A Game of Logic: The Holy Spirit and I VS ALL NoN-believers

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
The destruction of Tyre.


The prophecy was very specific and did not come true. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre. The prophecy said that Tyre would become a "flat rock". It never did. Nebuchadnezzar failed to take it over and it wasn't until centuries later that Alexander the Great took it over and it was not completely destroyed.

Nice try.


Isaiah 45-Isaiah calls out king cyrus by name 300 years before the even described happens.


Woops, nope.



Thus bible inerrantists would have us believe that Isaiah prophesied specifically that Cyrus would be Babylon's conqueror and would enter through gates, and that he made this prediction over 140 years before the event. In reality, this section of Isaiah was written shortly before 537 BCE, so even if the prediction was not made after the event its occurrence at least was imminent and the name of Cyrus would have been known.
Isaiah's reference to gates, although the actual means Cyrus used to gain entry to the city of Babylon, was nonetheless meant figuratively. This is evidenced by noting the continued use of obviously figurative language in the next verse:

I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. (NIV)

It should be noted that Babylon is not actually mentioned anywhere in the chapter.

It should also be noted that "anointed" as used in Isaiah 45:1 is translated into Hebrew as "messiah" and into Greek as "Christ." Although never admitted by Christians, this passage seems to assert that Cyrus is the messiah.


Not only was the text written before the prophecy, but it was concocted as a political device to convince people that Cyrus the Great was the messiah.


Third-

Hebrew



English

Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort

Chuck Missler shows the meaning of the names in Genesis. This shows you Gods plan was laid out from the beginning. Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed god shall come down teaching his death shall bring the despairing comfort.


That's not proof of anything. First of all, you have to accept that many of these characters are fictional. You can't seriously believe that Adam and Seth were real people? Those are stories. Also, you're completely picking an choosing these random characters to make something that you want out of it. Where are Cain and Abel? You're not even going to include the first born? Funny, you only include Seth, but then you go ahead and add in Cain's apparent bloodline like Lamech, Noah, and Methuselah?

Could've done better at it though:

Jared actually means "he who descended".

Enoch actually means "dedicated".

Enosh means "human being".

Lamech is just made up pure and simple and that's just straight up offensive. Stop it:



The word lmk does not occur in Hebrew, so we are left to guess at its meaning. BEB remains silent on he subject, but both Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names and NOBS Study Bible Name List suggest relations to an untreated root meaning strong and robust young man. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Powerful; NOBS Study Bible Name List reads Wild Man.


There you go; all 3 of your alleged articles of proof in prophecy completely debunked.

Better luck next time.
edit on 9-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I hope the OP comes back and addresses all the information that has been provided that debunks the bible as the pure and untarnished Word of God. (especially would like an acknowledgement of the information on the Noahs Ark myth). He said all we had to do was disprove one thing in the bible and we'd 'win'. I'd like acknowledgment of that 'win'.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

FlyersFan
I hope the OP comes back and addresses all the information that has been provided that debunks the bible as the pure and untarnished Word of God. (especially would like an acknowledgement of the information on the Noahs Ark myth). He said all we had to do was disprove one thing in the bible and we'd 'win'. I'd like acknowledgment of that 'win'.


Don't expect it to happen.

Take a gander:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another thread of his where he makes a lot of the same claims and all of them are refuted by hard facts.

So naturally he makes another thread to say the same things that were already refuted and act like they're true.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
/sadness

Actually, I was hoping he could explain the thing from Genesis to me. Every fundamentalist/literalist I've ever asked just turns blue in the face and starts waving their arms.

Ah well. Guess I'll just have to flounder around in rationality waiting for evidence.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

FlyersFan
I hope the OP comes back and addresses all the information that has been provided that debunks the bible as the pure and untarnished Word of God. (especially would like an acknowledgement of the information on the Noahs Ark myth). He said all we had to do was disprove one thing in the bible and we'd 'win'. I'd like acknowledgment of that 'win'.



yup... me too!

this game sucks without any reward




posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
What proves it was written by God is prophecy.


I was under the impression this was a game of logic. As such, that claim isnt exactly within the "rules" unless explained using logic. At the very least, detailing YOUR logic behind such a statement.


Are there any incorrect versions? I would say some are translated less correctly, but no doctrinal changes are ever made.


What if I were to translate the Bible using wingdings and cheezburger cats? What logic do you use to justify this statement?



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Hmm... King of the Hill. Debate form. Looks like the bible is losing this game. Nice try though.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





Originally posted by Joecroft
God spoke through Jesus IMO. And God spoke through men also …


I think it’s important to highlight the first 2 paragraphs, of my opening post…otherwise people just reading that quote above, may get the wrong idea, of the overall point I was trying to make.

Which was, that although God can speak through men; believing everything is from God, or that it’s ALL “god inspired” without using some form of discernment, is the wrong approach IMO…

Here are the first 2 paragraphs, of my first post…



Originally posted by Joecroft
I personally think we have to be very careful of believing that something is all “God inspired”…and we should be very careful of the whole “divinely inspired” phrase, in general. Discernment is really the key…

God spoke through Jesus IMO. And God spoke through men also …but unfortunately men can be deceptive, sinful etc… and pretend to speak on Gods behalf…


So my current position is that although God spoke through some of the prophets in the OT, we shouldn’t be believing that it’s all from God, across the entire board, and at every instance, without using some form of understanding and discernment etc…



Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
In your opinion/belief did god speak through the men that gave life to Islam and Hinduism?


You see, this is the problem that I was trying to outline in my opening post, on this thread.

Your question is right up there, with theists stating, that you have to believe that the Bible is ALL “inspired by God”…when my overall premise, is that the Bible must be discerned, piece by piece, rather than lumping it all together, and making it, an either or situation etc…

So when you ask “did God speak through the men that gave life to Islam?”…your essentially talking about the whole of Islam and the entire Quran!…And asking me to make a decision on all of it, and on all the men and all their words, who helped formulate it, in one go!!…when my approach would be similar, to my approach to the Bible…

But to try and answer your question anyway…Mohammed believed in the Prophets, so there’s a clear link there, to the Old Testament beliefs…

One of the big problems with the Quran, is that there are these 5 books, which expand on the true understanding of the Quran itself, and they have never been translated into English, or any other European language. And you would have to study those books, together with the Quran, for many years, with an Imam guiding you along, in order to get a deeper grasp of Islam.

So just going on what I’ve read of the Quran so far, which isn’t very much…I would again lean towards discerning what is from God, and what is essentially tribal, and written by men…as I would do with all other religions etc…



Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
To the men (or women) behind Native American or Egyptian or Sumerian religion?


As for Hinduism, Native Americans beliefs, Egyptian and Sumerian religions…each aspect of those beliefs has to be looked at separately. But I think that in general, most religions are speaking of the one true God, that created all things, and that through time and traditions etc…different names were ascribed, to the same, one true God…

And just to add, just like the Bible teaches, I believe God is Spirit, and that we are all, individually, spiritual beings, who are all connected to God through the spirit, which is why all religions, have some grain of truth to them…IMO




Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
Or should we dismiss them entirely and only be cautious, yet believing, that god spoke through men behind Christianity?


No, we shouldn’t dismiss them entirely, we should look for a greater understanding of them.

When you say “yet believing, that god spoke through men behind Christianity?”… this is similar to what I was saying above, in regards to your question on Islam, because again, your asking me to make a decision, on all of it.

Or another way to look at your question is… that you’ve already assumed that those men (whoever they are) are all speaking on behalf of Christianity. When my premise is, that this believing it’s all “inspired of God” or nothing, is the wrong approach…

And like I was saying further up, we need to use discernment, in determining what the truth is. Like for example, who those men are?, and how do their words match up, with Jesus words? etc…

Which for me, is what Christianity should really be all about (Jesus words), but unfortunately, that’s just not the case…IMO


- JC



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I have a 3 word statement that brings into question the authenticity and integrity of the Bible:

Dead Sea Scrolls



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by trollz
 


I suppose a more correct wording for that sentence would have been: The modern day English Bibles are translated for 100% accurate copies of the original. You cannot say that this statement is not true, unless you have reference to prove all the others are faulty.


The only completely accurate English version of the Bible is the Authorized King James Version. All others have been modified to some extent. A small example of just one version: In the New International Version look up Matthew 17:21, Mark 11:26, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24.


Here is a link to a good study on how various versions of the Bible have been tampered with:

www.remnantofgod.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

jeramie
The only completely accurate English version of the Bible is the Authorized King James Version.

'Only the King James Version'... Spoken like a true fundamentalist christian.
Dude .. we've just disproved a chunk of the Old Testament.
NONE of the bibles are 100% accurate historical and/or truthful.
Not a one.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
The Bible has been tampered with since the first scribe set ink to the first page.

"The Bible" was not created in the Eastern Church until the late 600s CE and until the mid 1500s CE in the West. The tradition to create "one book to rule them all" started in the West after the Council of Nicea and was enforced by Constantine, and if that history does not make the implications clear enough:

The Bible is and has been a political document. It has been arranged to be used as a tool to integrate the political sphere with the religious, thereby forging a control structure that enslaves both the bodies and souls of humanity. Constantine did it, James I of England followed his example.

The Bible is an arbitrary human creation. Period.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
It's been 11 days since this thread was opened and the challenge by the OP has been proven wrong.
The forum is once again open. I want my cupie doll for having having won the 'game of logic'.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




There we go



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I was following your train of thought the whole time but wondering how then were we supposed to make that discernment.


And like I was saying further up, we need to use discernment, in determining what the truth is. Like for example, who those men are?, and how do their words match up, with Jesus words? etc…


So this discernment is obviously predicated on Jesus having a strong direct affiliation with divinity, or being the Creator himself, since his words are the measure. What discernment was employed to determine that first?

Also, and to bring it more on topic, you are putting faith also in the Bible representing Jesus's historical words. I'm about 3 hours into lectures by Bart Ehrman, Ph.D. (professor of religious studies) on the 'Historical Jesus'. It's all about applying discernment in regards to what Jesus likely actually did and said. To take it on faith the what's in the Bible is historically accurate to Jesus is not using discernment. At least in the colloquial sense.
edit on 18-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I'd have to say that Jesus' words speak for themselves and discern themselves, they are universally true in my opinion and resonate with me personally. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not much is truer than that. Love others as you love yourself, you can't get any more straight forward or truer than that in my opinion. Forgive others and you will be forgiven, again very straight forward and true.

For the most part Jesus' teachings are very straight forward and easy to understand, the only exceptions to this were his parables which were meant to be hard to understand for those without "ears to hear". But as Joe said, discernment is needed in order to extract that meaning out of the parables.

I think where most if not all Christians make their biggest mistake is in not focusing on the message itself but only on the messenger. Who said those things in the gospels shouldn't really matter, what should matter is the message itself. Christians do not follow that philosophy, they're more worried about the dogma that says it will save their souls, so they believe whatever that dogma teaches them.

Me personally, I have discerned that the red words are true no matter who said them.
edit on 36012020CST363 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
So this discernment is obviously predicated on Jesus having a strong direct affiliation with divinity, or being the Creator himself, since his words are the measure. What discernment was employed to determine that first?


But you’re assuming what I believe, and then asking me why I believe it…

And my first post, could well have been written by an atheist, pointing out exactly the same things I did.

It seems to me, that because I’m a theist (and possibly because of my signature) that you think my view is somehow undermined, because of whatever my faith or belief maybe.

Your essentially asking me, what my personal beliefs are, which is not the topic of this thread.



Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
I'm about 3 hours into lectures by Bart Ehrman, Ph.D. (professor of religious studies) on the 'Historical Jesus'. It's all about applying discernment in regards to what Jesus likely actually did and said.


That’s great; I really like Bart Ehrmans approach, and the research he has done into Gnostic Christianity, and how he has shown, historically at least, that the early Roman Church completely miss-understood, many aspects of their beliefs.



Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
Also, and to bring it more on topic, you are putting faith also in the Bible representing Jesus's historical words.


But I could also argue, that everyone who has posted an objection, to the logic of the Bible on this thread, is also taking on faith, that those words are exact historical accounts. In other words, they had to start somewhere, and so did I, by comparing Jesus words with the OT.

My point being, they don’t need faith, to try to show that something doesn’t add up.



Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
To take it on faith the what's in the Bible is historically accurate to Jesus is not using discernment. At least in the colloquial sense.


Faith is irrelevant to my first post, because it clearly shows that Jesus words don’t match up, with the character of those Old Testament verses.

Here’s your original reply to my first post.



Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
In your opinion/belief did god speak through the men that gave life to Islam and Hinduism? To the men (or women) behind Native American or Egyptian or Sumerian religion? Or should we dismiss them entirely and only be cautious, yet believing, that god spoke through men behind Christianity?

Apologies for being off topic I am just always curious in these kinds of answers.


Now I’ve already kindly answered your questions in the big paragraph above. Questions which you admitted, were off topic.

My beliefs are not on trial here, the logic of the Bible is!. So I’d appreciate it, if you stop asking me more questions about my personal beliefs, because they’re not the topic of this OP.


- JC



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Something for you to think upon brother.


…but the understanding is darkened. Of that we have abundant Scriptural proof. I am not now making mere assertions, but stating doctrines authoritatively taught in the Holy Scriptures, and known in the conscience of every Christian man—that the understanding of man is so dark, that hecannot by any means understand the things of God until his understanding has been opened. Man is by nature blind within. The cross of Christ, so laden with glories, and glittering with attractions, never attracts him, because he is blind and cannot see its beauties. Talk to him of the wonders of the creation, show to him the many-coloured arch that spans the sky, let him behold the glories of a landscape, he is well able to see all these things; but talk to him of the wonders of the covenant of grace, speak to him of the security of the believer in Christ, tell him of the beauties of the person of the Redeemer, he is quite deaf to all your description; you are as one that playeth a goodly tune, it is true; but he regards not, he is deaf, he has no comprehension. Or, to return to the verse which we so specially marked in our reading, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned;” and inasmuch as he is a natural man, it is not in his power to discern the things of God. “Well,” says one, “I think I have arrived at a very tolerable judgment in matters of theology; I think I understand almost every point.” True, that you may do in the letter of it; but in the spirit of it, in the true reception thereof into the soul, and in the actual understanding of it, it is impossible for you to have attained, unless you have been drawn by the Spirit. For as long as that Scripture stands true, that carnal men cannot receive spiritual things, it must be true that you have not received them, unless you have been renewed and made a spiritual man in Christ Jesus. The will, then, and the understanding, are two great doors, both blocked up against our coming to Christ, and until these are opened by the sweet influences of the Divine Spirit, they must be for ever closed to anything like coming to Christ. — Spurgeon (www.spurgeon.org...)


"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." — 2 Corinthians 4:3-6


Since men are blind to the worth of Christ, a miracle is needed in order for them to come to see and believe. Paul compares this miracle with the first day of creation when God said, “Let there be light.” One of the most wonderful statements about how all of us were brought from blindness to sight—from bondage to freedom, from death to life—is: “God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” A real light—a spiritual light—shone in our hearts. It was the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (v. 6). Or as verse 4 puts it, “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” In other words, God causes the glory—the self-authenticating truth and beauty—of Christ to be seen and savored in our hearts.

From that moment on our will toward Christ is fundamentally altered. This is in fact a new creation—a new birth. This is essentially the same divine act as the effectual call that we saw in 1 Corinthians 1:24, “To those who are called ... Christ [has now been seen as] the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Those who are called have their eyes opened by the sovereign, creative power of God so that they no longer see the cross as foolishness but as the power and the wisdom of God. The effectual call is the miracle of having our blindness removed. God causes the glory of Christ to shine with irresistible beauty. This is irresistible grace. — John Piper



“Through God's gracious providence, the human race has gained great intellectual achievements in areas such as science, technology, and medicine. Nevertheless, fallen man's knowledge of God is nothing more than a twisted maze of heresy and futile thinking. This ignorance is not the result of a hidden God but of a hiding man. God has clearly revealed Himself to men through creation, His sovereign works in history, the Scriptures, and finally, through His incarnate Son. Nevertheless, man has responded to this revelation by closing his eyes and covering his ears. He cannot know the truth because he hates the truth and seeks to repress it. He is against the truth because it is God's truth. It speaks against him, and therefore he cannot bear it.” — Paul Washer (The Gospel’s Power & Message, p120-121)



...the Scriptures teach that, prior to conversion, all of Adam's race hates God and lives at war against Him. This hostility exists because a morally corrupt creature simply cannot tolerate a holy and righteous God or bear to submit to His will.

It is important to note that most who claim a genuine love for God know very little about His attributes and works as Scripture describes them. Therefore, the god they love is nothing more than a figment of their own imagination. They have made a god in their own image, and they love what they have made. As God declares through the psalmist, “You thought that I was altogether like you; but I will rebuke you.”

If most men, even those who consider themselves religious, were to investigate the Scriptures, they would most certainly find a God much different from the god they claim as the object of their affections. If they took at face value the Scripture's teaching on such divine attributes as holiness, justice, sovereignty, and wrath, they would most likely respond in disgust and declare, “My God's not like that!” or, “I could never love a God like that!” Thus, we would quickly see that when fallen man meets the God of the Scriptures, his only reaction is repulsion and rejection. What is the reason for this adverse reaction? Again, it has to do with who man is at the very core of his nature. If man were holy and righteous by nature, then he could easily love a holy and righteous God. However, man is by nature depraved, and therefore he cannot. — Paul Washer (The Gospel’s Power & Message, p121)



“We live in a world full of self-proclaimed seekers after God, and yet the Scriptures destroy all such boasting with one simple declaration: ‘There is none who seeks after God.’ Often, we hear young converts to Christianity begin their testimonies with the words, ‘For years I was seeking after God,’ but the Scriptures again reply, ‘There is none who seeks after God.’ Man is a fallen creature. He hates God because He is holy, and he opposes the truth of God because it exposes his depravity and rebellion. Therefore, he will not come to God, but he will do everything in his power to avoid Him and to remove every fragment of His law from his conscience. The old preachers often summarized this truth with this declaration: ‘Man is no more inclined to seek God than a criminal at large is inclined to seek after an officer of the law.’ Jesus agrees: ‘And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.’” — Paul Washer (The Gospel’s Power & Message, p122)



Upon hearing of such a doctrine, one may ask, “How is man responsible before God when he is unable to do anything that God commands?” The answer is very important. If man did not love or obey God because he lacked the mental faculties to do so or was somehow physically restrained, then it would be unfair for God to hold him accountable—he would be a victim. However, this is not the case with man. His inability is moral and stems from his hostility toward God. Man is unable to love God because he hates God. He is unable to obey God because He disdains his commands. He is unable to please God because he does not hold the glory and good pleasure of God to be a worthy goal. Man is not a victim but a culprit. He cannot because he will not. His corruption and enmity toward God are so great that he would rather suffer eternal punishment than acknowledge God to be God and submit to His sovereignty.

For this reason, moral inability may also be called willing hostility. The relationship between Joseph and his brothers best illustrates this truth: “But when his [Joseph's] brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him.” The text states that Joseph's brothers could not speak to him on friendly terms. It was not because they lacked the physical ability to speak but because their hatred toward him was so great that they were unwilling to be friendly to him. In the same way, fallen man's hostility toward God is so great he cannot bring himself to love God or to submit to His commands. 

Imagine a political prisoner justly locked away in a dungeon for his betrayal of king and country. One day the just and merciful king visits the cell and throws open the door. He then promises to give full pardon to the prisoner and restore his freedom on the singular condition that he renounce his rebellion, honor the king, and submit to the king's law. Upon hearing the word of the king, the prisoner races to the door and slams it closed, confining himself once again to the horrid dungeon. Then, in a fit of rage, he spits at the king and exclaims, “I would rather rot in this cell than bow my knee to you!” This is the case of the unregenerate heart. Man's enmity toward God is so great that he would rather waste in hell than render unto Him the esteem, glory, and obedience He deserves! — Paul Washer (The Gospel’s Power & Message, p119)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
 


“As the bird with a broken wing is 'free' to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able.” — Loraine Boettner

To the true Christians that know Christ personally on this board: You can not draw anyone to Christ and it's not in your power to do so even if you have extremely good and clever arguments. My suggestion is to focus on growing in the word and reason out of the scriptures like what Paul the Apostle did. Only God's people will respond and the rest will see it as foolishness.

Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. — Acts 18:9-11


“I have many in this city who are my people. – Acts 18:10 ... They are Christ’s property, and yet perhaps they are lovers of selfish pleasures and haters of holiness; but if Jesus Christ purchased them, He will have them. God is not unfaithful to forget the price that His Son has paid. He will not suffer His substitution to be in any case an ineffectual, dead thing. Tens of thousands of redeemed ones are not regenerated yet, but regenerated they must be; and this is our comfort when we go to them with the quickening Word of God.” — Spurgeon
edit on 23-1-2014 by VoiceInTheWilderness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Yes I did say it was off topic
You could have just said you were not interested
You suggested all of us do something, so I felt compelled to investigate it. Any hoot.
edit on 23-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)





 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join