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 Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 24
25
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I never claimed mass HYSTERIA was not possible, that's simply "PANIC".


Obviously clicking on the link would have been too much for you? I would have hated to see you learn something.

What did you say again? "Mass Hallucinations" right?

Well...mass hallucinations are one of the symptoms of MASS HYSTERIA and the link I provided offers documented examples.

Hysteria is not panic!!!

Get a dictionary. Read something once in a while.

Click a link.

Educate yourself.



/facepalm


I provided you a link to documented MASS HALLUCINATIONS as a symptom of MASS HYSTERIA and you are busy sniffing the inside of your hand? Go back and educate yourself and try again.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I linked SEVERAL (layman's terms = more than one/singular) sources, all several paragraphs in length...
hence the question;

"ARE YOU BLIND?"

[edit on 9-6-2010 by NOTurTypical]


It was rude, and it was to me. You may have linked several things but you failed to produce one instance of any kind of science or history proving the account of the bible to be true. I asked for one and you gave NONE.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I never claimed mass HYSTERIA was not possible, that's simply PANIC".
/facepalm


So,
once again you IGNORE the classic example of FATIMA.

A famous example of MASS HALLUCINATION.


You will never deal with this example because it proves you wrong.



Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
EPIC FAIL yet again. *ROFLcopter*
"Critiques of the Hallucination Hypotheses"


So,
once again you just IGNORE the classic example of Fatima - a famous example of mass hallucination.

You will simply neverc address this point, will you ?

Because it proves you wrong, you will continue to ignore it.

As if it meant anything anyway - there is no hard evidence of multiple people having visions of Jesus at the same time. Just a vague claim by Paul from DECADES later.


Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I wonder if Kapyong believes in Alexander the Great, considering the only historical writing we have that he existed were written 400 years after his death.


Wrong again.

There is a CONTEMPORARY reference to Alexander in the diary of Esgila.

Not that you'd know the facts.
You never seem to know the facts.


kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I linked SEVERAL (layman's terms = more than one/singular) sources, all several paragraphs in length...


You linked to page of faithful PREACHING.

But the only example you actually cited in thread was Jericho which you got WRONG.

The reason you didn't quote any others here is because they are all WORSE than Jericho.

Linking to pages of believers beliefs - pffft - means nothing.

You failed to quote in thread a single example of a historical event in the bible that has been shown true.

NOT ONE.

Because there aren't any.


Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


The thing is mass hallucination doesn't have be a MASS hallucination at all, all you really need are people with open minds and one (or handful) of person(s) hallucinating. Group psychology does the rest and pretty soon you've got people convinced of what they saw. Believers don't want to be doubting Thomas's. There's a great example of this at work done in the Solomon Asch experiment.

Asch Conformity Experiments

Derren Brown, the famous UK "magician" uses these kinds of techniques all the time. I recommend his show Messiah which should be available on youtube in which, using tricks, he convinces people God has interacted with them in a profound way. Human beings are gullible and many of us WANT to believe, this is why nonsense like Ouija boards are popular.

Also, a vision of Jesus wouldn't matter, people see Christ on slices of toast.

Another example is the great "UFO battle" in Nuremberg Germany in the 1561, supposedly a great many objects appeared in the sky.

Mass hallucinations are certainly a FAR more plausible explanation than resorting to magic and the supernatural.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Gday,

So, here is a complete review of the post which NOTurTypical gave as evidence for accounts of events in the Bible being supported by history / archeology :



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
*yawn*
"Today, so many Bible cities, names and events have been unearthed through archaeology that the Bible is considered the single most important historical document in existence. Many lost cities have been located using the Bible as a road map."


So, no EVENTS like you claimed?
We all know the bible mentions real places and people - so what?
Ancient myths do the same, so does Harry Potter and James Bond.

We keep asking for EVENTS in the bible being supported, you failed over and over to provide ANY.


HERE

That single page has NO EVENTS of the Bible mentioned.
It just mentions the Hittites, it mentions Ur existing - that's it.
We KNOW they existed - so what?

NOT ONE mention of a Bible EVENT supported by history.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Where archaeology verifies and agrees with the Bible, Christians accept it as true. But what about when archaeology does not agree with the Bible? Is it then archaeology or the Bible that is in error? A case in point is Joshua and the battle of Jericho. It is plainly written in the Bible that Joshua was able to defeat Jericho because the wall crumbled down and he and his army were able to enter the city. But archaeologists tell us that at the time of Joshua there were no walled cities in existence at the site of Jericho. The conclusion they draw is that no walled city existed, thus there was no battle, and since there was no battle then there was no general by the name of Joshua. Many secular archaeologists said the same thing about King David until they found a tablet bearing his name as King of Israel. Thus, up until the tablet was found, archaeology did not support the Bible. But eventually it was proven that God’s Word was true all along. David was a real person who was King of Israel, and scientific “proof” turned out to be false."


As previously mentioned - the events at Jericho in the Bible are NOT supported by history or Archeology.

And the reference to David is actually the generic name of a temple and it's community "House of the Chief" (DWD means chief or King.)


HERE

Um, this just copies the SAME CLAIM about Jericho which is known to be wrong. That's IT.

NO evidence of a Bible EVENT supported by history.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.


More PREACHING, not one mention of a biblical event supported by history.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.


More PREACHING, not one mention of a biblical event supported by history.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Here are some examples:"


HERE

Are you JOKING?
That site has some claims about some NAMES in the bible being common in ancient times - so what?

We KNOW the Bible was written in ancient times and contains names and places of actual ancient people and places.

We all KNOW that.
SO WHAT?

YOU claimed the EVENTS or ACCOUNTS in the Bible were "time and time again" supported by history and/or archeology.

But when pressed OVER and OVER to give some examples, you came up with :

1. Jericho - which did NOT happen as the Bible claimed
2. mention of NAMES and PLACES in the Bible

Can you please STOP giving NAMES and PLACES from the Bible as if they prove ACCOUNTS of Biblical EVENTS are true.

(Every time you give ANOTHER name or place, it emphasizes your failure to support any of the EVENTS in the Bible.)

Or will you just ignore that forever like you ignore Fatima ?



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Do a simple Google search next time you feel like responding.


You mean like YOU did?
A Google search for "Biblical archeology" ?
Then quote pages of FAITHFUL BELIEVERS as proof ?
What a laugh.

I HAVE researched all this at length for years.
Not like you.


Kap


[edit on 9-6-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I never claimed mass HYSTERIA was not possible, that's simply PANIC".
/facepalm


So,
once again you IGNORE the classic example of FATIMA.

A famous example of MASS HALLUCINATION.


You will never deal with this example because it proves you wrong.



Kap
I didn't ignore it, it's discussed in the link I provided on pg. 23.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
EPIC FAIL yet again. *ROFLcopter*
"Critiques of the Hallucination Hypotheses"


So,
once again you just IGNORE the classic example of Fatima - a famous example of mass hallucination.

You will simply neverc address this point, will you ?

Because it proves you wrong, you will continue to ignore it.

As if it meant anything anyway - there is no hard evidence of multiple people having visions of Jesus at the same time. Just a vague claim by Paul from DECADES later.


Kap
It's discussed in the link you QUOTED above.....

*strike two*



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I linked SEVERAL (layman's terms = more than one/singular) sources, all several paragraphs in length...


You linked to page of faithful PREACHING.

But the only example you actually cited in thread was Jericho which you got WRONG.

The reason you didn't quote any others here is because they are all WORSE than Jericho.

Linking to pages of believers beliefs - pffft - means nothing.

You failed to quote in thread a single example of a historical event in the bible that has been shown true.

NOT ONE.

Because there aren't any.


Kap
Okay, I will yet AGAIN for you. And apparently I have to copy/paste the entire article, (The first one might I add on a Google search), since you refuse to view links provided, nor do a simple search for yourself to see if your rant holds any water.

"The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics (skeptics) once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said (by skeptics) to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari."

Meaning: Biblical account proved true by archaeological findings.

"The Hittites were once thought (by skeptics) to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey."

Meaning: Biblical account proved true by archaeological findings.

"Many (skeptics) thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible."

Meaning: Biblical accounts proved highly likely by archaeological findings.

"It was once claimed (by skeptics) there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself."

Meaning: Biblical account proved true by archaeological discovery.

"Another king who was in doubt (by skeptics) was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology."

Meaning: yet again account proved true by archaeological discoveries.

LINK














posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by texastig
 




Kapyong. I'm only going to say this once. Please quit cussing


Agreed. Both sides need to keep this civil. I think we should all be mature enough to have this discussion without insults or harsh language (even if its abbreviated harsh language
)



Thanks,
TS



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The thing is mass hallucination doesn't have be a MASS hallucination at all, all you really need are people with open minds and one (or handful) of person(s) hallucinating. Group psychology does the rest and pretty soon you've got people convinced of what they saw. Believers don't want to be doubting Thomas's. There's a great example of this at work done in the Solomon Asch experiment.
Asch Conformity Experiments


Yes,
even if 500 people if one room claimed to have had a vision of Jesus, that doesn't mean they all actually saw the same thing.

Religion is all about conforming, those who don't conform are out. Only those who conform stay in - "we all agree! it MUST be true - Hallelujah".



Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Derren Brown, the famous UK "magician" uses these kinds of techniques all the time. I recommend his show Messiah which should be available on youtube in which, using tricks, he convinces people God has interacted with them in a profound way. Human beings are gullible and many of us WANT to believe, this is why nonsense like Ouija boards are popular.


Yup, people WANT to believe.
Many of us have been there.



Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Also, a vision of Jesus wouldn't matter, people see Christ on slices of toast.


Yup -
500 people have all seen Jesus in a piece of toast !
He MUST be real !




Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Another example is the great "UFO battle" in Nuremberg Germany in the 1561, supposedly a great many objects appeared in the sky.
Mass hallucinations are certainly a FAR more plausible explanation than resorting to magic and the supernatural.
[edit on 9-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


Yah,
mass hallucinations DO happen.

But it's a standard preaching of believers to say :
"mass hallucination are not possible,
therefore Jesus is real".


Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Okay, I will yet AGAIN for you. And apparently I have to copy/paste the entire article, (The first one might I add on a Google search), since you refuse to view links provided, nor do a simple search for yourself to see if your rant holds any water.


Wrong again.
As my post showed - I READ your links, and found they did NOT have ANY support for accounts of EVENTS in the Bible. Just the usual CLAIM about Jericho, and talk about NAMES and PLACES.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla,


*YAWN*

Yet ANOTHER argument about an ANCIENT NAME in the Bible - so what?

That is NOT support for accounts of events in the Bible.

So,
Tell us straight out NOTurTypical -
do you actually NOT understand the difference between

* an ANCIENT NAME or PLACE found in the Bible

and

* support for accounts of EVENTS in the Bible


?


Because that's nearly a dozen posts were you keep answering with NAMES, and pretend they are evidence for EVENTS.

They are not support for accounts of EVENTS in the Bible.

I fear you will simply continue to ignore this, like you continue to ignore the example of Fatima as a mass hallucination.


Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I didn't ignore it, it's discussed in the link I provided on pg. 23.


That's IGNORING it.
Posting a link saying it's dealt with.

In fact, when I HAVE checked your links, I found your claims were FALSE.
Same thing here.

You fail to cite any evidence because there IS none.

All you do is post links and say "that link proves it" when it does NO SUCH THING.

Here is my answer to that nonsense:
This site has information that proves you wrong :
www.google.com



Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
No Kap, what my information does do is prove wrong your ORIGINAL claims that began this argument between us. You've moved away from those claims after information was presented that destroyed your arguments, which were:

"Completely UNhistorical"

False, archaeology has proven Biblical accounts, INCLUDING names, tribes, kings, nations, et cetra true. After YEARS of skeptics such as yourself claiming they were false while they were still buried in the Earth.

"Completely UNhistorical" is in fact, completely erroneous! Moving along...

"Everyone knows the Bible is not historical."

Not only did I point out the ridiculous appeal to numbers fallacy you rely on, the information provided yet again shows that the Bible is extremely historical. Your second claim shown to be erroneous by the information posted. Moving on..

"Because the Bible is FANTASY."

Real events, places, names, people, tribes, nations etc is not 'FANTASY'. You're wrong, archaeology has vindicated hundreds of years of skeptics claims about such things. Moving on..

The statements you made are arbitrary, erroneous, and chock full of fallacies. i don't care if you and I agree, makes no difference to me or my faith. You're entitled to your opinions about the Bible, God, unicorns, or the Jolly Green Giant. believe what you want, but to sit here in public and make claims like "completely UNhistorical" is absurd, and I've succeeded in showing that.

Be mad.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
False, archaeology has proven Biblical accounts, INCLUDING names, tribes, kings, nations, et cetra true. After YEARS of skeptics such as yourself claiming they were false while they were still buried in the Earth.


An account is a narrative. Names are not narratives. Tribes, kings, nations, etc. all NOT NARRATIVES therefor not examples of narratives.

Get it? Those are NOT accounts those are THINGS. Stories often contain things. Many of them are real things. Most books I read take place on Earth. Archeology can prove Earth does indeed exist. Does that prove all them thar storybooks?

The examples you have given have been completely torn apart and the best response you have to that is to get emotional about it. Obviously it is important for you to believe this nonsense but why is it so important that others do as well?

Thank you for admitting that I did indeed show examples of mass hallucinations in my link once you went back and actually read it. I appreciate that.

Seriously now. If what you say is so true. Why is it so hard to prove it? Just show us one archeological find that proves the ACCOUNT of the bible is correct. That is what you said - still waiting to see it.

p.s. You did say "the account of the bible" so as far as my English tells me, that means the entire narrative from beginning to end. I would really enjoy seeing the finds that confirmed a talking donkey. I will be waiting.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
False, archaeology has proven Biblical accounts, INCLUDING names, tribes, kings, nations, et cetra true. After YEARS of skeptics such as yourself claiming they were false while they were still buried in the Earth.


An account is a narrative. Names are not narratives. Tribes, kings, nations, etc. all NOT NARRATIVES therefor not examples of narratives.

Get it? Those are NOT accounts those are THINGS. Stories often contain things. Many of them are real things. Most books I read take place on Earth. Archeology can prove Earth does indeed exist. Does that prove all them thar storybooks?

The examples you have given have been completely torn apart and the best response you have to that is to get emotional about it. Obviously it is important for you to believe this nonsense but why is it so important that others do as well?

Thank you for admitting that I did indeed show examples of mass hallucinations in my link once you went back and actually read it. I appreciate that.

Seriously now. If what you say is so true. Why is it so hard to prove it? Just show us one archeological find that proves the ACCOUNT of the bible is correct. That is what you said - still waiting to see it.

p.s. You did say "the account of the bible" so as far as my English tells me, that means the entire narrative from beginning to end. I would really enjoy seeing the finds that confirmed a talking donkey. I will be waiting.

Account, among many different definitions and word uses does mean narrative, it can also mean "record". You're simply playing semantics, that's childish at best, dubious at worst.

What Kap asserted was copy/pasted above on this page. To which I provided adequate counter-points. If the Bible has been proven times over to be accurate on the names, places, etc it states as so based upon archaeology, then the credibility of the "narrative" lies upon the authors of the various books. i see no reason to presuppose that they were liars.

And many people who wrote various epistles were with Jesus for 3 or so years during His Earthly ministry. And what makes their testimony even more accurate is that they defended it under punishment of death. No men purposely lay down their lives for something they know isn't true. Do you think people like Peter, James, John etc all gave their lives for something the fabricated and knew was a lie? I don't see that as feasible.

