Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
oslove

How to explain existence of God from reality

390 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw

God is a conceptual reality, a concept not shared by everyone. No matter how intricate or complicated the chain of logic and rationalizations used to "prove" God's existence, the argument in favor inevitably folds back on itself and what one is prepared to believe to be proof. With no acceptable empirical observations and collateral data confirming God's existence, believers, no matter how passionately they argue, no matter how firm and steadfast in their convictions, can not escape or deny the essential element of their own belief. If one wishes to believe in the existence of God, one simply has to take it on Faith.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Here is what has me a bit confused of the 'purpose' of this thread. I look at the title and subtitle of this thread. 

How to explain existence of God from reality

How I have come to the certainty of God existing from investigating the reality of existence.

So, if I'm reading this right, we're talking a difference of reality and what is considered as not reality. Is the goal is to prove God as reality? That doesn't seem like what the title of this thread says. Or, so it seems to my perception anyways. ;) 

And what I find really confusing, is thinking that one can prove a concept, by comparing other concepts. Granted, inventions, ventures, and other things, start with a concept. But, a concept is the start of something, no the sole exercise of something. Or, so I feel is happening with the original goal of this thread. 

Yeah, I could be wrong. 

 

The OP was nonsense.  I mean, I'm sorry.....but let's get real.  There is an aspect of the OP that is appealing, and that is the nature of reality.  It is quite amazing....there can be no doubt about this.  So, yeah.....naturally, questions arise.  But the exploration of that is an endless intellectual and philosophical pursuit that no one has the time for, or the ability to achieve....for the most part.  That is, as far as i know.

Now, there are people who claim to be enlightened,.  To be enlightened is to know.  At least, that's how I see enlightenment; if someone would like to disagree with me I would gladly hear your arguments.  Anyway, the idea of enlightenment as i see it is that whatever this reality is, and whatever the next reality is, people now can experience it, or have a certainty that it exists.  

I haven't had this experience myself; so I cannot testify to it......or against it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

God is a conceptual reality, a concept not shared by everyone. No matter how intricate or complicated the chain of logic and rationalizations used to "prove" God's existence, the argument in favor inevitably folds back on itself and what one is prepared to believe to be proof. With no acceptable empirical observations and collateral data confirming God's existence, believers, no matter how passionately they argue, no matter how firm and steadfast in their convictions, can not escape or deny the essential element of their own belief. If one wishes to believe in the existence of God, one simply has to take it on Faith.

I personally think you hit the nail on the head there. :yes:  (I said, I personally think ;) ) Doesn't mean, I'm correct in this objectively. Anyways, I feel, you bringing in the last point of using Faith, as a key point in how each 'subjectively' believes. It might seem to me, that the OP is so sure on their own personal subjectively faith of proving their own 'concept' of God, that there doesn't seem to be any room for anyone else's faith. Or, concept for that matter, which is what is being asked, for other's concept of God. And a concept, like faith, is a word, or term, I feel explains things in a personal subjective manner, not in a over all objective way, in which I think the OP is trying to do. (And that is why I'm confused with the 'plot' of the thread. 

I first read how there is a desire for readers to 'show' their concept, which had me thinking, that each concept would initially be accepted as each reader's proof of their own belief or lack of one. Well enough, I guess. And that's despite my feeling of how one can even start with using a 'concept' as a beginning point of proving something, that in itself, has never been proven in an objective and definite surety. Then, I see, as others give their 'concepts' of their God, I don't know if it's me, but it seems that their 'concepts' seem to be described as irrational and the holder of those concepts as wrong. And that is despite the fact, that there is the chance of those holding no concepts, because of, oh I don't know, being raised without one. ( ;) ) And one would have to understand that, if one understands reality on this entire planet. ( I would feel that it is self-evident, that concepts are not consistent in itself. ) 

I also see, actual points to show, how what is asked doesn't makes sense, and yet one's own 'self' is then put down. So, is there an willingness to accept different view points to see how their own points might just be provable? I don't see it. I would think, that if a talking point and a subject has been shown that it doesn't necessarily show consistency in reality, then I would think that is something educating the OP. (I have felt, that I have learned a lot by varying and differing view points of a subject in one of the threads I have started some time ago. It's a shocker to me, but still something I have learned and reflect realistically. And I feel, that is why I had started that particular thread to begin with. To get more information on the subject itself, and see others point of views of it, to learn more of the subject. I came away with more knowledge of it, and that is even when I noticed my point of view of it, doesn't jar with some of it. The more I found out about it, the better. I don't see this here. So, I wonder, is this for the betterment of everyone, or just a goal for the OP to do something that is just for the OP? 

In the end, talking about faith, I feel, some feel their's is being attacked and taken away from them. If one's faith is strong, I don't think anyone has to worry. I don't think one needs everyone else to have the same faith, to feel strong in their own. Though, I get the feeling, that is the goal with some. When I see this, it makes me wonder how they will hold up within their own faith. If one is confident in their own faith, even being the only holder of it, then I feel one does not have to feel any danger to it, probably feel stronger in it for it. I do think, it's dangerous, one it's trying to push onto others, because one is just messing with the faith already there. There's no room for it. 

I think, I see this in varying threads, and that is the problem, faith, concepts, subjectivity, is being replaced by another one. That's a conflict, I think. 

I think, bringing up faith in this thread, is the kicker. And I feel we all know, how faith follows in proving objectiveness. :D 

(Plus, if replacing my femaleness ((despite evidence to it in my profile and I actually mentioned it)) with maleness, well we're not getting anywhere if we're trying to prove an assumption over the truth. ;) ) 

7 hours ago, Guyver said:
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Here is what has me a bit confused of the 'purpose' of this thread. I look at the title and subtitle of this thread. 

How to explain existence of God from reality

How I have come to the certainty of God existing from investigating the reality of existence.

So, if I'm reading this right, we're talking a difference of reality and what is considered as not reality. Is the goal is to prove God as reality? That doesn't seem like what the title of this thread says. Or, so it seems to my perception anyways. ;) 

And what I find really confusing, is thinking that one can prove a concept, by comparing other concepts. Granted, inventions, ventures, and other things, start with a concept. But, a concept is the start of something, no the sole exercise of something. Or, so I feel is happening with the original goal of this thread. 

Yeah, I could be wrong. 

 

The OP was nonsense.  I mean, I'm sorry.....but let's get real.  There is an aspect of the OP that is appealing, and that is the nature of reality.  It is quite amazing....there can be no doubt about this.  So, yeah.....naturally, questions arise.  But the exploration of that is an endless intellectual and philosophical pursuit that no one has the time for, or the ability to achieve....for the most part.  That is, as far as i know.

Now, there are people who claim to be enlightened,.  To be enlightened is to know.  At least, that's how I see enlightenment; if someone would like to disagree with me I would gladly hear your arguments.  Anyway, the idea of enlightenment as i see it is that whatever this reality is, and whatever the next reality is, people now can experience it, or have a certainty that it exists.  

I haven't had this experience myself; so I cannot testify to it......or against it.  

I have found this post, fascinating, and probably a pretty good contribution to this thread. When I immediately double clicked on the world of enlightenment, I get this definition: 

Quote

Having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook.

Doing some more research, I get from this site:

Quote
to furnish knowledge to :instruct 

enlightened us about the problem

 :to give spiritual insight to

In other words, to have 'knowledge' brought into one's awareness, I would think. Whether it's coming from a well known or objective source, I think is also key, I guess. But even then, that breaks down a certain definition of what someone's personal enlightenment, right? 

I think there is the main enlightenment, which I feel you and I are discussing here, and the subjective enlightenment, that I think a lot of those of faith feel, that enhances their outlook in a positive way. Whether it is from their faith, I think is irrelevant, when the holder knows it's subjective and just uses it to make themselves feel positive out their path. 

Going  back to what you said that I put in bold, I find that something to reflect. I myself have not only am aware of those who have had these 'enlightenment' moments, but I often wonder, and remember, that I often feel that myself. I question my own as whether their is an actual knowledge to it, or a personal one. I can't say for sure, if others have the same moments of enlightenment that I do, so I think even then, to have truth in them, each one needs to be broken down to see if their is any truth to them, and that real knowledge has been fed to them. *shrugs* 

If this is the case here in this thread, I do wonder how one can prove it as being actually furnished with actual knowledge. (It had been stated, right, in this thread, that proof has been provided, but I haven't seen it yet.) So, even then, I wonder, what kind of enlightenment is being felt here?

Yeah, I went down to semantics, and I do feel, you're talking more so in the reality and objective based enlightenment. In which, I think it was perfect you brought that up. I guess, reflecting on this thought, one should provide the source of their enlightenment. :) 

But, a good point I think, well brought up. :yes:  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

There can be no true objectivity based on a premise predicated, compromised, or prejudiced by a conclusion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Faith and Science can exist like oil and water, side by side, layered, one on top of the other, quite amicably in same vessel--but they don't mix very well.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
On 10/13/2017 at 1:15 AM, Hammerclaw said:

God is a conceptual reality, a concept not shared by everyone. No matter how intricate or complicated the chain of logic and rationalizations used to "prove" God's existence, the argument in favor inevitably folds back on itself and what one is prepared to believe to be proof. With no acceptable empirical observations and collateral data confirming God's existence, believers, no matter how passionately they argue, no matter how firm and steadfast in their convictions, can not escape or deny the essential element of their own belief.   If one wishes to believe in the existence of God, one simply has to take it on Faith.

