Any other childfree people here?

Anonymous · #1 January 23rd, 2014, 07:27 PM

Responses in Bold.
Also snipped the pyramid a little bit.

Quote:

You're actually going to tell me that's fair? It would really be just for a judge to take the punishment upon himself, then let go of a rapist who accepts his gift, but eternally torture a comparatively innocent man who feels deeply sorry for his more minor sin because he didn't accept the gift? How does the morality of that work? How is that remotely just? That's essentially saying that, not only is not believing in God a sin (which doesn't make sense anyway), but also that it's the only sin that actually matters.

Well, in this case, they are both guilty of different sins. However, each sin deserves the same punishment, which is death. The adulterer in your hypothetical is not comparatively innocent compared to the rapist. The judge offered the same pardon to both men. The rapist accepted it. The adulterer willfully refused it. He then suffered the consequences. It is quite clear that rape and adultery both matter. However, at root, sin is rejection of God's authority and a willful rebellion against him and his moral standards. When we sin we are committing treason against God. Refusing to believe in God and Jesus is an intellectual form of that rebellion. You are rejecting God's authority and refusing to submit to his standards. That is sin.

In John 6 Jesus responds to a question on this subject.
"Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"

Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove without doubt that God does not have a reason. The onus is on you to prove he does. You are the one who believes in him, and base your life on him. Saying 'we cannot understand' is a cop-out. Can you prove that God does have a good reason? No. Therefore, it is your argument that falls apart, not mine, since it is you who actively believe in him, despite a lack of logical ground on which to do so.

You were the one using the problem of evil and the lack of God's showing himself to all of humanity as proof of moral bankruptcy on God's part. Both of those arguments rested on an implicit assumption that you can't prove. You, then, based on those unprovable implicit assumptions presented an either or choice (in and of itself a logical fallacy), regarding God's nature. I quote "Conclusion: God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath." You were the one making the argument, and thus the onus is on you to prove your implicit assumptions. I merely provided a reason why your conclusion (God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath) doesn't necessarily follow from your premise (the problem of evil).

Question: If you read the Bible without bias or preconception, ignoring the copious passages that tell us that God is good, would you come to that conclusion? Even when he's murdering every creature on Earth, including small animals and tiny babies, who cannot possibly have been accused of sin? Even when he's murdering the first born sons of Egypt, many of whom are innocent children, just to prove his point to the pharaoh? Even when he's letting yet more innocent children be massacred? Even when he's murdering all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, including those few who are innocent of immorality, and including the (yet again) innocent children, with the exception of one man and his family - one man, I might add, who proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, and was then incestuously drug-raped by the two daughters he offered up to be gang-raped? (Note that the one person in that family who did nothing remotely to do with rape, the mother, was the one God killed just for the crime of looking back.) Anyone else doing these things would be labeled despicably evil, so why isn't God? You can't claim that these are the actions of a just and loving God.

I'm not really going to address all of this, because Crixus addressed some of it, including the Flood stuff, but I would point out that your interpretation of Lot's righteousness is flawed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lot proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, or by engaging in incestuous drunken sex with his daughters. In fact, both actions are morally wrong. However, in 2 Peter it does say that Lot was a righteous man. Lot was considered righteous because he had faith in God, in spite of the significant moral failings previously mentioned. I think this article does a good job of addressing the issue of how Lot can be considered "righteous" by Peter.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...een-righteous/

As for Lot's wife, she, unlike Lot, does not have faith in God, as demonstrated by her direct disobedience of the angels' command not to look back. The angels gave her a direct command from God, she disobeyed, and she suffered the penalty.

Also, to address the firstborn sons of Egypt issue, all of the Egyptians profited from, and were complicit in, the enslavement and attempted genocide of the Israelite people, so the firstborn sons had sinned in that way, and were not innocent.

Lazy Orang · #2 January 23rd, 2014, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Responses in Bold.
Also snipped the pyramid a little bit.

Quote:

You're actually going to tell me that's fair? It would really be just for a judge to take the punishment upon himself, then let go of a rapist who accepts his gift, but eternally torture a comparatively innocent man who feels deeply sorry for his more minor sin because he didn't accept the gift? How does the morality of that work? How is that remotely just? That's essentially saying that, not only is not believing in God a sin (which doesn't make sense anyway), but also that it's the only sin that actually matters.

Well, in this case, they are both guilty of different sins. However, each sin deserves the same punishment, which is death. The adulterer in your hypothetical is not comparatively innocent compared to the rapist. The judge offered the same pardon to both men. The rapist accepted it. The adulterer willfully refused it. He then suffered the consequences. It is quite clear that rape and adultery both matter. However, at root, sin is rejection of God's authority and a willful rebellion against him and his moral standards. When we sin we are committing treason against God. Refusing to believe in God and Jesus is an intellectual form of that rebellion. You are rejecting God's authority and refusing to submit to his standards. That is sin.

In John 6 Jesus responds to a question on this subject.
"Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"

Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove without doubt that God does not have a reason. The onus is on you to prove he does. You are the one who believes in him, and base your life on him. Saying 'we cannot understand' is a cop-out. Can you prove that God does have a good reason? No. Therefore, it is your argument that falls apart, not mine, since it is you who actively believe in him, despite a lack of logical ground on which to do so.

You were the one using the problem of evil and the lack of God's showing himself to all of humanity as proof of moral bankruptcy on God's part. Both of those arguments rested on an implicit assumption that you can't prove. You, then, based on those unprovable implicit assumptions presented an either or choice (in and of itself a logical fallacy), regarding God's nature. I quote "Conclusion: God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath." You were the one making the argument, and thus the onus is on you to prove your implicit assumptions. I merely provided a reason why your conclusion (God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath) doesn't necessarily follow from your premise (the problem of evil).

Question: If you read the Bible without bias or preconception, ignoring the copious passages that tell us that God is good, would you come to that conclusion? Even when he's murdering every creature on Earth, including small animals and tiny babies, who cannot possibly have been accused of sin? Even when he's murdering the first born sons of Egypt, many of whom are innocent children, just to prove his point to the pharaoh? Even when he's letting yet more innocent children be massacred? Even when he's murdering all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, including those few who are innocent of immorality, and including the (yet again) innocent children, with the exception of one man and his family - one man, I might add, who proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, and was then incestuously drug-raped by the two daughters he offered up to be gang-raped? (Note that the one person in that family who did nothing remotely to do with rape, the mother, was the one God killed just for the crime of looking back.) Anyone else doing these things would be labeled despicably evil, so why isn't God? You can't claim that these are the actions of a just and loving God.

I'm not really going to address all of this, because Crixus addressed some of it, including the Flood stuff, but I would point out that your interpretation of Lot's righteousness is flawed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lot proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, or by engaging in incestuous drunken sex with his daughters. In fact, both actions are morally wrong. However, in 2 Peter it does say that Lot was a righteous man. Lot was considered righteous because he had faith in God, in spite of the significant moral failings previously mentioned. I think this article does a good job of addressing the issue of how Lot can be considered "righteous" by Peter.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...een-righteous/

As for Lot's wife, she, unlike Lot, does not have faith in God, as demonstrated by her direct disobedience of the angels' command not to look back. The angels gave her a direct command from God, she disobeyed, and she suffered the penalty.

Also, to address the firstborn sons of Egypt issue, all of the Egyptians profited from, and were complicit in, the enslavement and attempted genocide of the Israelite people, so the firstborn sons had sinned in that way, and were not innocent.

Actually, Lot did offer his daughters to be gang raped:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”—Genesis 19:4-8 (ESV)

I never said he proved his righteousness by having sex with his daughters: his daughters raped him. God saved a family who's father offered up his daughters for gang-rape, and who's daughter's raped their father. That is my point. God's looking like a charmer now, isn't he?
Also, all of Egypt may have been involved in the slavery, but not all of the first born because some of them were innocent, sinless babies who God mercilessly slaughtered.
Finally, you are essentially saying that the greatest sin of all is not believing in Jesus Christ. Greater than murder, greater than rape, as that is the one sin that cannot be forgiven by God. Think about this really carefully - do you really think that I and Ranior, for simply not believing in the Bible, deserve to go to Hell, while a rapist who happened to be Christian would go to Heaven? Do you think our crime of not believing in God and Jesus is worse than murder and rape? Think about this very carefully, because that's effectively what you just said.

Crixus33 · #3 January 23rd, 2014, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Responses in Bold.
Also snipped the pyramid a little bit.

Quote:

You're actually going to tell me that's fair? It would really be just for a judge to take the punishment upon himself, then let go of a rapist who accepts his gift, but eternally torture a comparatively innocent man who feels deeply sorry for his more minor sin because he didn't accept the gift? How does the morality of that work? How is that remotely just? That's essentially saying that, not only is not believing in God a sin (which doesn't make sense anyway), but also that it's the only sin that actually matters.

