Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


What do you think about the Revelation?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
472 replies to this topic

#341 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 613

Posted 27 July 2011 - 03:06 PM


Really? And how do you test whether something is real?

The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc. If we're just going to slowly boil away into an existential argument in which nothing exists please stop this chain of questioning.

No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).


You believe it was good?

Do I believe stopping a genocidal army from taking over most of the world was good? Yes I do.

That's not what I asked.
Killing millions of people to stop that army could be justify as necessary evil, but that's still evil.

Assuming I agree with you on this example (which I don't), explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good?

So do you want me to just read you the Bible...?

No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.

Sponsor:

#342 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 27 July 2011 - 05:02 PM

No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).

The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc.


That's not what I asked.
Killing millions of people to stop that army could be justify as necessary evil, but that's still evil.

Taking the action that results in more good than would if you did not take the act I would consider good on the whole. This is generally the stance of the catholic church as well.

No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.


So you just want me to write my own translation of the bible for you...

#343 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6906

Posted 27 July 2011 - 05:15 PM


No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).

The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc.


And as I've already pointed out, using examples from my own life, you can not trust your senses 100%.

That's not saying "nothing is real" but it does allow for unreal things, which fit your expected pattern of what is real to be accepted as a real event.

#344 A Brain in a Vat   Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:22 PM

After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.

People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.

People of the first type hold external Truth to be primal to belief. The believe we cannot choose a Truth. It doesn't depend on where we were born, who our parents were, or what book we enjoy the most. They are forced to adjust their beliefs according to their current snapshot of the Truth. They can, of course, be wrong, and often they are, but if it is shown that they probably are they will quickly realign their beliefs.

People of the second type hold belief to be equal to Truth. They choose some beliefs, and those beliefs become their Truth. No amount of evidence from the real world can change their beliefs, because the real world has nothing to do with their belief systems.

The second type of person, being a human, has the same capacity for reason and logic that the first type does. If attempting to use this capacity has the effect of casting some doubt on the beliefs, however, there isn't the expected realignment of belief, because remember that belief==Truth and Truth obviously cannot be realigned. The cognitive dissonance forces the person to either cast out the reason and logic as somehow flawed, or to simply accept the illogical as a paradox.

This type of person won't always claim to have direct access to or knowledge of the Truth, but the fact that contrary evidence or reason is dismissed without regard reveals that they perceive their connection to the Truth to be stronger than simple belief.

Considering how the second type of person's belief system is structured, it becomes clear that attempting to change that person's belief through the use of logic or reason is futile. The very premise that "logic is a source of truth" is not shared by this type of person, and therefore trying to have an argument based on logic and reason with that type of person is like trying to herd cats.

Like death and taxes, I think it's just something we have to live with and be sad about.

I've managed to convince some people that their beliefs are illogical, but that was toward the end of highschool when many people are just learning to use reason and think for one's self. There's the capacity to learn to think, and once one learns to think it's only a short hop to throw out the illogical and unreasonable. I think that once a person of the second type is an adult, that person is so sure of the fact that his belief is directly connected to the Truth that there's no possibility of driving a wedge of reason in between the two.

The best we can do is try to teach people how to think while they're young, and hope that the general trend of increase in critical thinking at a higher level continues.

#345 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:40 PM

After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.

People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.

People of the first type hold external Truth to be primal to belief. The believe we cannot choose a Truth. It doesn't depend on where we were born, who our parents were, or what book we enjoy the most. They are forced to adjust their beliefs according to their current snapshot of the Truth. They can, of course, be wrong, and often they are, but if it is shown that they probably are they will quickly realign their beliefs.

People of the second type hold belief to be equal to Truth. They choose some beliefs, and those beliefs become their Truth. No amount of evidence from the real world can change their beliefs, because the real world has nothing to do with their belief systems.

How do you justify people who's beliefs change over time?

#346 A Brain in a Vat   Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:44 PM

How do I "justify" people? The question makes no sense, you'll have to be more clear.

#347 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:46 PM

And as I've already pointed out, using examples from my own life, you can not trust your senses 100%.

That's not saying "nothing is real" but it does allow for unreal things, which fit your expected pattern of what is real to be accepted as a real event.


I'm aware of that, but then we're bordering on an existential argument for anything existing rather than the existence of God. Just like anything else it isn't an isolated instance that causes me to believe in God. It's a lifetime of experiences that lead me to no other conclusion.

#348 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:53 PM

How do I "justify" people? The question makes no sense, you'll have to be more clear.


Well you have people who structure their beliefs around what they observe and people who structure what they observe based off of what they believe, but you leave no place to explain people who are neither of whom there are many.

That in mind how do you justify religious people who change their beliefs with your two groups?

#349 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 613

Posted 27 July 2011 - 11:53 PM


No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).

The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc.


That's not what I asked.
Killing millions of people to stop that army could be justify as necessary evil, but that's still evil.

Taking the action that results in more good than would if you did not take the act I would consider good on the whole. This is generally the stance of the catholic church as well.

The act consists of several actions, some of which are evil.


No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.


So you just want me to write my own translation of the bible for you...

No. I want your answers, short, and to the point. Or you don't have your own opinion and just agree with whatever is in the Bible.
Explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good.

#350 Roots   Members   -  Reputation: 657

Posted 28 July 2011 - 12:43 AM



No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.


So you just want me to write my own translation of the bible for you...

No. I want your answers, short, and to the point. Or you don't have your own opinion and just agree with whatever is in the Bible.
Explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good.


Personally speaking, I'm no longer interested in what way2lazy2care has to say because he seems, clearly enough, way too lazy to care about why he believes what he believes and whether or not his beliefs are true. There comes a point in this type of discussion where you just can't go any further, and I think that point has been reached. He (or she?) just believes the bible because he wants to. Which is fine if that's what he's happy with. But you can't point to your own personal experiences as valid reasons for convincing other people to believe, nor can you use the bible unless you grant equal credence to the Qur'an or any other holy ancient text making supernatural claims.

My impression of way's argument after reading through the last few pages essentially boils down to this:

- I had a personal experience
- I believe the bible is true
- God is good no matter what he does

That last point is demonstration of a pure dogmatic mindset. If you are completely and utterly incapable of even considering the actions of some entity or your belief in some creed may not be correct, or just, or true, then you are a victim of dogma. And until you free yourself of its hold, you are not a worthy partner for discussion on this subject, in my humble opinion.
Hero of Allacrost --- http://www.allacrost.org
A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.

Latest release Oct. 10th, 2010.

#351 _moagstar_   Members   -  Reputation: 465

Posted 28 July 2011 - 03:05 AM

@Machaira - I agree that we should all be afforded the same opportunities, personally I think the 'fairest' way would be to judge everyone based on their actions. But hey, I'm not omnipotent so what do I know.

"what is right and wrong"

"Jam 4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins"

Maybe the definition of 'good' was in the 'context' which you appear to have taken this quote out of?

"Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment."


Excuse my french, but what the fuck has that got to do with right or wrong?

"Mat 22:39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself."

Amen to that but why is this secondary to loving god? Besides it contradicts this:

"'Deuteronomy 13:6-10'
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.
"

Before you claim that it's OT, last time I checked the Christian Bible begins with Genesis.

"Rom 13:9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Rom 13:10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."


This I cannot argue with, personally I think it's great advice! As I already pointed out though, there are parts of the bible which directly contradict this mantra. I also think it's perhaps a little simplistic to reduce everything to 'love' (reminds me of that scene in donnie darko)

Rom 13:13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
Rom 13:14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.


A little strange to condemn drunkenness when Jesus himself turned water into wine. And how are we defining sexual immorality here, should we use what the bible tells us?

"Numbers 22:28-29
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
...
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."



"Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Gal 6:8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature [fn] will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Gal 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
"

Again, why are you offering this as a definition of what is good? This just explains that doing good reaps rewards.

"Gal 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers."

:-\

"what happens after we die"

"Rev 21:6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.
Rev 21:7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
Rev 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."


Ok, but I think we've probably all lied at some point, we've probably all had moments of cowardice, in fact we have all sinned. What happens if you did one of those things but repented? What happens if you had faith that Jesus had already paid for this sins, is that not covered by (your quotes!)....

"Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
...
Rom 5:21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"

And..

"Jhn 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
Jhn 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
"


Which in turn contradicts this...

"Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
Rev 20:13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
Rev 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
Rev 20:15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."


"how we achieve salvation"

I'm not going to go over this again since it's the same contradictions as above.

"Again, it comes down to free will. God is not going to force people to believe anything or follow rules. They will be held accountable however. Try it this way:
"So what use are books filled with laws if the majority of people are going to do whatever they want, which may violate these laws?"
If you commit murder because you think it's ok that you do so, will you still not be held accountable if you're caught? "


I think you are missing the point that I'm trying to make. Look at it this way, are you telling me that the only reason why you wouldn't murder someone is because it tells you not to in the bible, or is it because you yourself feel that murdering another human is not a good thing to do? Do you really need a book to tell you that murdering someone is wrong? Without it you would think it's ok? You wouldn't be capable of realising the consequences of your actions? I highly doubt it. Even with it some Christians think it's OK!! I am therefore inclined to conclude that you and many other Christians have your own ideas about what is right and what is wrong, the bible is superfluous for determining this. If the bible said that murder was ok, I don't think you would do it. Just because there are things in the bible which agree with your sensibilities doesn't mean that that the bible is the source of your sensibilities. And just because we have laws doesn't mean those laws are the source of our sensibilities. For example, it's not due to the fact that rape is illegal that I don't rape people, it's because I don't want to and I know that inflicting harm on another person is wrong.

Please, give yourself some credit.

#352 _moagstar_   Members   -  Reputation: 465

Posted 28 July 2011 - 03:11 AM


Is the bible clear on how one reaches salvation? Is it through obeying god's law, through being righteous, or through faith?

yes, and yes. The Bible does not give an a, b, or c answer to salvation. Only a a, b, and c answer.


Then we are all screwed, since no-one has consistently stuck to all 3 throughout their entire life. Or is it just about getting the timing right?

#353 Binomine   Members   -  Reputation: 538

Posted 28 July 2011 - 03:48 AM

After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.

People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.

I've read something that comes basically the same thing, but expressed it as the meta-confidence. How confident a person is about their confidence.

Those people who are confident that they are correct, and those who are not confident that they can believe what they know. Both will believe the Earth is flat, but one knows the Earth is flat, because they are confident that they know the Earth is flat, while the other group accepts the Earth is flat until evidence comes their way.

#354 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 613

Posted 28 July 2011 - 05:33 AM


After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.

People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.

I've read something that comes basically the same thing, but expressed it as the meta-confidence. How confident a person is about their confidence.

Those people who are confident that they are correct, and those who are not confident that they can believe what they know. Both will believe the Earth is flat, but one knows the Earth is flat, because they are confident that they know the Earth is flat, while the other group accepts the Earth is flat until evidence comes their way.


I once read an article about correlation between confidence and competence. I don't remember whether it this this one: http://www.chacocanyon.com/pointlookout/090107.shtml but makes the same point anyways.

#355 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 28 July 2011 - 06:27 AM

No. I want your answers, short, and to the point. Or you don't have your own opinion and just agree with whatever is in the Bible.
Explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good.

There aren't short simple answers to them. There are long answers and they are all in the Bible.

#356 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 28 July 2011 - 06:33 AM

Personally speaking, I'm no longer interested in what way2lazy2care has to say because he seems, clearly enough, way too lazy to care about why he believes what he believes and whether or not his beliefs are true. There comes a point in this type of discussion where you just can't go any further, and I think that point has been reached. He (or she?) just believes the bible because he wants to. Which is fine if that's what he's happy with. But you can't point to your own personal experiences as valid reasons for convincing other people to believe

I'm not trying to convert anybody to anything. I don't know where you got that impression. The only reason I am here is because in this thread religious people were likened to delusional shit eating monkeys, when in fact there are plenty of completely sane brilliant people who believe in a higher power.

nor can you use the bible unless you grant equal credence to the Qur'an or any other holy ancient text making supernatural claims.

I grant equal credence in that I respect the beliefs of those who believe in the Qur'an, though it is not necessarily what I believe. I do not think less of them for having different beliefs than I do.

My impression of way's argument after reading through the last few pages essentially boils down to this:

My only point is that you shouldn't look down on religious people purely because they are religious. If there's a giant ? in the human knowledge base does it matter what people fill in that ? with as long as what they believe to fill it is consistent with the rest of the world?

- God is good no matter what he does

That last point is demonstration of a pure dogmatic mindset. If you are completely and utterly incapable of even considering the actions of some entity or your belief in some creed may not be correct, or just, or true, then you are a victim of dogma. And until you free yourself of its hold, you are not a worthy partner for discussion on this subject, in my humble opinion.

That is part of the very definition of the christian God. I don't see why it took you 18 pages to realize that a christian has beliefs generally consistent with the christian views on God?

#357 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6906

Posted 28 July 2011 - 06:48 AM

My impression of way's argument after reading through the last few pages essentially boils down to this:

My only point is that you shouldn't look down on religious people purely because they are religious. If there's a giant ? in the human knowledge base does it matter what people fill in that ? with as long as what they believe to fill it is consistent with the rest of the world?


Yes, well, if it stopped there then it wouldn't be a problem.

But it doesn't, you have people in power making choices based on something in a book and these choices have massive impact on many millions of people and are NOT logical nor in the best intrests of the population.

People teaching abstance over safe sex, trying to disrupt science based on creationism view points and doing serious damage to the knowledge base of children, the Pope coming out against the use of condoms in Africa, Bush claiming he was on a 'mission from god' during the Iraq war, people attacking abortion clinics and the people who work there.. and these are just examples which I can pull off the top of my head, all because of what someone read in a book.

