Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Top Ten Greatest Christians


Asimov

Recommended Posts

 

Nice points Jimmy. It goes to show that being a Christian does not an evil person make. I would argue that at least a few in your list contributed not through their faith but through philosophy and science. It might even be important to point out that a few were quite possibly Christian out of necessity and not personal decision (Galileo comes to mind). Nevertheless, I will concede that good has been accomplished in the name of religion in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to Jimmy

 

Greetings Folks,

I am sorry but I think some of you have forgotten your history. What about the X'ians that brought about the Renaissance and those that shaped 'Western' Culture:

1. Galileo

2. Newton

3. Copernicus

4. Davinci

5. Rabelais

6. Erasmus

7. Luther

8. Calvin

9. Huss

10. Dante

 

Many on your list were summarily screwed over by the Christian authorities of the day. Most didn't really have a choice as to their religion. Secondly, Luther and Calvin were definitely not good influences on the world. Next, Dante held that great and good people before Jesus are sitting in hell, which to any sane person is patently ridiculous.

 

The Renaissance was brought about in spite of Christianity and not because of it. It saw the resurgence of the arts of Rome and Greece and others, but all of them were pre-Christian (read: non-Christian) influences. "Pagan" temples were used as models for carbon-copy country houses; "pagan" sculpture became the objects that all Renaissance artists aspired to; I could go on. Really, the Renaissance was breaking out of the Christian shell and exploring the true art of pre-Christian Europe. The Christians of the Renaissance emulated, copied and mimicked the achievements and advancements of the so-called "heathens". You can thank pagans for the Renaissance, not Christians.

 

Oh, and do you like Botticelli's paintings? I do. However, he was forced to burn many of them because of (guess what?) Christianity, or more specifically the wave of fundamentalism which came through Florence at that point (Savanorolla was at the forefront of it).

 

Special mention needs to be made for the monks who preserved, and eventually unearthed the writings of the early patristic fathers (i.e Ignatious, Tertelliun, ... (sp?)) and, moreso, the writings of antiquity such as the Socratic dialogues, mennipean satire, and so on.

 

Mere scriveners. Not only that, but the early Christians that you mention were, IMO, the cause of the darkness which followed. The early Christians hated logic, reason and truth; they were intolerant, delusional and worse. Please.

 

Let's give a very sanctimoneous nod to the Europeans who hid a lot of Jews (especially in Poland and Holland) and suffered along with them during WW2. These folks preserved a way of life that has historically been set up as anti-thetical to their own.

 

No argument here, but IMO that has little to do with Christianity.

 

The problem is that Scottish didacticism took hold of Evengelical Christians (esp. in North America) for the last ~200 years (well - probably since J. Edwards) and consequently Christian throught ceased to be of any real consequence. I think that your cynical ramblings are largely indicative of a misplaced attention to the aging brand of North American Envangelical X'y. I think that you do youselves a disservece by not working from a broader conception of history (there are afew people that are doing good things right now but this is a prejudgement and only history will flush them out (You should give a nod to the RC's whose liberation theology has done a lot of good (the case in point that comes to mind is Chile). Samaritin's purse is also doing some very good work in places like Afganistan & Sudan (my buddy has been in some very dangerous situations b/c he is putting in wells and water filtration systems). Maybe you should give a nod to the faith communities that are sheltering refugees who have been ordered back to their home countries because of racist or ignorant immigration officers.).

 

No, our points are indicative of the nature of Christianity for its entire (unfortunate) existence. I think you are forgetting that since its inception, Christianity has caused so much wrong, so much detriment, so much harm, so much ignorance. You ignore history itself, as anyone who has paid attention to it can testify to how terrible a force it has been. Just go through the list of cultures which have been devoured by Christianity, from Africa to the Andes and more (and that's just the beginning).

 

There are few people who are doing good things. However, if one gets to the bottom of it, doing something good while carrying a cross behind your back is dishonest (even if the action is not a bad one). People should be suspicious of the intentions of these workers, because while their work can seem good, oftentimes it ends up being a front for spiritual abuse (ie conversion work). Furthermore, just look at the missionaries which have spread their filth throughout the world, as they are far more numerous than the few good-intentioned Christians you mention. Plus, such faith-based workers have been part and parcel with imperialism, like the missionaries that helped make Native Americans give away rights to their land for oil companies. My point is that the few positive things that Christian workers have done absolutely pale in comparison to the unending negative things that workers of the same persuasion have done.

 

Oh yeah, one last guy you have forgotten is Descartes. If it wasn't for him, the rationalism and positivisms that y'all invoke in your attack on Christianity would not have much ground. He set up the subject-object dualism upon which your arguements rest (this is not to invalidate your arguements but I think you should not throw the baby out with the bathwater).

 

No, rationalism was around long before Descartes, but Christianity effectively destroyed it. Oh, and by the way, logic was being used in all parts of the non-Christian world, so I think that deserves some consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
Bruce Cockburn, an artist/musician who is definitely NOT of the Religious Right strain.

 

I agree. He's been one of my favorite musicians since I was a young kid. It's rare for me to meet other fans of his. Rock on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Greetings,

Wow, what an extensive response.

 

“Many on your list were summarily screwed over by the Christian authorities of the day. Most didn't really have a choice as to their religion.”

- This does not mean that they were not Christian or somehow categorically outside the tradition. Christian authorities who do the screwing are the idealistic embodiment of the institution but the institution itself is in a constant state of dynamic flux and change. The institution of Christianity is what it is/was by virtue of the tension that has and always will exist within and without it. To categorically define aspersions as lying completely outside the tradition is a bit of a jump and probably a little naïve. I imagine that the personal faith of these folks, like the faith of most persons, is probably more complex. Every collectivity (whether formal institutionalized or note) is multi-voiced and it is erroneous to assume that there is at any point a total homogeneity.

 

“Luther and Calvin were definitely not good influences on the world.”

- I would ask that you please read what I say carefully before you begin to make comments. I agree that the ‘moral’ outcome of their actions is debatable but you cannot deny that they did “shape” the Western world.

 

“Dante held that great and good people before Jesus are sitting in hell, which to any sane person is patently ridiculous.”

- A bit of a strange comment since the divine comedy develops concentric circles of hell (I am assuming that you are referring to the ‘virtuous pagans’). The fact that Dante set the current pope and other figures in ‘worse hells’ than these folks points to the intricacy of his parody and the radical contribution that it made. You seem to be taking a literal (maybe: anachronistic?) interpretation of the divine comedy. In fact, ridiculousness is the very engine that drives parody and exposes to us the very things that we cannot see for ourselves.

 

The Renaissance was brought about in spite of Christianity and not because of it. …

- I think that you have missed the special nature of Renaissance artistic form. An intricate part of the rediscovery of art etc. from antiquity was the fact that it was integrated with medieval artistic forms. For example, the medieval folk culture/carnival and parody of Christian symbols was combined with antiquitous works (such as mennipean satire) in a new artistic form in the work of Rabelais. I suggest that you check out the work of the soviet scholar M. Bakhtin and his dissertation entitled ‘Rabelais and His World.’ To understand Renaissance artistic form.

- Also, the tension that existed within Christianity produced a climate of change across the whole continent. The Renaissance emerged because the people were at the edge of a new epoch and change could not but erupt. Of course there was struggle from institution but shared values within an institution often instigate conflict and change. This is why people get tense and these things matter: they have similar institutional values but different objects/modes of expression.

 

“You can thank pagans for the Renaissance, not Christians.”

- So, non-living agents have agency? That is, the texts themselves can produce change? It seems to me that someone has to read and revivify the text, or any symbolic form.

 

Oh, and do you like Botticelli's paintings? I do. However, … The early Christians hated logic, reason and truth; they were intolerant, delusional and worse. Please.

- I would not support fundamentalism/dogmatism of any kind. I would point out that you seem to have a deep hatred of Christianity. Why is this? On what personal grounds do you categorically determine one whole tradition as wholly evil? I don’t think that there are any pure types of clear distinctions in life. We cannot boil down unfortunate events to one cause but you seem to want to do this. There is a psychological phenomena called the ‘Out-group Homogeneity Effect’ where the out-group is considered to be homogeneous and the in-group is considered diverse. This is a cognitive distortion and a marker of bigotry – I am sorry to be so directly offensive here. It seems as though this phenomena may be at work. I am very sorry but your responses do not sound very different in tone from the fundamentalism that I think you hate. I can understand if you have been hurt by the fundamentalism (as have I) or see grand moral injustices committed in its name (as do I). I do not think that gives you or I the license to enact the same patterns with a different object (if I may too bold: in your case it seems to be my post). If one rejects Christianity on the grounds of its being intolerant etc., I think that it behooves one to live differently and rise above it.

 

“No, our points are indicative of the nature of Christianity for its entire (unfortunate) existence. I think you are forgetting that since its inception, Christianity has caused so much wrong, …”

- Again you seem to do a lot of grand hand-waving and you do yourself an injustice because it makes your response appear emotional and facile. Don’t you think that you are waxing a little poetic with phrases such as “its entire (unfortunate) existence?” In terms of cultural preservation etc., I see your point but it seems like you are looking through a bit of a post-modern anachronistic lens. It is only recently that we have come upon the notion (in a grand collective sense) that cultures have the right to exist. It is only in a few strange places like North America and Western Europe that life is not “nasty, brutish, and short.” The quashing of other peoples is by no means a new thing and certainly does not belong exclusively to Christianity – but your tone seems to carry a certain degree of exclusivity.

 

“There are few people who are doing good things. However, if one gets to the bottom of it, doing something good while carrying a cross behind your back is dishonest (even if the action is not a bad one). People should be suspicious of the intentions of these workers, because while their work can seem good, oftentimes it ends up being a front for spiritual abuse (ie conversion work). … “

- You bring up a good, perhaps excellent, point. There is an ethic of bait-and-switch in Christianity that is fundamentally unethical. I would like to write an article/book on this some day but no-one will listen or publish me right now. In my defense (I must admit that you tone seems to prompt a defensive response) I did hedge my commentary with some sort of phrase like ‘time will tell.’

 

“Plus, such faith-based workers have been part and parcel with imperialism, like the missionaries that helped make Native Americans give away rights to their land for oil companies. My point is that the few positive things that Christian workers have done absolutely pale in comparison to the unending negative things that workers of the same persuasion have done.”

- True: there is a deep entwinement but I don’t think that they are wholly reducible to each other.

 

“No, rationalism was around long before Descartes, but Christianity effectively destroyed it. Oh, and by the way, logic was being used in all parts of the non-Christian world, so I think that deserves some consideration.”

- Begging your pardon for my presumptuousness but I think that you need to explore Kant and folks like Hussrel (contemporary expression of logic and rationalism is Cartesian through and through). It seems as if you treat logic as infallible and standing outside of culture. What is logical is logical by virtue a collectivity’s emotional commitment to it. BTW, do you think that there is no logic in Aquinas?

 

Thanks for the long response! I tried to do justice to the effort that you point out. I am sorry that mine became so long – I think that it could be shorter if I had been a little less redundant. My critique is this: your response seems to be a little cliché as it is so reductionistic. You know, I fight this sort of thing among Christians and Non-Christians all the time and, to be honest, I find it a little tiring.

 

Best,

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

“Many on your list were summarily screwed over by the Christian authorities of the day. Most didn't really have a choice as to their religion.”

- This does not mean that they were not Christian or somehow categorically outside the tradition. Christian authorities who do the screwing are the idealistic embodiment of the institution but the institution itself is in a constant state of dynamic flux and change. The institution of Christianity is what it is/was by virtue of the tension that has and always will exist within and without it. To categorically define aspersions as lying completely outside the tradition is a bit of a jump and probably a little naïve. I imagine that the personal faith of these folks, like the faith of most persons, is probably more complex. Every collectivity (whether formal institutionalized or note) is multi-voiced and it is erroneous to assume that there is at any point a total homogeneity.

 

This means that a.) they didn't really have a choice as to their religious label and b.) Christianity and more importantly their contemporaries opposed their ideas. The institution of Christianity has undeniably slowed and fought against the progress that those Christians were a part of, and so the tradition as a whole is responsible for that.

 

 

“Luther and Calvin were definitely not good influences on the world.”

- I would ask that you please read what I say carefully before you begin to make comments. I agree that the ‘moral’ outcome of their actions is debatable but you cannot deny that they did “shape” the Western world.

 

Mere influence on things does not make someone great. If that influence was a bad one, then that makes them the opposite of great. I could point out numerous examples of terrible people who "shaped" worlds. That doesn't make them great.

 

 

“Dante held that great and good people before Jesus are sitting in hell, which to any sane person is patently ridiculous.”

- A bit of a strange comment since the divine comedy develops concentric circles of hell (I am assuming that you are referring to the ‘virtuous pagans’). The fact that Dante set the current pope and other figures in ‘worse hells’ than these folks points to the intricacy of his parody and the radical contribution that it made. You seem to be taking a literal (maybe: anachronistic?) interpretation of the divine comedy. In fact, ridiculousness is the very engine that drives parody and exposes to us the very things that we cannot see for ourselves.

 

The point I made wasn't about the pope of his time, it was about many of those who he put in hell. If he was suggesting something else, perhaps you could outline how.

 

 

The Renaissance was brought about in spite of Christianity and not because of it. …

- I think that you have missed the special nature of Renaissance artistic form. An intricate part of the rediscovery of art etc. from antiquity was the fact that it was integrated with medieval artistic forms. For example, the medieval folk culture/carnival and parody of Christian symbols was combined with antiquitous works (such as mennipean satire) in a new artistic form in the work of Rabelais. I suggest that you check out the work of the soviet scholar M. Bakhtin and his dissertation entitled ‘Rabelais and His World.’ To understand Renaissance artistic form.

 

Of course there was Christianity in the Renaissance, the religion was the subject for much of it. However, the point was that the Renaissance embraced pre-Christian art styles and even used pre-Christian subjects. Many works could be considered mere copies of classical pieces. Just because they used David or the Lamentation or some other Christian subject doesn't mean it wasn't the product of copying classical art. Secondly, the Renaissance was basically art moving away from the church and to private patronage (although the Vatican eventually became one of the biggest private patrons). To say that the Renaissance was "Christian" or that it was a product of Christianity is unceasingly misled and in defiance of the history of the movement.

 

I just took the AP on art history, so it's not for a lack of exposure to the Renaissance. If you look at the art of the period, you'll see that it is more than indebted to pre-Christian works and achievements.

 

 

- Also, the tension that existed within Christianity produced a climate of change across the whole continent. The Renaissance emerged because the people were at the edge of a new epoch and change could not but erupt. Of course there was struggle from institution but shared values within an institution often instigate conflict and change. This is why people get tense and these things matter: they have similar institutional values but different objects/modes of expression.

 

It wasn't within "Christianity", it was just a change all around. Giotto (Martini as well, IMO) started to depart from the Byzantine-like and Gothic art which had been so strong for quite awhile. Then, private patrons allowed for artists to grow in a different way. However, anyone who says that pagan art didn't play an incredibly enormous role is fooling themselves.

 

 

“You can thank pagans for the Renaissance, not Christians.”

- So, non-living agents have agency? That is, the texts themselves can produce change? It seems to me that someone has to read and revivify the text, or any symbolic form.

 

The Renaissance was sparked by the rediscovery and application of pre-Christian artforms, so yes, those "non-living" influences do have agency. You cannot seriously attribute the movement to Christianity. A mere scrivener cannot claim ownership.

 

 

Oh, and do you like Botticelli's paintings? I do. However, … The early Christians hated logic, reason and truth; they were intolerant, delusional and worse. Please.

- I would not support fundamentalism/dogmatism of any kind. I would point out that you seem to have a deep hatred of Christianity. Why is this? On what personal grounds do you categorically determine one whole tradition as wholly evil? I don’t think that there are any pure types of clear distinctions in life.

 

You may see that I did qualify it as "early Christians", which is certainly specific and not as much of a blanket statement as you portray it as.

 

You do say that I show a dislike for Christianity, and in that you are not mistaken (although it had nothing to do with my topic). I could cite many things, from the dogma itself to the countless cultures and religions it has destroyed, devoured and raped. However, that's not the point here.

 

 

We cannot boil down unfortunate events to one cause but you seem to want to do this. There is a psychological phenomena called the ‘Out-group Homogeneity Effect’ where the out-group is considered to be homogeneous and the in-group is considered diverse. This is a cognitive distortion and a marker of bigotry – I am sorry to be so directly offensive here. It seems as though this phenomena may be at work. I am very sorry but your responses do not sound very different in tone from the fundamentalism that I think you hate.

 

You say that even though Christianity has been used for wrongdoing for ages, we cannot boil down an ultimate cause? It seems that even if you do not agree that Christianity itself is guilty, you must agree that it has been made a vehicle and tool of these things quite easily and quite often. To me, that indicates something.

 

Do not make the mistake of thinking that intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerance. That is one of the many differences between fundamentalists and people like myself. If you take it for face value, that could very well be the impression, but if you actually look at it there is quite the difference. It's like saying that a group which tries to counter missionaries is "intolerant". Also, the Bible is not very diverse.

 

Although you may sense a disregard for differences in Christian groups, the point is that I do see their commonalities and I point them out accordingly.

 

 

I can understand if you have been hurt by the fundamentalism (as have I) or see grand moral injustices committed in its name (as do I). I do not think that gives you or I the license to enact the same patterns with a different object (if I may too bold: in your case it seems to be my post). If one rejects Christianity on the grounds of its being intolerant etc., I think that it behooves one to live differently and rise above it.

 

I think that anyone has a license to object to something they disagree with. Because I see the Christian dogma as something that has not been a positive influence on the world (sorry if that offends you, but it is merely my opinion and nothing more), I do object to it on many grounds.

 

Again, I think that it is right to be intolerant against intolerance. This applies to many things, secular or religious. If there is an intolerant force, it is one's duty to oppose it. If it is left unopposed, it is undeniable that they will do damage (this has been proven with racists as much as it has with religious lunatics). If people are allowed to act out or even express hateful or bigoted or wrong things with no refutation, the collective morality has been breached, and more importantly, these hateful and bigoted and wrong thoughts and actions will not be stopped. An injustice left unopposed is a further injustice to every notion of truth; ignorance, be it in mind or in action, should always be fought and ameliorated, for it is intolerable to any sane person. To make the world a better place, we should not rise above its shortcomings, we should better it.

 

That's my unnecessarily long opinion on why it is good to oppose something that is intolerant.

 

 

“No, our points are indicative of the nature of Christianity for its entire (unfortunate) existence. I think you are forgetting that since its inception, Christianity has caused so much wrong, …”

- Again you seem to do a lot of grand hand-waving and you do yourself an injustice because it makes your response appear emotional and facile. Don’t you think that you are waxing a little poetic with phrases such as “its entire (unfortunate) existence?” In terms of cultural preservation etc., I see your point but it seems like you are looking through a bit of a post-modern anachronistic lens. It is only recently that we have come upon the notion (in a grand collective sense) that cultures have the right to exist. It is only in a few strange places like North America and Western Europe that life is not “nasty, brutish, and short.” The quashing of other peoples is by no means a new thing and certainly does not belong exclusively to Christianity – but your tone seems to carry a certain degree of exclusivity.

 

Grand or otherwise, I do not think it invalid.

 

When it comes to cultures, I do find many pre-Christian conquerers to display cultural imperialism, but I do not find them to display it to nearly the same degree, and it rarely reaches the domain of religion. The Romans, whose imperialism is what all empires aspire to, always made room for other cultures' deities in their pantheon. "A good thing in one land is an abomination in another" as the Ibo saying goes (know what happened to their culture and religion? Read "Things Fall Apart"). As a matter of fact, it is a peculiar idea that other religions should not exist, something you can find very easily in the Bible.

 

 

“There are few people who are doing good things. However, if one gets to the bottom of it, doing something good while carrying a cross behind your back is dishonest (even if the action is not a bad one). People should be suspicious of the intentions of these workers, because while their work can seem good, oftentimes it ends up being a front for spiritual abuse (ie conversion work). … “

- You bring up a good, perhaps excellent, point. There is an ethic of bait-and-switch in Christianity that is fundamentally unethical. I would like to write an article/book on this some day but no-one will listen or publish me right now. In my defense (I must admit that you tone seems to prompt a defensive response) I did hedge my commentary with some sort of phrase like ‘time will tell.’

 

I agree. It strikes me as a con-man's tactic, and it is the height of dishonesty and immorality.

 

 

“Plus, such faith-based workers have been part and parcel with imperialism, like the missionaries that helped make Native Americans give away rights to their land for oil companies. My point is that the few positive things that Christian workers have done absolutely pale in comparison to the unending negative things that workers of the same persuasion have done.”

- True: there is a deep entwinement but I don’t think that they are wholly reducible to each other.

 

That they are intricately related should not be ignored.

 

 

“No, rationalism was around long before Descartes, but Christianity effectively destroyed it. Oh, and by the way, logic was being used in all parts of the non-Christian world, so I think that deserves some consideration.”

- Begging your pardon for my presumptuousness but I think that you need to explore Kant and folks like Hussrel (contemporary expression of logic and rationalism is Cartesian through and through). It seems as if you treat logic as infallible and standing outside of culture. What is logical is logical by virtue a collectivity’s emotional commitment to it. BTW, do you think that there is no logic in Aquinas?

 

Logic can be found in many places. Look no further than the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools. Next, IIRC, the Greeks (non-Christians) were very much involved with logic and can be considered the pioneers in the field in the western world.

 

That's interesting, I was just insulting Aquinas in another thread (I can't find it right now, sorry).

 

 

Thanks for the long response! I tried to do justice to the effort that you point out. I am sorry that mine became so long – I think that it could be shorter if I had been a little less redundant. My critique is this: your response seems to be a little cliché as it is so reductionistic. You know, I fight this sort of thing among Christians and Non-Christians all the time and, to be honest, I find it a little tiring.

 

Best,

Jimmy

 

 

Thank you for the long response as well. I know how you feel arguing something over and over again (theist vs. atheist debates are really tedious for me now), but I hope it stays interesting for you because it has been for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Cash, Dante, C.S. Lewis, and T.S. Eliot. (Those last three, I know they were assholes about their religious beliefs, but you know what, they were incredible writers, and I could give a shit what god you believe in if your writing impresses me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Julian,

 

Thanks for your reply and the continuing the discussion! It looks as if there has been a miscommunication. I had placed your style of writing at the early undergraduate level and, to my understanding, this is what an 'AP in Art History' means. My experience has taught me that students at this level often have difficulty reading for the purposes of understanding the text as opposed to 'reading' into the text what they already know. While I can obviously not say for sure, I suspect that you saw the 'apologist' label and have been reading for 'recognition' instead of 'understanding' (if you want to know what I think of this label see my posts in the 'Stages Of Grief' forum). Would you indulge me and formulate the exact position that you think I am putting forth? Just take another close look at what I have written and summarise my position.

 

Best,

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Kenneth Hagin

2. John Osteen

3. Jerry Zirkle

4. Bob Dylan (I think he became an Ex...but loved his Christian Album/s)

5. My Great Pyrenes

6. maybe Jesus

7. Krishna

8. was Noah a Christian?

9. Charles Darwin

10. Jimmy Swaggart (no! really...that's a joke)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Jesus Jesus Jesus, I love him more than Mr Braggio, I thank him for shrivelling and washing me in his blood.

2. Mr Braggio, my lover!

3. Calvin

4. Fred Phelps

5. Jerry Falwell

6. Thomas Aquinas

7. Pat Robertson

8. Kenneth Hagin

9. George Bush

10. Kent Hovind

11. Dwight L. Moody

12. William Bell Riley

13. Bloody Mary of Scotland

14. Augustine of Hippo

15. Kent Ham

16. Martin Luther

17. Jack T. Chick

18. Terry Watkins http://av1611.org/hell.html

19. Jimmy Carter

20. Scott from The Cynic by Jeff Swenson

 

These are my list for the greatest ever Christians!

 

Long Live their legacy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I think of a truly cool Christian, my midwife, Jeanne, comes to mind. She never goes to church per se, but sees midwifery as a ministry in a sense. But, she brings forth life for Christian, Pagan, and Atheist alike with real respect. She had a very lovely stained glass panel of the Madonna-- while pregnant!! Definitelyu makes you think a little. She is completely open minded and respectful, and lives a life of works rather than one of trying to convert anyone. I found I could have spiritual discussions with her and we both learned. Great gal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.