Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Religious Colonialism 1

posted by Scot McKnight

Prothero.jpgA pastor once said to me that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe in the same God but just worship him differently. I said two things back: (1) Not true, for no Jew or Muslim believes in or worships God as Trinity, and (2) just try getting an ordinary Christian, Jew or Muslim to say they think that we all have the same God. 

I have believed for a long time that touchstones are to be used but the only honest way to dialogue about our faiths is to tell the truth about our faith and tell the truth of what we think of the other faith, and then to listen to the other person say the same to us and of our faith. With love from first to last, but with the truth of love and love for the truth. The worst thing we can do is to pretend we are all really saying the same thing.
But the pastor’s comment is common and widespread. For instance, Swami Sivananda said, “The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the non-essentials.” To which Stephen Prothero, author of God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World–and Why Their Differences Matter
, says both bitingly and truthfully: “This is a lovely sentiment but it is dangerous, disrespectul, and untrue.” 
I see this sentiment to which Prothero addresses himself in his new book to be a religious colonialism. It is a way of incorporating the beliefs of another into what one person believes and clarifying, for the truly enlightened, that after all these religions are all variations on a theme. Once you get the theme, and one must be exceedingly broad-minded to grasp it, you can see that we differ only on particularities. Prothero’s book is designed to rebut the whole approach of religious colonialism. Here are a few of his opening statements:


He calls this religious colonialism “naive theological groupthink — call it Godthink” (3).

“God is not one. Faith in the unity of religions is just that — faith.” It’s “an act of the hyperactive imagination.”
Karl Rahner once spoke of others in other religions as being anonymous Christians. Hans Kung answered back: “It would be impossible to find anywhere in the world a sincere Jew, Muslim or atheist who not regard the assertion that he is an ‘anonymous Christian’ as presumptuous.”
Yes, Prothero says, the world’s religions share one thing: they all believe there is a problem or something’s wrong. But from that point on they differ, and often dramatically. The solutions show how much they differ. They are not all climbing the same mountain but they are on different mountains.
This book surveys the world’s religions. Join us.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(26)
post a comment
Kenny Johnson

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:24 am


It’s funny, when I first heard an interview with Prothero on NPR, I thought to myself, “Duh…,” but obviously the myth he is dispelling is very widespread.
However, I would still say that the Abrahamic faiths do all worship the same God, but we understand Him differently. Jesus certainly believed He was revealing the God of Moses and the Prophets. Islam is a little different in that I think Mohammed was relatively ignorant of the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. . . I’ve heard before that Islam teaches that the trinity (which they believe is false) is 3 Gods which are The Father, The Son, and the Virgin Mary.



report abuse
 

Daryl

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:11 am


Is this a fairly academic book with lots of footnotes, or do you think it can be read well without referencing the footnotes often? (I live overseas and need to get it through the Kindle if I want to follow along with the discussion, but looking up lots of footnotes on the Kindle isn’t great…)



report abuse
 

Nitika

posted July 6, 2010 at 3:25 am


Looking forward to it!
For a Swami, they are all the same, though. That is not due to a misunderstanding of the essentials of the different religions, it is a world view that allows them all to be true at the same time.
“Religious colonialism: It is a way of incorporating the beliefs of another into what one person believes and clarifying…”
Okay, but then Paul was colonialist.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:14 am


Daryl, it is not an academic book. You don’t need the footnotes to make sense, and it is not a book with content footnotes. Kindle is perfect for this book.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:18 am


Nitika,
I quoted Swami from Prothero, and whether or not one has a world view where all the religions are true at the same time, he still makes the claim they are at bottom the same. That’s different than a pluralism that says all are true.
On Paul, well, no, I don’t think it would be fair to say Paul was colonizing. He wasn’t saying the Roman religions were really at bottom belief in the God of Israel and he didn’t say they were following Jesus even when they had never heard of him. Instead, he called their gods idols and said repent. (He started with that touchstone approach in Acts 17 on the Areopagus, and there’s a bit of colonizing there, but overall I don’t think Paul fits the colonialist approach I’m suggesting in this post.)
So, evangelism is not the same as colonizing the religion of another. You could, however, say it is saying all are called into Paul’s faith.



