Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. because you claimed that the bible has that and so do all other religious books. They all can't be right but they all can be wrong.

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other piece of literature in its period. That does not mean the Bible is true. It means there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient work. In fact there is really nothing that comes close as far as extant manuscript attestation.

(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. Ya and then evidence shows it was someone else. I can go and say the person who killed my love one had a pure white face then I say it was jeff the killer, when in reality it wasn't. Evidence beats eyewitness testimony.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/

Eyewitness testimony has its weaknesses. It also has its strengths. As I stated earlier, if someone murdered your loved one and one of the pieces of evidence that prosecutors utilized was eyewitness testimony to prosecute the accused perpetrator(s), I am sure you would not argue against the prosecutor utilizing this evidence on the basis that it is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence (a claim you have yet to show to be true).

(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  4. I mentioned the last two because you brought up good people for christianity. You said a quote by abe lincoln to prove the bible. So it is not a red herring. Look back of what you claimed before then look at my refutation.

The people were used to support the claim that the Bible changes lives when its teachings are applied and lived by. Throwing out Hitler and the Crusades in no way either undercuts this assertion or rebuts it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 09:45 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. because you claimed that the bible has that and so do all other religious books. They all can't be right but they all can be wrong.

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other piece of literature in its period. That does not mean the Bible is true. It means there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient work. In fact there is really nothing that comes close as far as extant manuscript attestation.

(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. Ya and then evidence shows it was someone else. I can go and say the person who killed my love one had a pure white face then I say it was jeff the killer, when in reality it wasn't. Evidence beats eyewitness testimony.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/

Eyewitness testimony has its weaknesses. It also has its strengths. As I stated earlier, if someone murdered your loved one and one of the pieces of evidence that prosecutors utilized was eyewitness testimony to prosecute the accused perpetrator(s), I am sure you would not argue against the prosecutor utilizing this evidence on the basis that it is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence (a claim you have yet to show to be true).

(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  4. I mentioned the last two because you brought up good people for christianity. You said a quote by abe lincoln to prove the bible. So it is not a red herring. Look back of what you claimed before then look at my refutation.

The people were used to support the claim that the Bible changes lives when its teachings are applied and lived by. Throwing out Hitler and the Crusades in no way either undercuts this assertion or rebuts it.

It only look special to you because you are christian, and you will claim your slave owners guide, I mean holy book, is better then the other slave own- I mean holy book.Ask a hindu about there books and they will claim it is divine. In short every religious slave has been told by their slave owners that there holy book comes close as far as extant manuscript attestation.
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10903

2. I can prove outside of eyewitness testimony about who did it. I can use video recordings, documents, not only that but dna, and forensics. Also i could say it was jeff the killer and I witnessed it. Also I can use my evidence to counter his, no need for eyewitness.

3.It shows that it can be used for good and evil. All religions change lives. I have seen people become happier as muslims. So it shows that slavery can make people happy or make them violent.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 09:15 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What happened to Drich?

He has a job and a family to care for first and three other web sites he answers questions in. Those who are earnestly seeking take priority over the intelectually dishonest who ingore a primary sourced rebuttal for a dump of tertiary commentary.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't mean anything.

It means that "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." F.F. Bruce

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Though it does probably have something to do the part where 5th century christians expressly preferred holding on to their own scripture instead of any useful philosophical, historical, or scientific works, which they happily consigned to the trash heaps. Whoops!

Is this a truth claim, or just standard atheist rote?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The Old Testament bears very little relation to reality, as demonstrated by every attempt ever to prove otherwise. The New Testament has no external verification.

Do you have evidence or argumentation to support this claim? Or is it just another atheist rote response?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That also doesn't mean anything.

It means that eyewitness testimony can be used to ascertain certain facts regarding an event that is not subject to verification via scientific means.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why are there so many martyrs for other religions? Funny, that. Whoops!

There are many martyrs for other religions because they sincerely believe that their beliefs are true.

I know of no one who has died for something they knew was a lie however.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But then, "eyewitness" accounts being the tremendously flawed things they are, that would explain many of the blatant inconsistencies.

Two truth claims above that need to be evidenced.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So I guess "so many" means "just the one", eh? A nice rhetorical trick.

If you were knowledgeable on the subject, you would know that there are roughly nine extra-biblical references to Christ and Christians in ancient literary works. Far from one.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, later sources say Christians exist. That's - bear with me - also meaningless. The fact that Zoroastrians existed does not make Ahura-Mazda real.

This is demonstrably false. Simply reference the nine extra-biblical references that exist. A google search will help you here.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The Protestant Bible contains 66 books. Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Bibles have different canons. Without mentioning the likes of, say, Mormons... Whoops!

The apocryphal books are recognized as containing some instructive writings but are not recognized as being inspired by God as the sixty six are. That is why most Bibles published today DO NOT contain the apocrypha. The teachings of Mormonism stand in stark contrast with the teachings of orthodox Christianity in many crucial matters and are not even considered to be "Christian" in any historical sense of the word. So bringing them up is really moot.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Funny, that, despite the part where the ancient Hebrews hated prophecy.

Even if this were true, which you have yet to demonstrate, so what?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A), that's a bald assertion, and B), you should probably actually study the likes of the Nicean councils.

Killing people to prove your Christology correct is totally the same thing as "coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere found to be true". Whoops!

Evidence for any of this?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm sensing a pattern here. That's meaningless. I mean, I'm sure Lincoln got all his morals from the Bible. That must be why he embraced slavery!

Lincoln embracing slavery is not evidence the Bible is not reliable, which is what the cumulative case is demonstrating. So this is a red herring.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I guarantee with absolute certainty that you reject parts of Biblical "morality". Therefore you are applying some sort of pre-existing subjective filter to what you draw from it, rendering the point meaningless. Whoops!

Evidence for this?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, that doesn't mean anything either. That only means a particular set of religious scripture was socially important after it became the dominant religion. Not that the likes of, say, the Iliad haven't remained foundational works of literature in the Western canon. Notwithstanding, y'know, the cultures of the rest of the planet.

Biblical obsession actively retarded humanitarian and scientific progress. Whoops!

I will need you to provide evidence and good arguments for the assertions you made above.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't mean anything. Or else why have so many lives been changed by the Quran and the Upanishads? Whoops!
...

So, most of that was incoherent and the rest was stupid.

Your apologetic is bad and you should feel bad.

The fact that people have been influenced by other religious writings in no way undercuts or rebuts the claim that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

The ten points listed were not meant to be taken in isolation, bur rather as a cumulative case for the reliability of the bible as a source of truth. When taken together, all ten pieces of evidence must be explained.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:08 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 10:12 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 09:45 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. because you claimed that the bible has that and so do all other religious books. They all can't be right but they all can be wrong.
There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other piece of literature in its period. That does not mean the Bible is true. It means there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient work. In fact there is really nothing that comes close as far as extant manuscript attestation.

Do you even know what that means? In the context of religious studies and archeologists, a 'manuscript' can be as little as a credit cards piece of paper or papyrus with half a word on it; and that makes up a huge chunk of the 'manuscripts' that inflates it so such an impressive number. The actual number of complete Gospels, books, or actual Codexes/Bible is far less, and they are all far removed the first century. The oldest complete Bible is the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century CE), which was written centuries after the Gospels were created, themselves decades after the supposed events.

Also, the sheer volume does not speak to the truth within the Gospels (not to mention there are more contradiction between these manuscripts than there are words in the Bible itself); it can only attest to the book's relative popularity and the church's historical subsequent domination of the creation of books and the copying of others. So of course the religious book of the dominant religion in the region would have plenty more copies made and be preserved by those with a vested interest in doing so.

Still not evidence for any god.


(23-03-2014 09:45 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. Ya and then evidence shows it was someone else. I can go and say the person who killed my love one had a pure white face then I say it was jeff the killer, when in reality it wasn't. Evidence beats eyewitness testimony.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/
Eyewitness testimony has its weaknesses. It also has its strengths. As I stated earlier, if someone murdered your loved one and one of the pieces of evidence that prosecutors utilized was eyewitness testimony to prosecute the accused perpetrator(s), I am sure you would not argue against the prosecutor utilizing this evidence on the basis that it is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence (a claim you have yet to show to be true).

It is one of the most unreliable form of evidence, so unreliable in fact that it is inadmissible in science. If it's all you have, then you go to trial with the evidence you have, not the evidence you'd like. Lets also not forget that as it relates to the Gospels, they are not even eye-witness accounts, rather the accounts of hearsay (if not outright fabrication) written down decades or centuries after the supposed events, and written down in a language (Greek) not spoken by those who was being written about (Hebrew and Aramaic).


(23-03-2014 09:45 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:32 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  4. I mentioned the last two because you brought up good people for christianity. You said a quote by abe lincoln to prove the bible. So it is not a red herring. Look back of what you claimed before then look at my refutation.
The people were used to support the claim that the Bible changes lives when its teachings are applied and lived by. Throwing out Hitler and the Crusades in no way either undercuts this assertion or rebuts it.

The Gospels changed Hitler's life, and the lives of those who followed his message of hate in the name of the Christian God. Not everyone who reads the Gospels changes for the better, nor is changing for the better limited only to people who read the Bible. There are people who have life changing experiences while reading the Qu'ran, the Vedas, or Shakspeare. Changes in behavior are not evidence for the truth of the Gospels, or the existence of your god.

Come on dude, this shit is bush league. If this is your A-game, you're going to be eaten alive...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:01 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 09:15 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What happened to Drich?

He has a job and a family to care for first and three other web sites he answers questions in. Those who are earnestly seeking take priority over the intelectually dishonest who ingore a primary sourced rebuttal for a dump of tertiary commentary.

[Image: tumblr_lvi5fgnOQR1r3k1m8o1_r1_500.png]

I guess they all have a higher tolerance for bullshit... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 09:55 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  It only look special to you because you are christian, and you will claim your slave owners guide, I mean holy book, is better then the other slave own- I mean holy book.Ask a hindu about there books and they will claim it is divine. In short every religious slave has been told by their slave owners that there holy book comes close as far as extant manuscript attestation.
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10903

All one need do is sit down and scrutinize the available data in support of the various religious claims in existence. Compare and contrast them and see which one's tenets best cohere with our experiences as humans.

Either all religions are wrong, or one is right and the rest are wrong.

You seem to be under the impression that a person cannot make an informed, rational decision between competing religious claims without blindly believing in a particular religion before one even begins the process of scrutinization.

The existence of many learned intellectuals who are Christians who became Christians AFTER having examined the various religions of the world refutes this notion. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. Francis Collins Head of the Human Genome Project as well.



(23-03-2014 09:55 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. I can prove outside of eyewitness testimony about who did it. I can use video recordings, documents, not only that but dna, and forensics. Also i could say it was jeff the killer and I witnessed it. Also I can use my evidence to counter his, no need for eyewitness.

That is fine and dandy when forensics are applicable. When they are not, eyewitness testimony is utilized to bridge the gap.

(23-03-2014 09:55 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  3.It shows that it can be used for good and evil. All religions change lives. I have seen people become happier as muslims. So it shows that slavery can make people happy or make them violent.

What you say is true, but it in no way proves the Bible is unreliable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't mean anything.

It means that "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." F.F. Bruce

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Though it does probably have something to do the part where 5th century christians expressly preferred holding on to their own scripture instead of any useful philosophical, historical, or scientific works, which they happily consigned to the trash heaps. Whoops!

Is this a truth claim, or just standard atheist rote?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The Old Testament bears very little relation to reality, as demonstrated by every attempt ever to prove otherwise. The New Testament has no external verification.

Do you have evidence or argumentation to support this claim? Or is it just another atheist rote response?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That also doesn't mean anything.

It means that eyewitness testimony can be used to ascertain certain facts regarding an event that is not subject to verification via scientific means.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why are there so many martyrs for other religions? Funny, that. Whoops!

There are many martyrs for other religions because they sincerely believe that their beliefs are true.

I know of no one who has died for something they knew was a lie however.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But then, "eyewitness" accounts being the tremendously flawed things they are, that would explain many of the blatant inconsistencies.

Two truth claims above that need to be evidenced.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So I guess "so many" means "just the one", eh? A nice rhetorical trick.

If you were knowledgeable on the subject, you would know that there are roughly nine extra-biblical references to Christ and Christians in ancient literary works. Far from one.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, later sources say Christians exist. That's - bear with me - also meaningless. The fact that Zoroastrians existed does not make Ahura-Mazda real.

This is demonstrably false. Simply reference the nine extra-biblical references that exist. A google search will help you here.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The Protestant Bible contains 66 books. Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Bibles have different canons. Without mentioning the likes of, say, Mormons... Whoops!

The apocryphal books are recognized as containing some instructive writings but are not recognized as being inspired by God as the sixty six are. That is why most Bibles published today DO NOT contain the apocrypha. The teachings of Mormonism stand in stark contrast with the teachings of orthodox Christianity in many crucial matters and are not even considered to be "Christian" in any historical sense of the word. So bringing them up is really moot.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Funny, that, despite the part where the ancient Hebrews hated prophecy.

Even if this were true, which you have yet to demonstrate, so what?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A), that's a bald assertion, and B), you should probably actually study the likes of the Nicean councils.

Killing people to prove your Christology correct is totally the same thing as "coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere found to be true". Whoops!

Evidence for any of this?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm sensing a pattern here. That's meaningless. I mean, I'm sure Lincoln got all his morals from the Bible. That must be why he embraced slavery!

Lincoln embracing slavery is not evidence the Bible is not reliable, which is what the cumulative case is demonstrating. So this is a red herring.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I guarantee with absolute certainty that you reject parts of Biblical "morality". Therefore you are applying some sort of pre-existing subjective filter to what you draw from it, rendering the point meaningless. Whoops!

Evidence for this?

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, that doesn't mean anything either. That only means a particular set of religious scripture was socially important after it became the dominant religion. Not that the likes of, say, the Iliad haven't remained foundational works of literature in the Western canon. Notwithstanding, y'know, the cultures of the rest of the planet.

Biblical obsession actively retarded humanitarian and scientific progress. Whoops!

I will need you to provide evidence and good arguments for the assertions you made above.

(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't mean anything. Or else why have so many lives been changed by the Quran and the Upanishads? Whoops!
...

So, most of that was incoherent and the rest was stupid.

Your apologetic is bad and you should feel bad.

The fact that people have been influenced by other religious writings in no way undercuts or rebuts the claim that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

The ten points listed were not meant to be taken in isolation, bur rather as a cumulative case for the reliability of the bible as a source of truth. When taken together, all ten pieces of evidence must be explained.

Somebody went to a fundy training class on how to debate atheists. Just keep throwing out "truth claim" and "evidence for that?" to every response.

By the way, quoting christian apologists isn't "evidence" for your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like meremortal's post
23-03-2014, 10:23 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Still not evidence for any god.

I have no where argued that an abundance of manuscript attestation is evidence for God. You have just erected a strawman.


(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is one of the most unreliable form of evidence, so unreliable in fact that it is inadmissible in science. If it's all you have, then you go to trial with the evidence you have, not the evidence you'd like. Lets also not forget that as it relates to the Gospels, they are not even eye-witness accounts, rather the accounts of hearsay (if not outright fabrication) written down decades or centuries after the supposed events, and written down in a language (Greek) not spoken by those who was being written about (Hebrew and Aramaic).

Science has no stock in what has happened in the past that is not repeatable and observable. It is limited primarily to the here and now. So using this rationale to discredit the validity of eyewitness testimony is to misconstrue the fundamental nature of science.


(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Gospels changed Hitler's life, and the lives of those who followed his message of hate in the name of the Christian God.

Since the gospels do not contain a message of hate, but rather that men should love one another as they love themselves, then it cannot be reasonably said that the gospels were Hitler's inspiration for his hate campaign.

(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not everyone who reads the Gospels changes for the better,

I have never argued the contrary.

(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  nor is changing for the better limited only to people who read the Bible.

Once again, I am not arguing this. Strawmanning is easy. Addressing my points is more difficult.

(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There are people who have life changing experiences while reading the Qu'ran, the Vedas, or Shakspeare. Changes in behavior are not evidence for the truth of the Gospels, or the existence of your god.

Precisely, nor is that my argument. The list of ten evidences I said ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE and are to be taken cumulatively, not individually.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:15 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:55 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  It only look special to you because you are christian, and you will claim your slave owners guide, I mean holy book, is better then the other slave own- I mean holy book.Ask a hindu about there books and they will claim it is divine. In short every religious slave has been told by their slave owners that there holy book comes close as far as extant manuscript attestation.
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10903

All one need do is sit down and scrutinize the available data in support of the various religious claims in existence. Compare and contrast them and see which one's tenets best cohere with our experiences as humans.

Either all religions are wrong, or one is right and the rest are wrong.

You seem to be under the impression that a person cannot make an informed, rational decision between competing religious claims without blindly believing in a particular religion before one even begins the process of scrutinization.

The existence of many learned intellectuals who are Christians who became Christians AFTER having examined the various religions of the world refutes this notion. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. Francis Collins Head of the Human Genome Project as well.



(23-03-2014 09:55 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. I can prove outside of eyewitness testimony about who did it. I can use video recordings, documents, not only that but dna, and forensics. Also i could say it was jeff the killer and I witnessed it. Also I can use my evidence to counter his, no need for eyewitness.

That is fine and dandy when forensics are applicable. When they are not, eyewitness testimony is utilized to bridge the gap.

(23-03-2014 09:55 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  3.It shows that it can be used for good and evil. All religions change lives. I have seen people become happier as muslims. So it shows that slavery can make people happy or make them violent.

What you say is true, but it in no way proves the Bible is unreliable.

1. Never said christians can't be intellectuals. Slaves were intellectuals too. Being an intellectual doesn't mean they are not a slave. There is also a bias. Muslims say the same thing. They argue the same.

2. there would be tons of evidence that can show who the killer was without eyewitness not just forensics. Remember the the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

3. Glad we found even ground. People talking does prove anything without evidence.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: