Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Can God write a Philosophy Book?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Can God write a Philosophy Book?
    Posted: 18-Feb-2008 at 07:56
I'm not I'm just saying we could.
 
I'm pointing out if we can't improve it, it's not philosophy, it's dogma.
 
 
 
 


Edited by Paul - 18-Feb-2008 at 07:57
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 01:32
I'll admit at this point to being a little bit confused over the meaning of philiosophy.
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 95
  Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 01:46
Originally posted by Paul

Simple question, we set god a task.
 
Write an essay on the middle east crises.
 
He gives it his best effort based upon all his knowledge and power.
 
We then read it, find all the errors he made, circle them in red pen..... and give him a B-
 
We then send god to school so he may improve his knowledge.
 
agree?
 
 
 
 
 
The only way you could improve such an essay written by God would be to better suit your own personal opinions. If the essay was based on facts there would be no way to improve it because it would be all correct because God knows everything - to say that a factual essay written by an omnipotent being could be improved by a being not knowing everything is very foolish, dont you agree?
 
Whereas, if the essay was based on your own personal interpretations of the middle east crises then there would be room for "improvment" based on yourself. Then again.. If an omnipotent being wrote a paper for you, wouldn't it be from your own perspective? (lol)
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 06:30
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

I'll admit at this point to being a little bit confused over the meaning of philiosophy.
 
So are most philosophers.
 
I like Guy Debord's explanation. "Philosophy is the power of seperate thought, and the thought of seperate power"
 
The most fundemental explanation of philosophy is Philosophy is being capable of thinking free from the influence of dogma, ideology or paradign.
 
Then upon the realisation it's not possible to have an idea free from dogma, ideology or paradign, philosphers are forced to instead of actually thinking or creating anything themselves, just go around uncovering the dogma, ideology or paradign in everything everyone else thinks or does. Until they've destroyed everything, creating total nihilism.
 
I like to think of "ideas" as lame sheep and philosophers as a pack of revenous wolves, who exist only hunt sheep and tear them to shreds. Of course occaisionally a wolf in the pack becomes a bit lame himself, a philosophers has an idea, but quickly the pack turn on their own lame member and mercilessly rip him to pieces too.
 


Edited by Paul - 19-Feb-2008 at 06:41
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 95
  Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 16:29
Sounds to me like it isn't very fun to be a philosopher... LOL
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 18:17
Perhaps a clearer question is whether God is able to wear a hat.

I think by most if not all definitions God is supposed to be both inmaterial and omnipotent. There are two possibilities:
1) God can wear a hat. That would mean he's material, since inmaterial things can't wear anything.
2) God can't wear a hat. That would mean he's omnipotent.
Conclusion: A god that's both inmaterial and omnipotent can't exist.
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 20:15
That's another good paradox, Mixcoatl. But the philosophy question is much more indicative of the limited powers of omniscience and omnipotence. There are rules to the universe that even Gods can't break.
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 20:47
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

Perhaps a clearer question is whether God is able to wear a hat.

I think by most if not all definitions God is supposed to be both inmaterial and omnipotent. There are two possibilities:
1) God can wear a hat. That would mean he's material, since inmaterial things can't wear anything.
2) God can't wear a hat. That would mean he's omnipotent.
Conclusion: A god that's both inmaterial and omnipotent can't exist.
 
Perhaps a clearer question is whether or not God cares about all of these vacuous paradoxes we are attempting to construct. Ah, what the heck -- I'll play along. Wink
 
Hm. It would appear that there are two ways of answering the question from a Christian perspective: short and easy or longwinded and pretentious. I shall present both. First, the short and easy answer:
 
God, having assumed human form, could wear a hat if he so chose. Jesus Christ, the God-man, possessed material qualities and abilities, one of which would be the ability to wear a hat. That he continued to possess material qualities and abilities after the Resurrection leads us to a more longwinded approach to your untenable quasi-paradox:
 
After the Resurrection, Christ appeared to many of his followers. He did this not as an immaterial apparition, but in His glorified humanity -- a glorified humanity that His faithful shall possess at the consummation of the age. You will note that Christ did things that normal human beings would do: He ate, He drank, He broke bread, etc. He also, however, possessed qualities that would generally not be ascribed to other material entities -- for example, He appeared and disappeared without a trace. This suggests that we do not properly understand the line between the material and the immaterial -- or perhaps that the simple dichotomy between the two does not cover all of the possibilities. Simply put, this is a perfect illustration of the futility of trying to subject the unexaminable to rational examination, which leads me to dismiss the "paradox" you have constructed. Wink
 
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

That's another good paradox, Mixcoatl. But the philosophy question is much more indicative of the limited powers of omniscience and omnipotence. There are rules to the universe that even Gods can't break.
 
Here I must be semantically nit-picky, but that should come as no surprise. The terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", as they are applied to God, are by definition unlimited. You may surely speak of limitations placed upon the two terms as they are used in other contexts (for example the term "omniscient narrator" refers only to the narrator's knowledge of the plot of a single story, and not to other things), but you may not do so in this context without doing violence to either the definition of God, or to the definition of the terms within the context. You can try to redefine the terms, but then you are left speaking of something new, even if you decide to call it "god".
 
Oh, and where God will, He transcends the laws of nature; that is also part of the traditional definition of God, at least within a Christian context.
 
This topic should provide for a wonderful discussion, if you are interested. I must apologize in advance, for being slow to respond.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 20-Feb-2008 at 20:51
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 23:34
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Perhaps a clearer question is whether or not God cares about all of these vacuous paradoxes we are attempting to construct. Ah, what the heck -- I'll play along. Wink
 

 
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

That's another good paradox, Mixcoatl. But the philosophy question is much more indicative of the limited powers of omniscience and omnipotence. There are rules to the universe that even Gods can't break.
 
Here I must be semantically nit-picky, but that should come as no surprise. The terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", as they are applied to God, are by definition unlimited. You may surely speak of limitations placed upon the two terms as they are used in other contexts (for example the term "omniscient narrator" refers only to the narrator's knowledge of the plot of a single story, and not to other things), but you may not do so in this context without doing violence to either the definition of God, or to the definition of the terms within the context. You can try to redefine the terms, but then you are left speaking of something new, even if you decide to call it "god".
 
Oh, and where God will, He transcends the laws of nature; that is also part of the traditional definition of God, at least within a Christian context.
 
This topic should provide for a wonderful discussion, if you are interested. I must apologize in advance, for being slow to respond.
 
-Akolouthos


Don't demean your prodigious intellect too much by 'playing along with us,' old chum.

While your semantical tirades are ever so fascinating, you're dancing around the issues of the definitions of philosophy and omniscience. Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy. 
In fact, as the father of philosophy, old Socrates himself put it, "The only thing which I know is that I know nothing." This singular statement provides the basis for all philosophy. The thinker must admit to himself that his conception of the world around himself is imperfect, and then mus go about examining and exploring (intellectually) until he can formulate for himself a rational world-view based upon his discerned principles.

If God is doing that, then he's not omniscient. If God can't do that, he's omniscient, but still can't philosophize, let alone write a philosophy book. You can have it either way you'd like, but regardless of which answer you light on, it's still a paradox.

Cheers.
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 00:12
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Don't demean your prodigious intellect too much by 'playing along with us,' old chum.

While your semantical tirades are ever so fascinating, you're dancing around the issues of the definitions of philosophy and omniscience. Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy. 
In fact, as the father of philosophy, old Socrates himself put it, "The only thing which I know is that I know nothing." This singular statement provides the basis for all philosophy. The thinker must admit to himself that his conception of the world around himself is imperfect, and then mus go about examining and exploring (intellectually) until he can formulate for himself a rational world-view based upon his discerned principles.

If God is doing that, then he's not omniscient. If God can't do that, he's omniscient, but still can't philosophize, let alone write a philosophy book. You can have it either way you'd like, but regardless of which answer you light on, it's still a paradox.

Cheers.
 
I don't find it demeaning at all, Brian; it's actually good exercise. Wink
 
In the post you quoted, I was addressing two specific things -- Mixcoatl's so-called oparadox, and your assertion that omniscience and omnipotence are terms that have inherent limits when applied to God. I was not addressing the issue of whether or not God can write a philosophy book. I think that, as you and Paul have defined the term "philosophy", I agree with you. God, being Truth Himself, would hardly need to search for it. I suppose He could write a book that explains the concept to others. Anyway, I found the original question a bit tedious, and I feel that I accomplished my purposes in the post above, and look forward to continuing this discussion; while I find the original topic of this thread tedious, it has certainly spawned a series of fruitful conversations. Smile
 
I think you might be interested in a wonderful little discussion gcle2003, Omar, and I had last summer -- I'll dig up the link for you later. We discussed the way in which language is used apophatically to indicate particular qualities of God without ever fully describing Him. Basically, we speak around God, never touching on His essence. In the thread, we touched on the issue of paradoxes, specifically those pertaining to theodicy. You might find it interesting. God bless. Smile
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 21-Feb-2008 at 00:17
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 95
  Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 15:07
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy. 
 
From this i'd say that philosophy doesn't exist for all-knowing beings so theres really nothing that is limiting that being then. 
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 21:39
Hey Brian,
 
Here is the link to the conversation I discussed earlier:
 
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 21:49
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Don't demean your prodigious intellect too much by 'playing along with us,' old chum.

While your semantical tirades are ever so fascinating, you're dancing around the issues of the definitions of philosophy and omniscience. Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy. 
In fact, as the father of philosophy, old Socrates himself put it, "The only thing which I know is that I know nothing." This singular statement provides the basis for all philosophy. The thinker must admit to himself that his conception of the world around himself is imperfect, and then mus go about examining and exploring (intellectually) until he can formulate for himself a rational world-view based upon his discerned principles.

If God is doing that, then he's not omniscient. If God can't do that, he's omniscient, but still can't philosophize, let alone write a philosophy book. You can have it either way you'd like, but regardless of which answer you light on, it's still a paradox.

Cheers.
 
I don't find it demeaning at all, Brian; it's actually good exercise. Wink
 
In the post you quoted, I was addressing two specific things -- Mixcoatl's so-called oparadox, and your assertion that omniscience and omnipotence are terms that have inherent limits when applied to God. I was not addressing the issue of whether or not God can write a philosophy book. I think that, as you and Paul have defined the term "philosophy", I agree with you. God, being Truth Himself, would hardly need to search for it. I suppose He could write a book that explains the concept to others. Anyway, I found the original question a bit tedious, and I feel that I accomplished my purposes in the post above, and look forward to continuing this discussion; while I find the original topic of this thread tedious, it has certainly spawned a series of fruitful conversations. Smile
 
I think you might be interested in a wonderful little discussion gcle2003, Omar, and I had last summer -- I'll dig up the link for you later. We discussed the way in which language is used apophatically to indicate particular qualities of God without ever fully describing Him. Basically, we speak around God, never touching on His essence. In the thread, we touched on the issue of paradoxes, specifically those pertaining to theodicy. You might find it interesting. God bless. Smile
 
-Akolouthos


I feel like saying this, so I will. You bring your agenda with you into every single discussion you touch on. Why discuss anything ever if you already have pre-set notions already concretely embedded in your worldview? We've butted heads on numerous God-related topics, and I'm sure plenty of people know my position on that, but if you don't go into something with an open mind, there's no room for growth.

You're still dancing around the issue and implicating that we're being pedantic and ridiculous by not crediting your conception of God with unlimited powers. Drop that patronizing "God bless" and try to listen when other people speak. I don't want to find another conversation you had in the past interesting. I'd rather discuss the subject matter at hand.

A paradox is something that exists within the philosophical community, whether you choose to believe in it or not. A paradox consists of two presupposed "truths" being contradictorily contrasted in a single phrase or sentence. Paul's aforementioned question, when stated as an affirmative (i.e. "God can write a philosophy book," or it's logical adjunct/ juxtaposition "God can't write a philosophy book"), constitutes a paradox because it/ they defy the common conception of logic. The terms being distressed are omniscience and omnipotence. In either way the phrase is posed, it defies one of these definitions.

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, including writing a philosophy book.
However, being omniscient, he can't philosophize.
Thus, the paradox is constructed.

Look at in reverse.

If God is not omniscient, he can philosophize as well as any other rational, sentient creature. However, because he is able to philosophize, he cannot be omniscient. I know that's re-stating the initial presupposition of the phrase, but it constitutes the realization of the paradox.

It all comes down to a simple facet of logic: A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient, he cannot philosophize, thus nullifying the statement of omnipotence. If he's not omniscient, he can philosophize, but in failing in omniscience, he cannot be omnipotent. Surely you're beginning to see now why this paradox defies conventional logic?

My advice is to look at this from a logical, rather than faith-based, perspective. If you can find grounds to dispute these assertions that I have presented, by all means attaque outrance, but please, make sure your contentions are based in the logical, as opposed to the biblical, realms. Start bringing the Testaments into things, and I guarantee you, I can find direct logical juxtapositions to whatever you say, based upon the contradictory nature of the Book.
Cheers.



Edited by Brian J Checco - 21-Feb-2008 at 22:10
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 22:25
Now, now Brian; no need to go into conniptions over a bit of discussion. When two individuals hold to such radically different belief systems, they are bound to "butt heads" a bit. Wink
 
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

I feel like saying this, so I will. You bring your agenda with you into every single discussion you touch on. Why discuss anything ever if you already have pre-set notions already concretely embedded in your worldview? We've butted heads on numerous God-related topics, and I'm sure plenty of people know my position on that, but if you don't go into something with an open mind, there's no room for growth.
 
Well, this is the Philosophy and Theology subforum, and I do have a particular set of philosophical and theological presuppositions to which I hold, so I am bound to "bring my agenda" into a discussion or two. You see, part of holding to a transcendent belief system is that it transcends lines of demarcation between categories. This, however, is not the issue here, as we are specifically discussing God in a subforum dedicated to philosophical and theological topics. And as for open-mindedness, I haven't seen you change your position much since I've known you. Wink 
 
We all have pre-set notions embedded in our worldviews. This does not mean that we do not examine them -- for, indeed, we are obligated to; still, if we are not presented with sufficient information to discard them, we need not do so. As the brilliant G.K. Chesterton once put it: "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
 
You're still dancing around the issue and implicating that we're being pedantic and ridiculous by not crediting your conception of God with unlimited powers. Drop that patronizing "God bless" and try to listen when other people speak. I don't want to find another conversation you had in the past interesting. I'd rather discuss the subject matter at hand.
 
Drop the "patronizing 'God bless'," eh? Would a patronizing "Cheers" make you happier? LOL
 
The difference between my concluding statement and yours is that I am obligated to mean it when I say "God bless". I really do wish you well, and will continue to do so. Part of proving this will, unfortunately, involve proving you mistaken; after all, if we feel someone is misled, the most charitable thing we can do is set them on the right path.
 
As for the discussion I referenced, you didn't read it, did you? If you had, you would not level charges of closed-mindedness so recklessly (and who is being closed minded if you are not even interested in a previous conversation relevant to the current topic?). You would also have a greater understanding of the way in which we Christians apply language to speak indicatively of -- or speak around -- God. You will also understand the qualifications we put, neither on God, nor on the terms themselves, but rather on the nature of the language by which we must needs convey information.
 
A paradox is something that exists within the philosophical community, whether you choose to believe in it or not. A paradox consists of two presupposed "truths" being contradictorily contrasted in a single phrase or sentence. Paul's aforementioned question, when stated as an affirmative (i.e. "God can write a philosophy book," or it's logical adjunct/ juxtaposition "God can't write a philosophy book"), constitutes a paradox because it/ they defy the common conception of logic. The terms being distressed are omniscience and omnipotence. In either way the phrase is posed, it defies one of these definitions.

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, including writing a philosophy book.
However, being omniscient, he can't philosophize.
Thus, the paradox is constructed.

Look at in reverse.
 
Once again, you need to refer to the previously referenced conversation. We could expand on it, if you like, but until you show some willingness to understand an opposing view, you can hardly hope to discuss it. The problem is not that the logical system to which you subscribe is philosophically invalid; the problem, rather, is that it is, in this context, practically inapplicable, for it relies on a misuse/misunderstanding of terminology.
 
It all comes down to a simple facet of logic: A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient, he cannot philosophize, thus nullifying the statement of omnipotence. If he's not omniscient, he can philosophize, but in failing in omniscience, he cannot be omnipotent. Surely you're beginning to see now why this paradox defies conventional logic?

My advice is to look at this from a logical, rather than faith-based, perspective. If you can find grounds to dispute these assertions that I have presented, by all means attaque outrance, but please, make sure your contentions are based in the logical, as opposed to the biblical, realms. Start bringing the Testaments into things, and I guarantee you, I can find direct logical juxtapositions to whatever you say, based upon the contradictory nature of the Book.
 
Once again, I will refer you to the previous thread. There we actually directly addressed the specific topic of "omni" qualities. And as for grounds, I believe I have presented them; just because you do not hold to a particular way of viewing the world does not mean that it is invalid. I find your attempts to logically dissect the Godhead as misguided as I am sure you find my reliance on a Christian worldview misplaced.
 
Cheers.
 
Cheers (And God bless). Wink
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 21-Feb-2008 at 22:30
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 22:55
Could someone write down why God is stuck in a quandary? Omnipotent versus omniscient.
 
In one He is all powerful in the other he is all knowing with unlilmited knowledge. The premise being raised is that He can't be one while he is the other. Thus can't write a book on philosophy while still being God. God gives books to mankind but they are not purely philosophy (a rational investigation of principles of being). Are some people here saying that in those books of God that He does not tell us to investigate truths? Which He surely does. Since he is omipresent wouldn't it be easy for Him to be the best philosopher if He wanted and took us down that path if thought best? But God already knows the truth. It is we who philosophize about it.
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 95
  Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 14:48
Originally posted by Seko

But God already knows the truth. It is we who philosophize about it.
 
Which makes me think of something - probably already thought about and discussed perhaps.
 
Does truth then leave room for philosophy?
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14767
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2012 at 12:28
Book starts with words:
Can anybody tells me :What am I doing here?!?!?Question
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.