Why... ?

Tawhano · Oct 24, 2007

KCDAD said:
I can't answer that question because 1) He didn't "get to be a god", 2) "How" is a science question and theology answers the question why.

Then what was the purpose of the charade of answering this question before with bible scriptures in which you believe to be the product of an ignorant person's imagination?

KCDAD said:
God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event

The definition you supplied says otherwise. You have God as an event and the definition has it as a being that causes that event.

KCDAD said:
That "truth" that existed in Jesus was God in the same way it is when that truth exists in us

Jesus (and all humans...certainly all of creation) is God-filled.

So this truth exists in us and we are God? I asked this before and you couldnt answer it, I include it here just for others who may be reading this and I dont expect you to answer it now as you didnt in the pass.

KCDAD said:
What sets Jesus apart is his recognition of the extreme difference in reality with which he saw these truths and how he was able to impart this truth in simple, terms for the common person to understand.

How do you know what these truths were? You certainly cant be saying you learned of these truths through the records of ignorant peoples imagination collected in one book. This is what I cant understand about you; you say the bible isnt trustworthy so it is obvious that you must gleam from it what you accept and disregard the rest. This means your religion is about you and not about Jesus or an event called God and yet you belittle all other religions about being about them.

KCDAD said:
Does this answer your question?

Yes it answers a lot of questions and raises even more. I now see why you have the other icon but cant understand why you have the Ignore the candle... I'm a Methodist bit under your username. Your views certainly arent Methodist that I know of. I assume it is just the church you go to although you dont believe their theology. I also dont see why you consider yourself a Christian or even want to be associated with the term Christian. How does Jesus reconcile us to a god that is just an event?

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

Tawhano;40068961Then what was the purpose of the charade of answering this question before with bible scriptures in which you believe to be the product of an ignorant person's imagination?

I was making the point that the Bible does not adequately answer the question, it is inconsistent at best and contradictory.

The definition you supplied says otherwise. You have ‘God’ as an event and the definition has it as a being that causes that event.

Where does it say God is an event?

God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event.

S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal(any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god
What it says is the term God refers to a creating event. There is no God without a creation. A "pitcher" in baseball refers to a a sporting event, it is not the event itself.

So this truth exists in us and we are God? I asked this before and you couldn’t answer it, I include it here just for others who may be reading this and I don’t expect you to answer it now as you didn’t in the pass.

You read that into what I wrote... it is not there. We are not God, God is in us. You need to step out of your preconceptions and prejudices for a moment and try on a new way of thinking before you discard it.
here again is the quote for you and everyone else to see:
"That "truth" that existed in Jesus was God in the same way it is when that truth exists in us. (The yardstick for measuring this is in Moses' Ten Commandments: not laws that you must obey, but benchmarks by which a "successful" life is measured.)
So, Jesus did not become a god (except in the theology of the Roman pagans that appropriated Christianity for its own political purposes and in the process changed it.
Jesus (and all humans...certainly all of creation) is God-filled, and the distinction is that most of us are taught and learn very quickly that is it is more fun to be "me" than it is to be a part of the entire creation."

How do you know what these truths were? You certainly can’t be saying you learned of these truths through the records of ignorant people’s imagination collected in one book. This is what I can’t understand about you; you say the bible isn’t trustworthy so it is obvious that you must gleam from it what you accept and disregard the rest. This means your religion is about you and not about Jesus or an event called God and yet you belittle all other religions about being about them.

Again, I will reiterate and repeat and state over and over that I don't believe that everything men write is either dismissable or perfectly flawless. There is much truth to be found in the Bible. There is much history to be found in the Bible, there is even some humor, sex, political intrigue and history to be found there too. It is not a matter of all or nothing. That is a foolish approach to reading or understanding anything.

Yes it answers a lot of questions and raises even more. I now see why you have the ‘other’ icon but can’t understand why you have the ‘Ignore the candle... I'm a Methodist’ bit under your username. Your views certainly aren’t Methodist that I know of. I assume it is just the church you go to although you don’t believe their theology. I also don’t see why you consider yourself a Christian or even want to be associated with the term Christian. How does Jesus reconcile us to a god that is just an event?

I was not, under the old rules, allowed to identify myself as a Christian, with a Christian icon, if I did not assert the Nicene Creed to be the statement of my faith. Although I was given permission by the staff to post my Methodist cross and flame, after explaining my beliefs and faith, I chose to keep the candle as a conversation piece... I like the image of not hiding your candle under a bushel.

Tawhano · Oct 25, 2007

KCDAD said:
I was making the point that the Bible does not adequately answer the question, it is inconsistent at best and contradictory.

AhhI see, so you are just being consistent in not answering questions then?

KCDAD said:
Where does it say God is an event?

It didnt and I didnt say it did; I said you did:
God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event.

KCDAD said:
A "pitcher" in baseball refers to a a sporting event, it is not the event itself.

A pitcher refers to the guy who throws the ball in a sporting event; it does not refer to a sporting event.

KCDAD said:
You read that into what I wrote... it is not there. We are not God, God is in us. You need to step out of your preconceptions and prejudices for a moment and try on a new way of thinking before you discard it.

Nothing to do with preconceptions or prejudices which are your attributes not mine. You said Jesus was God because God was in him. This was the answer you gave when I asked how you considered Jesus to be God.

KCDAD said:
Again, I will reiterate and repeat and state over and over that I don't believe that everything men write is either dismissable or perfectly flawless. There is much truth to be found in the Bible.

Repeat it till you are blue in the face it will not blot out the derogatory things you have said about the bible. How can anyone trust one single word of a record which is so flawed that you say the following:

There is no proof of the Bible being reliable for anything.

Because the Bible (as a whole) is not logical, consistent or accurate according to modern ideas of history, humanity, nature, science and reality.

The Bible is incapable of presenting a consistent, unified description of that which is indescribable.

The Old Testament is a dogmatic, contradictory, Jewish history book EXACTLY the same as the Q'uran is a dogmatic, contradictory Muslim history book. The NewTestament is a little different, but not if you try and turn it into a history book, because then it becomes exactly the same as the other two.

I don't believe in cultural superstitions (on bible stories)

not anywhere except in an ignorant person's imagination (on the Virgin Birth)

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

Tawhano;40096401AhhI see, so you are just being consistent in not answering questions then?

It didnt and I didnt say it did; I said you did:
God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event.

"THAT REFERS TO A CREATING EVENT..." Read it again and again until you understand it. I call myself a potter... but unless I create a pot, I am not a potter. I am not the pot, nor am I the clay, nor the wheel upon which I spin the pot, nor am I the kiln in which I fire the pot. GET IT?

A pitcher refers to the guy who throws the ball in a sporting event; it does not refer to a sporting event.

Does the term pitcher in this context (not a water pitcher) have any meaning outside of the game of baseball or the act of throwing a ball? Neither the term God outside the act of creating.

Nothing to do with preconceptions or prejudices which are your attributes not mine. You said Jesus was God because God was in him. This was the answer you gave when I asked how you considered Jesus to be God.

I said God was in him, and in us and in everything... or nothing. In that sense he was "God (in the flesh)". You are the one insisting that Jesus, and Jesus alone, be God.

Repeat it till you are blue in the face it will not blot out the derogatory things you have said about the bible. How can anyone trust one single word of a record which is so flawed that you say the following:

Why would I want to blot them out... they are all true.

There is no proof of the Bible being reliable for anything.

Prove the Bible is reliable. Duh, you can't. It isn't a provable argument. My statement is true. (Ok, it would make a reliable paper weight or kindling for a fire (depending upon the size and nature of its cover.)

Because the Bible (as a whole) is not logical, consistent or accurate according to modern ideas of history, humanity, nature, science and reality.

As a whole.. that mean s complete... it does not mean that there aren't some accurate or consistent passages. My statement is true.

The Bible is incapable of presenting a consistent, unified description of that which is indescribable.

It is incapable because it is an inanimate object. People can argue whatever they want, but since people can argue both sides of almost any issue using the Bible as a reference there is not a consistent argument to be found solely in the Bible. My statement, therefor, is true, again.

The Old Testament is a dogmatic, contradictory, Jewish history book EXACTLY the same as the Q'uran is a dogmatic, contradictory Muslim history book. The NewTestament is a little different, but not if you try and turn it into a history book, because then it becomes exactly the same as the other two.

It is a book that contains Jewish or Hebrew history. True. It is full of dogmatic pronouncements. True. There are contradictions. True. therefor, again, my statement is true.

I don't believe in cultural superstitions (on bible stories)

Yeah? and you do? It is a true statement.

not anywhere except in an ignorant person's imagination (on the Virgin Birth)

Can you find an example of a virgin birth anywhere else? Anywhere, that is, based on reason or science? (except in some primitive or pre-enlightenment mythology or superstition?)
My statement is true.

Tawhano · Oct 25, 2007

KCDAD said:
"THAT REFERS TO A CREATING EVENT..." Read it again and again until you understand it. I call myself a potter... but unless I create a pot, I am not a potter. I am not the pot, nor am I the clay, nor the wheel upon which I spin the pot, nor am I the kiln in which I fire the pot. GET IT?

Yes I got it, you said God was a creating event and the definition you supplied said God was a being. You therefore supplied a source as evidence where it disagreed with you. If anything you certainly are consistent. Lets use your example in the way you used the definition of God. A potter is someone who creates pottery. In your definition a potter is the act of creating pottery. Read it again and again and you still wont be able to understand it.

KCDAD said:
Does the term pitcher in this context (not a water pitcher) have any meaning outside of the game of baseball or the act of throwing a ball? Neither the term God outside the act of creating.

What sort of nonsense are you babbling about? In your example a pitcher refers to the guy who throws the ball in a sporting event; it does not refer to the sporting event. You said a pitcher was a sporting event. You were wrong I corrected you and now you attempt to use nonsense to explain away your mistake.

KCDAD said:
I said God was in him, and in us and in everything... or nothing. In that sense he was "God (in the flesh)". You are the one insisting that Jesus, and Jesus alone, be God.

Good grief, youre back to that crap again are you? I am not insisting that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is God. Never said it never indicated it. I wont ask you to quote where I said that because you cant and never have been able to quote me where you create strawman arguments to ridicule me because you have nothing else. I asked you a simple question and you cant answer it. You attempt to dazzle us with your nonsense and hope we just give up and go away dont you? I asked you to explain how you considered Jesus to be God and you answered that God was in him. You also said God was in us. If God being in Jesus makes him God then logically God being inside us makes us God.

KCDAD said:
My statement is true.

Nothing you have said is true. Look at your debating tactics; you make opinionated statements as if they were facts but cant , indeed, refuse to back them up. You make sarcastic remarks in order to ridicule others by misrepresenting their actual views. You make sarcastic remarks in order to ridicule others thinking it adds credibility to your views. You post links to sites (three so far I believe) that dont even back up your claims. You make dozens of misinformed interpretations of biblical scripture to indicate they are erroneous. None of these are actions that I would entertain as truth.

CShephard53 · Oct 25, 2007

KCDAD said:
"THAT REFERS TO A CREATING EVENT..." Read it again and again until you understand it. I call myself a potter... but unless I create a pot, I am not a potter. I am not the pot, nor am I the clay, nor the wheel upon which I spin the pot, nor am I the kiln in which I fire the pot. GET IT?

Does the term pitcher in this context (not a water pitcher) have any meaning outside of the game of baseball or the act of throwing a ball? Neither the term God outside the act of creating.

I said God was in him, and in us and in everything... or nothing. In that sense he was "God (in the flesh)". You are the one insisting that Jesus, and Jesus alone, be God.

Why would I want to blot them out... they are all true.

Prove the Bible is reliable. Duh, you can't. It isn't a provable argument. My statement is true. (Ok, it would make a reliable paper weight or kindling for a fire (depending upon the size and nature of its cover.)

As a whole.. that mean s complete... it does not mean that there aren't some accurate or consistent passages. My statement is true.

It is incapable because it is an inanimate object. People can argue whatever they want, but since people can argue both sides of almost any issue using the Bible as a reference there is not a consistent argument to be found solely in the Bible. My statement, therefor, is true, again.

It is a book that contains Jewish or Hebrew history. True. It is full of dogmatic pronouncements. True. There are contradictions. True. therefor, again, my statement is true.

Yeah? and you do? It is a true statement.

Can you find an example of a virgin birth anywhere else? Anywhere, that is, based on reason or science? (except in some primitive or pre-enlightenment mythology or superstition?)
My statement is true.

You have refused to debate the topic of contradictions. You have not provided any references, no data, no evidence for your claims on the topic of contradictions. And you haven't provided any evidence for your claims. Indeed, you haven't backed your own claims and then tell us we can't back ours?

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

Tawhano said:
Yes I got it, you said God was a creating event and the definition you supplied said God was a being. You therefore supplied a source as evidence where it disagreed with you. If anything you certainly are consistent. Lets use your example in the way you used the definition of God. A potter is someone who creates pottery. In your definition a potter is the act of creating pottery. Read it again and again and you still wont be able to understand it.

What sort of nonsense are you babbling about? In your example a pitcher refers to the guy who throws the ball in a sporting event; it does not refer to the sporting event. You said a pitcher was a sporting event. You were wrong I corrected you and now you attempt to use nonsense to explain away your mistake.

Good grief, youre back to that crap again are you? I am not insisting that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is God. Never said it never indicated it. I wont ask you to quote where I said that because you cant and never have been able to quote me where you create strawman arguments to ridicule me because you have nothing else. I asked you a simple question and you cant answer it. You attempt to dazzle us with your nonsense and hope we just give up and go away dont you? I asked you to explain how you considered Jesus to be God and you answered that God was in him. You also said God was in us. If God being in Jesus makes him God then logically God being inside us makes us God.

Nothing you have said is true. Look at your debating tactics; you make opinionated statements as if they were facts but cant , indeed, refuse to back them up. You make sarcastic remarks in order to ridicule others by misrepresenting their actual views. You make sarcastic remarks in order to ridicule others thinking it adds credibility to your views. You post links to sites (three so far I believe) that dont even back up your claims. You make dozens of misinformed interpretations of biblical scripture to indicate they are erroneous. None of these are actions that I would entertain as truth.

That is not what I wrote, and anyone can go back and read it for themselves. Don't act foolish.

Any statement in that post that you wish to disprove, go ahead. They are true statements. Provide one "proof" they are not. And quit ranting about debate tactics.

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
You have refused to debate the topic of contradictions. You have not provided any references, no data, no evidence for your claims on the topic of contradictions. And you haven't provided any evidence for your claims. Indeed, you haven't backed your own claims and then tell us we can't back ours?

Your claim is that I am not being truthful or factual.

It would be very simple for you to prove it. Provide one example where I made an incorrect statement and show where it is incorrect.

You can not or you would have already instead of repeating over and over that "you haven't provided any evidence for your claims"

CShephard53 · Oct 25, 2007

KCDAD said:
Your claim is that I am not being truthful or factual.

It would be very simple for you to prove it. Provide one example where I made an incorrect statement and show where it is incorrect.

You can not or you would have already instead of repeating over and over that "you haven't provided any evidence for your claims"

Show me where I call you a liar, or say you've been dishonest? I said you haven't backed your claims. Telling me I cannot do something I didn't claim? Odd.

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
Show me where I call you a liar, or say you've been dishonest? I said you haven't backed your claims. Telling me I cannot do something I didn't claim? Odd.

Liar? Did I use that word?
You said I was making false, unsupported claims.

I am not complaining about you making that false accusation against me. I am not reporting you 5 times or calling you names. I am asking you to correct my false claims by providing one piece of evidence to disprove anything I have claimed about the Bible.

You continue to avoid the simple task of proving me wrong by posting any evidence to the contrary of anything I have claimed.
Here is what I would like you to refute: any one of the following statements.

Repeat it till you are blue in the face it will not blot out the derogatory things you have said about the bible. How can anyone trust one single word of a record which is so flawed that you say the following:

“There is no proof of the Bible being reliable for anything.”

“Because the Bible (as a whole) is not logical, consistent or accurate according to modern ideas of history, humanity, nature, science and reality.”

“The Bible is incapable of presenting a consistent, unified description of that which is indescribable.”

“The Old Testament is a dogmatic, contradictory, Jewish history book EXACTLY the same as the Q'uran is a dogmatic, contradictory Muslim history book. The NewTestament is a little different, but not if you try and turn it into a history book, because then it becomes exactly the same as the other two.”

“I don't believe in cultural superstitions” (on bible stories)

“…not anywhere except in an ignorant person's imagination” (on the Virgin Birth)

And then answer you own question: How can anyone trust one single word of a record that has those flaws?

CShephard53 · Oct 25, 2007

Liar? Did I use that word?
You said I was making false, unsupported claims.

Where do I say that you are making false claims? I said unbacked.

I am not complaining about you making that false accusation against me. I am not reporting you 5 times or calling you names. I am asking you to correct my false claims by providing one piece of evidence to disprove anything I have claimed about the Bible.

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

You continue to avoid the simple task of proving me wrong by posting any evidence to the contrary of anything I have claimed.

Because the burden of proof is on you.

Here is what I would like you to refute: any one of the following statements.

There is no proof of the Bible being reliable for anything.

Because the Bible (as a whole) is not logical, consistent or accurate according to modern ideas of history, humanity, nature, science and reality.

The Bible is incapable of presenting a consistent, unified description of that which is indescribable.

The Old Testament is a dogmatic, contradictory, Jewish history book EXACTLY the same as the Q'uran is a dogmatic, contradictory Muslim history book. The NewTestament is a little different, but not if you try and turn it into a history book, because then it becomes exactly the same as the other two.

I don't believe in cultural superstitions (on bible stories)

not anywhere except in an ignorant person's imagination (on the Virgin Birth)

And then answer you own question: How can anyone trust one single word of a record that has those flaws?

You made the claim. You back it. Burden of proof. Your claims are rejected and ignored until you do back them.

Tawhano · Oct 25, 2007

KCDAD said:
That is not what I wrote, and anyone can go back and read it for themselves. Don't act foolish.

Ill save them the trip here it is again; God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event.

KCDAD said:
Any statement in that post that you wish to disprove, go ahead. They are true statements. Provide one "proof" they are not.

That they come from you is all the proof needed. You dont supply proof so how are you justified in demanding proof from me?

KCDAD said:
And quit ranting about debate tactics.

Debate tactics are the measure of a persons integrity in this type of media. It is also the measure of the validity of a persons argument. Fallacies indicate the poster has nothing to offer in way of intelligent and sound debate. The majority of your arguments are unsubstantiated opinions and quite a few are fallacies and a few are just plain sarcasm. One or two actually contained some truth.

Tawhano · Oct 25, 2007

KCDAD said:
How can anyone trust one single word of a record that has those flaws?

And yet you claim the title Christian when this very book you think is the product of an ignorant person's imagination is the only record we have about Christ. How can you pretend to have the ability to sort thru the doss and pluck out the gold in a book that has such glaring errors? The alleged contradictions you have posted arent small insignificant errors they are huge ones. You say it is foolish to place your trust in this book and turn around and claim you do by stating you are a Christian. I smell a troll.

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

Tawhano said:
And yet you claim the title Christian when this very book you think is the product of an ignorant person's imagination is the only record we have about Christ. How can you pretend to have the ability to sort thru the doss and pluck out the gold in a book that has such glaring errors? The alleged contradictions you have posted arent small insignificant errors they are huge ones. You say it is foolish to place your trust in this book and turn around and claim you do by stating you are a Christian. I smell a troll.

Wrong again.
You think it is a product of a single mind. I know it is the product of many minds over many hundreds of years and many different cultures and languages.
You think it is one book, when in reality, it is a library of many books on many different subjects by many different authors.

KCDAD · Oct 25, 2007

Tawhano said:
Ill save them the trip here it is again; God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event.

That they come from you is all the proof needed. You dont supply proof so how are you justified in demanding proof from me?

Debate tactics are the measure of a persons integrity in this type of media. It is also the measure of the validity of a persons argument. Fallacies indicate the poster has nothing to offer in way of intelligent and sound debate. The majority of your arguments are unsubstantiated opinions and quite a few are fallacies and a few are just plain sarcasm. One or two actually contained some truth.

So, no refutation? Just attack me, not my arguments.
Isn't there a name that gets thrown around here a lot that refers to that fallacy? Ad what?
Aha ha ha ha!

CShephard53 · Oct 26, 2007

KCDAD said:
So, no refutation? Just attack me, not my arguments.
Isn't there a name that gets thrown around here a lot that refers to that fallacy? Ad what?
Aha ha ha ha!

Yet he hasn't attacked you, he's attacked your claims by saying, with evidence (this entire thread is), that your claims are unbacked and therefore invalid. Interesting that you accuse him of attacking you.

KCDAD · Oct 26, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
Yet he hasn't attacked you, he's attacked your claims by saying, with evidence (this entire thread is), that your claims are unbacked and therefore invalid. Interesting that you accuse him of attacking you.

It is the argument that the claims are only as good as the person making them.
The claims stand by themselves, until refuted.

You can not refute the claims, so you argue that the claims are not worthy...

He has not attacked one of the claims, he has not refuted one of the claims. Do we have evidence of serpents and donkeys talking? Do we have evidence of a man being able to walk on water that isn't frozen? Do we have evidence of a single ovum splitting to become a male child?

Argue whatever you want about backing or unbacking... you are attacking me, you are not attacking the claim, because if Jesus himself came and said these things you would accept them in a second, without any question.
Backing? I don't need no stinking backing!
I can refute the claim that the Bible is a divine product, that it is inerrant, no one can refute my claims because they are true.

Tawhano · Oct 26, 2007

Originally Posted by Tawhano

KCDAD said:
And yet you claim the title Christian when this very book you think is the product of an ignorant person's imagination is the only record we have about Christ. How can you pretend to have the ability to sort thru the doss and pluck out the gold in a book that has such glaring errors? The alleged contradictions you have posted arent small insignificant errors they are huge ones. You say it is foolish to place your trust in this book and turn around and claim you do by stating you are a Christian. I smell a troll.

KCDAD said:

Wrong again.
You think it is a product of a single mind. I know it is the product of many minds over many hundreds of years and many different cultures and languages.
You think it is one book, when in reality, it is a library of many books on many different subjects by many different authors.

Click to expand...

I do not think any such thing. Again you avoid answering my question and instead respond with a strawman argument. You quote me yet fail to address on single thing I said. Whats up with that?

Tawhano · Oct 26, 2007

KCDAD said:
Originally Posted by Tawhano
I’ll save them the trip here it is again; “God is a generic, non-specifc, term that applies to an absolute, infinite concept that refers to a Creating event.”

KCDAD said:

So, no refutation? Just attack me, not my arguments.
Isn't there a name that gets thrown around here a lot that refers to that fallacy? Ad what?
Aha ha ha ha!

Click to expand...

You’re a hoot you denied saying something so I quote where you say it and then you ask if I have no refutation. I refuted your denial of something that everybody can read for themselves. Is there a name for that behavior?

Tawhano · Oct 26, 2007

KCDAD[/quote said:
You think it is a product of a single mind. I know it is the product of many minds over many hundreds of years and many different cultures and languages.
You think it is one book, when in reality, it is a library of many books on many different subjects by many different authors.

And yet you claim the title Christian when this very book you think is the product of an ignorant person's imagination is the only record we have about Christ. How can you pretend to have the ability to sort thru the doss and pluck out the gold in a book that has such glaring errors? The alleged contradictions you have posted arent small insignificant errors they are huge ones. You say it is foolish to place your trust in this book and turn around and claim you do by stating you are a Christian. I smell a troll.

Why... ?

Northland Highwayman

Well-Known Member

Northland Highwayman

Well-Known Member

Northland Highwayman

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Well-Known Member

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Northland Highwayman

Northland Highwayman

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Well-Known Member

Northland Highwayman

Northland Highwayman

Northland Highwayman

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency