Post Reply
Page 5 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 11:57PM #41
chevy956
Posts: 1,968

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:37PM, StephenK.Adams wrote:


That sounds fine but how does that square with the opening words to the Qur'an:


Somewhat paraphrased:  --- "The ideas in this book are not to be questioned."  That sounds like some men pretending that they know it all and no further constructive criticism is required.  I suppose the Qur'an hides behind the expression that the book --- was inspired by God --- just like the people who wrote the Bible claim also.




Those are not the opening words to the Qur'án. Maybe they are the introductory words to your particular copy written by some Muslim "scholar". I'm not a Muslim, so firstly I enjoy quite a bit of interpretive freedom when it comes to the Qur'án. Wink


Secondly, periodically in Islamic history there have been great amounts of interpretive freedom (the times and regions when Mu'tazalites emerged, Sufi schools mushroomed, ijtihad interpretations became common in some mainstream traditions). Usually those times coincided with civilization.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit


Greetings, Wabbit and Stephen:


           I've been following your exchange with much interest, and wish to join the discussion, but this is really not an appropriate venue to do so. Per Wabbit's suggestion, could this portion of the discussion be moved to either Discuss Islam, or an Interfaith Discussion group?


             Regards- Chevy

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 11:59AM #42
StephenK.Adams
Posts: 2,004

Jun 10, 2012 -- 11:57PM, chevy956 wrote:

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Lilwabbit wrote:





Greetings, Wabbit and Stephen:


           I've been following your exchange with much interest, and wish to join the discussion, but this is really not an appropriate venue to do so. Per Wabbit's suggestion, could this portion of the discussion be moved to either Discuss Islam, or an Interfaith Discussion group?


             Regards- Chevy





Perhaps the moderators of this site will move this discussion to one of the sites that you have mentioned, but as indicated in my above post, I will respectfully decline to go there.  
While off topic discussions of a disruptive nature are indeed moved elsewhere on this site, other off topic discussions are usually allowed if the said discussion is of relevant interest.


The relevancy of my comments about Islam is predicated on a previous submission from lilwabbit, --- (Sorry but I choose not to spend the time wandering through his submissions to find the comment in question.  If you prefer to decide that I am not being honest, then, that is your prerogative.) --- when he seemed to indicate that Islamic ideas were of better import than Christian or Catholic ideas. 


I simply told the truth and defended Christianity against what I saw as biased and an untruthful representation of the kind of Islamic behavior that has brought so much violence into our daily newscasts.  Notwithstanding any negative connotation about the authenticity of the newscasts themselves.


I hope this helps to clear up any confusion that you might have had about how these last submissions came into existence on this particular site.

We have nothing to fear except our lack of understanding of fear itself.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 12:34PM #43
StephenK.Adams
Posts: 2,004

Jun 9, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Stephen dear,



Hello L'il wabbit:


Perhaps you think that I will not realize that the above salutation is dripping with sarcasm, but I do sir, believe me I do.


From L'il wabbit:


By your foregoing response you're regrettably forcing me to reply on this thread. Even if you don't respond further, I kindly ask you to read the entirety of my response carefully rather than dismissing it at face value. I make the request because I can surmise you're a sensible and fair-minded person. Let me apologize at the outset the length and breadth of my response. But I think the controversiality of the theme warrants it.



From SKA


No sir, I will not spend the next half hour reading your entire submission.  I will respond to two portions of your submission and in the process it will become self-evident that such a response is more than enough. 



First a quote from me then a followup comment from Lil wabbit. 


Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:36AM, StephenK.Adams wrote:


 "the religiosity of a jihadist and the average Muslim is about the same", --- that the potential for an average Muslim to become a Jihadist is not only not far fetched but on the contrary, more than a distinct possibility.



From Lilwabbit


Right, the 99,99 % of the world's 1,57 billion Muslims who, as an article of their faith, do not murder innocent people, must be gravely mistaken about the true nature of their faith and religion. In time, they will also realize the truth that a fleeting minority has discovered. I'm sorry, but your reasoning is sounding even more biased than before.


From SKA:


Unfortunately it appears that you are not able to comprehend that which should be self-evident to a reasonable person.  Not only am I not sounding biased sir,  but your loss of emotional control is becoming alarming --- alarming to say the least.


From L'il wabbit:


I hope you realize you are talking to a Bahá'í of Iranian descent? Fear of Islamist violence is a truly foreign concept for me.



From SKA


You  then spend a considerable amount of time telling us of the horrors that your personal family and friends have had to deal with at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.  You should be fearful of Islamic violence and I am positive that you are.  It is simply not realistic for you to say that the "fear of Islamist violence is a truly foreign concept for me."  Surely sir you see the irrationality of your words in this regard.


From Lilwabbit


Yet, I don't hold the murder of my kin against Islam. I hold it against ignorance, mob-mentality and provocative instigation by a power-intoxicated elite that makes a living mockery of Islam as it is revealed in the Qur'án.



From SKA



Is it my fault or the West's fault that the true followers of the Qur'an have allowed their religion to be hijacked by the monsters that you are depicting above?  Is it not encumbent upon the "true" believers in the Qur'an to take back their religion?


If some Christian sect burned a woman at the stake and announced that she had been proven to be a witch, all of Christianity would castigate that sect into oblivion.  Where is that castigation by the faithful upon those who have hijacked the Islamic faith?


As previously stated, the two examples from your post, in my not so humble opinion, indicate that you are not facing reality,  As a result, I will not spend further time answering all of the ideas that appear in your post that, in spite of your apology for the length of same, are so long as to be ignored by most of the people who look in on this thread.     





We have nothing to fear except our lack of understanding of fear itself.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:09PM #44
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,922

Dear Stephen (no sarcasm intended as none was intended earlier),


I kindly ask you not to guess my intentions (sarcasm or otherwise) when it is evident you are still figuring me out. My intentions are sincere. It would have also been courteous to read my previous post addressed to you in its entirety, even though it is a tad longer. Some of your ill-aimed responses could have been pre-empted.


Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:34PM, StephenK.Adams wrote:


Unfortunately it appears that you are not able to comprehend that which should be self-evident to a reasonable person.  Not only am I not sounding biased sir,  but your loss of emotional control is becoming alarming --- alarming to say the least.



Instead of demonstrating by fact and solid reasoning the "self-evident" error of my argument, you are resorting to ad hominae. Indeed, I must be having emotional control issues because I can distinguish complex facts, garnered from years of first-hand experience in Muslim-majority countries, from sensationalist news broadcasts swallowed as "Islam" by the gullible masses without question. And how could they indeed question something they know virtually nothing about?


You then spend a considerable amount of time telling us of the horrors that your personal family and friends have had to deal with at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.  You should be fearful of Islamic violence and I am positive that you are.  It is simply not realistic for you to say that the "fear of Islamist violence is a truly foreign concept for me."  Surely sir you see the irrationality of your words in this regard.



You missed the point entirely. The point was that I come from a tradition of not recanting my Faith even under the threat of death by Muslim fanatics. Hence I do not fear the extremists. The point being, I don't believe in fear-based arguments and religious stereotypes. I'm more interested in objective first-hand facts which always tend to be more complex than simplistic second-hand reporting plagued by commercial bias. Islam is no exception.


And you're still wrong about moderate Muslims not openly condemning extremists. It happens all the time. When I was in Afghanistan in 2007-2009, the most well-known TV cleric, one Mohammad Ayyaz (Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kabul) incessantly quoted the Qur'án to teach the message of non-violence, equality between men and women, dangers of blind imitation of tradition, and the un-Islamic character of terrorism. By simply googling you'd discover many fatwas issued against extremists by moderate clerics. Granted, they do not make very interesting scoops. Gut-spilling mayhem does.


There was a time when questioning the Church was to risk one's life. Islam is now living a time when openly condemning a militant minority is to risk one's life. The former has receded into historical oblivion just as the latter is receding even as we speak. After all, Christianity had a 600-year headstart. The Spanish Inquisition operated during 1478-1834. It was not too long ago (1796) when Catholic bishops and priests staged a military uprising in Vendée (War in the Vendée) in opposition to secular legislation in the wake of the French Revolution. An estimated 117,000 to 450,000 people died in that war waged in the name of Christianity. Hey, Islam may in fact be emerging from its own dark ages more unscathed and comparatively faster!


More and more moderate clerics are being increasingly vocal about violent extremists hijacking and making a mockery of Islam. God bless for their bravery!


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 3:19PM #45
adamcro-magnon
Posts: 1,146

Yes, this is a most interesting debate.  The relationship between the Kantian ethic of cognition (the ethic of rational fundamentalism) and the religious ethic of cognition has played its role down the main paths and bye-ways of history and how different religions have responded to this dilemma is worthy of much enquiry.  


According to Ernest Gellner, there has been a differential impact: all the major world religions save Islam have reached over the centuries accommodations with the ethic of rational fundamentalism, so much so that literalist beliefs have been, according the lamentations of devotees, watered down and re-understood in a manner quite different from that of any original intention.  Hitherto Islam has resisted these assaults on its theological integrity and purity.  Accommodations have not been reached.


Much is written of the glorious flowering of science, culture and civilization of Islam in the days of the Caliphate.  But the question is always asked:  What went wrong?  (Bernard Lewis)  Something went wrong.  The Gates of Ijtihad were closed and this was not done by Father Christmas.  Something happened.  A problem explored but to which I do not really know the answer!  Why were the gates closed and what does it say about Islam.


There has always been a sharp tension between reason and revelation - evident not only in the history of Islam but also in that of Christianity.  Islam has always made the distinction (if my reading of Ibn Warraq is correct) between native or Islamic knowledge and foreign knowledge.  The latter was always ever secondary to the former and the intellectual climate over many centuries indicated this tension, this strain (Is it not also found in Augustine?  See 'AD381' by Charles Freeman p 169-170); and acknowledgement of this awkward relationship may well preclude one from arguing, without qualification, the cause of some wondrous Islamic achievement in culture and civilization generally.  The reality of the situation is mixed and complex and precludes easy pronouncements.  It is not necessarily a pretty picture. 


The flowering of knowledge in Islam in those heady days came from a deep interest in intellectual matters from Ancient Greece.  Many of the translators were Christian (according to Ibn Warraq) and such a flowering as there was (tremendous and influential) was not because of Islam but, apparently and paradoxically, in spite of it.  “In spite of it!!!”  Ernest Renan, Grunebaum et al do not hesitate to comment that such times of flowering were times of persecution by the  orthodox, who became well aware of the injurious significance of enquiry which could lead to a questioning of the revealed faith.


Some writers from this school of thought contrast the situation within Christian Europe.  Christian Europe benefitted immeasurably from the sterling ground work of exposure which Islamic endeavours in the fields of Ancient Greece (for want of a better phrase) were to reveal.  Islamic culture went on and forged new and startling developments, new discoveries....but as always comes the question for Islam: What went wrong?  And in answer to this question comes not that unqualified ‘glorioso’ of ‘aventure sans frontiers’ but a firm jolt - the closing of the gates of Ijtihad, the exclusion of foreign knowledge, whereas Christian Europe in contrast did not exercise that complete stranglehold over intellectual development but was able (at least as far as Protestantism and the sciences were concerned) to take up a perspective on the natural world which, being God’s creation, would ever be open to exploration/ and wonder. Bach and Haydn would joyously affirm:  Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, Und seiner Hände Werk Zeigt an das Firmament. This was, quite clearly, not necessarily the impetus which fuelled the violent actions against the Sultan’s Tower at Galata.  The Catholic Church to its undying shame and disgrace left the world its miserable legacy of some ‘senior moment’ in the Galileo episode but generally the development of culture, sciences and civilization in the West, the ethic of rational fundamentalism (scientific rationality), was better able to flourish in a world where the Protestant Ethic shed its light.  And it did.  But not in Islam!  Why?


Ernest Renan writes:  “Science and philosophy flourished on Musalman soil during the first half of the middle ages, but it was not by reason of islam, it was in spite of Islam.  Not a Musalman philosopher or scholar escaped persecution............To give Islam the credit of Averroes and so many other illustrious thinkers, who passed their life in prison, in forced hiding, in disgrace, whose books were burned and whose writings were suppressed by theological authority, is as if one were to ascribe to the Inquisition the discoveries of Galileo, and a whole scientific development which it was not able to prevent.”


is Renan right?  Is Ibn Warraq?


I wonder.



Adam Cro-Magnon.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 6:36PM #46
chevy956
Posts: 1,968

Jun 11, 2012 -- 11:59AM, StephenK.Adams wrote:

Jun 10, 2012 -- 11:57PM, chevy956 wrote:

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Lilwabbit wrote:





Greetings, Wabbit and Stephen:


           I've been following your exchange with much interest, and wish to join the discussion, but this is really not an appropriate venue to do so. Per Wabbit's suggestion, could this portion of the discussion be moved to either Discuss Islam, or an Interfaith Discussion group?


             Regards- Chevy





Perhaps the moderators of this site will move this discussion to one of the sites that you have mentioned, but as indicated in my above post, I will respectfully decline to go there.  
While off topic discussions of a disruptive nature are indeed moved elsewhere on this site, other off topic discussions are usually allowed if the said discussion is of relevant interest.


The relevancy of my comments about Islam is predicated on a previous submission from lilwabbit, --- (Sorry but I choose not to spend the time wandering through his submissions to find the comment in question.  If you prefer to decide that I am not being honest, then, that is your prerogative.) --- when he seemed to indicate that Islamic ideas were of better import than Christian or Catholic ideas. 


I simply told the truth and defended Christianity against what I saw as biased and an untruthful representation of the kind of Islamic behavior that has brought so much violence into our daily newscasts.  Notwithstanding any negative connotation about the authenticity of the newscasts themselves.


I hope this helps to clear up any confusion that you might have had about how these last submissions came into existence on this particular site.


Stephen,


           No questions about your integrity or honesty here. I shall dive in shortly.


                Regards,


                    Chevy

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 7:08PM #47
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

To all,


Unfortunately, my moderator's tools only allow me to move threads in toto, so the option of moving some of this over is not available. Also I would point out that moved threads almost always die immediately because the original participants do not follow them to their new venue, and the topic is usually one which the members of the new forum have already covered.


Cherubino


Beliefnet Community Host


Discuss Catholcism

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 2:53AM #48
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,922

Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:08PM, cherubino wrote:


To all,


Unfortunately, my moderator's tools only allow me to move threads in toto, so the option of moving some of this over is not available. Also I would point out that moved threads almost always die immediately because the original participants do not follow them to their new venue, and the topic is usually one which the members of the new forum have already covered.


Cherubino


Beliefnet Community Host


Discuss Catholcism




Valid point, Cherubino. The thread would probably lose some of its posters if it were transferred. But since Islam is being discussed, it would be only fair to invite a few friends from Discuss Islam to defend their own Faith against some of the criticisms raised. I took the liberty of inviting a few Muslim interlocutors who have proven their ilk on Bnet, if you don't mind.


Dear Cro magnon, thanks for your well-written response. I would agree that the waning of ijtihad interpretation (free interpretation) of the Qur'án resulted in civilizational stagnancy in the Islamic world just as doctrinal purism resulted in European stagnancy in the Middle Ages. But I would disagree that the Qur'án had little or no relevance to the flourighing of arts, sciences and philosophy during the Abbasids and later during the Fatimids, Safavids, Ottomans and others. Also I would like to point out that Ibn Warraq is a known Islamophobe with a known agenda to demean Islam. He is as unreliable and unscientific an authority on Islam as there can be. He, together with his famous fellow-ranters, fools laymen with his pseudo-scientific jargon.


You must demonstrate by appeal to objective research by the majority of established experts in the field of Middle Eastern and Islamic history, that medieval Islamic civilization, in its salutary features, had little or nothing to do with Islam. Armenian Christian professor of Middle Eastern History Vartan Gregorian (Ph.D., Stanford University) concluded in his book "Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith" that the Abbasid civilization was influenced by Qur'ánic injunctions and hadiths such as "the ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr" which stress the value of knowledge.


And reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth. Our Lord! You have not created this in vain. (The Qur'án, 003.191)


Say, travel on the earth and see how He made the first creation. (The Qur'án, 029.020)


Renowned Muslim astronomer Al-Biruni writes in his expositions how the first Qur'ánic verse in the above prompted him to dedicate his whole life to research and science. In the spirit of the latter verse, at the time of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun (ca 830 CE), a group of Muslim astronomers and geographers were commissioned by the Caliph to the far ends of the Abbasid realm (Morocco and India, respectively) in order to calculate the earth's circumference quite accurately at 24,000 miles. How come it is so difficult to acknowledge that these scientific efforts would have something to do with Islam while readily believing the contemporary Nigerian fanatic Ustaz Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, as representative of true Islam? Ustaz Mohammed Yusuf sincerely thinks the earth is flat and to think otherwise is falling victim to sinister Western propaganda.


One of the most respected living historians William Hardy McNeill discussed in his modern classic "The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community" the numerous ways in which Islamic civilization influenced later Western Rennaissance and how both were, indeed, to a great extent inspired by Islamic principles and texts. This is not to discount the fact that Western civilization carried civilization even further in all the same fields. It is not to discount that the reawakening of high-minded Christian ethics during and after the Rennaissance played their fair share in the evolution of modern legal and political systems. But there's hardly any objective evidence suggesting that the civilizational innovations during the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment trace back to Protestantism. In fact, the Reformation itself is normally seen as one of the many by-products (rather than causes) of Rennaissance.


It was indeed the post-Medieval opening of the (Roman) gates of ijtihad in the West -- a process that was demonstrably influenced by the Islamic world -- which allowed civilization to flourish in an unparalleled scale. While simultaneously in the East the ulema (Muslim clergy) began slowly to assert their interpretive authority over others, much like the Church of Rome did in the Middle Ages. The cause of the closing of the gates of ijtihad in the Islamic world is not rocket science, nor does it require the Oracle of Delphi. The reason was quite simply the political ambition and self-assertion of the ulema at opportune moments of political history. It is not the first time in religious history that clergy has hijacked a religion and redefined it to advance its own agenda. Nor is there any objective indication that the Islamic clerical hijack represents a sui generis by lasting forever. All trends point out to the opposite.


I would urge any objective student of history to study the work of serious historians, known for their scientific rigour and expertise in the field, in terms of their conclusions on Islamic civilization and its influence. Quoting well-known contemporary ideologues as scientific authorities simply won't do.


Due to personal time constraints in the coming few weeks, I'll be dropping in only for snippets every now and again. (A welcome development for some, no doubt! ;) )


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 5:07AM #49
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:37PM, StephenK.Adams wrote:


From Myself



That sounds fine but how does that square with the opening words to the Qur'an:


Somewhat paraphrased:  --- "The ideas in this book are not to be questioned."  That sounds like some men pretending that they know it all and no further constructive criticism is required.  I suppose the Qur'an hides behind the expression that the book --- was inspired by God --- just like the people who wrote the Bible claim also.




The actual opening words of the Qur'an, Surah al Fatiha:


In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. 
Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world; 
Most Gracious, Most Merciful; 
Master of the Day of Judgment. 
Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. 
Show us the straight way, 
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.


For devout Muslims, the Qur'an is the Word of God, not merely inspired by Him.  As the majority of Muslims, called Sunnis, have no central authority, there is a great deal of debate about what the Qur'an really says.


Salaam, all.  I'm miraj, one of the Muslims asked to visit this thread by my friend, Lilwabbit.  As a first time poster here, please allow me to introduce myself.  I'm an Arab Israeli-American, an international human rights attorney with license to teach the faith and to practice law in religious courts.  Please feel free to ask of me any questions you have about Islam.  


As this is Discuss Catholicism, and I wish to respect the purpose of this forum, its hosts and members, I would also extend an invitation to visit the Discuss Islam forum to anyone who cares to indulge in a more in depth discussion.  Everyone is welcome, and, as a longtime host on the Islam boards (10 years), I can guarantee that no participant there has ever been harmed other than having their tender egos bruised on occasion :-)


I hope that helps.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 5:13AM #50
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Jun 8, 2012 -- 11:28AM, StephenK.Adams wrote:


Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:37PM, StephenK.Adams wrote:


That sounds fine but how does that square with the opening words to the Qur'an:


Somewhat paraphrased:  --- "The ideas in this book are not to be questioned."  That sounds like some men pretending that they know it all and no further constructive criticism is required.  I suppose the Qur'an hides behind the expression that the book --- was inspired by God --- just like the people who wrote the Bible claim also.




Those are not the opening words to the Qur'án. Maybe they are the introductory words to your particular copy written by some Muslim "scholar". I'm not a Muslim, so firstly I enjoy quite a bit of interpretive freedom when it comes to the Qur'án. Wink


Secondly, periodically in Islamic history there have been great amounts of interpretive freedom (the times and regions when Mu'tazalites emerged, Sufi schools mushroomed, ijtihad interpretations became common in some mainstream traditions). Usually those times coincided with civilization.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit




It is not my intention to be combative but rather to face the truth square on.  "Those times" such as right now, have also coincided with a fervent regression to violence.  The gist of this movement seems to be that this religion, Islam, has discovered the ultimate truth, (which they have not), --- and even if we, (Islamic Fundamentalists) have to kill off a few billion people and use force to get everybody to accept our version of reality, in the long run, the general public at large, will thank us for bringing into existence a miraculous "nirvana."


Let me finish with this universal truth.  Any religion that must use force to keep or attract new converts, by this very action, they disqualify themselves of the authenticity that they perceive that they deserve.  If you cannot keep or attract converts to your religion voluntarily, you are a failure before you even start.  




Salaam, StephenK.Adams.  Islam, the religion of more than 1.5 billion human beings, doesn't use force to keep or attract new converts.  There are some Muslims who, having no real faith or knowledge themselves, believe this to be necessary, but they are a distinct minority.  Islam is certainly no failure.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook