Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


When Atheists Dodge

posted by David Klinghoffer

Speaking of religion-bashers who dodge a challenge, Jerry Coyne a while back wrote a couple of posts on his blog responding to me on the problem of theodicy but when I replied with a fundamental challenge to him, he went quiet. Just for fun, here it is again, expressed in briefest form:

What kind of world would convince you, Jerry Coyne, or any atheist, that there is a God? No vague waving of hands, if you don’t mind. No sarcastic rhetorical questions, which Professor Coyne does offer. (“I may be wrong, but couldn’t God have arranged the world so that people could ‘grow and change spiritually’ without horrible things happening to innocents?”) A straightforward reply in concrete terms would work well.

Exactly what level of evil could the hypothetical Deity — perfectly good and all powerful — tolerate so that his existence retained the advantage of being plausible to you? I argued earlier that if we’re going to say that God’s permitting the suffering of an innocent creature is the ultimate and conclusive point in favor of disbelief in him, then that would have to include any such suffering, any at all. If leukemia in children would cross the line, what about arthritis in senior citizens? Remember we’re talking about a God without limits on his goodness and power. If he’s got no excuse for a lot of undeserved pain in the world, he’s got no excuse for any.

If Jerry Coyne is consistent with his premise, then the only world into which he should be willing to admit God is the perfect and perfectly boring and insipid turtle terrarium that I described, a place that no God that I can imagine would bother to create in the first place.

Some clever commenters replied that life in the turtle terrarium sounds like what religious folk call Heaven. Not at all. Heaven comes at the end of life when you’ve presumably stored up some spiritual capital that can be enjoyed in the hereafter, while you receive God’s splendor and love without the sort of mediation we experience now. 
More to the point, no one currently living knows what Heaven (or Hell) really and truly are. As with the Messianic age, trying to imagine such things and put them in words invariably produces, unless you’re a prophet, an absurd cartoon. Better not to try.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(43)
post a comment
Turmarion

posted January 7, 2010 at 7:32 am


Heaven comes at the end of life when you’ve presumably stored up some spiritual capital that can be enjoyed in the hereafter, while you receive God’s splendor and love without the sort of mediation we experience now.
The obvious rejoinder is, why should God have set it up so that we have to build up “spiritual capital”? Why could He not have created us to experience His unmediated splendor and love from the beginning? In short, why does Heaven logically have to come at the end?
I’m not arguing the atheist side, since I’m not an atheist. I’m just saying that this is an extremely complex theological and philosophical issue, and I think that talk about “spiritual capital” is just as superficial and misleading as some atheist arguments.
The simple answer is that no one really knows why God set it up thus–that’s why we speak of the “mystery of evil”. Beyond that, I’m inclined to think (and I’m not going to write a philosophical dissertation here) that it is impossible, even for God, to create a cosmos in which no free beings ever abuse their free will. Though I disagree with some of his perspectives, Alvin Plantinga makes some good arguments as to why this is so.
Once again, I’m not arguing against the theists’ case. I’m just saying it isn’t as easy or as obvious as David seems to think, and that the atheists do make some valid points that should be taken quite seriously by believers.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 7, 2010 at 8:05 am


A commenter in another post made another challenge to a statement of yours, “If he’s (God, that is) got no excuse for a lot of undeserved pain in the world, he’s got no excuse for any.” He saw no logic in that. I suppose I could see his point, but only if God was a human king or something like that.
I tend to agree with you though, David.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 7, 2010 at 9:52 am


How entirely hypocritical of you to end a blog about atheist dodges with a dodge of your own. The point is that Christians have invented a place where there is both free will and no suffering called Heaven. Your answer is to say that it is a reward. The point is it is there! Not to mention, Protestant (and to some extent all Christian) theology is that Heaven cannot be earned. Your deity makes a world which he knew would result in trillions suffering, being tortured eternally for things, after the initial two, they could not help but do (org. sin) and to appease his anger over this he sacrifices himself to himself. Wait, it gets better. He gives this reprieve to only a few who are either lucky enough to hear or who has preselected arbitrarily. If that isn’t the biggest “cut the middleman out” there is, then what is?



report abuse
 

Chris

posted January 7, 2010 at 10:05 am


I see no reason why God would need to hide, so he could just come round and introduce himself.
As he’s failed to do this for 99.99% of the population it’s a very reasonable assumption to assume he doesn’t exist.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted January 7, 2010 at 10:16 am


Are the constraints imposed by known evolutionary mechanisms truly a necessary part of keeping this world from being a terrarium?
If so, how?
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 7, 2010 at 11:00 am