Tell me that isn't messed up?

Yes, people do bad things, but when people do bad things and then go 'well, god says I should do it...' you've got to question the whole damned thing.

Good people are good, regardless of any 'higher power', but good people can end up doing bad simply because they think their god wants it of them...

Relgion is nothing but a primative hold over; the sooner we get over the whole mess the better off we'll be.

#358 _moagstar_   Members   -  Reputation: 465

Posted 28 July 2011 - 06:58 AM

Yes, well, if it stopped there then it wouldn't be a problem.

But it doesn't, you have people in power making choices based on something in a book and these choices have massive impact on many millions of people and are NOT logical nor in the best intrests of the population.

People teaching abstance over safe sex, trying to disrupt science based on creationism view points and doing serious damage to the knowledge base of children, the Pope coming out against the use of condoms in Africa, Bush claiming he was on a 'mission from god' during the Iraq war, people attacking abortion clinics and the people who work there.. and these are just examples which I can pull off the top of my head, all because of what someone read in a book.

Tell me that isn't messed up?

Yes, people do bad things, but when people do bad things and then go 'well, god says I should do it...' you've got to question the whole damned thing.

Good people are good, regardless of any 'higher power', but good people can end up doing bad simply because they think their god wants it of them...

Relgion is nothing but a primative hold over; the sooner we get over the whole mess the better off we'll be.


Reminds me of this:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.



#359 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 28 July 2011 - 07:14 AM

Yes, well, if it stopped there then it wouldn't be a problem.

But it doesn't, you have people in power making choices based on something in a book and these choices have massive impact on many millions of people and are NOT logical nor in the best intrests of the population.

I'm not especially pleased with anyone in power regardless of their beliefs. This is not the fault of religion.

People teaching abstinence over safe sex,

the Pope coming out against the use of condoms in Africa,

The pope's quote was taken hugely out of context. It is not a, "If you're going to have sex, don't use a condom," statement. It was a, "Stop having sex in non-committed relationships," statement. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to be respectful of the act rather than just doing what feels good. This is coming from someone that doesn't even agree that condoms are bad.

Bush claiming he was on a 'mission from god' during the Iraq war,

Who knew politicians use rhetoric. We all know that on the long list of reasons for which we went to Iraq, Bush legitimately believing he was on a mission from God is no where near the top of the list.

other examples

Listen, extremist fundamentalism is bad. It is not religion's fault that extreme fundamentalism exists. Do I beat up people outside of abortion clinics? Do I call parents whose children just died in Iraq and tell them their kids are faggots that are burning in hell? I don't even believe in creationism. Should I be looked down on because some idiots happen to be vocal with their idiocy? Many of these people are also American. Many of them are also white. Should we think that all white people beat up people outside abortion clinics? Do all american's charge people's funerals to tell people the recently deceased were horrible people? Of course not. So why is it acceptable to blame religion the same way?

If you ran into a Sudanese person on the street would the first thought that jumped into your mind be, "He's a genocidal murderer," because of what happened in Darfur? Do you think all North Koreans are absolutely insane?

There are religious, scientific, and political extremists. Hell, there are even video game and technological extremists. There have been murders in the name of all of these. Are all of them inherently bad? Why only religion?

edit: to save space putting this here:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

My counter argument would be that the latter 'good people' are not 'good people'. Doing evil in the name of religion does not make them in line with what the religion teaches.

#360 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6906

Posted 28 July 2011 - 07:15 AM

Some days the world just hands you things at the right time; a friend on facebook posted this link up;
Source

I'm concerned that my son has a secret girlfriend?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

My 17 year old son has been very secretive with me lately, recently he has started to refuse to go to church with the family and tonight when I was going through his room I found a magazine with naked men in it. He obviously has a girlfriend that he is hiding from me that brought that magazine into my home and I am afraid they are having intercourse and I am greatly concerned that he is going to get her pregnant.

What should I do about this?

Additional Details

He is not a homosexual, we have taught him from the bible and he has learned though our church that this is not in God's plan. I will not teach him about condoms, that is unacceptable, we have always taught him about abstinence and that is what God and his future wife expects from him.

I want to speak to our pastor about this but I am very afraid of what he would think we are teaching our son if he things we are allowing him to sneak a girl into his bedroom. That is clearly inappropriate and we are good parents, I am very afraid what he will think of us.



So, we have a woman who's son is clearly gay, yet because of what she believes she is refusing to talk to him about it or related issues and is more worried about what their pastor will think of them than the happiness of their son...

yay religion!







Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS