Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: Bush Says He Doubts Bible Literally True

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2904386]Thank you for proving my point.

    Yes, because there are absolutely NO agendas in science what so ever. Nobody happens to find the certain evidence someone is looking for, depending on who pays the bill.

    You guys keep forgetting I don't have a problem with science, but fundamentalism, that is another story...

    And yes, because EVERYBODY involved in theology thinks that if you don't believe exactly what they think they damn you to hell....Some of you guys really need to turn off Benny Hinn et al and read some stuff. You would be presently surprised.[/QUOTE]
    You're kind of stuck in the middle of this whole thing. You should know that when I or others speak that way about religion we are referring to fundamentalists. When we get grouped in two, we tend to be identified with the most extreme of the group..

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CTM;2904575]Why couldn't god have created this thing, instead of the big bang, and then just let things evolve as they would through universal free will..[/QUOTE]

    God?

    Created?

    This thing?

    I'm French. I don't understand this thing you speak of. So let me try to make sense.... God (incredibly complex anthropomorphic creature of higher consciousness who came from nowhere) creates (does this mean invents, imagines, actually spews out matter?) but keeps it simple and lets thing "just evolve" until eventually he gets himself some humans who cause some trouble, copulate, wander off and eventually write a book about it. Then another guy comes along, because God has decided to get him born through a virgin woman on this one planet out of the billions he's created so he can get in trouble, get hanged on a cross and then disappear promising he's going to be right back. Then a little later a guy named Sackdance99 condemns everybody who doesn't agree with all this to burn in hell.... yes, it all makes perfect sense.

    Go Jets!

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904602]God?

    Created?

    This thing?

    I'm French. I don't understand this thing you speak of. So let me try to make sense.... God (incredibly complex anthropomorphic creature of higher consciousness who came from nowhere) creates (does this mean invents, imagines, actually spews out matter?) but keeps it simple and lets thing "just evolve" until eventually he gets himself some humans who cause some trouble, copulate, wander off and eventually write a book about it. Then another guy comes along, because God has decided to get him born through a virgin woman on this one planet out of the billions he's created so he can get in trouble, get hanged on a cross and then disappear promising he's going to be right back. Then a little later a guy named Sackdance99 condemns everybody who doesn't agree with all this to burn in hell.... yes, it all makes perfect sense.

    Go Jets![/QUOTE]

    whoa.. I didn't say anything about Jesus or any organized religion or belief system for that matter...

    So if there was no creation, where did everything come from? Believing in the "big bang" or other scientific answers for the starting point requires just as much faith as my saying God created everything...

    Your refusal to even consider the possibility makes you as close minded as those you mock..

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=CTM;2904620]whoa.. I didn't say anything about Jesus or any organized religion or belief system for that matter...

    So if there was no creation, where did everything come from? Believing in the "big bang" or other scientific answers for the starting point requires just as much faith as my saying God created everything...

    Your refusal to even consider the possibility makes you as close minded as those you mock..[/QUOTE]

    Long Island, you should read this over carefully....CTM has a point.

    Not ONCE did he mention anything you say here.

    Science has done an amazing job of telling us about the universe, but you do realize science owes its very nature to theology, right? The whole idea was formulated to understand how the universe was created, and to see how it all works together.

    NOBODY has ever said anything about a specific religion. Something has to be the cause of self and responsible for its own existence, otherwise we are talking about philosophical absurdity.

    It used to be thought that the universe was the cause of itself, but even Einstein's theory of relativity states that the universe had a starting point. He even admitted he did not like the implications and tried to 'fudge' the findings (science as subjective rather than objective as I stated earlier).

    This is what CTM is getting at. It all had to start somehow, and when we study an evolving, intelligent, cohesive, mathematical, logical, universe, we think "hmm, perhaps there is something intelligent, cohesive, etc. behind it.

    That's where the study of theology comes in and asks the question "what could this 'something' be like. Science cannot answer these questions, nor should it, just like theology should not answer questions about radiology, quantum physics, or physics.

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    [QUOTE=CTM;2904620]whoa.. I didn't say anything about Jesus or any organized religion or belief system for that matter...

    So if there was no creation, where did everything come from? Believing in the "big bang" or other scientific answers for the starting point requires just as much faith as my saying God created everything...

    Your refusal to even consider the possibility makes you as close minded as those you mock..[/QUOTE]

    I agree completely, and it's exactly why I'm agnostic.

    But do you really think that the people answering the poll question were thinking of creationism in this fashion? I'd say the vast majority are thinking of it in terms of the 7 day fairy tale.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CTM;2904620]whoa.. I didn't say anything about Jesus or any organized religion or belief system for that matter...

    So if there was no creation, where did everything come from? Believing in the "big bang" or other scientific answers for the starting point requires just as much faith as my saying God created everything...

    Your refusal to even consider the possibility makes you as close minded as those you mock..[/QUOTE]

    I couldn't disagree with you more regarding the second point. (The first point was just me riffing on the sackdance99 world). The "big bang" has been explored and studied with actual perceptual tools, such as Hubble and radio telecopes. Science is only as good as what it can explain and predict. Now you may decide to reject the idea that by looking into deep space you are actually looking back in time and if so, then we cannot discuss ANY science whatsoever, since you have rendered all observation meaningless. Of course then we can't believe in what we read either, or anything we personally experience. Paradoxically enough, both cosmology and quantum mechanics have arrived at a point where some very strange ideas have emerged about the very nature and structure of all matter/antimatter. When you add in the relativistic concept of the time-space manifold and the possibility of the cosmos folding in on itself like a Klein's bottle (no inside-no outside; time a reflection of position, etc.) then the idea of beginnings and endings becomes a relativistic question in itself. It's a product of a limited being situated on a point in the space-time manifold thinking he is at the center of an infinite sphere in which time is sequential. In which case, our primitive conception of a God with a beard and a big protractor hovering over our little planet and worrying about whether Sackdance99 is going to heaven or not is absolutely childish and empty. We can do better than that at this point in our development as humans.

  7. #47
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2904825]Long Island, you should read this over carefully....CTM has a point.

    Not ONCE did he mention anything you say here.

    Science has done an amazing job of telling us about the universe, but you do realize science owes its very nature to theology, right? The whole idea was formulated to understand how the universe was created, and to see how it all works together.

    NOBODY has ever said anything about a specific religion. Something has to be the cause of self and responsible for its own existence, otherwise we are talking about philosophical absurdity.

    It used to be thought that the universe was the cause of itself, but even Einstein's theory of relativity states that the universe had a starting point. He even admitted he did not like the implications and tried to 'fudge' the findings (science as subjective rather than objective as I stated earlier).

    This is what CTM is getting at. It all had to start somehow, and when we study an evolving, intelligent, cohesive, mathematical, logical, universe, we think "hmm, perhaps there is something intelligent, cohesive, etc. behind it.

    That's where the study of theology comes in and asks the question "what could this 'something' be like. Science cannot answer these questions, nor should it, just like theology should not answer questions about radiology, quantum physics, or physics.[/QUOTE]

    Man, you should read up on current quantum theory. The science you are talking about is an artifact of Newtonian thinking. When Heisenberg posited the Uncertainty Principle, Dirac discovered antimatter, Feynman showed the way to quantum foam, and Gell-Mann brought forth the sub-atomic world of quarks, we all entered the world of paradox and strangeness. When you add chaos and complexity on the macro level, you are left with the beauty of highly complex systems being explained and reproduced by the iteration of quite simple and unintelligent algorithms. Iteration is the key to complexity. Looking at the final product creates the illusion that only an intelligence could have generated it -- a human body, a tree, even a snowflake. Here's a suggestion: do a Google on Conway's Game of Life and try it. It's a nice model for how very complex entities can be generated by a few points with very simple reproduction/death rules. It may change how you think about complexity...

  8. #48
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Jersey Shore
    Posts
    3,073
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904602]Then a little later a guy named Sackdance99 condemns everybody who doesn't agree with all this to burn in hell...[/QUOTE]


    Yes, you should be thankful I told you the truth. God keeps ALL of his promises and if you don't repent you most assuredly will spend eternity gnashing your teeth in the lake of fire. Read Luke Chapter 16 for a more vivid picture of your future....

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2904941]Yes, you should be thankful I told you the truth. God keeps ALL of his promises and if you don't repent you most assuredly will spend eternity gnashing your teeth in the lake of fire. Read Luke Chapter 16 for a more vivid picture of your future....[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, thanks. I graduated from divinity school long time ago. I'm well aware of the Bible in detail. I also think the whole apocalyptic tradition is utter nonsense and a misreading of what Jesus preached. But thanks anyway. I'm much more worried about how I live my life right here and now. It's amazing to me that guys like you can be so worried about getting into heaven by creating a living hell all around you. Something very wrong with that picture.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904938]Man, you should read up on current quantum theory. The science you are talking about is an artifact of Newtonian thinking. When Heisenberg posited the Uncertainty Principle, Dirac discovered antimatter, Feynman showed the way to quantum foam, and Gell-Mann brought forth the sub-atomic world of quarks, we all entered the world of paradox and strangeness. When you add chaos and complexity on the macro level, you are left with the beauty of highly complex systems being explained and reproduced by the iteration of quite simple and unintelligent algorithms. Iteration is the key to complexity. Looking at the final product creates the illusion that only an intelligence could have generated it -- a human body, a tree, even a snowflake. Here's a suggestion: do a Google on Conway's Game of Life and try it. It's a nice model for how very complex entities can be generated by a few points with very simple reproduction/death rules. It may change how you think about complexity...[/QUOTE]

    And Heisenberg said we can toss the Newtonian, deterministic idea of cause and effect out the window at the level of quantum theory. Predictions can be made about certain probabilities, however there is no absolute in the quantum leve.

    No laws to be broken at the sub-atomic level, so he also concluded that this also opened the door for the possibility of God being active in the world today, which also destroys the 'God of the gaps' theory simultaneously.

    Is this what you are referring to? I am really not following where you are coming from LI...is the problem more the fundamentalist religious outlook, or is it the idea of God alltogether? Again, there is SO much theology out their that is not what you see on late-night tv, it would be worth looking into, but I just want to see where you are coming from before adding any more.

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Jersey Shore
    Posts
    3,073
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904995]I'm much more worried about how I live my life right here and now.[/QUOTE]

    Great logic. Forget where you will spend the billions and billions of years to come, let's focus on the nano-second of a life here.

  12. #52
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904905]I couldn't disagree with you more regarding the second point. (The first point was just me riffing on the sackdance99 world). The "big bang" has been explored and studied with actual perceptual tools, such as Hubble and radio telecopes. Science is only as good as what it can explain and predict. Now you may decide to reject the idea that by looking into deep space you are actually looking back in time and if so, then we cannot discuss ANY science whatsoever, since you have rendered all observation meaningless. Of course then we can't believe in what we read either, or anything we personally experience. Paradoxically enough, both cosmology and quantum mechanics have arrived at a point where some very strange ideas have emerged about the very nature and structure of all matter/antimatter. When you add in the relativistic concept of the time-space manifold and the possibility of the cosmos folding in on itself like a Klein's bottle (no inside-no outside; time a reflection of position, etc.) then the idea of beginnings and endings becomes a relativistic question in itself. It's a product of a limited being situated on a point in the space-time manifold thinking he is at the center of an infinite sphere in which time is sequential.[B] In which case, our primitive conception of a God with a beard and a big protractor hovering over our little planet and worrying about whether Sackdance99 is going to heaven or not is absolutely childish and empty. We can do better than that at this point in our development as humans.[/B][/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why you'd make this post. I have a limited understanding of quantum cosmology but most of what you said is going to be lost on many without further reading (including myself) I get that you're smart and educated, why not explain it in a way that's easier to understand what your POV is..

    To the bolded, why are you limiting the definition of "god" so much? Not believing in "religion" or mans definition of god is not the same as not believing in a god or creator..

    Now to clarify, do you agree or disagree that science has yet to "prove" how matter and anti-matter came to be?

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CTM;2905136]I'm not sure why you'd make this post. I have a limited understanding of quantum cosmology but most of what you said is going to be lost on many without further reading (including myself) I get that you're smart and educated, why not explain it in a way that's easier to understand what your POV is..

    To the bolded, why are you limiting the definition of "god" so much? Not believing in "religion" or mans definition of god is not the same as not believing in a god or creator..

    Now to clarify, do you agree or disagree that science has yet to "prove" how matter and anti-matter came to be?[/QUOTE]

    I'm truly not interested in impressing anybody with my education, such as it is. It's very difficult to explain to someone who is wedded to a Newtonian concept of the cosmos a relativistic or quantum view. I'm not saying you, per se, but most people who are still reading the Bible as if nothing has happened in the past 2500 years -- that the Bible is some sort of immovable and fixed axis point around which all knowledge must congregate. It's simply not. Nor was it even unique in virtually all of its core ideas, which occurred previously in other cultures and civilizations (i.e., Monotheism, death and resurrection, communion with a spirit world, systems of moral justice, etc.)

    As to your question about "proving" how matter and anti-matter came to be, I think it's not a question that has meaning, although it appears to if one is bound by the idea that time can only be understood as a linear and sequential concept. If time can fold in on itself, as space can, then something can both be and not be at the same time, or even be in multiple places and times. The simplest example is the moebius strip. Any piece of paper can be observed to have two sides and therefore be a plane that extends into infinity. But if one simply twists the paper once and attaches the ends, one creates an infinite bounded plane with ONE surface. It appears to an observer on any point of the plane as being flat and extended to infinity. Yet if one traveled in a straight line on the plane, he would end up back where he started. Imagine that topological plane being transformed into a three dimensional, four dimensional or greater object. No inside, no outside. Bending in on itself and bounded, yet infinite. Not just space folding, but time folding. You won't find that in the Bible..... :rolleyes:

  14. #54
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2905231]I'm truly not interested in impressing anybody with my education, such as it is. It's very difficult to explain to someone who is wedded to a Newtonian concept of the cosmos a relativistic or quantum view. I'm not saying you, per se, but most people who are still reading the Bible as if nothing has happened in the past 2500 years -- that the Bible is some sort of immovable and fixed axis point around which all knowledge must congregate. It's simply not. Nor was it even unique in virtually all of its core ideas, which occurred previously in other cultures and civilizations (i.e., Monotheism, death and resurrection, communion with a spirit world, systems of moral justice, etc.)
    [/quote]
    Why are you assuming I'm talking about the bible when I speak of a creator/god?

    [quote]
    As to your question about "proving" how matter and anti-matter came to be, I think it's not a question that has meaning, although it appears to if one is bound by the idea that time can only be understood as a linear and sequential concept. If time can fold in on itself, as space can, then something can both be and not be at the same time, or even be in multiple places and times. The simplest example is the moebius strip. Any piece of paper can be observed to have two sides and therefore be a plane that extends into infinity. But if one simply twists the paper once and attaches the ends, one creates an infinite bounded plane with ONE surface. It appears to an observer on any point of the plane as being flat and extended to infinity. Yet if one traveled in a straight line on the plane, he would end up back where he started. Imagine that topological plane being transformed into a three dimensional, four dimensional or greater object. No inside, no outside. Bending in on itself and bounded, yet infinite. Not just space folding, but time folding. You won't find that in the Bible..... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    The question is valid in that the point I'm trying to illustrate is that for you to be so certain that there is no creator requires a certain amount of faith on your part, just as those who believe require faith to do so..

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2905075]And Heisenberg said we can toss the Newtonian, deterministic idea of cause and effect out the window at the level of quantum theory. Predictions can be made about certain probabilities, however there is no absolute in the quantum leve.

    No laws to be broken at the sub-atomic level, so he also concluded that this also opened the door for the possibility of God being active in the world today, which also destroys the 'God of the gaps' theory simultaneously.

    Is this what you are referring to? I am really not following where you are coming from LI...is the problem more the fundamentalist religious outlook, or is it the idea of God alltogether? Again, there is SO much theology out their that is not what you see on late-night tv, it would be worth looking into, but I just want to see where you are coming from before adding any more.[/QUOTE]

    No, no. That is NOT what Heisenberg was saying. He was saying that you cannot determine the velocity AND position of a particle at the same time. You can only describe the event as a probability. Also, there are decidedly laws at the sub-atomic level. They are strange, paradoxical, even fantastic, but they are consistent.

    I'm not arguing against God at all. I like Einstein's notion that God IS the deep laws of the cosmos in action. And there is much about those laws that remains a mystery. But I must say I have long since rejected the apocalyptic school of Bible worship. The end-time was expected within the lifetime of Paul's/John's church. Revelations spoke to that time and place, not ours. It didn't happen. The vision was false. End of story. I'm not terribly interested in theology (i.e. philosophical constructs of religion), but I am very interested and invested in learning how to live and how to find spiritual grounding in this crazy world. Jesus provides a path, as do many other mystics of great power. They share a common ground. I'm interested in the common ground more than the differences. But I have no hesitation to discard any element of the Biblical text that doesn't hold up to factual scrutiny. I have no stake in the Bible being true. I have a stake in seeking and finding the truth as all of life reveals it. That's where I'm coming from, if that helps...

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CTM;2905246]Why are you assuming I'm talking about the bible when I speak of a creator/god?


    The question is valid in that the point I'm trying to illustrate is that for you to be so certain that there is no creator requires a certain amount of faith on your part, just as those who believe require faith to do so..[/QUOTE]

    If there is no beginning and no end, what does it mean to be a creator? It's not a question of having faith, as the concept itself is a misstatement. What you may be speaking of is a moment of transformation that from our limited vantage point appears to be a creation from nothing. When you use the term "creator" it is even more suggestive. Do you mean an intelligence? A being of some sort? That's why I keep responding with the Biblical image.... but you could just as well be talking about the great watch-maker. What do you mean by "creator"?

  17. #57
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2905282]

    I'm not arguing against God at all. I like Einstein's notion that God IS the deep laws of the cosmos in action. And there is much about those laws that remains a mystery. But I must say I have long since rejected the apocalyptic school of Bible worship. The end-time was expected within the lifetime of Paul's/John's church. Revelations spoke to that time and place, not ours. It didn't happen. The vision was false. End of story. I'm not terribly interested in theology (i.e. philosophical constructs of religion), but I am very interested and invested in learning how to live and how to find spiritual grounding in this crazy world. Jesus provides a path, as do many other mystics of great power. They share a common ground. I'm interested in the common ground more than the differences. But I have no hesitation to discard any element of the Biblical text that doesn't hold up to factual scrutiny. I have no stake in the Bible being true. I have a stake in seeking and finding the truth as all of life reveals it. That's where I'm coming from, if that helps...[/QUOTE]

    Ok, then I don't know why we are debating, I'm not defending the bible or religion ;)

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=CTM;2905456]Ok, then I don't know why we are debating, I'm not defending the bible or religion ;)[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for helping me chase my tail! :)

    I'll see you in sackdance99 Hell, Suite 666, just above the Chinese takeout place.

    Do you remember that story about Abraham Lincoln. He was in the back of local church after he got on the ballot for Congress. The minister pointed him out to the congregation as a vile disbeliever who had openly espoused agnosticism. "You're going to Hell, Mr. Lincoln!" the minister shouted. "Yes," Lincoln replied. "But first I'm going to Congress."

  19. #59
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    104
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904602]God?

    Created?

    This thing?

    I'm French. I don't understand this thing you speak of. So let me try to make sense.... God (incredibly complex anthropomorphic creature of higher consciousness who came from nowhere) creates (does this mean invents, i

    Go Jets![/QUOTE]

    You should be a comedian.

    You must stop as even NASA knows you can not give to much information to us common men. Riots will start!

  20. #60
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2905282]No, no. That is NOT what Heisenberg was saying. He was saying that you cannot determine the velocity AND position of a particle at the same time. You can only describe the event as a probability. Also, there are decidedly laws at the sub-atomic level. They are strange, paradoxical, even fantastic, but they are consistent.

    I'm not arguing against God at all. I like Einstein's notion that God IS the deep laws of the cosmos in action. And there is much about those laws that remains a mystery. But I must say I have long since rejected the apocalyptic school of Bible worship. The end-time was expected within the lifetime of Paul's/John's church. Revelations spoke to that time and place, not ours. It didn't happen. The vision was false. End of story. I'm not terribly interested in theology (i.e. philosophical constructs of religion), but I am very interested and invested in learning how to live and how to find spiritual grounding in this crazy world. Jesus provides a path, as do many other mystics of great power. They share a common ground. I'm interested in the common ground more than the differences. But I have no hesitation to discard any element of the Biblical text that doesn't hold up to factual scrutiny. I have no stake in the Bible being true. I have a stake in seeking and finding the truth as all of life reveals it. That's where I'm coming from, if that helps...[/QUOTE]

    I would differ that he did not say about opening up possibilities for God to exist and effect the world at the Quantum level, but so be it...

    You see, when you say you are interested in, and have a stake in seeking and finding the truth, I think you are interested in theology, but not about the constructs of a particular religion, but what that religion says, and how it can be always reinterpreted and understood. The bible is not a static piece of literature...its depths are unlimited; however, it is the few that scream the loudest for it to be something that it is not that get heard the most.

    When you study religion, you see common principles residing throughout the narratives. It is those common grounds that ought to be studied more, for I think we can find universal principles that are (paradoxically) adaptable and flexible for all cultures. I really wish I understood math and science better, for the only reason that the understanding of the natural universe could help my understanding of theology, and subsequently God more. However, I just can't seem to find stuff that is easy enough for me to understand. It's not that I don't get stuff, I mean more from a full comprehensive point of view.

    If we think of God as the 'deep laws' as you call them, I think that is fairly accurate, at least, as accurate as a finite language and understanding can offer. I had a friend one time in College YEARS ago say to me he had a theory that the universe would eventually just evolve into pure thought. There wouldn't be anything physical remaining, just pure thought of all things. I think about that often, because I think he had it right, only backwards; that everything CAME from pure thought.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us