• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Billions of Dead Things

Sapiens

Polymathematician
LOL.... If you say so.......:D You, of course must be right. ......whoever you think you are.
It is less that I know I am right and more that I know you are wrong, your arguments all fail because they are based on the same, unproven, initial premise.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
It is less that I know I am right and more that I know you are wrong, your arguments all fail because they are based on the same, unproven, initial premise.

I have all the proof I need. :)

God doesn't need to "prove" himself to anyone. You can take him or leave him...it's entirely up to you....Believe it or not.....
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I have all the proof I need. :)

God doesn't need to "prove" himself to anyone. You can take him or leave him...it's entirely up to you....Believe it or not.....
That's just because you've remarkably low standards for proof, and yes ... the existence of a "God" does need evidence to be taken seriously, remember ... "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Earthquakes can cause huge upheavals in earths crust. Deep valleys are created when this happens. Some parts of the ocean are kilometres deep. No one said the mountains had to grow like a plant.
No ... earthquakes are the result of the movement of the Earth's crust. Deep valleys are not created, deep valleys are the result of erosional processes. Many parts of the ocean are kilometers deep, I've been there, have you? Mountains are cause by volcanic and ridge processes or the crumpling of crustal plates.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
That's just because you've remarkably low standards for proof, and yes ... the existence of a "God" does need evidence to be taken seriously, remember ... "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

My remarkably low standard of proof is called faith. Without this very important quality, the Creator cannot exist in the heart or mind. It is a blindness that is exacerbated by ego and a need to be rid of anything that appears to argue with what some believe is scientific fact. The Bible says "knowledge puff up"...I can see that this is a very true statement.

God will not reveal himself to anyone like that. (James 4:6)

There appears to be a lot of arrogance among those who wish to disparage believers. We must look like a bunch of moronic twits to people like yourself....but we don't care. At the end of the day, it's what we look like to God that counts. (1 Cor 1:18-25) If he doesn't exist...you have nothing to worry about. :)

No ... earthquakes are the result of the movement of the Earth's crust. Deep valleys are not created, deep valleys are the result of erosional processes. Many parts of the ocean are kilometers deep, I've been there, have you? Mountains are cause by volcanic and ridge processes or the crumpling of crustal plates.

Since I am not aware of the processes used by the Creator of the universe to accomplish what he states happened....I rely on faith in a power greater than all the scientists in the world.....the great scientist behind the science. He will reveal all in his due time.

Since he has not provided details about how or when he took action in the pre-historic past, I will wait on him to provide those details. When we have regained our mental capacity to the extent that we can all understand his methods, I am sure we will all be able to comprehend his methods and his wisdom. It appears for now, to be in the realms of the impossible to determine with any real certainty what took place at any given time...or how. Science is sure it has the answers up until the time that they are proven wrong, needing then to rewrite the textbooks. So we will wait and see, won't we? :D
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
My remarkably low standard of proof is called faith. Without this very important quality, the Creator cannot exist in the heart or mind. It is a blindness that is exacerbated by ego and a need to be rid of anything that appears to argue with what some believe is scientific fact. The Bible says "knowledge puff up"...I can see that this is a very true statement.
Faith is never a proof, look it up, it is quite the opposite ("strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.")

So you're saying that your all powerful deity is totally dependent for existence upon your (and your coreligionists') "spiritual apprehension?"

I'd say that the ego is all on your side, an all powerful being who deigns to be in a relationship with you and who is dependent upon your "spiritual apprehension" for his existence, that's both heady and crackpot stuff.

Pleas show us all were the Bible uses the phrase: "knowledge puff up." It must be in some weird translation I've never seen.
God will not reveal himself to anyone like that. (James 4:6)
There's a classic cop-out. See: Debunking Christianity: How Could God Reveal Himself to Us?
There appears to be a lot of arrogance among those who wish to disparage believers.
“I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.”
Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir
We must look like a bunch of moronic twits to people like yourself....but we don't care. At the end of the day, it's what we look like to God that counts. (1 Cor 1:18-25) If he doesn't exist...you have nothing to worry about. :)
You are right, I have nothing to worry about and you look like ...
Since I am not aware of the processes used by the Creator of the universe to accomplish what he states happened....I rely on faith in a power greater than all the scientists in the world.....the great scientist behind the science. He will reveal all in his due time.
Now there's that arrogance again.
Since he has not provided details about how or when he took action in the pre-historic past, I will wait on him to provide those details. When we have regained our mental capacity to the extent that we can all understand his methods, I am sure we will all be able to comprehend his methods and his wisdom. It appears for now, to be in the realms of the impossible to determine with any real certainty what took place at any given time...or how. Science is sure it has the answers up until the time that they are proven wrong, needing then to rewrite the textbooks. So we will wait and see, won't we? :D
But science is never "proven wrong." More advanced concepts replace less advanced ones and the texts are rewritten, unlike religion which is, when proven wrong, hung on the dilemma of either clinging childlike to that which is wrong, or shattering into tiny pieces ... stuck with an incorrect Bible and no way to fix it. Talk about ego without merit.
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Faith is never a proof, look it up, it is quite the opposite ("strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.")

It is to those who possess it. :) (2 Thess 3:2)

So you're saying that your all powerful deity is totally dependent for existence upon your (and your coreligionists') "spiritual apprehension?"

No, that is not what I said at all......I said that without faith, God cannot exist in ones mind or heart....God's existence is not altered by whether I believe in him or not. He will prove his existence to all soon enough.

I have no problem at all with the definition......

Apprehension: (Merriam-Webster)

a : the act or power of perceiving or comprehending (Spiritually)

b : the result of apprehending mentally : conception (Spiritually)

Humans are inherently spiritual. That is a fact. It is cynicism and doubt that destroys spirituality. (James 1:5-8)

When that side of us is not fed, we fail to be whole human beings. We always sense that something is missing.

I'd say that the ego is all on your side, an all powerful being who deigns to be in a relationship with you and who is dependent upon your "spiritual apprehension" for his existence, that's both heady and crackpot stuff.

You are destroying a strawman of your own making. :rolleyes:

Pleas show us all were the Bible uses the phrase: "knowledge puff up." It must be in some weird translation I've never seen.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 "Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 "With regard to food sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know. But if someone loves God, he is known by God." (NET)

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 "Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him." (NKJV)

Weird translations you have never seen? o_O Hmmmm.....don't read the Bible I take it.

There's a classic cop-out. See: Debunking Christianity: How Could God Reveal Himself to Us?
“I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.”
Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir


There is much in Christendom to detest. That is why I left it. The above quote makes it clear that many atheists are not fooled by Christendom's view of herself. The thing is...neither is God. This is where the arrogance comes in. You cannot assume that Christendom represents Christianity, especially in the face of Jesus' parable of the "wheat and the weeds".
If it was foretold that a great apostasy was coming (already at work when the apostles were still alive) then why should anyone be surprised when it reared its ugly head?

But the scripture I quoted above also demonstrates that those who do not genuinely love God will never know him and will never be known by him. God is under no obligation to 'cast his peals before swine' and neither are we. We have a message...take it or leave it. It is not the message preached by Christendom....we don't even worship the same god.

It is a message of hope based on the power of a purposeful Creator. Throwing the baby out with the bath water will not ensure the secure future we are all invited to share.

You are right, I have nothing to worry about and you look like ...
Now there's that arrogance again.

Please don't confuse arrogance with confidence. They are very different.

But science is never "proven wrong." More advanced concepts replace less advanced ones and the texts are rewritten, unlike religion which is, when proven wrong, hung on the dilemma of either clinging childlike to that which is wrong, or shattering into tiny pieces ... stuck with an incorrect Bible and no way to fix it. Talk about ego without merit.

Like I said, I left Christendom a long time ago because of those very things. Doctrines that have been proven wrong but they continue to 'cling child-like' to those teachings, even though the Bible disproves them.

You cannot "fix" what you don't acknowledge. I agree, that kind of Christianity is moronic. It is not the kind I practice.

Proving Christendom wrong however, is not proving God or the Bible wrong. That is where we part company. I have faith in the Bible and in its author. I always will.

Where will it get me putting faith in science when it has caused more destruction on this planet than religion ever knew how to? :confused:
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
It is to those who possess it. :) (2 Thess 3:2)

No, that is not what I said at all......I said that without faith, God cannot exist in ones mind or heart....God's existence is not altered by whether I believe in him or not. He will prove his existence to all soon enough.
That's the Emperor's New Clothes, I'm not buying.
I have no problem at all with the definition......

Apprehension: (Merriam-Webster)

a : the act or power of perceiving or comprehending (Spiritually)

b : the result of apprehending mentally : conception (Spiritually)

Humans are inherently spiritual. That is a fact. It is cynicism and doubt that destroys spirituality. (James 1:5-8)
There is an argument that belief has an evolutionary basis. But that does not make what is believed real.
When that side of us is not fed, we fail to be whole human beings. We always sense that something is missing.
I am not a whole human being? I do not sense that anything is missing.
You are destroying a strawman of your own making. :rolleyes:
Hardly.
1 Corinthians 8:1-3 "Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 "With regard to food sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know. But if someone loves God, he is known by God." (NET)

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 "Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him." (NKJV)

Weird translations you have never seen? o_O Hmmmm.....don't read the Bible I take it.
Can't say it's a major pastime ... it's rather a waste of time.
There is much in Christendom to detest. That is why I left it. The above quote makes it clear that many atheists are not fooled by Christendom's view of herself. The thing is...neither is God. This is where the arrogance comes in. You cannot assume that Christendom represents Christianity, especially in the face of Jesus' parable of the "wheat and the weeds".
If it was foretold that a great apostasy was coming (already at work when the apostles were still alive) then why should anyone be surprised when it reared its ugly head?
I must admit that I know little of your beliefs, so I have to look them up. Here's what I find ... it's damned near prophetic:

"All Christians are really agents of Satan" - the fatal flaw of the Jehovah's Witnesses

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a number of fatal flaws that invalidates them in the Father's eyes. First and foremost, they officially call all Christians "agents of Satan", or the "evil tares" (or "evil weeds") spoken of in Matthew 13:37-39, "and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil".In that parable about the good seed and the bad seeds or tares, they claim in all their publications and on their website that the Christians are the Satanic "evil tares" (or "evil weeds") spoken of and that only the Jehovah's Witnesses are the true "good seeds" spoken of in that parable.

This is the ludicrous basic tenet that makes up the very rotten core of what this so called "religion" (cult) is based upon.

The "all Christians are really agents of the Devil" position can be seen on the official Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower website.

They should also always be very strictly avoided because of their basic religious tenet of going door to door and condemning the so called "evils of Christendom". They say the term "Christendom" but then they only list the evils of Catholicism, which are quite valid and true by the way. But the Catholics are hardly are even included in Christendom, which consists almost exclusively of the Protestants. And the Protestants are uniformly innocent of all of the so call "evils of Christendom" that the Jehovah's Witnesses speak of.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not differentiate between the "Catholic abomination" and the Father's beloved and unproblematic Protestants when they use their all inclusive term "Christendom". When a Jehovah's Witnesses says the term "Christendom", he means the Catholics AND the Protestants. Then when the JW starts to list "all the evils of Christendom", the only thing that a JW will list are the evils of the Catholic church.

For this main reason, their erroneously condemning Christendom and then only listing the flaws of Catholicism, misleads and damages everyone that they come into contact with and thus this huge problem then invalidates their whole so called "religion".

Nobody can base their whole religion on condemning the apple of God's eye and then to expect the Father's tacit approval. Also, the Father never gives a Jehovah's Witness the gift of "speaking in tongues" just like he gives to almost every other Protestant. He does this to all the Jehovah's Witnesses as a sign to demonstrate that in his own humble opinion (the only one that counts), they have completely missed the boat.

Their official publications have made failed prediction after failed prediction including a big one in 1968 when the Jehovah's Witnesses official "Watchtower" magazine said that "the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long looked for thousand year reign of Christ will begin". Now that is really something to be ashamed about. They should have closed their doors right then and there after that fiasco. But as the saying goes, there is a sucker born every minute, and their doorbells and donations for so called "printing costs" keep the JW's in business.
( "The Fatal Flaw" of the Jehovah's Witnesses )

But the scripture I quoted above also demonstrates that those who do not genuinely love God will never know him and will never be known by him. God is under no obligation to 'cast his peals before swine' and neither are we. We have a message...take it or leave it. It is not the message preached by Christendom....we don't even worship the same god.
Now you've given me good reason to kick you off my porch.
It is a message of hope based on the power of a purposeful Creator. Throwing the baby out with the bath water will not ensure the secure future we are all invited to share.
Frankly I think you're nuts.
Please don't confuse arrogance with confidence. They are very different.
Something you should learn before you wander thorough other peoples' neighborhoods advertising your beliefs to them:
3179.png

Like I said, I left Christendom a long time ago because of those very things. Doctrines that have been proven wrong but they continue to 'cling child-like' to those teachings, even though the Bible disproves them.
You can argue with Lilliputian glee the fine points of the book you both read, I say a plague on both your ignorances.
You cannot "fix" what you don't acknowledge. I agree, that kind of Christianity is moronic. It is not the kind I practice.
I was not talking about "that kind of Christianity" (though it applies), I was talking about your kind of Christianity, which also fits.
Proving Christendom wrong however, is not proving God or the Bible wrong. That is where we part company. I have faith in the Bible and in its author. I always will.
You ALWAYS will. That kind of faith is foolish. I know that much of what I "know" today will change and I revel in that.
Where will it get me putting faith in science when it has caused more destruction on this planet than religion ever knew how to? :confused:
Science has cause no destruction, we leave that to the religionists and the engineers.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
That's the Emperor's New Clothes, I'm not buying.

I think you'd be better off buying it from the messengers rather than from the one who sent them.

I am not a whole human being? I do not sense that anything is missing.
That is not surprising.

If you deny the spiritual side of yourself, then yes, I believe that you are missing a lot. When you don't feed the spiritual side of yourself it shrivels up like a prune. It usually makes one's face take on the same appearance.
Are all atheists as grumpy as most of them are here on RF? o_O


I must admit that I know little of your beliefs, so I have to look them up. Here's what I find ... it's damned near prophetic:

And when I want to know something about you I will go straight to a hate site and believe everything they say about you.

Good grief! What a load of cods. Now I know how interested you are in the truth. Any wonder you swallow evolution. :rolleyes:

Now you've given me good reason to kick you off my porch.

Frankly I think you're nuts.

Duly noted, I will not cast my pearls under your number 9 's again. No worries. You've made your choice so that's all that matters.

Something you should learn before you wander thorough other peoples' neighborhoods advertising your beliefs to them:
3179.png

Wow, so is this why you need to advertise? OK...got it. ;)
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
OK, tell us:
  1. Do you call all Christians "agents of Satan", or the "evil tares" (or "evil weeds") spoken of in Matthew 13:37-39?
  2. Do you go door to door condemning the, "evils of Christendom"?
  3. Do you differentiate between the "Catholic abomination" and the Protestants when you use the term "Christendom"?
  4. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1877 that: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven?
  5. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1877 that: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven?
  6. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1891 that: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men?"
  7. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1904 that: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914?
  8. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1916 that: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints"?
  9. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1917 that: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments? God would "destroy the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions?" Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy?" The dead would lie unburied? In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing?
  10. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1920 that: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace? God would begin restoring the earth? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of the New Order on earth? Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die?
  11. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1922 that: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925?
  12. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1924 that: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925? Jerusalem would be made the world's capital? Resurrected "princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours"?
  13. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1938 that: Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing?
  14. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1941 that: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon?
  15. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1942 that: Armageddon was "immediately before us?"
  16. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1961 that: that the heavenly kingdom "will, within the twentieth century, cleanse the entire earth of wickedness?"
  17. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1966 that: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to begin at that time? Time was "running out, no question about that?The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic events within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign began?
  18. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1967 that: The end-time period (beginning in 1914) was claimed to be so far advanced that the time remaining could "be compared, not just to the last day of a week, but rather, to the last part of that day"?
  19. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1968 that: "the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long looked for thousand year reign of Christ will begin"?
  20. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1968 that: No one could say "with certainty" that the battle of Armageddon would begin in 1975, but time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place? In March 1968 there was a "short period of time left", with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed"?
  21. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1969 that: The existing world order would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years?" Young Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason?
  22. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1971 that: The "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning "Shortly, within our twentieth century"?
  23. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1974 that: There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service?"
  24. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1984 that: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century?
  25. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1989 that: Christian missionary work begun in the first century would "be completed in our 20th century"? When republished in bound volumes, was the phrase "in our 20th century" replaced with the less specific "in our day"?
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
OK, tell us:
  1. Do you call all Christians "agents of Satan", or the "evil tares" (or "evil weeds") spoken of in Matthew 13:37-39? . . . . .
. . . . . 25. Did the Jehovah's Witnesses say, in 1989 that: Christian missionary work begun in the first century would "be completed in our 20th century"? When republished in bound volumes, was the phrase "in our 20th century" replaced with the less specific "in our day"?​
Doesn't say much for the religion or its millions of followers. Nor do these *sigh*

The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society,

Teaches that Christians “are divine beings — hence all such are Gods, thus we have a family of God….in the resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods
(Zion’s Watch Tower, December 1881, pp. 2-3)

Teaches that white skin is better than black skin and that “the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other.”
(Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1900, p. 296; Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1902, p. 216)

Teaches that the shape of one’s brain determines his responsiveness to God.
(The Watch Tower, March 15, 1913, p. 84; Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, vol. 37, p. 351)

Teaches that Jehovah “governs his universe” from the star “Alcyone” in the Pleiades constellation.
(Thy Kingdom Come, (Studies, vol. 3) p. 327)
source
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Doesn't say much for the religion or its millions of followers. Nor do these *sigh*

The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society,

Teaches that Christians “are divine beings — hence all such are Gods, thus we have a family of God….in the resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods
(Zion’s Watch Tower, December 1881, pp. 2-3)

Teaches that white skin is better than black skin and that “the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other.”
(Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1900, p. 296; Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1902, p. 216)

Teaches that the shape of one’s brain determines his responsiveness to God.
(The Watch Tower, March 15, 1913, p. 84; Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, vol. 37, p. 351)

Teaches that Jehovah “governs his universe” from the star “Alcyone” in the Pleiades constellation.
(Thy Kingdom Come, (Studies, vol. 3) p. 327)
source

Meanwhile all the atheists and evolutionists on the forum are social darwinists of one kind or another. In 2015 right here right now.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Meanwhile all the atheists and evolutionists on the forum are social darwinists of one kind or another. In 2015 right here right now.
If I thought you knew anything at all about evolution I'd take your comment seriously, but seeing as I don't . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exhausted3_tns.png
 
Top