Well, in this case, they are both guilty of different sins. However, each sin deserves the same punishment, which is death. The adulterer in your hypothetical is not comparatively innocent compared to the rapist. The judge offered the same pardon to both men. The rapist accepted it. The adulterer willfully refused it. He then suffered the consequences. It is quite clear that rape and adultery both matter. However, at root, sin is rejection of God's authority and a willful rebellion against him and his moral standards. When we sin we are committing treason against God. Refusing to believe in God and Jesus is an intellectual form of that rebellion. You are rejecting God's authority and refusing to submit to his standards. That is sin.

In John 6 Jesus responds to a question on this subject.
"Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"

Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove without doubt that God does not have a reason. The onus is on you to prove he does. You are the one who believes in him, and base your life on him. Saying 'we cannot understand' is a cop-out. Can you prove that God does have a good reason? No. Therefore, it is your argument that falls apart, not mine, since it is you who actively believe in him, despite a lack of logical ground on which to do so.

You were the one using the problem of evil and the lack of God's showing himself to all of humanity as proof of moral bankruptcy on God's part. Both of those arguments rested on an implicit assumption that you can't prove. You, then, based on those unprovable implicit assumptions presented an either or choice (in and of itself a logical fallacy), regarding God's nature. I quote "Conclusion: God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath." You were the one making the argument, and thus the onus is on you to prove your implicit assumptions. I merely provided a reason why your conclusion (God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath) doesn't necessarily follow from your premise (the problem of evil).

Question: If you read the Bible without bias or preconception, ignoring the copious passages that tell us that God is good, would you come to that conclusion? Even when he's murdering every creature on Earth, including small animals and tiny babies, who cannot possibly have been accused of sin? Even when he's murdering the first born sons of Egypt, many of whom are innocent children, just to prove his point to the pharaoh? Even when he's letting yet more innocent children be massacred? Even when he's murdering all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, including those few who are innocent of immorality, and including the (yet again) innocent children, with the exception of one man and his family - one man, I might add, who proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, and was then incestuously drug-raped by the two daughters he offered up to be gang-raped? (Note that the one person in that family who did nothing remotely to do with rape, the mother, was the one God killed just for the crime of looking back.) Anyone else doing these things would be labeled despicably evil, so why isn't God? You can't claim that these are the actions of a just and loving God.

I'm not really going to address all of this, because Crixus addressed some of it, including the Flood stuff, but I would point out that your interpretation of Lot's righteousness is flawed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lot proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, or by engaging in incestuous drunken sex with his daughters. In fact, both actions are morally wrong. However, in 2 Peter it does say that Lot was a righteous man. Lot was considered righteous because he had faith in God, in spite of the significant moral failings previously mentioned. I think this article does a good job of addressing the issue of how Lot can be considered "righteous" by Peter.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...een-righteous/

As for Lot's wife, she, unlike Lot, does not have faith in God, as demonstrated by her direct disobedience of the angels' command not to look back. The angels gave her a direct command from God, she disobeyed, and she suffered the penalty.

Also, to address the firstborn sons of Egypt issue, all of the Egyptians profited from, and were complicit in, the enslavement and attempted genocide of the Israelite people, so the firstborn sons had sinned in that way, and were not innocent.

Actually, Lot did offer his daughters to be gang raped:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”—Genesis 19:4-8 (ESV)

I never said he proved his righteousness by having sex with his daughters: his daughters raped him. God saved a family who's father offered up his daughters for gang-rape, and who's daughter's raped their father. That is my point. God's looking like a charmer now, isn't he?
Also, all of Egypt may have been involved in the slavery, but not all of the first born because some of them were innocent, sinless babies who God mercilessly slaughtered.
Finally, you are essentially saying that the greatest sin of all is not believing in Jesus Christ. Greater than murder, greater than rape, as that is the one sin that cannot be forgiven by God. Think about this really carefully - do you really think that I and Ranior, for simply not believing in the Bible, deserve to go to Hell, while a rapist who happened to be Christian would go to Heaven? Do you think our crime of not believing in God and Jesus is worse than murder and rape? Think about this very carefully, because that's effectively what you just said.

I don't think Anonymous disputed that he offered his daughters merely that that wasn't how he proved his righteousness. Not my argument but what I got from his argument.
Anyway, I don't personally believe people are condemned to hell for not believing in God. As I have been told people who live moral lives but never personally knew God will in fact be saved. I would believe the same applies to those who live morally, no about Christianity, but don't accept it. I still think sins need to be repented. Honestly though I'm not the judge, God is, I don't know his criteria.

Anonymous · #4 January 24th, 2014, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Responses in Bold.
Also snipped the pyramid a little bit.

Quote:

You're actually going to tell me that's fair? It would really be just for a judge to take the punishment upon himself, then let go of a rapist who accepts his gift, but eternally torture a comparatively innocent man who feels deeply sorry for his more minor sin because he didn't accept the gift? How does the morality of that work? How is that remotely just? That's essentially saying that, not only is not believing in God a sin (which doesn't make sense anyway), but also that it's the only sin that actually matters.

Well, in this case, they are both guilty of different sins. However, each sin deserves the same punishment, which is death. The adulterer in your hypothetical is not comparatively innocent compared to the rapist. The judge offered the same pardon to both men. The rapist accepted it. The adulterer willfully refused it. He then suffered the consequences. It is quite clear that rape and adultery both matter. However, at root, sin is rejection of God's authority and a willful rebellion against him and his moral standards. When we sin we are committing treason against God. Refusing to believe in God and Jesus is an intellectual form of that rebellion. You are rejecting God's authority and refusing to submit to his standards. That is sin.

In John 6 Jesus responds to a question on this subject.
"Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"

Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove without doubt that God does not have a reason. The onus is on you to prove he does. You are the one who believes in him, and base your life on him. Saying 'we cannot understand' is a cop-out. Can you prove that God does have a good reason? No. Therefore, it is your argument that falls apart, not mine, since it is you who actively believe in him, despite a lack of logical ground on which to do so.

You were the one using the problem of evil and the lack of God's showing himself to all of humanity as proof of moral bankruptcy on God's part. Both of those arguments rested on an implicit assumption that you can't prove. You, then, based on those unprovable implicit assumptions presented an either or choice (in and of itself a logical fallacy), regarding God's nature. I quote "Conclusion: God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath." You were the one making the argument, and thus the onus is on you to prove your implicit assumptions. I merely provided a reason why your conclusion (God either doesn't exist, or is a sociopath) doesn't necessarily follow from your premise (the problem of evil).

Question: If you read the Bible without bias or preconception, ignoring the copious passages that tell us that God is good, would you come to that conclusion? Even when he's murdering every creature on Earth, including small animals and tiny babies, who cannot possibly have been accused of sin? Even when he's murdering the first born sons of Egypt, many of whom are innocent children, just to prove his point to the pharaoh? Even when he's letting yet more innocent children be massacred? Even when he's murdering all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, including those few who are innocent of immorality, and including the (yet again) innocent children, with the exception of one man and his family - one man, I might add, who proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, and was then incestuously drug-raped by the two daughters he offered up to be gang-raped? (Note that the one person in that family who did nothing remotely to do with rape, the mother, was the one God killed just for the crime of looking back.) Anyone else doing these things would be labeled despicably evil, so why isn't God? You can't claim that these are the actions of a just and loving God.

I'm not really going to address all of this, because Crixus addressed some of it, including the Flood stuff, but I would point out that your interpretation of Lot's righteousness is flawed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lot proved his righteousness by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped, or by engaging in incestuous drunken sex with his daughters. In fact, both actions are morally wrong. However, in 2 Peter it does say that Lot was a righteous man. Lot was considered righteous because he had faith in God, in spite of the significant moral failings previously mentioned. I think this article does a good job of addressing the issue of how Lot can be considered "righteous" by Peter.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...een-righteous/

As for Lot's wife, she, unlike Lot, does not have faith in God, as demonstrated by her direct disobedience of the angels' command not to look back. The angels gave her a direct command from God, she disobeyed, and she suffered the penalty.

Also, to address the firstborn sons of Egypt issue, all of the Egyptians profited from, and were complicit in, the enslavement and attempted genocide of the Israelite people, so the firstborn sons had sinned in that way, and were not innocent.

Actually, Lot did offer his daughters to be gang raped:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”—Genesis 19:4-8 (ESV)

I never said he proved his righteousness by having sex with his daughters: his daughters raped him. God saved a family who's father offered up his daughters for gang-rape, and who's daughter's raped their father. That is my point. God's looking like a charmer now, isn't he?
Also, all of Egypt may have been involved in the slavery, but not all of the first born because some of them were innocent, sinless babies who God mercilessly slaughtered.
Finally, you are essentially saying that the greatest sin of all is not believing in Jesus Christ. Greater than murder, greater than rape, as that is the one sin that cannot be forgiven by God. Think about this really carefully - do you really think that I and Ranior, for simply not believing in the Bible, deserve to go to Hell, while a rapist who happened to be Christian would go to Heaven? Do you think our crime of not believing in God and Jesus is worse than murder and rape? Think about this very carefully, because that's effectively what you just said.

I never argued that Lot didn't offer his daughters to be raped. I was arguing that he did not "prove his righteousness" as you put it through those actions. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The problem is, that no where in the Bible does it say that those actions were righteous or that "Lot was proved righteous" by offering his daughters as rape victims.It says he offered up his daughters to be raped, but nowhere is that action, or the subsequent drunken sex described as good, or a means of "proving his righteousness" as you put it. It never says it was okay. It merely says that God still saved them. Did you read the link I posted? Because it addresses the exact issue you're raising, that is, "How could Lot be described as righteous in 2 Peter in light of his actions regarding his daughters?"

Regarding belief being necessary, the Bible is quite clear that reconciliation with God requires repentance and trusting in Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Romans 10:9-12 says:
"If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, 'Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.'"

We must allow God to reclaim his proper place as Lord of our life. This involves renouncing our treasonous activities and rebellions (sin), and trusting and submitting to God and his standards. It is impossible to repent to a God you don't believe in. It is impossible to trust in a God you don't believe in. It is impossible to allow God to be Lord of your life if you don't believe he exists. The non-believer remains in a state of rebellion against God intellectually and spiritually.

Rape, Murder, theft, and disobedience to parents are also forms of rebelliousness toward God. It's not a matter of judging which one is "worse". They all are acts of treason against God deserving of punishment. If a thief, or a rapist, or a murderer, or a swindler, or a non-believer, (as I myself was at one point), or any other sinner repents of their sin, whatever it may be, and trusts in Christ's sacrifice on their behalf, declaring Jesus Lord of their life they will be saved.

That being said, if people refuse to repent of their sin, whatever it may be, and refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Lord or accept his sacrifice, then they will remain under the just punishment for their rebellion.

Think of it this way:

If I am a rapist, and I refuse to repent to God for my raping, and I refuse to acknowledge him as Lord of my life, and continue to go on raping people, I will not be reconciled to God.

If I am a thief, and I refuse to repent to God for my thieving behavior, and I refuse to acknowledge him as Lord of my life, I will not be reconciled to God.

If I am a swindler, and I refuse to repent to God for my swindling behavior, and I refuse to acknowledge him as Lord of my life, I will not be reconciled to God.

If I am a non-believer, and I refuse to repent to God for my non-belief, and I refuse to acknowledge him as Lord of my life, I will not be reconciled to God.

Any sin, if it is not repented of, and if we do not submit ourselves to God, will keep us from reconciliation from God. In contrast, any sin, if we repent of it, accept Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, and acknowledge Jesus as Lord of life, will be forgiven. No matter what that sin is.

That's a long way of saying, that yes, if you persist in your disbelief God is just to punish you, just as he would have been completely just to punish me for my disbelief. And yes, if the rapist repents of his sin, accepts Christ's sacrifice on his behalf, and submits to Jesus as his Lord, than yes, God would be just to accept him into his kingdom. At root disbelief, like rape, murder, or any other sin, is an act of rebellion against God, and if you do not repent of it, God is just to punish you. However, like rape or murder or any other sin, if you repent of it God will forgive you. Disbelief is not unforgivable if you turn from it and declare Jesus as Lord, just as theft or swindling is not unforgivable if you turn from it and submit to Christ as your Lord. It is not a matter of it being "worse" than rape or murder. They both carry the same consequences, and require the same solution. In order for you to be saved from the sin of disbelief, you must be willing to renounce that disbelief, just as in order for someone to be saved from the sin of rape or murder they must be willing to renounce those sins as well.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hi there people !	Objebrork	General	2	November 5th, 2010 11:35 AM
Is Q9 really as bad as people say?	Archkyrie11	HeroScape General Discussion	42	July 24th, 2009 10:36 AM
Will people buy???	chief	Custom Units & Army Cards	10	December 9th, 2008 02:57 PM
Shouldn't you People be in bed?	Nwojedi	General	29	July 27th, 2007 04:43 AM
Eww...i can't believe people eat this!	K/H_Addict	General	9	July 3rd, 2007 10:13 AM