Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Masihi

Theological Discussion

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Masihi said:

God loves everyone after all we separated our selves from God, we’re not sent to hell by God it’s just the state we end up to our sinful condition. Keep in mind eastern theology has different views on sin and hell then fundamentalist evangelical Christians. Actually it started with Satan who tempted Eve who tempted Adam.

Who determines what a “sinful” condition is? 

I'll be honest I'm not interested in the debate, it's getting old for me with Christians and unless they've actually read and are familiar with the works of historians with a more non biased perspective on the Bible, I'm slow to engage. If others want they can pick up the discussion points here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Who determines what a “sinful” condition is? 

I'll be honest I'm not interested in the debate, it's getting old for me with Christians and unless they've actually read and are familiar with the works of historians with a more non biased perspective on the Bible, I'm slow to engage. If others want they can pick up the discussion points here. 

We’re all in a state of sin, sin is death and corruption, man simp,y went from being pure, immortal, sinless, and being made in the image of God to where we are now. And with time sin just keeps growing, for example murder didn't exist until Cain did it, then we have fights between groups then eventually as people grow in sin and violence we get wars, then eventually genocides on massive scales, take adultery for example, husband and wife were created to be faithful towards in each other, over time adultery started happening, and then homosexuality starts happening, then pedophilia starts happening. We inherited a sinful nature from our progenitors and with it we are also subject to the influence of Satan and death. So God sent Christ in his love to save us from ourselves that we may not die in our sin, but be made children of God made back into his image and live forever free from all depravity. 

Share this post


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

I don’t think you read my earlier replies, I wasn’t using my suffering as an argument, I was using it to show that such an argument is emotionally driven as my bad experiences with Muslims don’t effect the doctrines of Islam unless I can prove what they did was based on Islamic teaching by quoting Islamic authority on the subject. Problem is you guys are using this type of stuff as arguments, the main problem is what happened really isn’t true Christian teaching, if it was you’d easily have quoted a Biblical passage or a Church Father on the subject and then we can take it from there to see if it’s really Christian teaching or not. If you were like me you wouldn’t be using arguments based on personal experience or based on how you think things should work or emotionally based arguments.

 

Christianity is irrational and emotionally driven. Calling homosexuality an abomination is irrational because it harms no one, but God hates it (or rather Christians hate it). Biblegod says Do this because I said so! Brilliant. "I am a jealous God!" Very rational. 

 

We use personal stuff as arguments because our personal stuff makes sense, while Christianity is nonsense. Personal experience and reality trump bible nonsense. 

 

We have heard a variety of different yet "True" Christian teachings from Christians that come here to debate us. Why do these True teachings differ? 

 

If "I were like you, I'd be a Christian" , but I'm not like you. I used to be. I made up shit in the name of Jesus to protect him...or rather to protect my personal beliefs. 

 

Why do Christians have to speak on behalf of Jesus, anyway? Why doesn't he ever show up in person and waste a bunch of non-believers? :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a good time to point out that unfounded assertions carry no weight and the bible does not constitute evidence of any kind.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


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

We’re all in a state of sin, sin is death and corruption, man simp,y went from being pure, immortal, sinless, and being made in the image of God to where we are now. And with time sin just keeps growing, for example murder didn't exist until Cain did it, then we have fights between groups then eventually as people grow in sin and violence we get wars, then eventually genocides on massive scales, take adultery for example, husband and wife were created to be faithful towards in each other, over time adultery started happening, and then homosexuality starts happening, then pedophilia starts happening. We inherited a sinful nature from our progenitors and with it we are also subject to the influence of Satan and death. So God sent Christ in his love to save us from ourselves that we may not die in our sin, but be made children of God made back into his image and live forever free from all depravity. 

 

So God creates everything. It gets fucked up. He blames humanity. Brilliant. 

