A right am

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

A right am

Postby demoralized » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:51 am

An idea that I've been introduced to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

I don't think I understand this idea well

I have thought about the words "I am" or "I'm", innocently I suppose

I've compared this use of the word "am" when describing myself with the biblical excerpt

I also tend to think in terms of "not that"

I think its arrogant to think of oneself using the word "Am" in this same biblical sense

I've thought "I'm not God, however, I am".

I've thought "What does it mean to apply NOT to this idea?" - Frankly, I don't think I can understand this nor want to understand this, however, I can juxtapose the words "not am" and encapsulate the idea.

I've heard "God is everywhere" aka omnipresent

However, with my use of the words "I am" (in reference to myself)... I think... well I'm not God, however, its not the case that I "not am".. or perhaps, its not the case that I "am not" (not sure what makes more sense). I may be unwittingly interchanging the subject and verb in my thoughts here - not sure.

To be clear, I can't actually make any sense of the words "not am", as I can't really imagine it.

I also tend to think in terms of a false choice. If an objective coin existed with the ideas of "am" and "not am" on either side (I do frankly feel atrocious for this simplification), I don't think I would identify with either side of this coin. (Please give consideration for my lack of ability to correctly respect capitalization of the word "am")

Strictly objectively (and in my opinion a poor objectification (at/if?) that), I think - The "I am" I've contemplated using when thinking of myself (or any given person) - I think of this as somewhat of a fork of the said objective coin.

I'd call it a "right am".

I'm not committed to these ideas though.
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: A right am

Postby demoralized » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:06 am

With this I have asked for a name change

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193071
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: A right am

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:10 pm

demoralized wrote:
I've thought "I'm not God, however, I am".



What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

What would you answer?

I would answer no. So would all Gnostic Christians.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: A right am

Postby demoralized » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:51 am

Greatest I am wrote:
demoralized wrote:
I've thought "I'm not God, however, I am".



What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

What would you answer?

I would answer no. So would all Gnostic Christians.

Regards
DL


I should have qualified the "I am" in that sentence. Perhaps "I am (human)." or "I am (alive)."

I think I'll wait on that question some :-)
Last edited by demoralized on Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: A right am

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:05 am

It merely meant "What is, is what is" or "I am that which is". Hebrew had no personal pronouns.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A right am

Postby Pandora » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:51 am

Image
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: A right am

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:07 pm

I am not so sure that Christ asked the question

What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?


In the mind of Christ, there would have been only one God - The Father, the Judaic/Christian God.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: A right am

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:26 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I am not so sure that Christ asked the question

What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?


In the mind of Christ, there would have been only one God - The Father, the Judaic/Christian God.


I disagree based on these verses.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

A D

I do agree that Jesus used the word Father to show his relationship to the God he followed but that was a really old tradition that he just continued to use. Not that I blame him because in that day, that was the tradition which was way older than Christianity.

Judaic/Christian God does not really apply as Christianity did not exist.

So, seeing as how Jesus was a Jew, and preaching on the Jewish religion, we have to judge what he meant from a Jewish rabbi's POV.

I see Jesus, since he was rather anti-organized religion, and thought them all corrupted, ---

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

--- would likely have been a Karaite Jew who, like Gnostic Christians put God below man where he belongs.

That is why Jesus had no problem saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

I extrapolate from that that Jesus would also say that religions and Gods are made for man and not man for them.

Jesus said he came to serve man, not have man serve him as a God.

Scriptures say that God does not change yet Christians expect that God wants them to serve him when he, as Jesus, said he wanted to serve and not be served.

Christianity is so ass backwards it is no wonder thinking people reject it's immoral ideology.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: A right am

Postby gib » Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:55 pm

demoralized wrote:An idea that I've been introduced to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

I don't think I understand this idea well

I have thought about the words "I am" or "I'm", innocently I suppose

I've compared this use of the word "am" when describing myself with the biblical excerpt

I also tend to think in terms of "not that"

I think its arrogant to think of oneself using the word "Am" in this same biblical sense

I've thought "I'm not God, however, I am".

I've thought "What does it mean to apply NOT to this idea?" - Frankly, I don't think I can understand this nor want to understand this, however, I can juxtapose the words "not am" and encapsulate the idea.

I've heard "God is everywhere" aka omnipresent

However, with my use of the words "I am" (in reference to myself)... I think... well I'm not God, however, its not the case that I "not am".. or perhaps, its not the case that I "am not" (not sure what makes more sense). I may be unwittingly interchanging the subject and verb in my thoughts here - not sure.

To be clear, I can't actually make any sense of the words "not am", as I can't really imagine it.

I also tend to think in terms of a false choice. If an objective coin existed with the ideas of "am" and "not am" on either side (I do frankly feel atrocious for this simplification), I don't think I would identify with either side of this coin. (Please give consideration for my lack of ability to correctly respect capitalization of the word "am")

Strictly objectively (and in my opinion a poor objectification (at/if?) that), I think - The "I am" I've contemplated using when thinking of myself (or any given person) - I think of this as somewhat of a fork of the said objective coin.

I'd call it a "right am".

I'm not committed to these ideas though.


I've always taken the phrase "I am that I am," to mean more than juts "I am". The "...that I am," qualifies it, in my opinion, to mean "I am existence, I am being." This phrase, imparted to Moses from the burning bush, was the turning point in Western religion that converted it from polytheism to monotheism. It is essentially a revelation that all things, including other gods, come from one source, the highest god. Henotheism acts as a bridge between this turning point and the monotheism of Christianity that we know today. Henotheism is the belief in multiple gods but that they are all manifestations of the one true God. It required another turning point in Western religion to say that the other gods were false gods (i.e. demons) and that the one true God never really poses as other gods.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: A right am

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:52 pm

Greatest I am,

AD:I am not so sure that Christ asked the question

GIA: What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?
.....

In the mind of Christ, there would have been only one God - The Father, the Judaic/Christian God



I disagree based on these verses.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.


I don't follow your reasoning here, Greatest I Am. In what way does the above quote point to us being gods?
What do you think Matthew was speaking about when he used the word *single*?

I was baptized a catholic and raised in two catholic orphanages so I kind of have an understanding of certain things, not all things but some things. Christ ~ if there was a Christ would not have used language like that since he was against idolatry and worship of any other god but his father.

The First Commandment...
I Am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.


John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Again, what does THIS have to do with the statement: Have you forgotten that you are gods?
All that this is about to me is having God's presence in one's life if one loves god and observes his precepts.
This doesn't make us gods.
If a slave obeys his master and even loves him, is that slave the master by reason of that obeying and loving?


Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.


If I understand this one, Paul is speaking about Christ being the Son of God. He is also speaking about Christ's divine nature. He had both a divine nature and a human nature.

But none of those quotes state that we are gods with God.

I do agree that Jesus used the word Father to show his relationship to the God he followed but that was a really old tradition that he just continued to use. Not that I blame him because in that day, that was the tradition which was way older than Christianity.


Not that you blame him? lol That was cute. The word he used was *Abba* which showed the real personal relationship that they shared...son and father. The same kind of relationship which most believers share with their God...abba is similar to Daddy.


So, seeing as how Jesus was a Jew, and preaching on the Jewish religion, we have to judge what he meant from a Jewish rabbi's POV.

Christ was both Jew and Gentile.

I see Jesus, since he was rather anti-organized religion, and thought them all corrupted, ---

Yes, he saw many corrupt and condemned them.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

Basically what he said.
But do you believe that there is an eternal hell?

--- would likely have been a Karaite Jew who, like Gnostic Christians put God below man where he belongs.


I don't know anything about the Karaite Jews. God below man?
I may be agnostic but no matter how you define God as personal creator and god or just as some kind of awesome energy First Cause, who could possibly put man above that?

That is why Jesus had no problem saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.


Oh, I think it was for a little of both. The Sabbath was a day of worship toward God and also man needs to have something to worship. We all need something to worship no matter what it is to give life meaning, to make our spirits grow and soar.

I extrapolate from that that Jesus would also say that religions and Gods are made for man and not man for them.

I can agree with this. Christ didn't found Christianity. But could he have possibly made a statement like that since there was no Christianity at that time.


Jesus said he came to serve man, not have man serve him as a God.


Supposedly, this is exactly what Christ did - serve his fellow man, reach out them in love and compassion, speak the truth about things, et cetera.
As for the second part, I can't be sure. He did say that he and the father were One. That would suppose for me that his disciples apostles and friends would recognize his divinity and serve him as a God but I might be wrong in this. There would have to be a lot of text studied in order to know this, to really know what was in the mind of god. I say this with tongue in cheek since I am an agnostic and I have come such a long way since my days of being a catholic.


Scriptures say that God does not change yet Christians expect that God wants them to serve him when he, as Jesus, said he wanted to serve and not be served.


I don't know if God as God is in reality IS capable of change. We would have to have all the answers, wouldn't we, in order to know this? I for one could not possibly know this.

Christianity is so ass backwards it is no wonder thinking people reject it's immoral ideology
.
Christianity is based on faith and belief. What are your beliefs? Have you examined them lately to see how backwards they might be? :evilfun:
Actually, there are probably a great many thinking people who accept their ideology.
But I do know what you are saying. That's why I am an agnostic despite my upbringing.

People do need faith and something to believe in. We pick and choose according to what our needs and desires are and how comfortably we can live in our coccoons.
The mind creates all sorts of ipsundrums. They are absorbed and adopted and become part of what we fancy to be truth.

Regards to you too.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: A right am

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:04 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Greatest I am,

AD:I am not so sure that Christ asked the question

GIA: What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?
.....

In the mind of Christ, there would have been only one God - The Father, the Judaic/Christian God


Let me repeat.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If Jesus is God then he is saying he has brethren/fellow Gods.

I disagree based on these verses.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.


I don't follow your reasoning here, Greatest I Am. In what way does the above quote point to us being gods?
What do you think Matthew was speaking about when he used the word *single*?


Single eye is the same as saying third eye or the mental eye.

third eye
noun: third eye; plural noun: third eyes
1.Hinduism
the locus of occult power and wisdom in the forehead of a deity, especially the god Shiva.

•the “eye of insight” located in the forehead, which can be activated through the practice of yoga.

2.informal term for pineal eye.
I was baptized a catholic and raised in two catholic orphanages so I kind of have an understanding of certain things, not all things but some things. Christ ~ if there was a Christ would not have used language like that since he was against idolatry and worship of any other god but his father.

The First Commandment...
I Am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.


I too was baptised a Catholic and live in one Catholic orphanage and one Catholic reform school and also have some understanding of religious things. God must be found before you can love him and not put anyone above him. Right? Have you found God or have you settled for the genocidal son murderer, Yahweh?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Again, what does THIS have to do with the statement: Have you forgotten that you are gods?


Jesus is telling us where God must be before you can know him or love him. Only when you know how and why you should love yourself can you know how and why you should love all people. You cannot love what/whom you do know.

All that this is about to me is having God's presence in one's life if one loves god and observes his precepts.
This doesn't make us gods.


It is a lot more than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

If a slave obeys his master and even loves him, is that slave the master by reason of that obeying and loving?


Is God a slave owner to you, and if so, why on earth would you adore or love a slave owner or want to follow a slave owning ideology?
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.


If I understand this one, Paul is speaking about Christ being the Son of God. He is also speaking about Christ's divine nature. He had both a divine nature and a human nature.


Yes and if we are brethren to Jesus, as we can be, then you should recognize your own divine nature and human nature.

But none of those quotes state that we are gods with God.


Yes they do. Listen to the link above.

I do agree that Jesus used the word Father to show his relationship to the God he followed but that was a really old tradition that he just continued to use. Not that I blame him because in that day, that was the tradition which was way older than Christianity.


Not that you blame him? lol That was cute. The word he used was *Abba* which showed the real personal relationship that they shared...son and father. The same kind of relationship which most believers share with their God...abba is similar to Daddy.


So you think and advocate that we be slaves to our fathers, if I add this view to your view above.

We are to emulate God. Be ye as perfect etc.

Do you wish your son to be a slave to you?

So, seeing as how Jesus was a Jew, and preaching on the Jewish religion, we have to judge what he meant from a Jewish rabbi's POV.

Christ was both Jew and Gentile.


The Jesus archetype was invented to be an archetypal good man to all people. That is why his story is almost identical to the hero of many of the old Eastern religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLVpTQJqijU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAaW6BYhfNM
I see Jesus, since he was rather anti-organized religion, and thought them all corrupted, ---

Yes, he saw many corrupt and condemned them.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

Basically what he said.
But do you believe that there is an eternal hell?


Hell no. I believe as Bishop Spong does; that hell is an invention of the church. You might wonder why the Jews never had such a concept and why Christianity invented it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

--- would likely have been a Karaite Jew who, like Gnostic Christians put God below man where he belongs.


I don't know anything about the Karaite Jews. God below man?
I may be agnostic but no matter how you define God as personal creator and god or just as some kind of awesome energy First Cause, who could possibly put man above that?


Can you follow the dictates of the God you described above or whatever you would describe God as? No you cannot as he is not physically here to follow. Because of that, I define God as the best set of rules and laws as those are what we really follow when we say we follow God.

If and when you discover a better law, you change the God you follow and that is a good idea as that is how you improve your morality enough to know you should not follow a genocidal son murdering God like Yahweh.

That is why Jesus had no problem saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.


Oh, I think it was for a little of both. The Sabbath was a day of worship toward God and also man needs to have something to worship. We all need something to worship no matter what it is to give life meaning, to make our spirits grow and soar.


I do not worship and do not miss any of what you describe. I am a perpetual seeker of the best rules and laws to live by while you idol worship a mental picture of the God you have created in your mind. A genocidal God that you somehow see as good. ?????
I extrapolate from that that Jesus would also say that religions and Gods are made for man and not man for them.

I can agree with this. Christ didn't found Christianity. But could he have possibly made a statement like that since there was no Christianity at that time.


Absolutely because he was talking about the corruption of all religions and governments and all authority that forced man to give up his freedom to lead himself.
Jesus said he came to serve man, not have man serve him as a God.


Supposedly, this is exactly what Christ did - serve his fellow man, reach out them in love and compassion, speak the truth about things, et cetera.
As for the second part, I can't be sure. He did say that he and the father were One. That would suppose for me that his disciples apostles and friends would recognize his divinity and serve him as a God but I might be wrong in this. There would have to be a lot of text studied in order to know this, to really know what was in the mind of god. I say this with tongue in cheek since I am an agnostic and I have come such a long way since my days of being a catholic.


I thank all the Gods that you have gained doubt.

I find it strange that you would think that the relationship between Jesus and his apostles as the apostles serving Jesus in any way. I do not think it takes a lot of reading to dissuade you of that notion. Just ask yourself, does the teacher/Jesus serve the students/disciples, or do the students serve the teacher?

Scriptures say that God does not change yet Christians expect that God wants them to serve him when he, as Jesus, said he wanted to serve and not be served.


I don't know if God as God is in reality IS capable of change. We would have to have all the answers, wouldn't we, in order to know this? I for one could not possibly know this.


What do you know of that does not change in an evolving universe?

Entropy says that all things are constantly changing. If a supernatural God does not, theen he would have been so bored that he would have ended his useless life. That could have been the big bang but we would never be able to know it. That is why both the major religions and science now admit that their Gods are both Gods of the Gap.
Christianity is so ass backwards it is no wonder thinking people reject it's immoral ideology
.
Christianity is based on faith and belief. What are your beliefs? Have you examined them lately to see how backwards they might be? :evilfun:
Actually, there are probably a great many thinking people who accept their ideology.
But I do know what you are saying. That's why I am an agnostic despite my upbringing.


:evilfun:
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

People do need faith and something to believe in. We pick and choose according to what our needs and desires are and how comfortably we can live in our coccoons.
The mind creates all sorts of ipsundrums. They are absorbed and adopted and become part of what we fancy to be truth.


Hogwash. All religions are, are tribal units. We are tribal creatures and that is wht religions pray on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

Regards to you too.


Thanks.

My answer are more for a believer than an agnostic so do allow some artistic liberty.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: A right am

Postby demoralized » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:41 pm

gib wrote:I've always taken the phrase "I am that I am," to mean more than juts "I am". The "...that I am," qualifies it, in my opinion, to mean "I am existence, I am being."


Thank you for stating this. I would say this gets at the way I understood it the first time.
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users