And who is emotional? Well, I suppose laughter is derived from an emotion, perhaps you're right there.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Gday


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Account, among many different definitions and word uses does mean narrative, it can also mean "record". You're simply playing semantics, that's childish at best, dubious at worst.


It is YOU playing word-games.
Account, record, narrative - all are about EVENTS.

Not about NAMES.

You have failed repeatedly to give ANY examples of EVENTS in the Bible which have been confirmed as true by history/archeology.

Anyone with ANY knowledge of the Bible should be able to come up with a couple - the fall of the Northern kingdom in 8th C.BCE and the fall and exile to Babylon 586 BCE. Easy examples. Instead you just posted to site after site making claims about names.

You did cite Jericho - but no historian thinks the walls fell by Joshua's horn - Jericho had NO walls in that period.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
What Kap asserted was copy/pasted above on this page.


Pardon?
What I asserted?

It was YOU who asserted that time and time again the accounts of the bible have been confirmed by archeology.

We asked you for confirmation of that claim,
and all we get from you is evidence of NAMES.

Then when pressed further you quote someone else about NAMES in the Bible.

Then when we again ask for actual EVIDENCE, you cite some web page making claims about NAMES in the Bible.

When we again insist on actual evidence you say "see upthread" !

But you cannot cite a single EVENT in the Bible that has been confirmed. I don't think you know of any. Even I would know of 1/2 a dozen if I thought about it.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
To which I provided adequate counter-points.


Haha.
Adequate to YOU.
No-one else was convinced.
Because you failed to cite any EVENTS confimed as historical.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If the Bible has been proven times over to be accurate on the names, places, etc it states as so based upon archaeology, then the credibility of the "narrative" lies upon the authors of the various books.


Ah.
There we have it.
You actually have NO evidence of events in the Bible being historical.
But you believe it because of some NAMES.

Meanwhile -
what about the names they got wrong?
what about the places they got wrong?
what about the events they got wrong?

You simply IGNORE all the evidence of the writers getting it wrong (Babel, Exodus, Eden, Flood etc.) and trumpet a few correct NAMES as proof of correctness.

Special pleading -
you add up some pathetic evidence FOR
and you simply DON'T COUNT the vast evidence against.

What a laugh.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
i see no reason to presuppose that they were liars.


Firstly, it's not about LIES.
As if everything that is not true must be a LIE.

Is Shakespeare a lie?
Is Harry Potter a lie?
Is Krishna a lie?

Secondly,
you "see no reason to presuppose they were liars".
What? It's not about PRESUPPOSING, it's about considering the evidence.

Such as the EVIDENCE that some accounts in the Bible are FALSE :
* the Flood
* tower of babel
* the exodus
* the conquest
Historians see plenty of reasons to conclude the Bible is not history.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And many people who wrote various epistles were with Jesus for 3 or so years during His Earthly ministry.


No they weren't.
Not one of the books in the Bible was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus. That's the view of modern NT scholars.

In fact,
NOT ONE book has a claim to have personally met Jesus (or Mary or Joseph or Lazarus or anyone else IN the stories.)

The people who WROTE the NT stories never met anyone IN the stories.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And what makes their testimony even more accurate is that they defended it under punishment of death. No men purposely lay down their lives for something they know isn't true. Do you think people like Peter, James, John etc all gave their lives for something the fabricated and knew was a lie? I don't see that as feasible.


There is no evidence of these people doing ANYTHING, let alone laying down their lives. It's all STORIES from long afterwards by OTHER people.

Peter, James and John are all characters in a STORY.
We don't actually have ANY of their writings.
All of the writings in their names are FORGERIES

There is NOT ONE SINGLE claim in any NT book to have personally met a historical Jesus, or Mary or Joseph or Lazarus etc.
(Paul's VISIONS don't count.)



Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I am sorry, what did you say about mass hallucinations and mass hysteria again?

I think I missed it yet again.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join