A question for atheists part 2

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#16

Post by Kenny » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:33 am

Byblos wrote:
Kenny wrote: I wouldn’t ask God to do the impossible, I would just ask for what I see as practical.
I think your prayers were answered Kenny! :mrgreen:
The response was not in reference to prayers, but about what I would want God to be like if he existed. On my second response I gave a list of what he would be like.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
Storyteller
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Has liked: 188 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#17

Post by Storyteller » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 am

Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:This is three part - Do you want there to be a God? Why/why not? What would he or she be like if the answer is yes?
Good question! I don’t think I’ve ever considered that question. Now that I thought about it, I think it depends upon what this God is like. For the most part, I don’t think I would want there to be one; I am happy with things as they are. I’m sure it would be cool and all as long as he is your friend, and is on your side, but what happens if he turns on you and is no longer on your side? Doesn’t sound good.

If God were to exist, I would prefer he were the type to just stay out of our business and allow humankind to sink or swim with the decisions we make.

Ken
So your god would be indifferent and detached from human suffering?

He would never interfere with us. The most horrific acts would elude him?

So he would be more like an impersonal force of some kind?

Say you just saw the person you love the most in the world about to get tortured and raped and it continue for years on end.

Would you not choose your God to be personal and capable of choice?

To be powerful enough to stop it if no human being could?
Kenny wrote:I’m going to change up on my previous response. If God were to exist, I would prefer he have the ability of the God as described in the Bible, but would do things differently. He would do the opposite of what I previously said and keep in constant contact with mankind giving us a consistent message of what he expects of us and who he is, thus preventing the establishing of false Gods to worship. This would likely end all the hatred, killing, and pain associated with opposing religious beliefs.
[He does, through the Bible, and prayer.
Kenny wrote:He would also have created a world where it is easier to do the right thing because there would be no Satan, Devil, or forces that work against him to tempt his creation to doing the wrong thing. This would make life a bit more peaceful
Where would our freedom to choose be?

[/quote="Kenny"]He also would have created a world where all the water is useful for the survival of his creation and fruits and vegetables would grow wild the way crabgrass and useless weeds do now, thus ending starvation and all the the violence and suffering associated with it
I think I'm correct in saying that there is enough food and water on this planet for us all, if only we shared.
Kenny wrote:He would have created the Universe in a way that is not 99.99999% hostile to human life
And yet here we are. And you still really believe this was an accident?
Kenny wrote:Parasites would not exist because he would create a world where useless and harmful insects would not exist,

He also wouldn’t be the type of God that requires worship. He would be too modest to insist his creation fall to their knees, and grovel at his feet in a way that I wouldn’t expect from my dog; just knowing his creation loves him would be enough for him
Where does He insist on us falling to our knees and grovel? I love and respect God. Why wouldnt I want to show that?
That’s enough for now, perhaps I will think of some more later


Ken
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

User avatar
Storyteller
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Has liked: 188 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#18

Post by Storyteller » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 am

sorry, on kindle so difficukt to quote.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#19

Post by Byblos » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:55 am

Kenny wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Kenny wrote: I wouldn’t ask God to do the impossible, I would just ask for what I see as practical.
I think your prayers were answered Kenny! :mrgreen:
The response was not in reference to prayers, but about what I would want God to be like if he existed. On my second response I gave a list of what he would be like.

Ken
Kenny you're no fun any more when even sarcasm escapes you. :shakehead:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#20

Post by Kenny » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:22 am

Storyteller wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:This is three part - Do you want there to be a God? Why/why not? What would he or she be like if the answer is yes?
Good question! I don’t think I’ve ever considered that question. Now that I thought about it, I think it depends upon what this God is like. For the most part, I don’t think I would want there to be one; I am happy with things as they are. I’m sure it would be cool and all as long as he is your friend, and is on your side, but what happens if he turns on you and is no longer on your side? Doesn’t sound good.

If God were to exist, I would prefer he were the type to just stay out of our business and allow humankind to sink or swim with the decisions we make.

Ken
So your god would be indifferent and detached from human suffering?

He would never interfere with us. The most horrific acts would elude him?

So he would be more like an impersonal force of some kind?

Say you just saw the person you love the most in the world about to get tortured and raped and it continue for years on end.

Would you not choose your God to be personal and capable of choice?

To be powerful enough to stop it if no human being could?
Kenny wrote:I’m going to change up on my previous response. If God were to exist, I would prefer he have the ability of the God as described in the Bible, but would do things differently. He would do the opposite of what I previously said and keep in constant contact with mankind giving us a consistent message of what he expects of us and who he is, thus preventing the establishing of false Gods to worship. This would likely end all the hatred, killing, and pain associated with opposing religious beliefs.
[He does, through the Bible, and prayer.
Kenny wrote:He would also have created a world where it is easier to do the right thing because there would be no Satan, Devil, or forces that work against him to tempt his creation to doing the wrong thing. This would make life a bit more peaceful
Where would our freedom to choose be?

[/quote="Kenny"]He also would have created a world where all the water is useful for the survival of his creation and fruits and vegetables would grow wild the way crabgrass and useless weeds do now, thus ending starvation and all the the violence and suffering associated with it
I think I'm correct in saying that there is enough food and water on this planet for us all, if only we shared.
Kenny wrote:He would have created the Universe in a way that is not 99.99999% hostile to human life
And yet here we are. And you still really believe this was an accident?
Kenny wrote:Parasites would not exist because he would create a world where useless and harmful insects would not exist,

He also wouldn’t be the type of God that requires worship. He would be too modest to insist his creation fall to their knees, and grovel at his feet in a way that I wouldn’t expect from my dog; just knowing his creation loves him would be enough for him
Where does He insist on us falling to our knees and grovel? I love and respect God. Why wouldnt I want to show that?
That’s enough for now, perhaps I will think of some more later


Ken

Storyteller
[He does, through the Bible, and prayer.

Ken
When I said “give a constant message” I was referring to all of mankind, not just the those who read the bible. If such a message were given to everyone, I doubt false religions would have even been able to get started.

Storyteller
Where would our freedom to choose be?

Ken
Our freedom would still be intact as now, we just wouldn’t have Satan attempting to lead us astray.

Storyteller
I think I'm correct in saying that there is enough food and water on this planet for us all, if only we shared.

Ken
Sharing isn’t enough when you have people in power who care more about their power than they do about those who need help. The US and UN evolvement in Somalia proved that. If food and water were much easier to get to like in my scenario, those in power would not have been able to control the food and water thus nobody would have starved.

Storyteller
And yet here we are. And you still really believe this was an accident?

Ken
I never said anything was an accident, just that the vast majority of the Universe is useless to us.

Storyteller
Where does He insist on us falling to our knees and grovel? I love and respect God. Why wouldnt I want to show that?

Ken
I love and respect my father, but if I were to get on my knees, he would be offended.

Storyteller
That’s enough for now, perhaps I will think of some more later

Ken
Looking foreword to more of your replies


Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Dazedandconfused
Newbie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:40 am
Christian: Yes
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#21

Post by Dazedandconfused » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:51 am

kenny,

I have been following some of these threads, and I have a some questions for you.

I noticed that you deny objective morality, and you believe subjective morality is what exists.

So,
I would like to see if your morality worldview is consistent.

If you will answer some questions, I can attempt to find out.

According to your morality, are the following, good or bad? Simply put a "good" or "bad" after each word. If you find that any of the words aren't good or bad, then you can say so. But, they're pretty black and white words.

Love
Hate
Selfishness
Altruism
Murder
Rape
Truth
Lies

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#22

Post by Kenny » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:07 am

Dazedandconfused wrote:kenny,

I have been following some of these threads, and I have a some questions for you.

I noticed that you deny objective morality, and you believe subjective morality is what exists.

So,
I would like to see if your morality worldview is consistent.

If you will answer some questions, I can attempt to find out.

According to your morality, are the following, good or bad? Simply put a "good" or "bad" after each word. If you find that any of the words aren't good or bad, then you can say so. But, they're pretty black and white words.

Love
Hate
Selfishness
Altruism
Murder
Rape
Truth
Lies
Good question! As I said before, I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.
Of the list you provided; Love, Altruism, and Truth are what I consider helpful to your neighbor, all the rest on the list I consider to be harmful.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Dazedandconfused
Newbie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:40 am
Christian: Yes
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#23

Post by Dazedandconfused » Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:12 pm

Kenny wrote:
Dazedandconfused wrote:kenny,

I have been following some of these threads, and I have a some questions for you.

I noticed that you deny objective morality, and you believe subjective morality is what exists.

So,
I would like to see if your morality worldview is consistent.

If you will answer some questions, I can attempt to find out.

According to your morality, are the following, good or bad? Simply put a "good" or "bad" after each word. If you find that any of the words aren't good or bad, then you can say so. But, they're pretty black and white words.

Love
Hate
Selfishness
Altruism
Murder
Rape
Truth
Lies
Good question! As I said before, I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.
Of the list you provided; Love, Altruism, and Truth are what I consider helpful to your neighbor, all the rest on the list I consider to be harmful.

Ken
Thank you Kenny.

Before we continue, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

You have a kind of unorthodox definition of morality. Are you comfortable with this basic dictionary definition of morality?
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

And,

According to your subjective morality beliefs, truth, altruism, and love are good.

And hate, selfishness, murder and rape are bad.

Is that accurate?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#24

Post by Kenny » Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:36 pm

Dazedandconfused wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Dazedandconfused wrote:kenny,

I have been following some of these threads, and I have a some questions for you.

I noticed that you deny objective morality, and you believe subjective morality is what exists.

So,
I would like to see if your morality worldview is consistent.

If you will answer some questions, I can attempt to find out.

According to your morality, are the following, good or bad? Simply put a "good" or "bad" after each word. If you find that any of the words aren't good or bad, then you can say so. But, they're pretty black and white words.

Love
Hate
Selfishness
Altruism
Murder
Rape
Truth
Lies
Good question! As I said before, I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.
Of the list you provided; Love, Altruism, and Truth are what I consider helpful to your neighbor, all the rest on the list I consider to be harmful.

Ken
Thank you Kenny.

Before we continue, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

You have a kind of unorthodox definition of morality. Are you comfortable with this basic dictionary definition of morality?
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

And,

According to your subjective morality beliefs, truth, altruism, and love are good.

And hate, selfishness, murder and rape are bad.

Is that accurate?
Yes
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 574 times
Been liked: 312 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#25

Post by Nessa » Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:11 pm

Kenny wrote:
Dazedandconfused wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Dazedandconfused wrote:kenny,

I have been following some of these threads, and I have a some questions for you.

I noticed that you deny objective morality, and you believe subjective morality is what exists.

So,
I would like to see if your morality worldview is consistent.

If you will answer some questions, I can attempt to find out.

According to your morality, are the following, good or bad? Simply put a "good" or "bad" after each word. If you find that any of the words aren't good or bad, then you can say so. But, they're pretty black and white words.

Love
Hate
Selfishness
Altruism
Murder
Rape
Truth
Lies
Good question! As I said before, I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.
Of the list you provided; Love, Altruism, and Truth are what I consider helpful to your neighbor, all the rest on the list I consider to be harmful.

Ken
Thank you Kenny.

Before we continue, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

You have a kind of unorthodox definition of morality. Are you comfortable with this basic dictionary definition of morality?
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

And,

According to your subjective morality beliefs, truth, altruism, and love are good.

And hate, selfishness, murder and rape are bad.

Is that accurate?
Yes
Looking forward to seeing further exchanges between you two..

Oh and 'dazedandconfused'...I seriously doubt your name always rings true from what I see so far ;)

User avatar
Storyteller
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Has liked: 188 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#26

Post by Storyteller » Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:46 am

Kenny wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Good question! I don’t think I’ve ever considered that question. Now that I thought about it, I think it depends upon what this God is like. For the most part, I don’t think I would want there to be one; I am happy with things as they are. I’m sure it would be cool and all as long as he is your friend, and is on your side, but what happens if he turns on you and is no longer on your side? Doesn’t sound good.

If God were to exist, I would prefer he were the type to just stay out of our business and allow humankind to sink or swim with the decisions we make.

Ken
So your god would be indifferent and detached from human suffering?

He would never interfere with us. The most horrific acts would elude him?

So he would be more like an impersonal force of some kind?

Say you just saw the person you love the most in the world about to get tortured and raped and it continue for years on end.

Would you not choose your God to be personal and capable of choice?

To be powerful enough to stop it if no human being could?
Kenny wrote:I’m going to change up on my previous response. If God were to exist, I would prefer he have the ability of the God as described in the Bible, but would do things differently. He would do the opposite of what I previously said and keep in constant contact with mankind giving us a consistent message of what he expects of us and who he is, thus preventing the establishing of false Gods to worship. This would likely end all the hatred, killing, and pain associated with opposing religious beliefs.
[He does, through the Bible, and prayer.
Kenny wrote:He would also have created a world where it is easier to do the right thing because there would be no Satan, Devil, or forces that work against him to tempt his creation to doing the wrong thing. This would make life a bit more peaceful
Where would our freedom to choose be?

[/quote="Kenny"]He also would have created a world where all the water is useful for the survival of his creation and fruits and vegetables would grow wild the way crabgrass and useless weeds do now, thus ending starvation and all the the violence and suffering associated with it
I think I'm correct in saying that there is enough food and water on this planet for us all, if only we shared.
Kenny wrote:He would have created the Universe in a way that is not 99.99999% hostile to human life
And yet here we are. And you still really believe this was an accident?
Kenny wrote:Parasites would not exist because he would create a world where useless and harmful insects would not exist,

He also wouldn’t be the type of God that requires worship. He would be too modest to insist his creation fall to their knees, and grovel at his feet in a way that I wouldn’t expect from my dog; just knowing his creation loves him would be enough for him
Where does He insist on us falling to our knees and grovel? I love and respect God. Why wouldnt I want to show that?
That’s enough for now, perhaps I will think of some more later


Ken

Storyteller
[He does, through the Bible, and prayer.

Ken
When I said “give a constant message” I was referring to all of mankind, not just the those who read the bible. If such a message were given to everyone, I doubt false religions would have even been able to get started.
Thats why evangilism is important. To ensure the message is heard.
Storyteller
Where would our freedom to choose be?

Ken
Our freedom would still be intact as now, we just wouldn’t have Satan attempting to lead us astray.So you believe in Satan but not God?

Storyteller
I think I'm correct in saying that there is enough food and water on this planet for us all, if only we shared.

Ken
Sharing isn’t enough when you have people in power who care more about their power than they do about those who need help. The US and UN evolvement in Somalia proved that. If food and water were much easier to get to like in my scenario, those in power would not have been able to control the food and water thus nobody would have starved.You dont know that. We have more than enough now yet greed and corruption still exists.

Storyteller
And yet here we are. And you still really believe this was an accident?

Ken
I never said anything was an accident, just that the vast majority of the Universe is useless to us.
Which makes it even more miraculous.
Storyteller
Where does He insist on us falling to our knees and grovel? I love and respect God. Why wouldnt I want to show that?

Ken
I love and respect my father, but if I were to get on my knees, he would be offended.
But do you worship him? Would you bow to royalty? Its a sign of respect. I dont think God cares if you kneel, sit or stand not if you worship Him.
Storyteller
That’s enough for now, perhaps I will think of some more later

Ken
Looking foreword to more of your replies


Ken
hope the colour works, easier than quoting on kindle.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#27

Post by Kenny » Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:09 pm

Storyteller
Thats why evangilism is important. To ensure the message is heard.

Ken
But if a constant message were given you wouldn’t need flawed, sinful, and imperfect men who give messages that contradict to evangelize.
Evangelizing is like putting a flawed bandage on a wound where as giving a constant message is like preventing the wound in the first place

Storyteller
So you believe in Satan but not God?

Ken
I’m speaking hypothetically

Storyteller
.You dont know that. We have more than enough now yet greed and corruption still exists.

Ken
You don’t remember the humanitarian effort the US and the UN attempted in Somalia in 1992? That stuff really happened!
Again; trying to feed a corrupt country rather than them being able to feed themselves is putting a flawed bandage on a wound rather than preventing the wound in the first place.

Storyteller
Which makes it even more miraculous.

Ken
Would you prefer miraculous and useless, or unmiraculous and useful?

Storyteller
But do you worship him?

Ken
I worship nobody.

Storyteller
Would you bow to royalty? Its a sign of respect.


Ken
I am American; we believe all men are equal. If I bow to royalty out of respect, he better bow back to me out of respect. I find it offensive for another man to expect me to bow to him because he has royal blood but I do not. Never!



Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#28

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:45 pm

Not to throw a wrench into things but...

Love can be harmful. As everyone expresses love differently, it can lead to serious misunderstanding and misgivings.

Hate can be beneficial. It's a raw emotion which can help someone survive harrowing situations.

Selfishness can be beneficial. A mother's desire to care for her child at the cost of another can ensure that the child lives on. A Pharoh's quest for immortality, can lead to great achievements appreciated by countless others in the distant future.

Altruism can be harmful. The one who receives could be filled with pride, and this can generate ill will and hatred.

Murder, well that's just bad. But unlike the above, this isn't an emotional state. I don't think it belongs in this list.
Rape same as murder.

Truth can be harmful. If a person went around being honest all the time, I am sure that many will find this offensive.

Lies can be beneficial. A certain amount of it is necessary to keep the peace. If a friend shows you their art and is obviously proud, most people would say they love it because they love their friend. There's the truth(love of friend), and there's the truth(objectively hideous art).
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4964
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#29

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:02 pm

Truth can be harmful. If a person went around being honest all the time, I am sure that many will find this offensive.
Who cares about being offensive if you have the truth? The truth is the only way to know the truth,if people get offended from hearing the truth? So what. I'd much,much rather believe the truth and be in the minority than be in the majority believing lies.

Plus the majority has been wrong so many times in history for both believers and non-believers God has nothing to do with it,it is a man problem only for years later to be discovered wrong and then you realize all of the people that were duped living at that time and yet they were wrong. It still happens today too just like in history and so the majority of people claiming something is true need to be scrutinized the most today.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 574 times
Been liked: 312 times

Re: A question for atheists part 2

#30

Post by Nessa » Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:30 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Who cares about being offensive if you have the truth? The truth is the only way to know the truth,if people get offended from hearing the truth? So what. I'd much,much rather believe the truth and be in the minority than be in the majority believing lies.
Bible does say to speak the truth in love
y>:D< y@};- :mrgreen:
Ephesians 4:15

Post Reply