 

Where did God put Adam and Eve? Where did God put a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Same place! Then he expects two people without knowledge of good and evil to know that they should listen to Him (good) and not the snake (evil)....duhhhhh....would a 'smart' god do that? 

 

You really really really truly have to turn off your brain to be able to swallow this baloney. The absurdity of it just screams at me. Anyhoo, you enjoy yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Masihi said:

I don’t know what a xian or xianity is, I’d prefer if you use the correct terms to describe the Christian faith. Christianity grew of Hellenistic Judaism in the second temple period, so it’s obviously going to have the same ideas as it or similar ideas, where’s the issue in that?

     I am using correct terms (xianity).



The abbreviations Xian and Xtian (and similarly-formed other parts of speech) have been used since at least the 17th century: Oxford English Dictionary shows a 1634 use of Xtianity and Xian is seen in a 1634-38 diary.[17][18] The word Xmas uses a similar contraction.

 

42 minutes ago, Masihi said:

40 In Somn. 1.157 Philo explicitly identifies the archangel with the Lord ( , ) and in 1.158 with God – and although he does not use the definite article with , the context makes it clear that not the Logos but God is meant. On the other hand, in Conf. 146 and Her. 205, which are the other two passages where Philo uses the word , he explicitly equates the term with the Logos. This is hardly a question of Philo being uncertain about the real identity of “ the archangel” but rather of him calling both God and the Logos by the name “ the Ruler of the angels,” as Whitaker trans- lates in Somn. 1.157.

     It took me awhile to figure out what this was.  If you quote from a copyrighted source, even a footnote, (or something of unknown status) you need to cite it (it's in the forum rules and is for legal reasons).

 

 

42 minutes ago, Masihi said:

As for all the angels being words of God, although Philo often conflated the term word or words of God, he didn’t obviously intend to portray all angels as the divine Logos and the distinction of the Logos from all creation is pretty clear from his writings, also it would be helpful to know what Philo meant to convey when he called the Angels words of God:

 

The last part of the interpretation of the dream’s angels as human souls is that some denounce the bodily life as folly and escape from its prison to the ether (Somn. 1.139). This corresponds to the idea already mentioned that Jacob’s stay in the foreign land of Charran, i.e., the senses, is not to be prolonged (Somn. 1.45; Philo repeats this in Somn. 1.256). Abraham, too, did not protract his (Somn. 1.47). Leaving Charran is not part of the narrative of Genesis at this point; nevertheless, Philo mentions what will follow. The point of coming to Charran was to study the senses and how they function as well as to “ investigat[e one’s] own tenement” , i.e., the body, and to “ see [one’s] own soul and the mind” in the spirit of the maxim “ Know thyself” (Somn. 1.55– 57). Those who are like Abraham “ advance to some other greater object of contemplation leaving behind – – the lurking-places of sense-perception” (Somn. 1.59). Knowing one- self leads Abraham to despair of himself, “ in order that he might attain to an exact knowledge () of Him Who in reality IS” (Somn. 1.60). Thus in both the and interpretation (a) Philo depicts a progress that involves leaving the bod- ily life and attaining an exceedingly lofty state. This state is not, however, described in terms of knowledge in Somn. 1.139; instead we are told that the liberated souls “ range the heights for ever.” 82
The literal part of interpretation (a) is that the angels on the ladder are God’s messen- gers. 83 They “ both convey the biddings of the Father to His children and report the children’s need to their Father” (Somn. 1.141).84 It is “ a boon to us in our sad case to avail ourselves of the services of ‘words’ acting on our behalf as mediators” (Somn. 1.142). Philo again equates the terms “ angel” and .
A similar idea appears in the in Somn. 1.68– 69, where Philo makes no clear distinction between the and the divine Logos itself. After identifying “ the place” with “ the Word of God” Philo describes its role as that of showing the way and teach- ing appropriate lessons.85 He continues by saying that God’s heal the soul, give 
” holy exhortations with all the force of irreversible enactments” . They also and call it to exercise like a trainer and develop irresistible force in it – which has no parallel in the interpretations of Jacob’s dream.86
Conveying biddings or exhortations and laws as the function of the or angels is thus mentioned both in the exegesis of the prefatory verses and in interpretation (a) of the dream. The job of mediating in the other direction is not mentioned in the , but that is the less essential part: God does not need informants (Somn. 1.142).

 

The reason he called the created angels the words of God is because they convey his revelations, this has nothing to do with the divine Logos.

     That's odd.  I have books too and they don't seem to think that Philo is conflating things:



Moreover, Philo tends to play down the individual personalities of the angels, not referring to their proper names. They are unbodied souls that live in the air, incorruptible and immortal, akin to the stars. At times they are called logoi , which allows us to understand their connection with the Logos-as-archangel ( Conf . 28; Somn . 1.142). They are also defined as servants of the powers. 20 Philo’s angelology exhibits points of contact with Greek philosophy in the description of the nature of angelic beings. 21

 

Cambridge Companion to Philo, p102

     Since I never said that the angels were the "divine logos" it would seem you're attacking a strawman here.  I'm making a simple connection.  The divine word, or logos, has been called an angel, an archangel.  An archangel is the chief of angels by definition.  The angels are called logoi, or words of god.  They serve very similar functions.

 

     I don't see you trying to make other beings described as archangels into something else.  Is Michael, the archangel, an angel or something else?

 

42 minutes ago, Masihi said:

In three passages Philo describes the Logos even as God:

a.) Commenting on Genesis 22:16 Philo explains that God could only swear by himself (LA 3.207).
b.) When the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos (Somn. 1.229-230).
c.) Commenting on Genesis 9:6 Philo states the reference to creation of man after the image of God is to the second deity, the Divine Logos of the Supreme being and to the father himself, because it is only fitting that the rational soul of man cannot be in relation to the preeminent and transcendent Divinity (QG 2.62).

Philo himself, however, explains that to call the Logos "God" is not a correct appellation (Somn.1.230). Also, through this Logos, which men share with God, men know God and are able to perceive Him (LA 1.37-38).

 

Phili not using the term Ho Theos makes sense, it isn’t a denial of the true deity of the Logos, but to make sure it is not confused with the Father, the Logos is sent in the Father’s place, but he himself is not the Father.

     If you notice you would have to use your same argument here.  Apparently Philo conflates god and the word because right down at the bottom of your source is what I had just quoted from Philo which is your own source says (I'm repeating so you hopefully notice): "Philo himself, however, explains that to call the Logos "God" is not a correct appellation (Somn.1.230)."  You must not call the logos, or the word, whatever you want to call it, "god."  That is an error.  The word, or logos, must not be the same as god.

 

     If we're trying really hard to make Philo espouse a xian theology then we could just head over to the Gospel of John and equate god and the word and say the word is god.  But Philo says this would be incorrect under his philosophy so he, nor his philosophy, must be xian even with the similarities.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


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

     I am using correct terms (xianity).

 

 

 

     It took me awhile to figure out what this was.  If you quote from a copyrighted source, even a footnote, (or something of unknown status) you need to cite it (it's in the forum rules and is for legal reasons).

 

 

     That's odd.  I have books too and they don't seem to think that Philo is conflating things:

 

 

     Since I never said that the angels were the "divine logos" it would seem you're attacking a strawman here.  I'm making a simple connection.  The divine word, or logos, has been called an angel, an archangel.  An archangel is the chief of angels by definition.  The angels are called logoi, or words of god.  They serve very similar functions.

 

     I don't see you trying to make other beings described as archangels into something else.  Is Michael, the archangel, an angel or something else?

 

     If you notice you would have to use your same argument here.  Apparently Philo conflates god and the word because right down at the bottom of your source is what I had just quoted from Philo which is your own source says (I'm repeating so you hopefully notice): "Philo himself, however, explains that to call the Logos "God" is not a correct appellation (Somn.1.230)."  You must not call the logos, or the word, whatever you want to call it, "god."  That is an error.  The word, or logos, must not be the same as god.

 

     If we're trying really hard to make Philo espouse a xian theology then we could just head over to the Gospel of John and equate god and the word and say the word is god.  But Philo says this would be incorrect under his philosophy so he, nor his philosophy, must be xian even with the similarities.

 

          mwc

 

I thought I quoted my sources my bad:

 

http://users.abo.fi/sylikarj/Yli-Karjanmaa_Philo on Jacobs Ladder.pdf

 

https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

 

The term Xianity is meant to be a derogatory term in modern usage, also it’s not the proper word for Christianity in English, Christ is the English translation of Christos, as is Christianity, Xianity comes from the practice of removed the Christ and replacing it with the first letter of Christ’s name in Greek. So that isn’t the proper academic term for Christianity or Christians.

 

The divine Logos creates and is not created, the Angels do not create anything and are created, yes do they both serve similar functions as messengers yes, but they’re clearly not the same. There’s a sharp contrast between created Angels and the uncreated Logos who assumes the role of an Angel to the Father, this is pretty clear in Philo’s writings. Michael is a created archangel, the Logos is the uncreated speech and Wisdom of God that assumes the position of an archangel, it’s not rocket science. Just some information for you, the Gospel of John doesn’t use the definite article for the Logos either to make the Logos distinct with God the Father and not conflate the two, yet no one would doubt that the Word (spelled theos without the definite article) is divine and also God in the Gospel of John. Early Christians also avoided using the definite article for the Logos to not confuse it with the Father, I think Saint Justin the Martyr did so, but I’d have to check back on my information. Anyhow Philo saying not to use theos with the definite article for the Logos pretty much doesn’t really contradict the Christian understanding of the trinity at all. It’s pretty obvious that Philo believed in the divinity of the Logos, pretty much no one doubts that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

So God creates everything. It gets fucked up. He blames humanity. Brilliant. 

 

Where did God put Adam and Eve? Where did God put a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Same place! Then he expects two people without knowledge of good and evil to know that they should listen to Him (good) and not the snake (evil)....duhhhhh....would a 'smart' god do that? 

 

You really really really truly have to turn off your brain to be able to swallow this baloney. The absurdity of it just screams at me. Anyhoo, you enjoy yourself. 

God, creates everything, gives man free will, and they screw it up. God gave them free will made them in his image, told them to eat of anything. Well when a king tells you to bow down to him, you pretty much know to listen to the king automatically no matter how uneducated you are, now that’s just the king imagine the creator of the whole universe, God said you shall eat of anything except the tre of life. Your reasoning pretty much goes on like this, once upon a time there was an ex robber just left jail and stood next to a bank, the officer told him if he robbed the bank he would go to jail, he didn’t listen and robbed the bank so went to jail, in your mind it’s pretty much the officers fault. Adam and Eve had knowledge of their creator and who he was, obviously when he says don’t eat the fruit you don’t listen to a creature who tells you to do the opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Christianity is irrational and emotionally driven. Calling homosexuality an abomination is irrational because it harms no one, but God hates it (or rather Christians hate it). Biblegod says Do this because I said so! Brilliant. "I am a jealous God!" Very rational. 

 

We use personal stuff as arguments because our personal stuff makes sense, while Christianity is nonsense. Personal experience and reality trump bible nonsense. 

 

We have heard a variety of different yet "True" Christian teachings from Christians that come here to debate us. Why do these True teachings differ? 

 

If "I were like you, I'd be a Christian" , but I'm not like you. I used to be. I made up shit in the name of Jesus to protect him...or rather to protect my personal beliefs. 

 

Why do Christians have to speak on behalf of Jesus, anyway? Why doesn't he ever show up in person and waste a bunch of non-believers? :)

So because you have personal disagreements with Christianity or have personal issues with it, then it’s wrong and not a true faith. Your personal stuff makes sense as personal issues that we go through in life each and every one of us has issues some easier then others some worse, but it doesn’t make rational sense as an argument. Ok if you want to prove Christianity is nonsense use rational arguments. My teachings are based on Scripture and Apostolic tradition, as for everyone else, I can’t really speak for them. Hey why doesn’t Trump just come over to your house for a chat whenever you have an issue with the State or its policies. I’d like to really see that happening and maybe you could take pictures with him in person in your house and post them here, then I’d ask myself why doesn’t Jesus show up in person every time we have an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 9/19/2019 at 10:03 AM, Masihi said:

I think I’m just going to step out of this discussion and this forum

Well THAT was short lived!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Masihi said:

....Ok if you want to prove Christianity is nonsense use rational arguments. My teachings are based on Scripture and Apostolic tradition...

 

Rational arguments:  No credible empirical evidence for gods or for people coming back from the dead.

 

As for scripture, and apostolic tradition, all those demonstrate is that at some point in the past, people believed certain things.  They aren't evidence for supernatural claims, merely evidence that people believed in supernatural things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X comes from the first letter of "christ" in Greek.  I'm surprised an adherent to the Orthodox tradition would not know that.

Share this post


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

X comes from the first letter of "christ" in Greek.  I'm surprised an adherent to the Orthodox tradition would not know that.

From my previous post:

 

Christ is the English translation of Christos, as is Christianity, Xianity comes from the practice of removed the Christ and replacing it with the first letter of Christ’s name in Greek. So that isn’t the proper academic term for Christianity or Christians.

Share this post


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

So because you have personal disagreements with Christianity or have personal issues with it, then it’s wrong and not a true faith. Your personal stuff makes sense as personal issues that we go through in life each and every one of us has issues some easier then others some worse, but it doesn’t make rational sense as an argument. Ok if you want to prove Christianity is nonsense use rational arguments. My teachings are based on Scripture and Apostolic tradition, as for everyone else, I can’t really speak for them. Hey why doesn’t Trump just come over to your house for a chat whenever you have an issue with the State or its policies. I’d like to really see that happening and maybe you could take pictures with him in person in your house and post them here, then I’d ask myself why doesn’t Jesus show up in person every time we have an issue.

 

I dont start from the position that Christianity is real. I dont need to prove that something with zero evidence is false. You need to prove that something with zero evidence is true. It's just a story in a book. Show me where it is real in the real world. Show me Jesus. Show me that it isnt all a false mental construct. You have nothing. But a book and a bunch of deluded believers. That's it. 

 

I believe Trump is seen by people and goes on tv and tweets all day long. Pretty sure he's real. He's not all powerful, however, is he? I think Jesus is supposed to be all powerful which means he could visit everyone on earth simultaneously. Does Trump want a personal relationship with me? Or was that Jesus? 

Share this post


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

From my previous post:

 

Xianity comes from the practice of removed the Christ and replacing it with the first letter of Christ’s name in Greek. So that isn’t the proper academic term for Christianity or Christians.

X is the Greek letter “chi,” the initial letter in the word Χριστός. And, here’s the kicker: Χριστός means “Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word Christ for hundreds of years. This device is known as a Christogram.

In the same vein, the dignified terms Xpian and Xtian have been used in place of the word Christian.

 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/xmas-christogram/

Share this post


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

This might be a good time to point out that unfounded assertions carry no weight and the bible does not constitute evidence of any kind.

 

Thank you. We've let too many unfounded assertions go by during this theological discussion by not asking "evidence please". 

Share this post


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

 

Thank you. We've let too many unfounded assertions go by during this theological discussion by not asking "evidence please". 

I haven't read the whole thread but this just appears to be more "you don't agree with me so you're wrong" or "you have a personal beef with xtianity so that's why you're wrong" (in response to a post saying xtianity is irrational and emotion driven). Where's the rational evidence for the existence of the xtian god and extian doctrine? 

Share this post


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

Being able to say, "your friend deserves hell" without actually saying, "your friend deserves hell"... this must be the kind of straightforward articulation that so impressed @sdelsolray.

 

It looks like I spoke too soon.  Poster Masihi is now proselytizing with a plethora of mere assertions and rejecting responsive posts.  So much for poster Masihi's request:

 

Does anyone here want to have a discussion on Christian theology with me?

 

It's evident he doesn't.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

X is the Greek letter “chi,” the initial letter in the word Χριστός. And, here’s the kicker: Χριστός means “Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word Christ for hundreds of years. This device is known as a Christogram.

In the same vein, the dignified terms Xpian and Xtian have been used in place of the word Christian.

 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/xmas-christogram/

Why not just use the term Christianity which is the people academic term for it in the English language, rather then an abbreviation.

Share this post


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

 

It looks like I spoke too soon.  Poster Masihi is now proselytizing with a plethora of mere assertions and rejecting responsive posts.  So much for poster Masihi's request:

 

 

It's evident he doesn't.

 

So far I’ve responded to most posts here, except ones that are repetitive, also if people don’t like the answers I give then it’s no really my problem. If I had no interest in discussing I wouldn’t be spending my time here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Masihi said:

So far I’ve responded to most posts here, except ones that are repetitive, also if people don’t like the answers I give then it’s no really my problem. If I had no interest in discussing I wouldn’t be spending my time here. 

 

You are not "discussing".  You are preaching.  Learn the difference.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Masihi said:

Why not just use the term Christianity which is the people academic term for it in the English language, rather then an abbreviation.

Because it's an acceptable term, that's why. 

Share this post


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

 Your personal stuff makes sense as personal issues that we go through in life each and every one of us has issues some easier then others some worse, but it doesn’t make rational sense as an argument. Ok if you want to prove Christianity is nonsense use rational arguments. 

 

This line is utterly hilarious given the context of your reasons for believing Christianity over in the thread where I asked you directly why you believed.

 

Literally your answer is basically "I had a personal experience therefore I believe Christianity". How is that a rational argument? 

 

And we've been pointing out plenty of rational reasons why Christianity is nonsense, but you can't see them through your apologetic filter you have on.

 

According to you, God, the father, had a son (You know like all the Greek and Roman gods did) by impregnating a virgin human by the holy ghost (WTF is the holy ghost?) so that the son could be sacrificed to provide salvation to humanity. And you say that is rational?? It reads like bad Greek mythology. (Probably because the early Christians 'borrowed' from the religions around them, melding it to Judaism, much like how Islam borrowed from Judaism and Christianity)

 

We haven't even properly discussed the illogical position you hold that God who created everything somehow didn't create all the circumstances necessary for evil and sin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Masihi

 

Well, an aspiring apologist with goals of one day moving to the west and becoming a theologian may as well step into the ring with everyone here and get a taste for what he will be up against going forward. Masihi's toughest audience will likely be former christians. Not just Masihi, but all aspiring and accomplished apologist's and theologians.

 

 Big hint: what you have is a foundation of apriori assumption and presupposition, like every other apologist and theologian in the world. 

 

That's it. Nothing more. And these are inadequate for establishing truth in any hard or absolute sense. So that's that. You'll always be done before even stepping off the starting line. You may want to ask yourself, 'how powerful is that? I thought christianity was absolutely powerful.' 

 

That was the lesson awaiting you in the link to the last debate. I allowed LuthAMF to make a fool of himself for purpose of example. And so that newbie apologist's like yourselves coming to visit us can stand back and see the "heads on pikes," surrounding our encampment. Be ye warned! Here lies the head of William of christforums. Here lies the head of LuthAMF from youtube.......

 

😂

 

 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.