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.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deu 15:12-15; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether.


Exactly right.




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
So are we discussing slavery in the Bible ?

Or is it, if there is a God why does God talk about how to treat slaves ?

I scanned through the last few pages and I am trying to catch up with the last point ?

Thanks for your help !





posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

So are we discussing slavery in the Bible ?
Or is it, if there is a God why does God talk about how to treat slaves ?


Eh sort of both. Here is a recap. It was mentioned that Exodus 21 as being other commandments which I stated that they were the civil and criminal laws. The topic of them being loving and peaceful came up. Then we're discussing who is and is not a slave, for how long, and whatnot. And that I don't own any slaves so those portions of the mitzvot don't apply to me was called a dodge.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
It is for naught academic purpose of these discussions, the version and age of either any transcription of the two Bibles.

The story goes that Greek speaking Jews were invited to translate the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek. It was considered a marvellous success where because of the Greek influence and the permeation of their language throughout Palestine, the LXX was granted favour by not only the pagans, but also the Jews. With the popularity of same, so too came those who read the Greek works and recognized some major inconsistencies between the written word and Jewish teachings. Faced with having to explain these glaring differences, the Jews decided to once more reproduce their works in Hebrew and break with the heavy Jewish influence of Alexandria.

Unfortunately, all of this was well into the 3rd century, aound the same time the Mishnah/Talmud apologetic and exegetical works received ascension by the Jews to explain away the problems.

Over 20 centuries, countless humans have gone to their graves believing in whatever Biblical version they were preached, whether it be, Greek; Latin: Hebrew or English. It makes absolutely no difference the version, not one can be clearly representative to the BCE era. Further, the apocrypha of Ezra was written to proclaim that the lost texts were re-introduced by God in yet another 40 day trial of seclusion. It seemed more fitting however to just find one in the temple complex and declare it...well ancient.

My point is, the Hebrew text is no older than the Greek from which came every other, and as someone else stated, any translation and transliteration, cannot adequately reflect either the tone or sentiment conveyed, the NIV being the worst of the lot. But! parsing of words aside, the message and beliefs stay the same, and for me at least, it is not the wording, but the historical account of any version that falls flat on its face.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
One thing many people struggle with about the Bible (myself included) is the apparent "injustices" of the old testament. Specifically the mass killings of people by the Israelites. How could a God of love allow this, much less support it? The Biblical God is a god of perfection in every good quality. This includes love, justice, righteousness, wisdom, etc... If you simply read the verses partaining to the mass killings then you can't grasp why this was done. When you read the entire context it becomes more logical. God was going to allow the slaughter of many amorites or amalekites, but decided instead to give them literally hundreds of years to repent from their sins, but because they were stubborn he had to allow the Israelites to overtake them. God has self-imposed standards, his "love endures for a thousand generations" but he will "give judgment to the third and fourth generation."
So while we all want God to be a hippy and to never hurt a fly we must understand that he loves indefinately "and wants all to come to repentance," but before the new covenant (Jesus Christ and the final victory over sin) he had to instill justice, because sin and evil had to be paid for some how.

Thought i'd just throw that in ^

The "establishment" clause in the first amendment does not infer separation of Church and state as we know it today. "and CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." this simply means that Congress specifically cannot pass a law that gives one religion preference over another. This clause does not rule out the power held by the Supreme Court or a referendum by the people.

In the case Trinity Church v. the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. This was a real case (google it if you don't believe me and read the whole verdict) and has never been overturned, so is therefore current law though most in the government (especially the federal courts) act as if it doesn't exist.

Just my two cents



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Very well said Nappy !

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If anyone is confused about "Seperation Between Church and State" they need to go back and read the Constitution and the original letter signed in 1801.

members.tripod.com...

They can then see that most people get this mixed up. The Truth is that this means that the Gov't had NO right to interfere with the church. Not the other way around. NOT that the govt' can remove God out of schools, govt. facilities, libraries, currency etc........... Like what is happening now !

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How did this get changed ??

Isn't it ironic the more we take God Out, the more screwed up this world gets ?

Peace Out!



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
What many people don’t understand is that slavery in the Bible times is completely different from the slavery that was practiced in the United States in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status.


Rules regarding slaves:

Exodus 21:4
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


Children of slaves were born into slavery as clearly documented here. Also, parents could sell their children into slavery...

Exodus 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


...and yes, treatment was discriminatory based on race...

Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


...and treatment was permitted to be extremely harsh as long as it didn't lead to immediate death (or the loss of teeth or an eye)...

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


...and it was permissible to purchase slaves from surrounding nations without restriction...

Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.


...and it was acceptable to enslave as spoils of war...

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.


Yes, there were differences between Biblical slavery and more recent forms, but they are not significant enough to claim that Biblical slavery was morally acceptable.

This discussion started based on the 10 Commandments being promoted at public expense with the claim that they are a message of peace and love.

Yet, slavery is condoned within the commandment about coveting your neighbors manservant/maidservant, and is codified in the following chapter.

How can any reasonable person consider codification of slavery to be a message of peace and love?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
So are we discussing slavery in the Bible ?

Or is it, if there is a God why does God talk about how to treat slaves?


We were discussing whether or not the 10 Commandments are a message of peace and love. The issue of slavery was brought up to show they are not a message of peace and love, nor could they even reasonably be considered to be of divine origin.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

The story goes that Greek speaking Jews were invited to translate the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek. It was considered a marvellous success where because of the Greek influence and the permeation of their language throughout Palestine, the LXX was granted favour by not only the pagans, but also the Jews. With the popularity of same, so too came those who read the Greek works and recognized some major inconsistencies between the written word and Jewish teachings. Faced with having to explain these glaring differences, the Jews decided to once more reproduce their works in Hebrew and break with the heavy Jewish influence of Alexandria.


Maybe the difference was that they were "invited to translate the Pentateuch" and ended up with significantly more books. I think the Septuagint has 40+. If they stopped at the Pentateuch, they are 35+ over. Yes?


Over 20 centuries, countless humans have gone to their graves believing in whatever Biblical version they were preached, whether it be, Greek; Latin: Hebrew or English. It makes absolutely no difference the version, not one can be clearly representative to the BCE era.


The Dead Sea Scrolls...Those push back the date originally thought for the Torah to be finalized and are representative of the BCE era.


My point is, the Hebrew text is no older than the Greek from which came every other,


Doesn't one have to come before the other?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

So while we all want God to be a hippy and to never hurt a fly we must understand that he loves indefinately "and wants all to come to repentance," but before the new covenant (Jesus Christ and the final victory over sin) he had to instill justice, because sin and evil had to be paid for some how.


Why? Does G-d answer to someone? Why else could a G-d not undo what he's done? Why would he have to commit suicide? Why would he need to make himself subservient to the people to prove his point? Sounds impotent and not omnipotent IMO.


In the case Trinity Church v. the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.


How can they rule what was not in question? The case wasn't brought before the Supreme Court to determine whether or not this is or was a Christian nation. The judgement reversed the decision against the Rector of the Trinity Church where a $1000 fine has been imposed on him by an act of Congress. From Findlaw:

While this act was in force a suit was brought in the circuit court for the Southern district of New York, in favor of the United States, against the rector, etc., of the Church of the Holy Trinity, in the city of New York. It was brought to recover the penalty of $1,000, as provided for in the act; and in the course of the trial it appeared that the defendant was a religious corporation, and had engaged a Mr. Warren, an alien residing in England, to come to the city of New York, and take charge of its church as pastor. It was claimed on the part of the United States that the church corporation, in making that contract with Mr. Warren, had violated the first section of the act in question. It was held by the circuit court that the contract was within the statute, and that the defendant was liable for the penalty provided for therein. U. S. v. Rector, etc., of Church of Holy Trinity, 36 Fed. 303.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Exodus 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


This is part of paying a debt or cases of extreme poverty. This includes being "sold" for marriage. The time limit is six years unless it is a case of adoption or marriage.


...and yes, treatment was discriminatory based on race...

Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


The Hebrew slave is not in reference to race per se. The Hebrew servant is limited to six years and is serving to pay a debt.


...and treatment was permitted to be extremely harsh as long as it didn't lead to immediate death (or the loss of teeth or an eye)...

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


Wrong. It was not permitted. Verse 20 is about murder and murder is not permitted. Verse 21 is more accidental death.


...and it was permissible to purchase slaves from surrounding nations without restriction...

Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.


This is part of the sabbatical/jubilee years laws. You might for one second have to step back and read a verse or two before or after. Hell, try reading the whole chapter. You would pick up on what is going on at least.


...and it was acceptable to enslave as spoils of war...

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.


This is specifically about females who commonly became concubines. This law regulates that convention and accords such women dignity and protection against enslavement.


Yet, slavery is condoned within the commandment about coveting your neighbors manservant/maidservant, and is codified in the following chapter.


How does "you shall not covet" condone slavery?

You really could take the time to look up what our 613 laws are so you will see exactly what we are and are not commanded/permitted to do.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
God answers to Himself. He is just.

To pose an example in human terms, say you're at a garage sale, and buy a purse. It's an amazing purse, and you got it at a great bargan. You paid $50 for it, and you bring it home. As you're checking out all your new compartments and pockets, you find $165 wadded in one of the pockets. You are faced with a decision. Do you return the money to the person who sold you the purse, or keep it. You are the only one you would have to answer to, because no one has to know you found that money. Personally, I would bring it back to them. I didn't pay for the money, I paid for the purse, and to take the money would, in my mind, be stealing, which is unacceptable behavior for me. The individual who actually encountered this kept the money.

God doesn't have to answer to anyone to be just. I am sure God would have returned that money, as well. Does that make Him impotent because He didn't use someone's oversight to further His own cause, in this case lining His pockets, or does it make him just?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

God answers to Himself. He is just.

To pose an example in human terms, say you're at a garage sale, and buy a purse. It's an amazing purse, and you got it at a great bargan. You paid $50 for it, and you bring it home. As you're checking out all your new compartments and pockets, you find $165 wadded in one of the pockets. You are faced with a decision. Do you return the money to the person who sold you the purse, or keep it. You are the only one you would have to answer to, because no one has to know you found that money. Personally, I would bring it back to them. I didn't pay for the money, I paid for the purse, and to take the money would, in my mind, be stealing, which is unacceptable behavior for me. The individual who actually encountered this kept the money.

God doesn't have to answer to anyone to be just. I am sure God would have returned that money, as well. Does that make Him impotent because He didn't use someone's oversight to further His own cause, in this case lining His pockets, or does it make him just?


G-d would know ahead of time that money was in there and do it ahead of time considering he's said to be all powerful and all knowing. Not a good example IMO.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
You are right. The Trinity decision wasn't intended to declare America a Christian nation, but that is what happened, so it doesn't matter. The circumstance that led to the Roe v Wade verdict wasn't intended to legalize abortion across the country, but that is what happened.

God doesn't answer to anyone, but he has morals and standards that are self imposed and isn't a relativist.

Why did God commit suicide? The only suitable candidate for sacrifice to cleanse the world from sin was himself, because he is free of sin and is divine in nature. There had to be a sacrifice or else justice would not have been done, and only the Messiah could atone for the world's sins.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430
Why would he have to commit suicide?


God lives and always has. His Son, a part of him, died and earthly death but didn't dissappear from existence. Since the beginning, mankind had given something up for God in the form of sacrifices. It wasn't those animals running around in the wild, rather one that was part of their homestead thereby giving up something of value. It was a giving up of something important to show how much a person treasures God. This is love. God gave us a gift, an ultimate sacrifice to show that He's a loving God to give up a part of Himself. It was then that people took major notice. Instead of being punished for our sins in this life by flood, pillar of fire, etc., we're given an opportunity to accept this gift, learn, and be with Him.

I like your perspective on slavery, can I ask how you arrived at it? I've read the Old Testament quite a bit, but I seem to lack the cultural understanding of the time period in this regard. Is there some other resources that can help fill in that background?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

Exodus 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


This is part of paying a debt or cases of extreme poverty. This includes being "sold" for marriage. The time limit is six years unless it is a case of adoption or marriage.


...and so that makes it ok?


Originally posted by Shonet1430
Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

The Hebrew slave is not in reference to race per se. The Hebrew servant is limited to six years and is serving to pay a debt.


Non-hebrew slaves were not given such treatment. That I have to spell that out for you is telling.


Originally posted by Shonet1430


Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


Wrong. It was not permitted. Verse 20 is about murder and murder is not permitted. Verse 21 is more accidental death.


Wrong about what? The verse clearly gives a penalty for killing a slave, and explicitly gives an out if the slave lives a day or two after having been beaten. It permits beating the hell out of slaves without penalty, as long as they don't die immediately.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
How does "you shall not covet" condone slavery?


You have the nerve to accuse me of failing to read all this nonsense, when you yourself are not even familiar with what it actually says? There is no command "you shall not covet". How can the following not be understood to imply that slavery is acceptable, within the very text of the 10 Commandments themselves:

Exodus 20:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.


Manservant and maidservant are not hired hands, they are slaves, as is spelled out clearly in the subsequent chapter.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
You really could take the time to look up what our 613 laws are so you will see exactly what we are and are not commanded/permitted to do.


I could care less about a bunch of rediculous ancient laws invented by illiterate sunstroked goat herders - until people start trying to promote them using the public treasury. Then I care to the extent it is necessary to expose the fraud for what it is.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

You are right. The Trinity decision wasn't intended to declare America a Christian nation, but that is what happened, so it doesn't matter.


It still didn't become a "law."


The circumstance that led to the Roe v Wade verdict wasn't intended to legalize abortion across the country, but that is what happened.


You can't be serious. I suggest you look it up. There was a law in Texas that made abortion illegal unless it was to save the life of the mother. Roe was not able to get one because her life was not in danger. GA also had a similar law. The issue brought before the court was whether a pregnant woman had the constitutional right to terminate and whether or not states are justified to hinder them under the 14th Amendment. The decision of the court was that women could terminate in the 1st trimester and states had the ability to increase restrictions as pregnancy progresses. So let's see. The Roe decision laid a foundation for states to build their laws upon just like every other law. If that wasn't meant to legalize abortion, then I'm not sure what was.


God doesn't answer to anyone, but he has morals and standards that are self imposed and isn't a relativist.


In your opinion. Or maybe we have two different G-ds. Mine doesn't have human qualities.


Why did God commit suicide? The only suitable candidate for sacrifice to cleanse the world from sin was himself, because he is free of sin and is divine in nature. There had to be a sacrifice or else justice would not have been done, and only the Messiah could atone for the world's sins.


First of all, that has nothing to do with the role of the Jewish moshiach hence the rejection of Jesus. Second, why would G-d have to justify himself? Who was he justifying to? I know that I have the ability to atone for my sins as does everyone else. Some people just choose coattails.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Isn't it ironic the more we take God Out, the more screwed up this world gets ?


Yes, and many times when we put God in it gets more screwed up also!!! That is why my saying always goes:

"Beware the teaching of the Church, and beware the teachings of man." Close to what someone else once said.




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430Maybe the difference was that they were "invited to translate the Pentateuch" and ended up with significantly more books. I think the Septuagint has 40+. If they stopped at the Pentateuch, they are 35+ over. Yes?
Maybe, but not likely the underlying factor. The “story” as I have labelled it, is that the Septuagint was supposedly translated into Greek in the 3rd century BCE, contained only the Torah initially, it was not until well into the second century, Christian works started to be added. It was also around this time the rewritten Hebrew works was produced. I have no doubt that one of the factors it was rejected is because it was being used by a new cult to advance the idea of a new God, however, the Jews were certainly being assaulted for their practices and beliefs, not only by Christians, but by other Pagan sects, and most importantly, philosophers and scholars.



The Dead Sea Scrolls...Those push back the date originally thought for the Torah to be finalized and are representative of the BCE era.

My point is, the Hebrew text is no older than the Greek from which came every other,
You- Doesn't one have to come before the other?
Yes, one does, the natural presumption for believers, is to accept the traditional explanation:

When I refer to the BCE Era, it was meant to be taken as a date prior to this Septuagint event, as you can see in teh above requote. Whereas, the DSS are given a timeframe of early 3rd century to 70CE based on carbon dating results in conjunction with the known events of Qumram era during the 1st century. In other words, a wide berth is afforded same, yet the debate still rages. Nonetheless, as much as many like to claim the scrolls corroborate the OT writings, it does nothing to place the first writings of same earlier than 200BCE, which in fact explains Enoch’s exhortation on the number of days.

If you wish to use The DSS as proof of these writings having been existence prior to the 3rdc BCE, it does not explain many writings not found in the OT such as these few: Exhortation on The Flood: Tales of The Patriarchs; Book of Giants: Books of Enoch. All of which should have been found the OT if the DSS are used as a catalogue to prove the existence of the OT prior to



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

You are right. The Trinity decision wasn't intended to declare America a Christian nation, but that is what happened, so it doesn't matter.


It still didn't become a "law."


The circumstance that led to the Roe v Wade verdict wasn't intended to legalize abortion across the country, but that is what happened.


You can't be serious. I suggest you look it up. There was a law in Texas that made abortion illegal unless it was to save the life of the mother. Roe was not able to get one because her life was not in danger. GA also had a similar law. The issue brought before the court was whether a pregnant woman had the constitutional right to terminate and whether or not states are justified to hinder them under the 14th Amendment. The decision of the court was that women could terminate in the 1st trimester and states had the ability to increase restrictions as pregnancy progresses. So let's see. The Roe decision laid a foundation for states to build their laws upon just like every other law. If that wasn't meant to legalize abortion, then I'm not sure what was.


God doesn't answer to anyone, but he has morals and standards that are self imposed and isn't a relativist.


In your opinion. Or maybe we have two different G-ds. Mine doesn't have human qualities.


Why did God commit suicide? The only suitable candidate for sacrifice to cleanse the world from sin was himself, because he is free of sin and is divine in nature. There had to be a sacrifice or else justice would not have been done, and only the Messiah could atone for the world's sins.


First of all, that has nothing to do with the role of the Jewish moshiach hence the rejection of Jesus. Second, why would G-d have to justify himself? Who was he justifying to? I know that I have the ability to atone for my sins as does everyone else. Some people just choose coattails.


The Trinity decision is law, plain and simple. It is unaccepted by most in the government, but it is still a law.

I said the CIRCUMSTANCE not the Roe v Wade decision itself. Jane Roe's circumstance that led to the verdict was not intended to legalize abortion across the country... read the whole quote.

God doesn't have to justify anything he does -- he chooses to. Just as you don't have to give back the extra change you receive at the store by accident, but choose to. Instead of suggesting the self-imposed standards God has are human morals, perhaps human morals he established are God's morals.

"First of all, that has nothing to do with the role of the Jewish moshiach hence the rejection of Jesus."

Actually you are mistaken. If you were an expert in Biblical philosophy and prophecy you would know that from the very beginning it was the role of the Messiah to be sacrificed. Christ's rejection is prophesied about several times in the Old Testament and he is rejected because the hypocritical and ritualistic leaders (the Pharisees) stirred the crowd against him.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by nappyhead]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join