuppositions and precepts of Jesus Christ or the very opposition. Choose this day whom you shall serve.

 

Enjoy, but I see this as a futile effort. Turning or flipping you from one side up isn't my responsibility nor do I have that ability. And that power isn't in yourself, obviously, because most of you have testified that you couldn't fake it.

 

In the spirit of Jonah, repent for the kingdom is at hand!

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Christforums said:

Back to Josh who is pointing towards cultural myths other heresies and known cultist. I get it, most here on this board have only engaged Christianity under the guise of horrible translators, theologians, charismatic leaders, and cultist churches. The thing that gets me is that you'll continue their legacy by not only rejecting the truth but by spreading the lies. Perhaps deep down inside it makes you all warm and fuzzy to reject what you don't want to believe so you wont be accountable? Perhaps the notion that your entire worldview might collapse has you struggling and holding on to only what you know? As for me I believe the natural man is at enmity against God and they are dead in sin and trespass. 

 

While that might be the case for some people, it really isn't for most of us. We're having the discussion to show you guys why we don't believe it, basically. We can go through from the beginning point by point making clear why believing it is so untenable to so many of us, who, like you guys, once believed it whole cloth. That's it. It's that simple. And I'm not trying to stop either of you from arguing, or letting everyone know your point of view, or throwing my hands in the air and shutting down dialogue, or any of that. 

 

Three guys discussing the bible, each with a wide open opportunity to state their beliefs and opinions. Others welcome to glean whatever benefits they can glean by such a dialogue. The dialogue exists because Luth was making a lot of accusations about atheists concerning "truth" and other related comments. A lot of bold assertions were being made. So we can analyze the bible for truth content. Without either of you being ganged up on by numbers and dog piled. You two are welcome, however, to take a shot at trying to gang up on me. 

 

You can believe that scripture interprets scripture, but the glaring problem that I see with that belief is that you can not possibly prove the bible is literally true with the bible. This is well known in biblical scholarship. That's why archaeologists seek confirmation outside of the biblical texts, BTW. Because the religious and theological texts do not suffice to prove there own claims and more is needed in order to substantiate any given claim. Interpretation is one thing, claims of history and reality are another, William. My last citation actually is about using scripture to interpret scripture and what it shows is that doing such a thing hurts the creationist debate, it doesn't help it. It shows what the writer was writing about and referring to by cross referencing the bible. And what comes from it is the ancient biblical cosmology and many things that show that it was not about how the world as we know it came to be, basically. 

 

Interpreting scripture with scripture: 

 

 http://stevendimattei.com/topics/does-the-bible-support-the-claims-of-creationists/

 

Now if either of you will continue, we can go through all of the days of creation so that people can witness each of our positions about the days of creation in Genesis. You are free to state your positions, free to agree to disagree, free to get mad and storm off. But keep in mind that we are all three representatives, by default, of the positions that we are voicing. And we're looking right now at positions who are subject to cave, and therefore lose publicly. Or buck up, and continue. If you walk on the discussion or debate we've started, you lose. 

 

It's up to people reading to choose what seems more believable or unbelievable, it's up to readers following along to decide for themselves what they think of it. And they may find all three of us lacking for all we know. And if they do, they can voice that opinion here in the gallery. I don't see what's so wrong with having a discussion where everyone gets a fair shake to state their piece? But if you guys shut down and fold, then that's that. And we'll have to refer to you shutting down and folding thereafter lest it not be forgotten. If you hang in there, then we can reflect on the fact that you hung in there. And possibly find some respect for the fact that you hung in there. 

 

Simple. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listening to Brian Cox and at 7:22 he is asked "What was there before the big bang" and he goes into a very brief explanation which might be relevant. I've heard of inflation etc, but a few of the concepts he talked about I've never heard of.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Christforums said:

In the spirit of Jonah, repent for the kingdom is at hand!

 

Repent?  Not to a god that I see as fictional, for the "crime" of not believing scriptures that I see as fictional, for the sake of a kingdom that I also see as fictional.  I'm already trying to behave well to the best of my ability in RL, so what more is there for me to do?  Pretending to believe is absolutely, permanently off the table.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Christforums said:

Back to Josh who is pointing towards cultural myths other heresies and known cultist. I get it, most here on this board have only engaged Christianity under the guise of horrible translators, theologians, charismatic leaders, and cultist churches. The thing that gets me is that you'll continue their legacy by not only rejecting the truth but by spreading the lies. 

No True Scotsman fallacy

 

8 hours ago, Christforums said:

Perhaps deep down inside it makes you all warm and fuzzy to reject what you don't want to believe so you wont be accountable? Perhaps the notion that your entire worldview might collapse has you struggling and holding on to only what you know? As for me I believe the natural man is at enmity against God and they are dead in sin and trespass. 

Projection

 

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

Logic, reason and critical thinking are pretty much important to everyone, though different people call different things logic. Both sides could use those tools.  

I disagree.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I disagree.  

 

Couldn't care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

While that might be the case for some people, it really isn't for most of us. We're having the discussion to show you guys why we don't believe it, basically. We can go through from the beginning point by point making clear why believing it is so untenable to so many of us, who, like you guys, once believed it whole cloth. That's it. It's that simple. And I'm not trying to stop either of you from arguing, or letting everyone know your point of view, or throwing my hands in the air and shutting down dialogue, or any of that. 

 

Three guys discussing the bible, each with a wide open opportunity to state their beliefs and opinions. Others welcome to glean whatever benefits they can glean by such a dialogue. The dialogue exists because Luth was making a lot of accusations about atheists concerning "truth" and other related comments. A lot of bold assertions were being made. So we can analyze the bible for truth content. Without either of you being ganged up on by numbers and dog piled. You two are welcome, however, to take a shot at trying to gang up on me. 

 

You can believe that scripture interprets scripture, but the glaring problem that I see with that belief is that you can not possibly prove the bible is literally true with the bible. This is well known in biblical scholarship. That's why archaeologists seek confirmation outside of the biblical texts, BTW. Because the religious and theological texts do not suffice to prove there own claims and more is needed in order to substantiate any given claim. Interpretation is one thing, claims of history and reality are another, William. My last citation actually is about using scripture to interpret scripture and what it shows is that doing such a thing hurts the creationist debate, it doesn't help it. It shows what the writer was writing about and referring to by cross referencing the bible. And what comes from it is the ancient biblical cosmology and many things that show that it was not about how the world as we know it came to be, basically. 

 

Interpreting scripture with scripture: 

 

 http://stevendimattei.com/topics/does-the-bible-support-the-claims-of-creationists/

 

Now if either of you will continue, we can go through all of the days of creation so that people can witness each of our positions about the days of creation in Genesis. You are free to state your positions, free to agree to disagree, free to get mad and storm off. But keep in mind that we are all three representatives, by default, of the positions that we are voicing. And we're looking right now at positions who are subject to cave, and therefore lose publicly. Or buck up, and continue. If you walk on the discussion or debate we've started, you lose. 

 

It's up to people reading to choose what seems more believable or unbelievable, it's up to readers following along to decide for themselves what they think of it. And they may find all three of us lacking for all we know. And if they do, they can voice that opinion here in the gallery. I don't see what's so wrong with having a discussion where everyone gets a fair shake to state their piece? But if you guys shut down and fold, then that's that. And we'll have to refer to you shutting down and folding thereafter lest it not be forgotten. If you hang in there, then we can reflect on the fact that you hung in there. And possibly find some respect for the fact that you hung in there. 

 

Simple. 

 

 

 

You never addressed the fact that all denominations, 40,000+ denominations profess the essential truths of the faith from Scripture as writ through the Nicene Creed. The very Creed which rejects your heresy. Instead, you're pointing to all these other heretics for support. The very profession which defines the orthodox faith is rejected for falsehood. By your profession and teaching you've placed your understanding outside of Christianity.

 

That places your "idea" or projection of Christianity into either a Sect or Cult. You've dressed up Mr. Christianity in your own attire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Nicene creed and extra-biblical source, i.e. outside of scripture?  How can one claim scripture to be the only source for the interpretation of truth, then try to use an extra-biblical source to "prove" someone else's falsehood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Isn't the Nicene creed and extra-biblical source, i.e. outside of scripture?  How can one claim scripture to be the only source for the interpretation of truth, then try to use an extra-biblical source to "prove" someone else's falsehood?

 

The Creed is what the Christian body believes, essential truths conveyed from Scripture. Christians rightly do not defend the Creed but rather point to the truths in Scripture conveyed through the Creed. In other words, the Creed itself is using Scripture interprets Scripture. Pointing to the Creed or myself places us equal with Scripture and that's not proper, again, the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture. Who better to ask for clarification than the author themself. Would you rather me appeal to a different source other than you when trying to understand what you wrote? TheRedneckProfessor says, "I disagree", so I turn to source B and source B says this is what TheRedneckProfessor meant, "I like to scream like a little girl". Now I'm sure you'd be quite upset at that and wouldn't appreciate source B putting words in your mouth nor me going to other sources when you're available to clarify your answer.

 

The church, scholars, laymen, Pastors, Teachers, Misssionaries ought follow this very method and principle of interpretation. All of which may be considered extra-biblical sources which illuminate the Word of God.

 

The heresy Josh is championing was addressed at the Council of Nicea. These heresies are not anything new. They are repeating themselves mainly because people have a low regard for the pivotal debates which have already occurred throughout church history. The very men which writ the Nicene Creed were said to have missing limbs, eyes, etc., their very lives and bodies bared the marks in contending for the truth against Arianism which says Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit were lesser gods, a god, rather than God in Three Persons. Josh points to Mormonism which also have a similar view, even believing they themselves will equal Jesus Christ and they'll even rule each a planet. The Nicene Creed conveys the standard by which Christian denominations define an actual denomination being Christian.

 

What you're doing is trying to equate other standards or authorities. The Catholic church does so with the church, elevating it equal to the word of God and as its sole interpreter, sometimes I run into those that appeal to science doing so with science or the process thereof. RedNeckProfessor is doing this, equating himself as an equal authority to that of the Word of God.

 

You can have your idol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Christforums said:

RedNeckProfessor is doing this, equating himself as an equal authority to that of the Word of God.

Wow.  I didnt realize asking a question made me god.   I didn't think god liked questions. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.