It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2nd commandment forbids ALIEN disclosure!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I expected the normal "are you crazy" response I would get in my local town. Its good to see others think like me. Thank you. I would like to get back to the DISCLOSURE part of the topic. It seems we have drifted.

I think the 2nd commandment is evidence that these higher beings do not want to be drawn, photographed or carved into stone. It is also an acknowlegment buy GOD (or the author of the commandments) of their existence. If they could come down and command this thousands of years ago who is to say they haven't told the government to keep doing this now!




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoPhobosIt was not an excuse, as you put it; it was an unsuccessful attempt to explain the difference between an image or a statue, and an idol. The key to this difference as found in Exodus "You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them." God did not mean the Israelites could not draw or create symbols. He prohibits serving, or worshipping them.
It still is unsuccessful because you are trying to establish a difference between the two which is just not there. The words were:

Thou shalt not make thee any graven (def: carved) image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...thou shalt now bow down...

It does not state you may make or if you make graven images you are not to bow down to or serve them. It specifically demands that none be made. A snake is found in the earth beneath, the brass image of same was carved, it is therefore a graven image. The cherub is either a figment of imagination which would be excluded or it is representative of something in heaven, and if the latter, it is a graven image. It is all well and fine to try and excuse what you read by stating it was man who decided to idolize same, but that holds no water, for they were specifically told they were to look upon it.


As far as a rational thought on the snake bites: they spoke badly of God, He punished them for a time with the snakes, they came to Moses for help, Moses prayed to God, and God gave them an “out.” Rational enough?
It is not rational in any way, it is naive, since God brought the snakes upon them as punishment, he has no need to have Moses create a graven image to counter his punishment. All he had to do from the outset was undo what he did, and remove the snakes. At the same token, all those in possession of the wand after Moses had to do was remove it from sight so it could not be worshipped if it was not intended to be, and that includes Hezekiah.

What is blatant about the New Testiment to me is its representation of the evolution of the one God worship, where the destruction of this wand was just one more step, and most likely the arcs themselves where mention of same becomes irrelevant and we are told absolutely nothing about what their disapearance.


Are you suggesting that angles on a box that only one man, the High Priest, could see once a year on the Day of Atonement were worshiped? I haven’t read anything about the people being instructed to worship anything but God.
Yes I am, whether it was one man or all, and the fact the high priest himself adorned in gold, precious stones and a carving on his head is the person representing the Israelites to God makes it all the worse. Finally, you also presume the high priest was the only person allowed to see and on one day of the year only which is not so, as evidenced by the siege of Jericho.


Yep, Moses was raised by Egyptians, and the Israelites spent a little time there too. I would imagine that a lot of Egyptian culture came along with them into the wilderness.
Well that is a good start for you.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by acidhead
actually the term heaven in the bible means literally "the sky"

try it , remove the word heaven and replace with sky and all will make sense


Yes this does make sense.
Also, taking the meaning in this sense, it does seem as if God does not condone disclosure....... so the question is valid, yet remains unanswered.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The words were:…


No, the word was lop, as I stated before. Transliterated to Pecel, which means idol. Your English translation does not make the distinction between Pecel and the word Pacel.
Hebrew does, and a carving (Pacel) is not the same thing as an idol (Pecel, the word used here).


It specifically demands that none be made (snip) holds no water…


Nope, as explained twice now.

And if you are going to start calling my statements naïve, then you and I are finished with our discourse.

Back to the show.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoPhobosNo, the word was lop, as I stated before. Transliterated to Pecel, which means idol. Your English translation does not make the distinction between Pecel and the word Pacel. Hebrew does, and a carving (Pacel) is not the same thing as an idol (Pecel, the word used here).
Well, let's say for a moment it means carving, this carving out of brass equates to a graven image which is still representative of an image "in the earth" according to God, which you are not allowed to revere. Simple no? So, since semantics is your thing, how about I give you the English translation of the verse per one of the Torahs I have here in my possession, according to the Masoretic text, printed by the Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia. Okay? Please forgive me if I somewhat repeat myself with the following, they just all virtually use different words to say teh same thing

You shall not make for yourself a sculptured (graven) image, or any likeness...
Does carved or sculptured have some obscure meaning to you which you would like to share and support as not falling within the definition of the commandment of illicit images?


Nope, as explained twice now.
see above and try again. Nope is no defense.


And if you are going to start calling my statements naïve, then you and I are finished with our discourse.
I apologize for scaring you. With that I will call your statements absolute nonsense, and thoroughly rattle you. Better?


Back to the show.
Trying to find a crowd you think you can fool?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Just to put in some factual information about the "fish" symbol that is so popular in christianity I can tell you at least what it was used for. There are catacombs with "christians" buried under Paris, (I may be wrong about the location). At the time the fish was used it was a symbol split in half with the head and the tail forming when one person met up with another in the catacombs for a secret worship. I used to remember that history with alot more detail, but I know that is the basis for it.

And considering the origin of symbols it is widely know the oldest "to date" language on this planet is nick named "the language of the birds". It was nicknamed that because it is supposed to have been the language of angels; and the way they spoke was with chirps, warbles, and likely harmonics. The language on paper looks like alot of little twigs forming only one character each. These characters stood for 1 or many sounds put together. Alot of human sects still use sounds as their language today...(hint, hint, noone thinks there are any more alive, but check out the Dogon tribe).

All of this ties in to the same thing dealing with symbols, ETs, and the bible. The bible isn't a poorly written book just because there are fools abusing its possible truths. I see the bible as a map to other things much, much older....including the nephilim (angels or aliens, take your pick). Instead of hating something because of someone elses interpretation of it, one might look at those things that aren't completely true within it as (firewalls) of sorts. It's all a big code. That's all it has ever been. The key to breaking quantum encryption is not in trying to percieve it, it will always break apart if you leave but a single possibility to its completion. The key to it is no key at all, but to observe the big picture with many points of view; ALL BEING THE RIGHT ANSWER.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by existence]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
()
()
()

And if one repeats the symbol/pattern, it turns into a design like the caduceus or DNA helix, and chopped up it looks like a simple fish....draw it out yourself, link the fish together tell me what it looks like.

Come on you all have a noodle use it.

Here is a clue, it only take two fish to make it visable, make the fish kiss.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by ADVISOR]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween


Originally posted by NoPhobosNo, the word was lop, as I stated before. Transliterated to Pecel, which means idol. Your English translation does not make the distinction between Pecel and the word Pacel. Hebrew does, and a carving (Pacel) is not the same thing as an idol (Pecel, the word used here).


Well, let's say for a moment it means carving, this carving out of brass equates to a graven image which is still representative of an image "in the earth" according to God, which you are not allowed to revere. Simple no? So, since semantics is your thing, how about I give you the English translation of the verse per one of the Torahs I have here in my possession, according to the Masoretic text, printed by the Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia. Okay? Please forgive me if I somewhat repeat myself with the following, they just all virtually use different words to say teh same thing.


You know what I'm amazed by? I'm amazed by the fact that just because every publisher takes something to mean one thing, and they print it that way, that everyone is so gullible as to believe it blindly. The Hebrew language has many different definitions for the same word, and some of their written words can be very different words, with very different meanings. Take the serpent in Genesis for example. Everyone takes that word to mean literally a snake. The only problem for me about that is why, shortly after Eve having spoken with the serpent and going to show what she learned from him to Adam, did she give birth to one good twin and one evil one. If the process of logic is carried out, Satan wasn't a serpent at all at that point, he was a man, or a man figure at least able to impregnate Eve. That's just but ONE example of a misinterpretation in the Bible. There are countless ones waiting to be found I'm sure.




You shall not make for yourself a sculptured (graven) image, or any likeness...


Does carved or sculptured have some obscure meaning to you which you would like to share and support as not falling within the definition of the commandment of illicit images?


Again, it has a different meaning. What don't you get about this? Try putting this statement into context with the rest of the book before you make a judgment like this. If you read that verse, and the next one, You'll realize that he explains WHY he said what he said, and what he meant by that.

This is the Exodus quote:

20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

So you see, he only said that because he didn't want them to worship them, which he knew that they would. You can't just take one verse out of the book, and out of context, and expect to make a cohesive argument around it; it's just not possible. Now, further down in the same chapter, he references this commandment yet again. Here's the quote:

20:23
Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.

20:24
An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

20:25
And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

Here, he directly commands them to build him an alter with which to give him offerings. By your definition, we would take that to mean that God's a hypocrite for commanding the people to not make any graven things, yet at the same time, he asks them to make him an alter.

You see, it's all about the context of the statements made. As a rule, if it doesn't sound right, it probably isn't.




Nope, as explained twice now.


see above and try again. Nope is no defense.


After explaining something more than once, it becomes redundant and utterly useless to explain something such as this to someone unwilling to listen. Yes, we all understand the traditional definition of the word, but maybe the traditional definition is wrong!!! In his case, he's getting tired of explaining something to you and having you just appear to spit in his face. I mean, isn't just POSSIBLE that the definition taken to be fact is actually wrong?




And if you are going to start calling my statements naïve, then you and I are finished with our discourse.


I apologize for scaring you. With that I will call your statements absolute nonsense, and thoroughly rattle you. Better?


We're not here to win an argument. This debate is all about learning something. Stop stonewalling.




Back to the show.


Trying to find a crowd you think you can fool?


Nope. I bet he's just trying to get back on topic, as should have been done a long time ago.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by TheBorg]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
to make it visible, make the fish kiss.


Yes, it does look like the DNA helix. And so does the staff of Asklepios that, since the Renaissance, has been widely used as a symbol for the medical profession. Is has two snakes entwined around a staff with wings at the top.




posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
What? No rebuttal? I feel depressed now. I was hoping for a good debate where I'd learn something new. Oh well, guess I'll have to wait.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321

EXODUS 20
Thou shalt have NO OTHER GODS before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any GRAVEN IMAGE or any LIKENESS of any THING that is in HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the EARTH BENEATH , or that is in the WATER UNDER the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to THEM , nor serve THEM: for I, the Lord thy God, am A JEALOUS God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

WOW I just read the full commandment for the first time and it looks like to me god is forbidding making alien images or bowing down to THEM.


Well to me, the water part kind of reminds me of the nagas of indian legends. What if by "heaven" they ment outer space?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorgYou know what I'm amazed by? I'm amazed by the fact that just because every publisher takes something to mean one thing, and they print it that way, that everyone is so gullible as to believe it blindly. The Hebrew language has many different definitions for the same word, and some of their written words can be very different words, with very different meanings. Take the serpent in Genesis for example. Everyone takes that word to mean literally a snake. The only problem for me about that is why, shortly after Eve having spoken with the serpent and going to show what she learned from him to Adam, did she give birth to one good twin and one evil one.
Twins? You speak about the transliteration misrepresentations and then mention twins, which is found in which accredited Bible? How odd. First understand this, there are two ways to address the bibles known to us today, they are: within the context as presented when directed to the text itself, or within the mythological context from which they arise. You attempt to merge the two into one under the presumption that the Bible adherents are aware of the mythology behind the verses. Later on in your screed, you copulate subjectivism with stated doctrine and come up with a confusing mix of nihilism and belief. Twins, you say?


If the process of logic is carried out, Satan wasn't a serpent at all at that point, he was a man, or a man figure at least able to impregnate Eve. That's just but ONE example of a misinterpretation in the Bible. There are countless ones waiting to be found I'm sure.
And here I have to say you postulate where such is not ncessary given my words. There is nothing to link the serpent to Satan. On the mythical side, there is no serpent named Satan.

Referencing your disagreement on my reasoning, does carved or sculptured have some obscure meaning to you which you would like to share and support as not falling within the definition of the commandment of illicit images? Is there some obtuse and adverse meaning between the two which elimiates one from my definition?


Again, it has a different meaning. What don't you get about this? Try putting this statement into context with the rest of the book before you make a judgment like this. If you read that verse, and the next one, You'll realize that he explains WHY he said what he said, and what he meant by that.
The real question is, what don't you get about carved and sculpted being the same?

This is the Exodus quote:


20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

So you see, he only said that because he didn't want them to worship them, which he knew that they would. You can't just take one verse out of the book, and out of context, and expect to make a cohesive argument around it; it's just not possible. Now, further down in the same chapter, he references this commandment yet again. Here's the quote:
Incorrect! They are two distinct thoughts. Had he conformed to your thinking he would neutralize 20:4 by prefacing 20:5 with "to" where ‘thou shalt not’ becomes redundant, or with, "which." as in clarifying; you may not create them and you may not worship them, with; you may create them to worship them. Yours is Christian semantics at play. Further, this is not one of his commandments. But then why confuse you even more?


You see, it's all about the context of the statements made. As a rule, if it doesn't sound right, it probably isn't.
Indeed. And once more, they are two distinct thoughts.


After explaining something more than once, it becomes redundant and utterly useless to explain something such as this to someone unwilling to listen. Yes, we all understand the traditional definition of the word, but maybe the traditional definition is wrong!!! In his case, he's getting tired of explaining something to you and having you just appear to spit in his face. I mean, isn't just POSSIBLE that the definition taken to be fact is actually wrong?
Yes, yours is, and the words cannot be distorted to fit your point of view, they are what they are.


We're not here to win an argument. This debate is all about learning something. Stop stonewalling.
Then start learning.


Nope. I bet he's just trying to get back on topic, as should have been done a long time ago.
Decide which it is, learn or continue a linear and wayward path you demand be followed.

Be careful not to bite off more than you can chew with your disappontment.


[edit on 3/13/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321

EXODUS 20
Thou shalt have NO OTHER GODS before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any GRAVEN IMAGE or any LIKENESS of any THING that is in HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the EARTH BENEATH , or that is in the WATER UNDER the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to THEM , nor serve THEM: for I, the Lord thy God, am A JEALOUS God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

WOW I just read the full commandment for the first time and it looks like to me god is forbidding making alien images or bowing down to THEM.


Ummm... all the 2nd commandment means, is to not worship any other beings. It in no way says followers of God must pretend other beings do not exist.

Next, God is an alien. So are the angels, demons, Jesus, the Son of Dawn (who later on turned bad and became known as Satan.) None of them are from Earth, so they are all aliens.

For example, there is a verse in the Bible in which an angel appeared to one of the followers of Jesus. The guy started bowing down to the angel, worshipping it. The angel immediatly said "stop! Don't worship me!".

Another verse:
Isaiah 26:13-14
It talks about how other beings were "acting as masters". They were telling the people to worship them instead of God. (God's name BTW is Yaweh. Psalms 83:18). Other gods (in this case the Rephaim, who were decendants of the Nephilim) were contesting the main god written about in the Bible - Yahweh.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
You make some interesting points Borg but it could actually be a big difference if we were created by Aliens or "God". I feel like we would be closer to answers( among other things) if we just thought of Aliens as "Gods". They just seem more reachable or tangible than a Holy Spirit that always seem to change form as science advances still stay believeable. Like Im sure it will happen when/If they find life on Mars.

And saying that Aliens obviopusly had to have a creator too does not answer any questions. The same thing can be said about anything, even "God".

And to Meshuggah did "God" not make himself known to us in Biblical. Just replace the word God with Aliens.



Yes, one can definitely describe God as an alien, simply because he's not of this world. However, just because he's an "alien" does not mean that he's a physical being of any kind. I think the distinction should be made between aliens and God that God is a Spiritual being, while aliens are physical entities. The difference for creation then would be that the spiritual entity, or God, created all that is, and all the creatures in it. All the creatures can interact with the environment in ways that may seem to create new things, when in fact all they are doing is altering current ones.

Let me use a loose analogy. In the animal kingdom, how do you think the animals percieve us humans when we trap them, or kill them for that matter? They must feel, in some rudamentary sense, the same way that we would feel when/if aliens came here. We, to the animal, are probably very much aliens, and are to be feared because we hold great power over them. However, that does not mean that we are the creators of said creatures.

Now I know this doesn't describe exactly what I'm trying to get at, but it begins to paint the picture. I hope you can see where I'm going with this, as my fingers are getting tired. I'm gonna stop now, lol.


Ummm.... God (who's name is Yahweh) is a physical being. He vacationed on Earth many, many, times in physical form. The Bible describes him litterally "taking a stroll" in the Garden of Eden. Later on Yahweh visits Moses (Moshe is actually his name.) Moshe and Yahweh have an arguement. Moshe wanted to see Yahweh's body, and face, and check him out face to face, in person.. Yahweh and Moshe argue for a loooooooong time. Finally Yahweh says "Ok, OK, you want to check out my buff body? Alright! But you can't look me in the eye? Understand?". Yahweh put Moshe in a crevice, then Yahweh proceeded to walk by Moshe. Depending on the Bible translation you read, Yahweh was butt naked, and Moshe got a full view of.. Yahweh's "glory" aka his... gonads, as well as the rest of God's/Yahweh's body.
If you read it in the original Hebrew, it's more hardcore, and explicitly says Moshe saw Yahweh's gonads, in addition to the rest of his body.

Yahweh came down to Earth again when he visited Lot not once, but many times. Yahweh had an escort with him. Yahweh and Lot also have an arguement. Their arguement goes on for a loooooooong, really looooooong time.

2Kings 2:11
And once again, Yahweh came down to earth in a small spaceship, with a convertable top to boot!.... when he picked up Elijah, then took off back into outter space. Ya have to be physical if ya need a physical object to take you down from the sky, to Earth, then back up into the sky and space again.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Amazing that the church could know all about aliens and yet still believe the world was flat for all those years, or that it was the center of the Universe instead of the backwater planet we really are...


I think the church may know more than it's telling, but I seriously doubt they've got that kind of understanding of their agenda....


The current church has absolutly nothing to do with the original Jesus, Bible, and the decipiles.
When Jesus was alive, the rest of the non-believers, and Romans, called Jesus and his followers a new sect of Judisim.
A few hundred years after Jesus died, Roman Emperor Constitine came on the scene. Up to then, all followers of Jesus were persecuted, and killed by the Romans. Constitine then decided "You know what? We can't get rid of this new sect of Judism. Let's join it and take it over from the inside." Constitiine then declared he was a Christian. And all of Rome and all Romans are now Christian. He also decided the name of the new religion would be named after Jesus Christ - Christianity (English translation of the word.)
Roman Emperor Constitine then had a meeting, and decided on the customs, rituals, and heirachy of the modern church. Having Biships, Cardnials, Popes, mass, the idea of Satan having red skin, horns, pointy tail, adding pagen holidays like Christmas, on and on. Many parts of the original Bible (written in Sumarian, Old Hebrew, Hebrew, Aramaic) were mistranslated on purpose. Stuff added, taken out, or just plain not talked about in church.

So all the sillyness you point out about the church, is the result of it being infiltrated, and taken over, by the original enemies of the church.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Fits in with how, many people see the aliens, as the fallen angels.
New denomination...nah thats the problem with christianity.


I can't interpret it or any other passagefrom the bible any other way...


long pause.....sigh



How else can everything make sense?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Just some thoughts.....

God = Elohim = Those who came from the SKY!

They are the inspiration behind the writing of the bible ....

Of that, there is absolutely no doubt...

You should have no other gods before ME ....



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
I expected the normal "are you crazy" response I would get in my local town. Its good to see others think like me. Thank you. I would like to get back to the DISCLOSURE part of the topic. It seems we have drifted.

I think the 2nd commandment is evidence that these higher beings do not want to be drawn, photographed or carved into stone. It is also an acknowlegment buy GOD (or the author of the commandments) of their existence. If they could come down and command this thousands of years ago who is to say they haven't told the government to keep doing this now!


I am pretty sure the "HE" who has smiled on America's endeavor is Lucifer and his boys, aka Elohim ...

See, in order to bring Earth into a "universal fold" you would need the Earth to be governed by ONE ruling body...
This allows ONE deal to be cut with ONE government instead of 100's of deals with 100's of governments, Some would not agree to things other governments agree to ...

Until there is a NWO, ruled by one governing body,,, 'disclosure" cannot take place ...

This would make the endeavor of America a simple case of allowing the Earth to be 'annexed" ...

The means being War and the conquering of all Nations ....
"he has smile upon our endeavor .."



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
I expected the normal "are you crazy" response I would get in my local town. Its good to see others think like me. Thank you. I would like to get back to the DISCLOSURE part of the topic. It seems we have drifted.

I think the 2nd commandment is evidence that these higher beings do not want to be drawn, photographed or carved into stone. It is also an acknowlegment buy GOD (or the author of the commandments) of their existence. If they could come down and command this thousands of years ago who is to say they haven't told the government to keep doing this now!


This does seem to make more sense, since most ufo contactees have been told by there "contacts" that they should not have there pictures taken. But the "billy meier" case is strangely the only one in which they don't mind. If they want to be honestly contacted, why can't it be easier? The aliens are at fault aswell, given the fact people die in this line of work. And given what reasons? Are we that stupid, change is hard, but it can be done. But, given that, why are there so many ufo related coverup deaths? Does this lead me to believe there's nothing really out there? Is there is something out there, then why do aliens wish to do harm to us in the first place? All in the line of a silly "were not alone". And why is it such a problem for a picture? Do they think that it will steal there souls? Sometimes contact isn't always perpuetrated by the mind or heart.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
it would be nice if yahweh would just land his ship and burn something into stone on live tv for us.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join