Contradictions In Religious Fundamentalism

Baby Bethany · February 13, 2009

Beth, great post, and I have to agree with alot of what you said. I don't think alot of people are willing to debate their religion or faith because they are afraid of being challenged in that faith. In many cases, they don't really know why they believe what they beleive, but feel that they have to pretend like they do. So they put up a scholarly preachy front, and try to make themselves unassailable. I think there are universal truths out there, and I believe very firmly in my faith, but I also believe that if they are the truth they will hold true even under challenge.

I agree, surely if you believe in something that strongly you don't mind questions being asked of it? You and the others have answered more or less every question we've raised, and I don't see your beliefs undermined because of that. If anything, it proves that you understand what you believe and have confidence in those beliefs. It's a little bit like extreme poltical groups, who know that their ideas don't stand up to any scrutiny, so they avoid people that might challenge those ideas and only speak about it to like minded people. Sort of preaching to the converted.

On the other side of the coin is having your hand forced by someone demanding an explanation where there is none to be had. In a recent TV debate between Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury (The head of the Church of England) Dawkins raised the question as to how Mary could have become pregnant with Jesus without having been with a man, and the fact that there is no solid scientific evidence of how this happened. I personally thought it was a silly question, because (as Dawkins is well aware) it is impossible to know for certain. However, the Archbishop felt pressured into providing a scientific explanation on TV.....so he tried to provide one. I can't remember what he said exactly, but it was all pretty flimsy schoolboy science, which to my mind simply undermined what he was saying. He should have simply admitted to Dawkins that there is no hard scientific evidence of how she became pregnant without a man, and by the same token there is no hard scientific evidence that she did not.

Beth

DiaperBoyKR · February 13, 2009

Okay, this is true, but you might think of it another way. If you own a complex device of any sort, (preferably before the proliferation of cheap Chinese junk) you'll agree that the instruction manual is an invaluable tool. In 100 years or more, if the device is still working, the manual would still be as valuable. While our society has changed immeasurably, our essence has not. The Bible is the instruction manual, a precious writing from our Creator, and its rules to live by are perfect for us.

Of course, but remember what Joseph said in Genesis, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" Even Genesis uses the word 'day' as a period of time, and 'fundamentalists' tend to overlook that point. Genesis 2:4 says "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that God made earth and heaven." So all seven days are being referred to as a single day, clearly it is an indeterminate unit of time, but one with a clear beginning and end.

Even the writers of the Bible understood that the universe must be much more vast than we can imagine, and that its Creator must indeed be infinitely more grand. Several of the Psalms are very much a praise of this, David in particular.

Oddly enough, you bring up a good point. The Bible, while not being a science textbook, touches on things like the water cycle, the earth being spherical, and that it hangs upon nothing, far contrary to the beliefs of the time.

The biggest problem I have had in discussing science and the Bible with other fundamentalists that really do believe in a young Earth theory is that they take things in the Bible extremely literally. In the Creation story for example, I have heard the viewpoint that because the language is "Evening came, and morning followed, the first day" etc., the Bible is talking about 7 literal earthly days. In other cases where I have gotten them to admit that it could be a allegory for a period in the time of God, who is beyond our possible understanding of time, they are stubborn about the point that the Bible also says that "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day" to God. To them, a day in God's sight can't possibly be more than 1000 years. Um, to me to that Scripture is a point of saying that time as we know it has no real meaning to God. A day in God's sight could be 1000 years or 10000 years, or a billion years, we simply don't know for sure. Another example of this is the prophecies in the book of Daniel, especially the prophecy of the 70 weeks. The weeks actually refer to weeks of years (7 years) of which 69 have already happened. The last refers to to the final seven years of the world (which has not happened yet). Obviously a week is not 7 years long, but in God's sight if we're taking a day as 1000 years, wouldn't a week be 7000 years long? I think the story of Creation is one of the few points of Scripture that is open to true interpretation, more than understanding what is literally there. I think it is amazing that the order of Creation is basically what science has told us really happened. But who's to say that the work of Creation didn't take millions or billions of years? Or what tools the Creator used to do it? To do so puts human limits on He who obviously has none.

The fact that the Church ignored many of the Scriptural scientific aspects such as spherical indications for the Earth, etc was one of the big points the Reformation was founded on. It was just another example of the Catholic Church ignoring things in the Scripture to retain its own power base. The Bible is actually an amazing book when you consider everything that it actually touches upon well before science or history came up with the same concepts.

Beth, as to the point you brought up about the virgin conception of Christ. Some folk have fallen into the fallacy of trying to use science to explain faith so that others might listen. The problem is that trying to explain it that way to someone who doesn't believe, especially a scientist will only suceed in making you look sillier. In my mind, instead of trying to explain something with science, the best answer to give if you don't know something is just to say "I don't know, I can't explain it." and move on. Either way the scientist is not going to be swaying, and at best on something like that you'll only be able to give a flimsy explanation (as you pointed out). There are definitely some things in our world beyond understanding that have to be taken strictly on faith. Heck, when you get down to it, many of the SCIENTIFIC core principles ultimately have to be taken on faith. Yes, they almost always have math to explain why something works the way it does (gravity for example) but why does gravity work? What makes two bodies of mass attract to each other? Why does the math explain that. In any belief there are some fundamental core things that require faith of the believer.

sarah_ab · February 14, 2009

see its a common misconception that atheists do not have faith. I have lots of faith, maybe not in the christian sense of the word, but faith is more than just believing in a god.. its believing in something, it doesn't have to be a deity or anything like that.

there is actually a good book, i'm done with it yet, am working my way through it.. called the little book of atheist spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville... talks about atheism and how spiritually has become very wrapped up in religion, when you can be spiritual without religion anyway, i'm not done with it... but its quite interesting, and might be an interesting read for people...

Bettypooh · February 14, 2009

Sarah's raised some good points. The American Indians were chock-full of spirituality, but weren't mono-theistic. Their only real 'God' was the good earth itself as a whole Others believe in the linking of spiritual 'goodness' as a source of power to be tapped into. I believe that this is where much of what Christians call 'the power of prayer' comes from. The human mind is powerful and I have seen where such 'linking' achieved 'miracles' without any call to a deity, as well as the same thing happening with Christians calling to God. Some even posit that "God" is simply a name that humans gave to this 'body of like-minded goodness'

For Bethany's sake I would like to comment about "Independant" Baptists. Like DiaperBoyKR noted, each church differs, but here in the southeast US many of them are extremely right-wing, some even going to the extent of believing that it's OK to break the law unnecessarily if you do it "in the name of God" based on what their beliefs of God are. The Bible plainly states that we are to obey the laws of man as well as the laws of God, yet these extremists seem to be illiterate when it comes to that. But also in the "Independant" Baptist group was the Church I nearly joined. The love, care, and tolerance of the people in that Church was astonishing I guess what I'm trying to say is that any "independent" sect, Baptist or otherwise, must be taken as a singular case.

DiaperBoyKR is right about the Bible being full of allegories, and this is where I began to find my own depth of understanding of how the Bible was written. Why would God have bothered with such allegories in writing the Bible? I don't think he would have. Instead I think they came from the minds of the men who wrote the Bible who well understood that the people of their times were generally uneducated and quite simple, and wouldn't be able to grasp the concepts involved without a simple allegory to help explain it. So if mankind added this to 'God's word', then what else did they add or remove? I already mentioned the removal of the Books of the Apophryca, an act occuring in 'modern' times. When I've explained my beliefs about the writing of the Bible to most Christians, they pass it off by saying it was what the writer was "inspired by God" to say. Need I point out that if I hadn't been "inspired" to post a reply here, this very post wouldn't exist? So thus my conclusion that the Bible, written by mankind, is more than a bit contradictory and fallible and while it's writers were inspired to write it, that alone does little to make it accurate or infallible as the exact word of God. Taken in generality it is the "Word of God"; taken in exactness it isn't :huh: This is why I scorn those so-called 'christians' who use bits and pieces of it to justify specifics that are contrary to it's general consistent teachings. I disagree with DiaperBoyKR's statement that the best way to argue against a scientific point is to say "I don't know, I can't explain it." . I think it better to say "I can't explain it but I believe it to be true. Now can you prove to me that it is impossible?" That puts the onus of proof back in their court as it removes it from you. PS I learned that tactic from a lawyer :lol:

Time and again the Bible tells of of where God has used humans to achieve His goals. The "immaculate conception" of a virgin is scientifically provable. There have been quite a number of cases where 'heavy petting' has caused pregnancy without the hymen having ruptured, sometimes without there having been any direct penetration at all. Many are the cases of heavy bleeding on the second and third acts of sex which has always been the general indication of the virginity of a woman. There is also the possibility that Mary was hiding something from Joseph and us and that God had some other guy in the picture that we don't know about as His method of causing the pregnancy. I won't go so far as to saying that this is how it happened, but only to say that this is all very possible and not necessarily contrary to the ways of God we see in the Bible regularly BTW, one of the most sought-after 'cosmetic' surgeries in some places it the 'restoration of virginity' where the hymen is sewn back together. The usual motivation for this is a religious prohibition for a man to marry a non-virgin wife(and in those places it's common for that religion's women 'elders' to physically verify that the hymen is intact, how needlessly embarassing that must be to the poor girl who just wanted to get married! And such things as this are why I am so 'down' on organized religions amd ritual as a whole; without it things like this wouldn't happen :angry: You can have rock-solid beliefs and share them without any need to create rules that only keep people away and cause needless misery.

To all who've responded to this thread so far: I applaud every one of you for being intelligent and nice and open to discussing these differences without resorting to hate or spite. In my part of the world the people who call themselves "Fundamentalist Christians" are incapable of such inherent nicety and would have already responded angrily and hatefully, calling names and yelling "You're going to Hell for that!" or worse, saying "You're a demon! Get away from me! Get thee behind me Satan!" then misusing the Bible to make their point. Though we all disagree somewhat I believe that we'd all make for good friends if we lived in the same neighborhood. You're great! :thumbsup:

Bettypooh

DiaperBoyKR · February 14, 2009

Hey Betty, thanks for weighing in again!

I have to agree with you about the independent Baptist churches. The one I have been fortunate to be a part of over here has been a truly loving Christian community that does truly care about the Spirit of the Scripture and not just its letter. However, from previous experience I know plenty of Baptist churches (independent and otherwise) back home in the States (I'm originally from PA and VA) that are not. They can be extremely conservative, and in many cases, unChristian in the way that they treat others. But to judge the entire movement by them is not fair. There are always going to be some bad sheep in any group, and unfortunatly that is the image that gets raised. Most Baptists that I know are generally good, loving people who know God personally and are truly concerned for the well-being of their friends and family members.

As to the Bible, I believe some of the allegories that are used in the Creationary story is there because of 2 reasons. First, the Book of Genesis was an oral tradition for approximately 900 years before it was written down (at least). As such, some mistranslation etc is going to creep in. Second, I also think that allegory at that time was the best way that God had of getting through to the people. If you look at the books of prophecy and history, they don't come really until much later in Israel's development. Once those start appearing on the scene (starting at the Book of Judges), the allegory disappears. As I noted before, most of these and the subsequent books were written (historically) shortly after the periods they describe, and as such are considered accurate recordings of events.

As far as your suggestion for the scientific challenges, thanks, I'll have to try that !

underwhere · February 14, 2009

I think we're pretty much in agreement on the science aspect. To my mind we still have a lot to learn in science, and that's why I feel athiesm is a bit of a condradiction. I accept the atheist view that "there is no proof that God exists" but equally there is no proof that God doesn't exist......this is why I called athiesm a "faith" in my first post.

Beth, what you have actually described here, to be a bit technical but more accurate, is not "atheism" but "agnosticism". An atheist believes that God does not exist. An agnostic, although open to the idea that God might exist, is the one who does not believe in God only because of a lack of substantive proof for the existence of God.

sarah_ab · February 15, 2009

Maybe a little help here

Atheism -

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Agnosticism -

1.The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2.The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I am of the first belief that there is no god or gods. Although to some the difference may be slight, an agnostic believes there can be no proof either for or against the existance of a god or gods, where as an atheist believes there is no god or gods.

PampersPete · February 15, 2009

Don't forget about me.....

sarah_ab · February 16, 2009

hahah pete is that from the pick of destiny??? fantastic clip!

PampersPete · February 16, 2009

hahah pete is that from the pick of destiny??? fantastic clip!

To be honest,I'm not sure. I've never seen that movie. I just want to be THAT asshole whenever people bring up religion. I go to photobucket when the soapboxin' gets to be too much. It's all in fun though. I'm not satanic but I'm not overly religious either. Don't mind me. I'm just being THAT asshole

Baby Bethany · February 16, 2009

Maybe a little help here

Atheism -

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company)

Agnosticism -

1.The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2.The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

I am of the first belief that there is no god or gods. Although to some the difference may be slight, an agnostic believes there can be no proof either for or against the existance of a god or gods, where as an atheist believes there is no god or gods.

Guys, thanks for your great responses. I wanted to reply over the weekend, but I worked both Saturday and Sunday and when I logged on yesterday evening, I was honestly too tired to think about the subject. :lol:

Sarah/Underwhere, thanks for those definitions of Agnosticism. However, just to add to the mix and further fuel the debate, I would like to suggest that maybe it's not that black and white. Many theologians consider that there are at least three different forms of Agnostocism, all three of which are very different. They are:

Hard Agnostocism (the definition that Sarah gave): The belief that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable, simply because we will never have the evidence to prove it either way. They are not saying that God does or does not exist, but that we will never know for certain.

Soft Agnostocism: The belief that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable now, but maybe one day we will be able to prove/disprove it. They are just awaiting further evidence.

Apathetic Agnostocism: The belief that God may or may not exist, but either way he cannot have any influence on us or the Earth in general, so it doesn't matter anyway. They consider that if a creater of the universe did exist he simply did his part and then left it to run within the scientific guidelines/limits that he set for it. Rather like a man that makes a clock, winds that clock and then leaves it to run without his watching it 24/7.

The word 'Agnostic' was coined by Thomas Huxley to explain his own beliefs. Ironically just before Chrsitmas last year I read a biography of Huxley ('Evolutions High Priest' by Adrian Desmond). In this book he explains what he means by 'Agnostic':

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man, I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indistructabilty of matter." T. H. Huxley.

Based on the above, I would say Huxley was a 'Soft Agnostic'?

Sarah, I would just like to comment on your point about many people believing that you cannot be both spritual and an Athiest at the same time. Bettypooh made the valid point about native American spirituality, but in addition I would like to suggest that it is not only possible to be both Athiest and spiritual, but Athiest and religious! As you say, Athieism is the denial of the existence of God/Gods not denial of religion/spirituality. Buddism for example has no God/Gods, and because of this many people consider Buddism to be an Athiest religion. The same applies to Taoism.

Beth

Baby Bethany · February 16, 2009

Don't forget about me.....

Pete, please be aware that in response to you posting that clip, it's quite possible that a lightning bolt will come out of the heavens and strike your diapered bottom. Should this happen, and depending on what you believe, it will be because of one of three explanations:

1) Religious view: You not only mentioned Satan, but you posted a video of the evil one dancing at a night club. God is not impressed and the lightning bolt is the solution.

2) Agnostic view: There is no evidence that God struck your diaper, but there is no evidence that he didn't. We will await further proof.

3) Athiest view: The lightning bolt had nothing to do with a God. Your bottom was simply the highest point in the area (which will teach you not to bend over and tie your shoe laces, whilst walking in a park during a storm). And because your diaper was wet it acted as a conductor to the electrical current.

Beth

PampersPete · February 16, 2009

Pete, please be aware that in response to you posting that clip, it's quite possible that a lightning bolt will come out of the heavens and strike your diapered bottom. Should this happen, and depending on what you believe, it will be because of one of three explanations:

1) Religious view: You not only mentioned Satan, but you posted a video of the evil one dancing at a night club. God is not impressed and the lightning bolt is the solution.

2) Agnostic view: There is no evidence that God struck your diaper, but there is no evidence that he didn't. We will await further proof.

3) Athiest view: The lightning bolt had nothing to do with a God. Your bottom was simply the highest point in the area (which will teach you not to bend over and tie your shoe laces, whilst walking in a park during a storm). And because your diaper was wet it acted as a conductor to the electrical current.

Beth

curiositykilledthecat · February 17, 2009

?Okay now I have that stupid song from lambchop in my head.

"This is the thread that doesn't end. It goes on and on my friend. some people started arguing about the existence of a God and people keep on arguing just because....

there that is my little ray of sunshine on your day.

sarah_ab · February 17, 2009

yep i've heard about those three forms of agnosticism but they all share the common idea that the existance of god can neither be proved or disproved at least at this present time....

i was going to mention the whole athiests can be religious.. i believe it was erich fromms book "Psychoanalysis and religion" which actually can clarify how a person can be religious but believe in no god or gods.. another good book. I haven't read it in years though, so but i'm sure i could dig it up to find the part i'm talking about..... just dont have the time to dig through boxes!!!

Baby Bethany · February 17, 2009

?Okay now I have that stupid song from lambchop in my head.

"This is the thread that doesn't end. It goes on and on my friend. some people started arguing about the existence of a God and people keep on arguing just because....

there that is my little ray of sunshine on your day.

And the moral of that story is not only does curiosity kill the cat, but curiosity keeps you coming back to a thread for just one more post!! :lol:

Beth

sarah_ab · February 17, 2009

curiosity may have killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back!

curiositykilledthecat · February 18, 2009

lol, anyone else ever wonder why in the world did she name the puppet lamb chop? That's not a name for a sheep, that's what you turn it into? My korean neighbors have a dog and I'm sure that the name of the dog isn't potroast. I know, I'll make a cow puppet and name it veal? I'm not sure how this one escaped my childhood unoticed.

Diapers4Me · February 18, 2009

My few thoughts on religion:

The bible was written by men (or women), translated into other languages by other men, and further translated etc etc....if you read it litterally you are wasting your time.

If God create the universe he is the most amazing almighty being ever....as such, do you think he'd want you (one of his miniscule creations) worshiping him? If you answer that you think he would want you worshiping him....then you are saying God is self centered-as such I won't worship him. If you say "no", I would agree.

Religion was created by man to control man and has killed more people in its name than anything else. The only use I see for religion is as a method of teaching good values and morales to our children.....but you can do that without religion. I recently read an interesting article on Humanism or the Humanist movement and was quite intrigued by it. It was the first time I'd read about a movement that I actually felt I could support and made sense......now I just need to get more information on it!

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Diapers4Me · February 20, 2009

Wow....apparently my contribution was a thread killer....

Jimpy · February 22, 2009

Wow....apparently my contribution was a thread killer....

Hah, it seems so, saddly. I would just like to add that I too am a humanist, have been for a few years. Best thing about it is it's purely a philosophic view, not institutional.

My personal beliefs in the way of theism are something more along the lines of what Einstein believed: That there may perhaps be a God, but his scope as a creator is far to vast to be a personal one.

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in a God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views

sarah_ab · February 23, 2009

david hume is a good read about theories pertaining to god, and his different takes on the hypothetical question (to him) if god existed

things like.. whats to say there was only one god.. when building a house thare are many construction workers and architects who work together, why not like the world

or if god did create this world hwat if it was just his first attempt and there are better ones out there

curiositykilledthecat · February 23, 2009

Oh...Emannuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable.Heidigger, Heidigger was a boozey beggar wo was just as sloshed as plato.. David hume could out consume vickenstein and schlegel. Renee decartes was a drunken fart, I drink therefore I am. There's nothing Nistze couldn't teach you about the raising of the wrist. Socrates himself was particularly pissed...

Anybody else know this song. I love Monty Python.

I screwed up a bucnh fo the lyrics, it's been a while.

Baby Bethany · February 23, 2009

My few thoughts on religion:

The bible was written by men (or women), translated into other languages by other men, and further translated etc etc....if you read it litterally you are wasting your time.

One of the points I raised above. Even if a book is translated only once, it will lose something in translation. I feel another problem is that many people see the Bible as a single book. In fact it is a collection of books, written at different times, by different authors and in different parts of the World.

If God create the universe he is the most amazing almighty being ever....as such, do you think he'd want you (one of his miniscule creations) worshiping him? If you answer that you think he would want you worshiping him....then you are saying God is self centered-as such I won't worship him. If you say "no", I would agree.

I suggested above that I find it unlikly that a clever primate on a small planet, orbiting just another star, can be the ultimate lifeform in the universe. Then again, perhaps we are. Perhaps we are the most advanced living thing by a long shot.

The question of whether or not it is right to worship power is an old one. Then again, if God had no power what would we gain from worshipping him?

Religion was created by man to control man and has killed more people in its name than anything else. The only use I see for religion is as a method of teaching good values and morales to our children.....but you can do that without religion. I recently read an interesting article on Humanism or the Humanist movement and was quite intrigued by it. It was the first time I'd read about a movement that I actually felt I could support and made sense......now I just need to get more information on it!

I don't think the idea of religious thought was created "to control man" but as a way for man to understand the world around him. I think that as soon as man became intelligent enough to understand that we all grow old and die, he needed to believe that there must be more to it than that. The idea that in a few years you will cease to exist forever, and in the meantime your loved ones will go the same way, is not an easy thing to accept. It was no easier for our distant ancestors. A dog for instance isn't aware that in 30 years it won't exist, it just lives for the moment. Because of this it needs no God. Another reason for religious thought is that man started to notice that all the best things happen when the sun is in the sky. Crops grow, hunting is possible and you don't get a lion creeping up on you in the dark. Because of this he came to associate light with good, and darkness with bad. The Sun became his first God. It was only later that man found religion was a way of controlling others.

Religion has never killed anyone, it's man that does this. For most of history man has used religion to justify his actions, but this doesn't mean holy scripture is at fault. Just man's interpritation of it.

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

Baby Bethany · February 23, 2009

lol, anyone else ever wonder why in the world did she name the puppet lamb chop? That's not a name for a sheep, that's what you turn it into? My korean neighbors have a dog and I'm sure that the name of the dog isn't potroast. I know, I'll make a cow puppet and name it veal? I'm not sure how this one escaped my childhood unoticed.

For the same reason that we often name pigs 'Rasher'. I'm surprised you guys even got to see 'Lamb Chop'?

Beth

Contradictions In Religious Fundamentalism

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in