Blogalogue

Blogalogue


Do You Wonder About the Source of Meaning?

posted by hmacdonald

Dear Heather,
I really enjoy the way you conduct a path through our disagreements. You are tough, but open to differences. As we have agreed from the first, to achieve real disagreement is a long-term task; it takes a lot of brandies sipped slowly together (so to speak) to get past the misunderstandings that masquerade as disagreements, in order to find the deep place where the two parties (amicably) part ways.
Some atheists do invent a heroic image of themselves, but maybe that generation has passed. Bertrand Russell compared himself to Prometheus, Camus to Sisyphus, and Dylan Thomas raged, raged against the night. If I may say so, even you find distasteful the believing peasant’s use of “amulets.” Note, though, that there are village atheists, too. What do they have, those who are unlearned, to rebuke their belief in magic and superstition? I have noticed – have you? – that the more secular our universities have become over the last few decades, the larger have become the sections of bookstores devoted to witchcraft, Ouija boards, astrology, and pet rocks. Christian believers are told that such things are sinful, idol-worship, the deification of silly human fetishes.
You say (and I agree) that the world is awash with meaning.


That suggests that you do understand what Plato and Aristotle meant when they concluded that, on balance, the world suffused with the presence of God is a good world, despite the flaws and tragedies that cross the paths of each of us. One does not have to be a Jew or a Christian to conclude from experience that, on balance, truth is stronger than the lie, goodness is more powerful than evil, the beautiful wins out over the ugly, and life is better than (say) suicide.
Jews and Christians do thank and praise God for so many good things. Am I right in saying that atheists have no one to thank, even when the impulse to do so hurtles toward their lips?
In addition, those who try to draw closer to God, and deeper in his friendship, speak to him often during the day, as often as possible. Such prayer may be silent prayer, even wordless, and it is achieved simply by being aware of his presence, accepting his will (even if it is crucifixion), and making oneself disposable to show mercy and gentleness to the needy and the vulnerable. “True religion,” says Deuteronomy, is to care for the widow and the orphan.
Which brings me to your question about true religion and false. The first of the Ten Commandments of Moses teach us that Jehovah, the God of Israel (and all humanity) is the true God, and no one should dare to put false gods in his place. Certainly there are false gods. Certainly there are false religions. Down through history, many different tests have been proposed for discerning the difference. It has long been a passion among Christians and Jews to discern who are the true Christians or Jews, and who are the counterfeits.
For practical reasons, as “articles of civil peace,” we may each refrain from publicly declaring the religions of our neighbors false. We may show each respect. But by not joining with those others in their faith we declare in personal practice that theirs are not true faiths – or, at least, not entirely true. We may well see in some of them large chunks of the truth about God and humans, as we ourselves see it. To see some truth in the faiths of others, and some counterfeit expressions of our own, is not to be relativists, but simply fair-minded and self-critical persons.
When Jacques Maritain, the partly Jewish French philosopher (and one of the architects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948), finally saw the evidence that convinced him he must become a Catholic, if he was to be faithful to the evidence of his own mind, he felt revulsion, and he spoke strongly: “Not on that dunghill!”
I doubt if there is a single Catholic in the world who does not see much in the Church that he or she does not feel upset about. As James Joyce said, Catholicism is “Here comes everybody!” We are in many ways a disreputable crew, not unlike Chaucer’s motley, bawdy, sinful pilgrims. We surely make the mercy of God evident.
Christians insist upon a total difference between amulets, which are imagined to work like a kind of magic (a false god), and holy objects, which remind us of the presence and the promises of God. Israel is truly a holy land, where God appeared (unseen) to Moses, and the Son of God trod the soil of Galilee, and even sat in the Temple in Jerusalem. There are many plain, ordinary things that are also numinous and sacred, and reminders of the transcendent. These are not magical, just holy.
Magic amulets, etc., are idols put in the place of the true God, and are to be despised. The Catholic Church blesses and promotes many objects intended to remind humble people (and learned people) of the presence of God, and the eruptions of the holy into daily life. Most often, these signs (sacramentals we call them: holy water, rosaries, images of Jesus and the saints) remind us of the most essential of all prayers, those of Mary at the Annunciation and of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane: “Be it done to me according to Thy will.” Their purpose is not to produce magical results, but to prepare us for whatever God demands of us. He will surely keep the laws of nature intact, while yet in his Mercy he may allow perfectly natural circumstances to issue in surprising contingent outcomes. The blind may come to see again, the deaf to hear. These things happen.
George Washington always attributed to God’s providence the escape of his army from Long Island in August, 1776, through the contingency of a thick yellow fog that rolled in and kept his escape invisible to the British for an extra five hours after daylight. But it takes no miracle for Long Island to be shrouded in fog for many long hours. The laws of nature may not have been violated, but the timing of that particular contingency could not have been happier for the American side. Without violating any laws of nature, there is plenty of room for Providence to work his will through the interstices of multiple, crisscrossing lines of contingency and secondary causes.
I do not find it irrational to hold that one has truly experienced acts of Providence (as Washington claimed all Americans had during the War of Independence), while holding simultaneously that the Author of Nature and Nature’s Laws violates none of his own laws. There is plenty of contingency in the way secondary causes affect each other to permit the Divine Artist a great deal of artistic liberty, while still staying faithful to his own truth.
As distinct from Muslims, we Jews and Christians think of God as Truth, and as the inner Light of the law, not as naked and arbitrary and unlawlike Will.
So my question to you, dear friend, is this: When you experience a world “awash in meanings,” do you not sometimes wonder whether these meanings actually do emanate from a single source of intelligence and energy, which comes at you from all quarters, and all angles, and even from within yourself? Bombarded by meanings, do you not sometimes… wonder?
Maybe not. As Friedrich Hayek once said sadly of himself, he understood that many people even in Austria lacked an ear for music, even though they appreciated the love others had for it. Similarly, he expressed sorrow that he himself lacked an ear for religion. But he did not disrespect those who did hear its silent music.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(24)
post a comment
Albert the Abstainer

posted November 15, 2008 at 12:51 am


Any belief, however sublime that displaces the state of presence is idolatrous.
God, if God, is omnipresent. An omnipresence deity is not temporal by definition. Omnipresence is totally inclusive by definition. Therefore, onmipresent God is totally inclusive. To say that God is not omnipresent is to make God finite/bounded.
Conclusion: Atheism and religion are both legitimate since both are grounded in the same omnipresent Reality. If omnipresent God is, then nothing is excluded, and if omnipresent God is not, then there are horizons to individual and collective knowledge, which means that a large black box exists. An honest seeker will refrain from framing that within a certain set of beliefs.



report abuse
 

RD

posted November 15, 2008 at 3:55 am


Albert,
Your definition of omnipresence does not agree with Judeo-Christian view of God. What you have described is panentheism.



report abuse
 

Albert the Abstainer

posted November 15, 2008 at 10:16 am


Omnipresence
Om`ni*pres”ence\, n. [Cf. F. omnipr['e]sence.] Presence in every place at the same time; unbounded or universal presence; ubiquity.
His omnipresence fills Land, sea, and air, and every kind that lives. –Milton.
– from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
Really the question is: Is God omnipresent?
If yes, then there is no place where God is not present, (and this may be similar to a fractal, where the fractal form you see generated from a fractal program is an instance of an equation which is all-present within the “universe” of the fractal that is generated.) This idea by the way is not absent in Judaism and is demonstrated within Kabbalah in the emanations from Ein (no-thing-ness) as the point from which all form is emergent. Ein is the “virtual” or eternal; the ultimate ground of becoming, the place where the omnipresent maps to the spatial-temporal.
In Christianity we can see omnipresence as essential. (See below for a brief scholastic defense of this position)
Omnipresence and Incorporeality
Grace M. Dycka1
a1 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Trinity Western College, Langley, Canada
Predominant branches of historic Christianity have traditionally held to each of two doctrines about God: that he is incorporeal and that he is omnipresent. And in the minds of many people, these two doctrines do not simply represent two independent characteristics or attributes of God, but rather they are closely related. A.H.Strong, a conservative theologian active during the early years of this century, writes, ‘God’s omnipresence is not the presence of a part but of the whole of God in every place. This follows from the conception of God as incorporeal.’1 More recently, Dr Harold Kuhn put forward a view which similarly links the two notions.2 When we recite the Apostles’ Creed and affirm our belief in ‘God the Father Almighty’ we are, according to Kuhn, also implying our belief in an incorporeal God, for any imputation of a body to him would appear to entail spatial limitation, since it is thought that only a bodiless being could be omnipresent.”
And so, omnipresence is not discretionary, but core to the monotheistic traditions of Judaism and Christianity. Otherwise, God is limited, not extending into all places and times. And if God is limited, why call such a thing God.
Omnipresence is the meeting point. It is where form and formlessness touch, where atheism is rooted as well as theism. Any form can become an idol, including the theistic forms of God within a religious tradition. Ultimately, the most devout must abandon even the sacred forms at the antechamber of the Divine presence.



report abuse
 

Albert the Abstainer

posted November 15, 2008 at 10:20 am


A word of general warning about posting messages.
It seems that the new facility will lose your message if you spend too long composing it. (I expect it is a timeout “feature” that needs to be fine tuned by B-net.)
To get around this problem, copy and paste your message into some interim form (such as an e-mail, word document, et cetera). That way you can cut and paste your message again and then submit.



report abuse
 

Rick

posted November 15, 2008 at 1:20 pm


What a monumental waste of time. Answer this: if your god appeared and gave you all the answers, what would that really change about the human condition and predicament? Your musings solve nothing.



report abuse
 

Andrew

posted November 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm


@Rick: What would it change? Life would be utterly devoid of meaning, would it not? If God came to me with all the answers, I would have no real reason to live anymore. Your question reminds me of the question that Heather poses to Michael in one of the videos. Why does God spare one 6 year old, and not another? If God spared every single child, why would he stop there? He would then have to spare every single life form in the universe that did not want to die prematurely, and then, where is the line drawn?



report abuse
 

Oscar the Grout

posted November 15, 2008 at 6:10 pm


Is it logical to believe in god? Well, the belief in god can be logically explained, through genetics. I don’t understand why these two are wasting time debating “amulets,” “witchcraft,” and “meaning-making.”
Can’t we get to the heart of the matter using logic and reason instead of anecdotes and “musings”?
The propensity for religiosity can be explained as a genetic trait beneficial to the propagation of the species. Being a social animal, “religion” or beliefs in higher powers, and all of the rites and rituals associated with those beliefs, can be viewed in terms logically as behaviors naturally selected and contributing to our success as a species. This propensity for religiosity does not prove the existence of god as some would have us believe (the motivation of which should be questioned). Rather it should be viewed with a more skeptical and critical lens grounded in scientific evidence and logical reasoning. Enough with the blind faith!
Besides, haven’t we identified the “god” gene?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted November 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm


“I have noticed – have you? – that the more secular our universities have become over the last few decades, the larger have become the sections of bookstores devoted to witchcraft, Ouija boards, astrology, and pet rocks. Christian believers are told that such things are sinful, idol-worship, the deification of silly human fetishes.”
I hardly think filling heads with one style of falsehoods makes them immune to other styles. It’s at least as likely that, having accepted one set of impossibilities, a person is more disposed to accept other sets of impossibilities.
“One does not have to be a Jew or a Christian to conclude from experience that, on balance, truth is stronger than the lie, goodness is more powerful than evil, the beautiful wins out over the ugly, and life is better than (say) suicide.”
I’d say one doesn’t have to be a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim to hope truth and goodness are more powerful than lies and evil. But we had six recent years in which lies carried the day and there are all too many places where goodness is spotty.
“The first of the Ten Commandments of Moses teach us that Jehovah, the God of Israel (and all humanity) is the true God, and no one should dare to put false gods in his place. Certainly there are false gods. Certainly there are false religions. Down through history, many different tests have been proposed for discerning the difference. It has long been a passion among Christians and Jews to discern who are the true Christians or Jews, and who are the counterfeits.”
As though there were any reason to trust the Bible, but there is not so this is meaningless. In fact to most religions the rest are false. To atheists they are all false. Atheists are closer to most religious than most religious bother to realize.
“The Catholic Church blesses and promotes many objects intended to remind humble people (and learned people) of the presence of God, and the eruptions of the holy into daily life.”
It seems surprising the RCC charges people for these items which further its and its god’s cause.
“Similarly, he expressed sorrow that he himself lacked an ear for religion. But he did not disrespect those who did hear its silent music.”
Well I for one am glad that meme doesn’t sit easily in my brain.



report abuse
 

Chip W

posted November 16, 2008 at 8:13 am


Each of us is born into a human body we had nothing to do with creating. We don’t know how it works; we just live in it.
All around us is other life, which I find almost literally incredible, i.e. I almost can’t believe that such a thing as life exists. How life came to be is simply beyond me. Way, way beyond me.
We’re on a planet which is an infinitesimal speck in a universe whose size we can’t comprehend. How did all this come to be? How does it work? Why are we here, and is this a meaningful question?
I’m only a human being with human limitations of perception, knowledge, and understanding. What’s going on here is simply beyond my comprehension.
And I’m willing to leave it at that because that’s as far as I can go with it. To go any further, I have to make stuff up.
I experience wonder and awe, and I’m grateful I was given this life. Grateful to whom, given life by whom? Nobody and nothing; I simply experience gratitude. I cannot know more.
Believe in God – a single source of intelligence and energy – if you wish . The question I ask is: Why? Why do you need to?



report abuse
 

Karen Brown

posted November 16, 2008 at 11:26 am


I don’t think that all the New Age paraphenalia is all that new a phenomenon, is uniquely attractive (or even particularly attractive.. we tend to get pegged most frequently as strict materialists, not as crystal waving tarot and astrology lovers) to atheists, nor can be really seen as connected to the seculariztion of universities. Heck, is it generally the college educated (well, traditional colleges, that is) that frequent those stores most frequently?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted November 16, 2008 at 12:36 pm


It’s a bizarre idea that believing in tarot and such is more damaging than believing in original sin and such psyche-scarring ideas.



report abuse
 

Oscar the Grout

posted November 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm


Logic people logic!
The search for meaning itself is a representation of a biological mechanism that is genetically beneficial to the species. Whether you believe in tarot, god, or the flying spaghetti monster makes no difference at all (even though we humans love hierarchy, especially when it comes to belief!). The search for meaning and the beliefs that result from such searches create groups, create camaraderie, organization, alliances, positive social behaviors, etc., that were naturally selected and proved advantageous to the propelling and evolutionary development of the human genetic code.
To debate whose beliefs are “better” or whether or not “god” is the source of the search for meaning seems silly. Let’s use science and logic in the 21st century please. When you question human behavior in terms of evolution and genetics the picture becomes a lot clearer, often to the consternation of the church no doubt and the coffers of its collection plates.



report abuse
 

Bob

posted November 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm


Don’t comment about Islam Theologian, you obviously know nothing about it.



report abuse
 

Kenneth W. Regan

posted November 16, 2008 at 5:32 pm


The “Argument From Reason” advanced by C.S. Lewis (see also Vic Reppert http://dangerousidea2.blogspot.com/) asserts that a deterministic Nature cannot create meaning, nor even support reasoning.
My own half-formed opinion is that this argument can succeed (only) as far as driving naturalism toward the “universe-is-a-computer” position. Among scientists who have adopted this position even without such driving are MIT’s Seth Lloyd (book /Computing The Universe/) and Max Tegmark, and popular-science writer Charles Seife wrote a book (/Decoding the Universe/) explicating it. Frank Tipler converted from atheism to Catholicism while traveling this line, and while I find much fault with his book /The Physics of Christianity/, it offers fair support for what Professor Novak says above about “miracles” and God not needing to violate natural law.
This line falls in with the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum mechanics (which puts higher-order determinism behind the “blind chance” of QM) and arrives at a dilemma: do all logically-consistent finite information structures have physical existence? If the Universe/Multiverse is infinite, if the zero-point field is a computational substrate, and if all standard reductionist hypotheses hold (biology to chemistry to physics to math to information, or if as Tegmark writes, “consciousness is what information feels like as it’s being processed”), then it is hard to avoid a “yes” answer.
Tegmark and Tipler and Seife answer yes, and Seife flat-out concludes (pp250-252) that there are a “kergillion” planets just like Earth except that you are currently being devoured by a giant alien wombat. To which I add, plus planets just like Earth except Richard Dawkins became Pope—with attendant difficulties for basic rationality. However, the “no” answer, as I recall from Tegmark in a quote I cannot locate, requires postulating a limiting principle apart from the laws of physics [in a way more fundamental than inserting "known" before "laws"].
If my second-hand reading of Oxford’s Keith Ward is correct, he has worked the “no” answer into a reason for belief in God. Not as science, but per my reading as what I called “modeling” in response to an Internet query about defining “believing agnostic”—it’s the top Google hit for that quoted phrase (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.usage.english/2008-01/msg00661.html). To which I supplied “fideist”, but defined more narrowly as excluding only (the possibility of) /reproducible/ knowledge of God. This narrowing strikes me as according with Fides-et-Ratio and (again by second-hand reading, including http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView.aspx?id=285) Professor Novak’s recent /No One Sees God/. Reading myself into what Mark Vernon summarizes here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/16/godandthemultiverse), Ward’s argument takes “no” as necessitating selection and preference in the world, with the moral dimension of not letting us arbitrarily be eaten by wombats (though we have freedom to venture into their caves). It extends to asserting that human free will shares with God’s will in the path taken by our reality, which relates to what commenter Albert writes above about Omnipresence.
I’d be interested to know whether someone (a friend suggested asking William Lane Craig) has made a robust argument along these lines. I got involved not from my faith but from my own professional computer-science research on “universal prior” probability distributions, which among other things IMHO answer the weird questions in this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?ref=science), which in turn reflects some of my scientific references above.



report abuse
 

tunghoy

posted November 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm


I don’t see any difference between gods, amulets, idols, witchcraft, the Bogeyman, zodiacs, Santa Claus, the monsters hiding under my bed or Tinkerbell.
They are all man-made superstitions, like the snake in Lord of the Flies. People created all these talismans, then ascribed higher powers to them. With organized religion, people give structured rituals to talismans. With superstitions, talismans are more customizable.
Even if you disregard physics, an examination of statistics shows that for every amazing phenomenon or coincidence, there are many more incidents that were ordinary.



report abuse
 

Mike BRR

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:09 am


Taking the Bible as a metaphor for the human experience is valid to me. Taking it as the word of God derived from the stories of an obscure desert tribe is not.
Maybe “meanings” change as new philosophies and metaphysical thinking evolves, often based on new discoveries.



report abuse
 

Bertrand

posted November 17, 2008 at 10:37 am


You ask if agnostics/atheists have anyone to thank, as if we are discourteous to your imaginary prime mover.
The gratitude of the pious is so often blindly misplaced or ridiculous. Imagine the patient who thanks god rather than the surgeon who saves them. Think of the high school football coach who thanks god for the latest touchdown.



report abuse
 

tunghoy

posted November 18, 2008 at 5:54 am


Bertrand: “Think of the high school football coach who thanks god for the latest touchdown.”
I always have to laugh when people thank their gods for personal things like that. Any god who spends his time affecting a football game must be an unimportant, junior-level god. Definitely the lowest face on the totem pole.



report abuse
 

Chris

posted November 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm


The source of meaning is something my wife, 8 year-old daughter, and I talk about quite often. My daughter is fairly certain there is an omniscient, omnipresent God who cares about each of us individually. My wife sits the fence, but leaves the possibility open. I have concluded that I don’t care if there is a God or not, since I have chosen to make my own meaning in life.
The existence or non-existence of a creator is so distant from the million and one decisions that make up my day that I choose to disregard the question and simply live by my own dictates.
God or no, I believe it is important to pass on love to others. God or no, I believe it is incumbent on the powerful to use their power compassionately. God or no, I believe the joys of life with family and friends are the most meaningful joys there are.
God is irrelevant and has no connection to meaning in my life.



report abuse
 

fghfgf

posted January 26, 2010 at 11:46 pm


Welcome to our website: http://www.wellbbiz.com/
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,adidas, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
We do wholesale and retail! All are extremely CHEAP, please visit: http://www.wellbbiz.com/
Thank you for your visit



report abuse
 

jim

posted February 25, 2010 at 1:52 pm


http://www.wowhotsale.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,adidas, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time
http://www.wowhotsale.com
…………./??/’.??..??’
………./’/…/…./…./…/¨?\
……..(‘(…?…?…. ?~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·?
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
thank you for your visit



report abuse
 

Ray Perry

posted March 25, 2010 at 9:37 am


God has created man and man has created many God’s,religions,Churches,superstitions,and ignorances.



report abuse
 


Dear Mr/Miss : We would like to take this opportunity to introduce our company and products, with the hope that we may work with Bright Ideas Imports in the future. we have lots of Nike shoes,Coach handbags , brand wallets ,AF men’s coats,brand women’s clothing,jerseys and ….ALL products from our own factory.if you buy wholesale ,Preferential rates waiting for you .You may also visit our online company introduction at http://wholesalefreeshipping.com/ which includes our latest product line. Should any of these items be of interest to you, please let us know. We will be happy to give you a quotation upon receipt of your detailed requirements. We look forward to receiving your enquires soon. Sincerely, Peter



report abuse
 


Dear Mr/Miss : We would like to take this opportunity to introduce our company and products, with the hope that we may work with Bright Ideas Imports in the future. we have lots of Nike shoes,Coach handbags , brand wallets ,AF men’s coats,brand women’s clothing,jerseys and ….ALL products from our own factory.if you buy wholesale ,Preferential rates waiting for you .You may also visit our online company introduction at http://wholesalefreeshipping.com/ which includes our latest product line. Should any of these items be of interest to you, please let us know. We will be happy to give you a quotation upon receipt of your detailed requirements. We look forward to receiving your enquires soon. Sincerely, Peter



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Blogalogue. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 9:34:57am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

How Do We Tell A True Act of God From A False One?
Dear Michael: Thank you again for this exchange, Michael; I am grateful that you took the time to teach me with such patience and tolerance. In all honesty, I can't follow your subtle discussion of the relationship between natural laws and Divine Providence. The fault is mine. I think you are sayi

posted 3:46:50pm Nov. 17, 2008 | read full post »

What About Other Religions?
Dear Michael: Thank you so much for your candid and probing response; it is most illuminating. Before addressing your final question, I am going to risk characterizing your presentation of religious faith. Some of our readers, if not you yourself, may find this presumptuous; if so, I accept their c

posted 4:21:02pm Nov. 13, 2008 | read full post »

Faith Is Not Just Belief
Dear Heather: There are many aspects of popular Catholic faith that have sometimes shocked me and turned me away. Yet I well remember visiting the great Catholic shrine at Czestechowa, in Poland, where once almost a million people turned out for Pope John Paul II when he first pierced the Iron Curta

posted 3:48:33pm Nov. 12, 2008 | read full post »

How are Reason and Faith Compatible?
Dear Michael, It is an honor to discuss these profound matters with you again. I couldn't hope for a wiser or more generous interlocutor. I would like to take up your invitation to locate the "exact areas of disagreement" between believers and unbelievers. While we could proceed at a fairly general

posted 4:34:04pm Nov. 11, 2008 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.