In response to the comment at 9:52 am, I believe David is generally writing from a Jewish perspective or the perspective of the Torah. Your post refers only to one Christian view of heaven and hell, not the Jewish view. The traditional Jewish approach doesn’t spend much time speculating about the details of “punishment” as David suggests at the end of his post, but certainly there is no “eternal damnation”. The more typical Jewish view is a period of less than one year and is more of a “time out” from God’s immediate presence, so to speak.



report abuse
 

Curt Cameron

posted January 7, 2010 at 11:02 am


I don’t understand the point of your challenge. It’s up to you to try to reconcile your idea of God with the real world. Why should someone who’s not convinced that your idea of God even exists, need to come up with the structure of some fantasy world that’s consistent with it? That’s completely backwards logic.
Also, you seem to have missed the point about the heaven comment. According to you, God CAN construct a place with free will and no suffering, and according to you, this is a desirable place to be. It has nothing to do whether it’s available now or later, the point is that you yourself believe it’s possible on one hand, but somehow impossible here. The point is that your own logic has a giant dollop of special pleading obviously sitting right in the middle of it, and it’s up to you to address it.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted January 7, 2010 at 11:14 am


If God sent mana to feed starving people, he parted seas when necessary, intervened in battles sent plagues to kill my enemies with no natural explanations (1st born sons), if he talked to me from bushes, struck down blasphemers and evil-doers, then I, and I suspect most atheists, would believe.
If God existed with the characteristics you theists claim, then his existence would be utterly mundane, to not believe in him would be insane.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted January 7, 2010 at 1:02 pm

Heather

posted January 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm


Define “God”. Then I’ll be happy to take your challenge. The concept of god is too incoherent to make the question of his existence worth addressing.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 7, 2010 at 1:29 pm


Paul writes:
“If God sent mana to feed starving people, he parted seas when necessary, intervened in battles sent plagues to kill my enemies with no natural explanations (1st born sons), if he talked to me from bushes, struck down blasphemers and evil-doers, then I, and I suspect most atheists, would believe.”
But maybe not your grandkids.



report abuse
 

Rob J

posted January 7, 2010 at 2:52 pm


As always, it is not up to the atheist to prove there is no god. It is up to the theist to prove their IS a god. Well, we’re still waiting. Funny how all these “gods” just up and disappeared once the human race(well, some of them anyways) “evolved” to the point that they could produce perfectly reasonable explanations for all of those so called “miracles” that are found in all the ancient, archaeic religious texts. Where are all those imaginary friends these days?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 7, 2010 at 3:09 pm


What kind of world would convince an atheist that god exists/existed/will exist? What kind of world? Is it the world that is evidence of god? If so, it would be the world that is nothing like this world. It would be world where things that exist do not require any one of the 5 human senses to detect the existence of such things. A world where nobody knows what is real and what is not real. It would be completely unpredictable. You would never know if you threw a rubber ball to the ground if it would bounce or find it’s way to the center of the earth. And most importantly, god would be detectable.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted January 7, 2010 at 3:29 pm


Mr. Klinghoffer,
I would appreciate it if you clarify these findings (below) for me. It seems to me that scientists have ‘caught’ evolution’ in the act, as it were, through the mechanism of natural selection. This appears to be Darwinian evolution occuring right before our eyes.
As my knowledge of the mechanism for intelligent design is not as developed as my knowledge of natural selection to account for the fact of evolution, I would appreciate it if you could explain these results in light of intelligent design. I do not see how the evidence and data presented here demonstrates intelligent design, rather, I see natural selection. What is the alternative explanation, further, do intelligent design advocates have any compelling data, such as that presented in the paper linked below?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5961/92
It is my understanding that you do not appreciate people dodging questions, therefore I trust you will not dodge mine, as Dr. Coyne dodges yours.



report abuse
 

MH

posted January 7, 2010 at 3:34 pm


I’m not sure I would trust a personal experience of God as that would be subjective and I might be crazy. For example if I was Abraham I would have checked myself into the insane asylum.
I would need external objective evidence of a kind that couldn’t be explained by a simpler hypothesis. Here are some ways it could easily be done, but I can think of many many others:
The CMBR is uniform and nearly completely smooth, but it does have ripples. The creator could put a pattern in those ripples which contained a message. Again this non-natural pattern would be self evident and only the creator could put it there.
The creator could tweak the rates of radio active decay of elements. The rate of change in the decay rate could contain a message. This requires altering the strong and weak nuclear forces and would require a God to do it. This would be subtle wouldn’t effect things much, but be very obviously unnatural. Such a message would be heard across the entire universe too for all generations too.
There’s an open question in computer science of whether p is equal or not equal to np. In plain language if p is not equal to np then it means that it is possible to understand knowledge that you are incapable of creating. I would assume that God would have access to such knowledge and could tell someone to write it down. We would understand that it was true and yet also understand we could never have generated such information. It would obviously have to come from a non human source and be a form of proof.
As far as the problem of evil. I think evil only is a problem if God is of the omni cubed variety. If God wasn’t good at his job, admitted it, but tried hard, then I could put up with a fair bit of it.



report abuse
 

Scott M.

posted January 7, 2010 at 3:49 pm


David,
Almost nothing I can think of would convince me there is a god.
How would you prove to yourself there is a god? Demand a miracle of course! Let’s assume the miracle arrives. Then the same logic applies as it did to early humans. Where does the lighting and thunder come from? The classic answer was god did it. Of course now we know that’s not the case. It’s a purely natural phenomenon that wasn’t understood. Whatever miracle happens around us, the correct response is to assume its a natural phenomenon we don’t understand as it’s less likely to be a supernatural event.
Let’s assume god makes himself physically known to us. I think it was Arthur Clarke, may have been Asimov, who said something like a sufficiently advanced technology has the appearance of magic. So that ‘god’ that makes himself physically known to us could be an alien with advanced technology which is still more likely than the supernatural.
Let’s say I stop being an atheist because of a personal revelation from god. How do I know I don’t have a brain tumor or chemical imbalance which is more likely than the supernatural?
So the conclusion is it’s all more likely to be natural that there is almost nothing that would convince me god exists.
Out of curiosity, what would convince you Santa Claus is real? What do you think the odds are that your evidence will arrive? If the odds of the evidence is so low to be effectively zero are you a believe in Santa or are you an asantaist?



report abuse
 

Dave

posted January 7, 2010 at 3:59 pm


God is an idea; nothing more. Deal with it.



report abuse
 

MH

posted January 7, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Scott M. said “Out of curiosity, what would convince you Santa Claus is real? What do you think the odds are that your evidence will arrive? If the odds of the evidence is so low to be effectively zero are you a believe in Santa or are you an asantaist?”
A flash of red in the sky, a sonic boom, and reindeer poop falling on my head would convince me. Particularly if I found present under a Christmas tree a moment later. The last one is optional as I might be on the naughty list.
The odds are less than one in forty five as it hasn’t happened in my experience yet.
Declaring myself an asantaist has no upside because if he exists I will be put on the naughty list. But how about a conditional agsantaist?



report abuse
 

Beverly

posted January 7, 2010 at 6:29 pm


Your god has many attributes that we atheists accept, including that he is the supposed creator, etc. However, keep in mind that we also accept that Superman’s attributes include the ability to fly. When it comes to the attribute of existence, we don’t accept that enough evidence has been shown to move your god to either the existent or non-existent category.
This is the main crux of Atheism:
When you discuss existence of a god there are three possible positions to take – Yes, Neutral, and No.
Atheism is a position of neutrality on the attribute of existence, not a belief in non-existence.



report abuse
 

Pete UK

posted January 7, 2010 at 7:10 pm


Hmm.
Jerry doesn’t think there is a god, so he doesn’t have to indulge in exercises like trying to work out what kind of world god might have created. Jerry can already offer an alternative, very elegant, god-free explanation which also accounts for a vast number of other facts.
Jerry doesn’t have to answer the question you posed him. It is your position that you have to defend. You have to explain why the amount of pain and suffering in the world can be explained by a god. This is the world we’re in, and the more of it we can see, the more pain and suffering we find of one kind or another.
You have to explain precisely all of it. Exactly the pain and suffering we observe. Neither more nor less. Of course, because you believe in an omnipotent deity, you also have to explain why he chose this one. So please answer the question.
I’ll search your blog to see if you’ve already hazarded a response.



report abuse
 

Eddie Janssen

posted January 8, 2010 at 7:26 am


If The Intelligent Designer (not necessarily God) can explain why He created God, then I might accept the exixtence of God.



report abuse
 

stann

posted January 8, 2010 at 10:49 am


In response to the post of January 7, 2010 11:00 AM, views of the afterlife may vary much with Judaism, however, within the Orthodox tradition (of which David is a subsciber) there is a clear expectation of a day when free will cannot have a bearing on suffering. David challenge (and dodge) is therefore hypocritical.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted January 8, 2010 at 11:15 am


Scott M. – Your comment is eerily similar to an essay I wrote a while back: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/unknowable.html
The resemblance in the lines of thinking are impressive. Note: I’m not accusing you of plagiarism at all; I just think the conclusions are pretty obvious once you think about it the right way.



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted January 8, 2010 at 12:09 pm


Beverly, Pete and Eddie,
I don’t think that your critique is fair. You demand such a high – even absolute – level of proof for the existence of God, while I’d venture that you are aware that even science can’t proffer such proofs. In fact, we can’t absolutely prove our own existence.
If you are serious about this question, and you should be, then there are excellent, and, I think, highly persuasive proofs available. However, few of us want to even entertain such proofs. We find them inconvenient truths that impinge uncomfortably upon our lives.



report abuse
 

Eddie Janssen

posted January 8, 2010 at 3:47 pm


Daniel Mann:
Let me rephrase the question: Why did the Intelligent Designer create God?
And if the Intelligent Designer is God, why did He create Allah?
No proof required, just an explanation.



report abuse
 

MH

posted January 8, 2010 at 9:22 pm


Eddie, I don’t get your question either. Allah is the word for God in Arabic and is used by members of all Abrahamic the faiths, including Christians and Jews who speak Arabic.
Is your question why are there multiple religions? Basically are you restating the argument of inconsistent revelation?
Daniel Mann, over on Rod Dreher’s blog there was a thread about the proofs of God’s existence that went on for 230+ replies. My position in that thread was that the logical proofs are a waste of time as most descending into circular reasoning. Only evidence of the kind I outlined above would seem sound to me.



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted January 9, 2010 at 8:08 am


Eddie,
You wrote, “And if the Intelligent Designer is God, why did He create Allah?”
I’m not sure what you mean, but the proofs for the existence of God never require exhaustive knowledge about God. If they did, we would never be able to say anything about God. Therefore, I might not be able to answer your question.
But before you celebrate, let me just point that any scientific explanation or proof can never provide exhaustive knowledge about that subject either. To explain how water boils, the scientist would not be required to explain where the laws of molecular adhesion come from.
However, there are many compelling reasons to believe in God, reasons I’d be glad to relate.



report abuse
 

Eddie Janssen

posted January 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm


Never ask two questions in a posting. You get answers to the one you added as an afterthought.
What I want to know is this: Scientifical ID does not assume the Intelligent Designer is God. Almost all adherents of ID are christians. Scientifically they should think about the question: Why did the Intelligent Designer create God.



report abuse
 

tm61

posted January 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm


If there was a world where there was proof of God then there would be no need for faith – the existence of God would be a proven fact. In that case, it would be an act of faith to deny the existence of God.



report abuse
 

MH

posted January 10, 2010 at 5:49 pm


tm61, to the faith argument I say so what. I thought God wanted people to be moral and obey his commandments. What better way then to let people know exactly which flavor of theism is the correct one.



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted January 10, 2010 at 8:37 pm


TM
The faith that the Bible extols and demands is not a faith that is antithetical to proofs or evidence, but rather complimentary. There are so many examples of God providing proofs so that His people would have faith. Moses protested to God, who he encountered in the burning bush (Exodus 3,4), that the Israelites would never believe him if he went back and informed them that he had had an encounter with God. In response, God didn’t tell Moses, “Just believe.” Instead, He provided reasons to believe through various miracles so that Israel (and Egypt) would believe that Moses was truly representing God.



report abuse
 

tm61

posted January 10, 2010 at 9:10 pm


“There are so many examples of God providing proofs so that His people would have faith”
Again, if you have proof, whatever you believe is not faith.
Wouldn’t the mark of a strong faith be one that does not demand or even seek proof? One that is not threatened when logic and reason offers proof that contradicts what one believes? After all, it’s God that’s infallible, not the Bible or any one person’s interpretation of it, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 10, 2010 at 10:06 pm


tm61 writes: “If there was a world where there was proof of God then there would be no need for faith – the existence of God would be a proven fact. In that case, it would be an act of faith to deny the existence of God.”
How about if He proved his existence to one generation, but their descendents don’t have this direct proof?



report abuse
 

MH

posted January 11, 2010 at 9:23 am


Your Name at January 10, 2010 10:06 PM
Read my first comment in this thread. I think it would be a simple matter for God to provide proof to everyone, everywhere, and everywhen.
Also, if God requires a code of conduct and provides proof to an earlier generation, but not later ones, then he’s playing favorites. So he shouldn’t complain when the later generations stop believing in him and turn against his rules.