report abuse
 

derek leman

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:38 am


Scot:
I truly believe Judaism is an exception to what you are saying. Judaism and Christianity are sisters.
The connection between them is direct.
Yes, Trinity is post-Hebrew Bible and not incorporated into Judaism and yes, Judaism has a number of traditions and statements distancing itself from the triune view of God, but consider:
(1) Judaism also believes that God’s essence is manifested in immanent forms (Presence, Shechinah, Glory, Name, Word, Wisdom, Memra, Sefirot).
(2) Judaism’s distancing statements came as a result of severe persecution from medieval Christendom.
(3) Paul’s statement is that the Jewish people remain elect (Romans 11:2, 11, 15, 26, 29).
I do not think Islam’s deity is the same because Mohammed set out to define deity much later and without clear submission to the authority of the Hebrew Bible and/or New Testament (there is a claim that these are holy books in Islam, but they are said to be corrupted by Jews and Christians away from Islamic doctrine).
Derek Leman



report abuse
 

Bo Bannister

posted July 6, 2010 at 9:20 am


It’s both true and not true. It’s not true in the way pluralists/universalists would like it to be, and you point out that flaw that all the religions are fundamentally the same. The religions and beliefs are not the same. But to say it’s not the same God is a different statement. To say that Jews and Muslims worship a different God, well which God do they worship? Some kind of demon god?
The intent of Christianity is to worship the same God Jews worship, but to put all that through Jesus Christ. The Bible never says they worship a different God, just that they serve him wrongly. The same may go for Muslims. Mohammad’s intent was to follow the God of Christians and Jews, with a different spin on it. Muslims think they are worshiping the same God as we, but that we’re wrong. If we’re not careful, we can take this to the point of saying that Presbyterians and Pentecostals worship two different gods, because there are some clear differences between the two conceptions of God between the two groups. We can say what’s right and wrong, but we need to be careful about listening to what people think they are doing in their worship and show them the more excellent way.



report abuse
 

Greg

posted July 6, 2010 at 10:19 am


This is an important book and one that is well suited for discussion groups in local congregations.



report abuse
 

Wonders for Oyarsa

posted July 6, 2010 at 11:47 am


The book looks a lot better than it’s cover might lead you to believe. I was quite impressed, actually, with the author’s interview on Colbert.
I don’t necessarily think the “worship the same God” line is the most helpful example though. I?ve heard this debate come up from time to time, and it really isn?t based on a very clear headed question. Unless we frame the discussion with intelligent questions, we?re shooting ourselves in the foot from the very beginning.
Frankly, ?do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? is almost a ?have you stopped beating your wife? question. Neuhaus saw as much in his defense of George W. Bush?s comment on the matter. There?s a sense in which the answer is ?yes? and a sense in which the answer is ?no?, but really both answers are bad because they imply all sorts of falsehood.
To answer ?yes?, you correctly affirm that we are both monotheists. There isn?t a separate ?Jewish god?, ?muslim god?, ?mormon god?, and ?Christian god? ? there is only one God. In fact, to even hint otherwise is to show that a person doesn?t know what the word ?God? means to Christians ? for God isn?t the sort of thing you can have more than one of. Also, answering ?yes? correctly acknowledges the many things we and muslims agree about the nature of God (as opposed to pantheists or polytheists), and correctly frames our disagreement with them as to the nature of the one God rather than competing champions in some polytheistic survival-of-the-fittest war of the gods.
However, answering ?yes? might also imply that someone might worship God rightly while rejecting the revelation of his Son. Which of course one cannot. It implies that all religions are basically doing the same thing in the soul of their adherents, while the reality is that people may suppose themselves to be worshipping God rightly and in fact may be rebelling against him and spurning his grace and love for lies. It might imply that the way Muslims characterize God isn?t substantially different than the way he is revealed in Jesus
So the question really isn?t helpful. Particularly in that the word ?worship? implies a certain acceptability of their rituals in bringing them before God in holiness and truth, and the word ?same God? implies that there are a bunch of said ?Gods? that we could list side by side and pick the best one, or actually be talking about the same guy when we thought we were talking about two different guys (that?s not how monotheism works).



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm


Wonders, yes, of course, but I hear this one all the time as a masking cover for the colonizing or pluralist option. So, while the whole set up requires explanations, I think it’s a good avenue into the issue. I’ve heard it the other way: We worship the same God but just believe in him differently. But what we believe impacts Whom we worship, so the implications are serious.
Your second to last paragraph seems to me to come around to exactly the point I was making.
Anyway …
How can my captcha words be “abdul poodle”?



report abuse
 

Nitika

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm


@Scot #5
I understood your “religious colonialism” to be a reference to some type of contextualized evangelism. If that’s not what you meant, I guess I don’t understand what you are referring to. Interfaith dialogue?



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm


@ Wonders (#9): I saw that interview too. One of the few that actually piqued my interest enough to check out the book. Whether I read it or not, I’ll certainly be interested in Scot’s review.
@ Derek (#6): Perhaps you could spread some light on a question I have. In the book’s description, Prothero sets up each religion as having a different problem and solution:
?Islam: the problem is pride / the solution is submission
?Christianity: the problem is sin / the solution is salvation
?Confucianism: the problem is chaos / the solution is social order
?Buddhism: the problem is suffering / the solution is awakening
?Judaism: the problem is exile / the solution is to return to God
Now I certainly wouldn’t argue with the exile paradigm within Judaism, but it seems to me that it’s inaccurate to say that the problem of sin is something that distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. What do you think?



report abuse
 

Erich

posted July 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm


The current trend of taking all the worlds’ religions and attempting to boil them down to the most basic elements is both dangerous and hollow. It is dangerous because it must eliminate the more offensive elements to please other groups, and it is hollow because it often takes the core of a belief system out.
Jews and Christians would be the closest to worshiping the same God, but they disagree on the person of Jesus Christ and the nature of the Messiah.
Muslims do not worship the same god as Jews or Christians, as a careful reading of the Koran will reveal.
Finding common ground to dialogue about is one thing, but attempting to achieve this pluralistic notion of the blind men and the elephant does a disservice to those belief systems.



report abuse
 

Chris McCauley

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:44 pm


First of all, the trinity is not an essential doctrine of Christianity. There are many Christians who are non-trinitarian and the “Trinity” isn’t mentioned at all by name in scripture. The trinity is an ex-post facto theology created hundreds of years after Jesus.
Secondly, the trinity (verses non-trinitarianism) doesn’t mean that there are two different Gods. As any Catholic will tell you, the trinity prexists time (has always existed), it’s just that the Jews didn’t have that understanding of God, not that it was essentially two different Gods that the Jews and Catholics worship.
I can have two radically different ideas about what Chess is, I could think of it mathematically while someone else thinks of it as a child’s game. But it’s still the same game. Thinking of it mathematically is more accurate, but it’s still the same thing which is being talked about.
You’re claiming that because people think about a phenomenon differently, that makes it two different phenomenons. But it doesn’t. it just makes it two different interpretations of the SAME phenomenon.
Before Benjamin Franklin we thought of magnetism, electricity and lightning as three separate forces. Ben proved that they are simply one force. But this doesn’t change the essential essence of what they were talking about. They were still talking about magnetism, electricity and lightning, they just interpreted the phenomenon differently.
So it is also true of the different interpretation of the phenomenon of God. Catholics believe that Jesus was God and Messiah, Seventh day Adventists believe that Jesus was a messiah but wasn’t God, Jews believe there will be a messiah but that Jesus wasn’t it, and Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet. They aren’t talking about four separate people named Jesus, they’re talking about the same figure and interpreting what he said differently.
While there are theological differences between religions, saying that we worship different Gods is 100% false. We all have the same names for God and the same basic theology. At some point, all religions go off in different directions from that base.
All of these religions agree with the essential qualities of God, omnipotence, omnipresence, supremely just, omniscient, eternal, omnibenevolent, and so forth. So YES they are talking about the same God in essence, they are just interpreting him differently.



report abuse
 

Ron Krumpos

posted July 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm


Orthodox, institutional religions are quite different, but their mystics have much in common. A quote from the chapter “Mystic Viewpoints” in my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism:
Ritual and Symbols. The inner meanings of the scriptures, the spiritual teachings of the prophets and those personal searchings which can lead to divine union were often given lesser importance than outward rituals, symbolism and ceremony in many institutional religions. Observances, reading scriptures, prescribed acts, and following orthodox beliefs cannot replace your personal dedication, contemplation, activities, and direct experience. Preaching is too seldom teaching. For true mystics, every day is a holy day. Divine revelation is here and now, not limited to their sacred scriptures.
Conflicts in Conventional Religion. “What?s in a Word?” outlined some primary differences between religions and within each faith. The many divisions in large religions disagreed, sometimes bitterly. The succession of authority, interpretations of scriptures, doctrines, organization, terminology, and other disputes have often caused resentment. The customs, worship, practices, and behavior within the mainstream of religions frequently conflicted. Many leaders of any religion had only united when confronted by someone outside their faith, or by agnostics or atheists. Few mystics have believed divine oneness is exclusive to their religion or is restricted to any people.
Note: This is just a consensus to indicate some differences between the approaches of mystics and that of their institutional religion. These statements do not represent all schools of mysticism or every division of faith. Whether mystical experiences vary in their cultural context, or are similar for all true mystics, is less important than that they transform each one?s sense of being to a transpersonal outlook on all life



report abuse
 

Allan R. Bevere

posted July 6, 2010 at 6:10 pm


Chris #14,
The Trinity is indeed a central and essential doctrine of Christianity. It is THE Christian doctrine of God. Without it, our entire doctrinal construct falls like a house of cards (e.g.Christology is seriously redefined and thus atonement).
When the bishops gathered at Nicea in 325 AD they knew what they said about God, and in particular, God as he has come to us in Jesus, was crucial. To get it wrong would be to commit idolatry. They knew that nothing less was at stake than our salvation. The Trinity must not be treated as a nonessential appendix of the Christian doctrine of God.



report abuse
 

Terrance Tiessen

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm


The question of whether Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God often generates confusion and controversy, I think, because not everyone means it in the same sense. I think that we must answer the question both ?yes? and ?no,? depending on the sense in which the questioner intends it. It reminds me of the time an Arminian friend asked me whether I thought Arminians and Calvinists believe in the same God. In the sense in which I take the question, I think the answer to both questions is the same: yes, but we understand him differently. My Arminian friend found the God described by Calvin abhorrent, but surely both Arminians and Calvinists refer to the same God even as we put forward different theological understandings of him.
Linguistically, ?Allah? and ?God? are semantically identical and interchangeable because ?Allah? is simply the Arabic tanslation of ?God.? This is why Arab Christians use ?Allah? for God in their Bibles. Obviously, however, the nature of the being to whom Arab Muslims and Arab Christians refer when they speak of Allah is different in significant (though not all) ways. But then this was also true of the patriarch Abraham and the apostle Paul. ?Yes,? in one sense, but also ?no,? in another sense. Abraham was not a Trinitarian yet Paul certainly taught that we who believe in Jesus have the faith of Abraham. Even Muhammad had no intention to introduce a different God. He claimed to describe the God of Abraham more correctly.
I recall one scholar observing that in 8th century Spain, when Jews, Christians and Muslims had good relationships, theologians spent a great deal of time talking about God. They assumed that they all spoke about the same God but they argued about which of them understood him most correctly.
So, I think that it is very legitimate for us to say of these three monotheistic religions that they all worship the same God while being clear that they understand that God very differently. Contra the pluralists, contemporary Judaism, Islam and Christianity are very different religions, which Prothero is right to emphasize.
The critical question, in terms of eternity, is how accurate one?s theology must be for God to accept the person?s worship. Sometimes, that is what people have in mind when they ask the question posed here, namely, ?is the worship of Jews, Muslims and Christians equally acceptable to God??
Different questions require different answers and considerable discussion is sometimes necessary if we want to avoid confusion or charges of heresy.



report abuse
 

derek leman

posted July 7, 2010 at 8:46 am


Daniel #12:
In answer to your question, I think that the exile/return of God is a good summary of many streams and ideas in Judaism. But it is a simplification of a complex tradition of many streams and is imperfect. One might also summarize Judaism in other ways. I think it would be better to look at the largest category that includes the common denominators (see below).
Likewise his description of Christianity is simplistic. Sin/forgiveness is not an adequate summary of the problem and solution either.
So, I would say Christianity and Judaism are better summarized on the larger issue: broken world and sundered relation to God/ redemption and consummation through God’s plan. Christianity has a more specific answer about how the solution will occur (Jesus).
Derek



report abuse
 

Chris McCauley

posted July 7, 2010 at 8:47 am


At Allan #16, above.
There are many Christians who are not Trinitarian. Unitarians, Christadelphians, Jehova’s Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, and Pentecostals are all non-trinitarian.
The Trinity is a theological doctrine about which there is much contraversy, even within the Catholic church, who came up with the doctrine.
>Without it, our entire doctrinal construct falls like a house of >cards (e.g.Christology is seriously redefined and thus atonement).
Nope. False. There is nothing that is redefined without the trinity. Asserting that the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God (rather than being a distinct person) changes nothing.
>They knew that nothing less was at stake than our salvation.
There is no soteriology problem with not asserting the existence of a trinity.



report abuse
 

Chris McCauley

posted July 7, 2010 at 8:50 am


In any case, whether God is a trinity, triunity, or the Holy Spirit is just the power of God, that doesn’t change my essential point: The theory of HOW God exists, or HOW his divine power works does not in any way change the fact Trinitarians and non-trinitarians are still talking about the SAME GOD.
They simply believe the divine power works in different ways, they are hence not worshiping different Gods. Both are merely theorizing as to how different divine powers WORK, but they are still taking about the same divine power.



report abuse
 

T

posted July 7, 2010 at 11:15 am


I usaually start such thinking with the reminder that I don’t have everything right about God, so perfection of understanding is not a pre-requisite to relationship with God. That said, like others above, I do wonder how much error is too much, to the point where any real, functioning relationship is impossible, specifically regarding how the human partner in the relationship may live life believing that X or Y is obedience, when in fact it is contrary to God’s will?
Along these lines, much is often made of the names used, whether the Lord or Jesus or Allah or the like. But I always wonder about John’s bold statement that “anyone who loves [his brother the way Jesus loves] knows God and is born of God.” Don’t our actions toward others really reveal what we believe the central character of God to be? People who actually believe that God is merciful and has been so to them are merciful to others. People who believe God to be harsh and exacting are harsh and exacting with others. We seemingly always “image” God as we perceive and trust him to be.
All that said, I do think names and other specifics matter in any relationship, and I agree that it is a very different thing to follow the God that Muhammad describes and examples, and the one that Christ describes and examples. For instance, just based on the personal conduct of these particular men, I can understand why some Muslims use violence to bring others into submission to Islam, and I find it very easy to question those who attempt to do the same in the name of Christ. So, yes, “following” either of these men is going to look different because they acted very differently and taught different things about God in word and deed. The same is true if Moses is given precedence over Jesus, as even the book of Acts makes clear enough.



report abuse
 

T

posted July 7, 2010 at 11:43 am


I was going to add that ultimately we do bet our lives, via our conduct (a la James, “I’ll show you my faith by what I do”), on what we believe about God. Because I believe that God’s grace runs deeper than I generally am willing to acknowledge, it won’t surprise me if many are justified by hoping in that grace, even if they are ignorant or mistaken about the name of the one saving them. At the same time, I have no intention, for myself or those whom I care for, of using or recommending any name, practice or belief other than those I see coming from Jesus. He’s the one I intend to bet upon over all others.
I’m reminded of the seeming progression of the names God revealed to Israel, from Abraham on down. For so long and so many, he was simply described as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” similar to how so many children know me as “Ruby’s dad.” And, of course, while there are strong statements in the scriptures about God’s name, there are also many times where God affirms “ignorant Gentiles” who demonstrate that they really do know and love God by their practice of humility and mercy, while various people of God’s covenant are using the right name, but not demonstrating any knowledge of his character by how they are living.



report abuse
 

Allan R. Bevere

posted July 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm


Chris, with all due respect you need to do some boning up on the theological implications of and the history of the trinitarian debates in the church.
Trinity does greatly affect christology and soteriology which Athanasius understood clearly– if Jesus is not God then Jesus cannot be the Savior for only God can save.
Most Pentecostals are trinitarian though there are some exceptions. Unitarians, Christadelphians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are not Christian groups precisely because of their rejection of the Trinity. Historically, the church has affirmed that to reject the Trinity is to step outside the bounds of the Christian doctrine of God, not only because it most adequately and decisively expresses God’s revelation, but it also makes the best sense of the New Testament witness, and because without it, our doctrine is radically rearranged. There have been thousands upon thousands of pages written on this subject arguing precisely the points I am making. I am not making this up. I am simply affirming the historic faith.
You simply cannot write this off with an “it makes no difference” response.



report abuse
 

Allan R. Bevere

posted July 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm


One more comment– the Catholic Church did not come up with the doctrine. There was no Protestantism yet in existence to distinguish something called the “Catholic Church.” The catholic (universal) church affirmed the Trinity because, as many theologians have said, it was the only option that put Christian doctrine into a coherent whole. To quote Tom Wright, “If the Trinity did not exist, the church would have had to invent it.”



report abuse
 

Ted M. Gossard

posted July 8, 2010 at 8:07 am


Yes, I agree with the point you make here, Scot. While it is good to find common ground with everyone and anyone, it is not good to deny our real differences. Paul found common ground at Mars Hill in Acts 17 in speaking of what their poets had said about the supreme Being, but then went on to preach in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. And was scorned. Was he wrong? Is the gospel unique, or not? Or is there any number of ways to express the same gospel. Galatians seems to me to have a clear answer or application on that, even while dealing with a different issue.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted July 13, 2010 at 5:53 am


@Derek (#18): Thanks for your informative reply.



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 Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | 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.