report abuse
 

Oolon Colluphid

posted January 11, 2010 at 6:50 pm


What kind of world might persuade me that God exists? (I’m not Jerry Coyne, but you did imply that any other atheist would do!)
It seems as if lurking behind this question is either the verification or falsification principle, or perhaps both. In the context of theodicy I guess you might also have “if you’re going to say that the problem of evil is insurmountable because there’s too much suffering in the world, then you have to say how much suffering is tolerable before we find ourselves staring at Hume’s inconsistent triad” up your sleeve as well.
Well, a natural world, like our own, running along according to fixed laws discernable by scientific observation, a world that is predictable and reliable (to some extent!), I admit does not persuade me of the existence of God. A world that would persuade me of the existence of God would be a world in which clear, unambiguous evidence for God’s existence could be found. I suppose witnessing a nature miracle such as the feeding of the five thousand or the walking on water (having ruled out any trickery) would persuade me of the reality of God’s existence, or God making his existence plain for all to see in some other un-contestable and miraculous way.
Something about your question troubles me though. How could there be evidence of ‘the supernatural’ within ‘the natural’? Looked at that way your question doesn’t quite seem to me to make sense I’m afraid. Something else that also bothers me is the presupposition in your question to Coyne that there is a certain kind of world that constitutes evidence for God’s existence. To me, a certain kind of world constitutes evidence for the existence of a certain kind of world, but nothing more. In order to help you see where I’m coming from consider the following rhetorical question:-
What kind of world would persuade you David Klinghoffer, or any theist, that reincarnation really happens?
Do you see what I mean?



report abuse
 

D. Balmat

posted January 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm


First alternative:
How about a world in which God was understood intuitively by every conscious being? Why can’t God hard-wire humanity to know that He exists the same way each individual is aware of his or her own existence? God should be like the air, its existence and nature so apparent, so obvious, that questioning them would brand one a lunatic (or result in a quick suffocation). Such intuitive knowledge would not present any free-will problems, either, any more than our knowledge that air is necessary for survival prevents us from continuing to spew poisonous crap into it.
Needless to say, many, if not most people are not blessed with this intuitive knowledge. (And I do mean blessed – who wouldn’t love to be imbued with such comforting certainty?) Among those from whom God has seen fit to withhold this grace – and I cannot see how such withholding isn’t just plain arbitrary and cruel — we atheists find no logical or empirical reason to think God exists, and a slew of reasons to think he doesn’t, including the fact that the rest of you argue (often violently, and clearly endlessly) about what exactly this invisible man is like and what exactly he exects from us.
So I throw it back to you (with apologies to Tom Robbins): Why does God play hide-and-seek with the Universe?
Second alternative:
Oh, I don’t know, how about a world in which goodness is rewarded and evil punished? Something like that?



report abuse
 

Timothy (TRiG)

posted January 13, 2010 at 1:58 pm


Many people have written on this subject. One of the best known is Ebon Muse, in his excellent Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I encourage you to read it.
TRiG.



report abuse
 

Rilke's granddaughter

posted January 18, 2010 at 11:50 pm


You specify a perfectly good and all powerful entity: very well then, the only world that could convince me that such a being’s existence was plausible would be a world wholly without evil: no lesser state is logically compatible with such a being.
My, that was simple. Ask a hard question next time.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 19, 2010 at 8:31 am


Rilke’s Granddaughter, too bad that you don’t have the final say as far as what “logically compatible” means.



report abuse
 

Rilke's granddaughter

posted January 19, 2010 at 11:07 am


Mark2, since you can’t even point out any logical flaws, your contribution is more than useless: it’s funny it’s in it’s vacuity. The POE is answerable only by special pleading; hence the hilarity of watching theists tie themselves up in knots trying to answer it.
Besides, I was addressing Klinghoffer; you apparently have nothing to contribute, until you do, I won’t bother responding to you again.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm


“Mark2, since you can’t even point out any logical flaws,”
Eh, you didn’t make any logical argument to begin with. It was merely a statement.
“your contribution is more than useless: ”
Although you made no logical argument, you do imply that your logic is flawless. Thus your contribution is more than useless, too.



report abuse
 

Stanley G. Hansen

posted January 29, 2010 at 12:51 am


To Mark2 I understand that your education is getting in the way of your intellagence. Maybe your not an intellagent being?? In any event one of my e-mail addresses is hansen.stanley@att.net. So dum-dum; give me gum-gum. Better yet lets discuss logic. I promise not to have any more tact than you have. Chow, for now*



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 29, 2010 at 4:47 pm

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

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 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.