Yes, that approach would take a real "leap of faith" in my book:

I WORK IN Mysterious Ways 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
37 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Yes, that approach would take a real "leap of faith" in my book:

I WORK IN Mysterious Ways 2.jpg

The Demiurge ''working in mysterious ways'' is a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. It can not be denied that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adampadum123
On 16/09/2017 at 3:44 AM, oslove said:

With half intelligent persons, they still have enough intelligence to know about that one thing causes another thing, even animals know that, else how can they survive?

So, even half intelligent persons know from the way our mind is wired up, that "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

And we come to that statement by our experiences in life, which experiences in life in turn require that we be possessed of consciousness.

In this respect of consciousness, to be existing is to be conscious, so that every moment of consciousness is a phase of existence; when you lose consciousness and never return to consciousness, you have ceased to exist.

There are periodical or transient incidents of loss of existence even though you be still in life process, for examples: when you have fainted, when you are in deep dreamless sleep, when you are in a comatose condition, and when you are in general anaesthesia.

I have seen a mother biting her baby in its toes, hard very hard, to bring it back to consciousness, as the baby was in the throe of death's seizure spasms - tragically she did not succeed to 'wake up' her dying baby.

The first experience in life is the sensation of pain, leading to the intelligence to avoid everything that had given pain to the person.

Next, with the experience of pain, the experience of injury to the body, that leads to the intelligence to avoid pain and thereby also avoid injury that comes with pain.

Lastly, the experience of witnessing the fact of dying and death, and that leads to the intelligence to not ever get oneself into a dying process at all, and to do everything to survive.

There, that is all of intelligence even in a half intelligent person.

Now, there are humans who are special children, in which case mankind has come to the conclusion that such children or persons must be kept alive by society, in the name of humanity.

So, dear colleagues here, allow me to recite again my three statements, namely:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Existence is just one of the many words we use to make sense of the world that we know little about.what do we truly know about anything?everything we do know we made up to give us an understanding.what if everything is just totally different to what we know it to be

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Yes, that approach would take a real "leap of faith" in my book:

I WORK IN Mysterious Ways 2.jpg

Another advertisement for people who want not to be helped do what is right, but to be completely and totally controlled like a robot.

I expect that if God did prevent all rape, murder and whatnot, that people would be going on about how "Controlling" God is and that he's Evil for not allowing us to eat cake because we're 5 pounds overweight. Some people will complain if they were hung with a new rope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Another advertisement for people who want not to be helped do what is right, but to be completely and totally controlled like a robot.

I expect that if God did prevent all rape, murder and whatnot, that people would be going on about how "Controlling" God is and that he's Evil for not allowing us to eat cake because we're 5 pounds overweight. Some people will complain if they were hung with a new rope.

Because raping children is totally the same as eating cake..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Because raping children is totally the same as eating cake..

Your words, not mine. I'm pointing out that doing something wrong, is doing something wrong.

If you want God to control you... What level would you think is justified? Preventing murder and rape, but not petty theft, or misdemeanor assault? Would a sex crime need to be prevented, but not emotional abuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, DieChecker said:

Your words, not mine. I'm pointing out that doing something wrong, is doing something wrong.

If you want God to control you... What level would you think is justified? Preventing murder and rape, but not petty theft, or misdemeanor assault? Would a sex crime need to be prevented, but not emotional abuse?

We have laws against rape and murder, are these laws unjust?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

We have laws against rape and murder, are these laws unjust?

They are human laws, not God's laws. Jesus said to follow the human laws, as those who made those laws did so out of the authority given to them indirectly by God.

There is laws against jaywalking, and shoplifting. Do you want God to enforce those also? Should your body PHYSICALLY be unable to cross the street other then at a Crosswalk?

EDIT: We might be talking two different things here though....

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
7 hours ago, Adampadum123 said:
On 9/15/2017 at 10:44 PM, oslove said:

With half intelligent persons, they still have enough intelligence to know about that one thing causes another thing, even animals know that, else how can they survive?

So, even half intelligent persons know from the way our mind is wired up, that "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

And we come to that statement by our experiences in life, which experiences in life in turn require that we be possessed of consciousness.

In this respect of consciousness, to be existing is to be conscious, so that every moment of consciousness is a phase of existence; when you lose consciousness and never return to consciousness, you have ceased to exist.

There are periodical or transient incidents of loss of existence even though you be still in life process, for examples: when you have fainted, when you are in deep dreamless sleep, when you are in a comatose condition, and when you are in general anaesthesia.

I have seen a mother biting her baby in its toes, hard very hard, to bring it back to consciousness, as the baby was in the throe of death's seizure spasms - tragically she did not succeed to 'wake up' her dying baby.

The first experience in life is the sensation of pain, leading to the intelligence to avoid everything that had given pain to the person.

Next, with the experience of pain, the experience of injury to the body, that leads to the intelligence to avoid pain and thereby also avoid injury that comes with pain.

Lastly, the experience of witnessing the fact of dying and death, and that leads to the intelligence to not ever get oneself into a dying process at all, and to do everything to survive.

There, that is all of intelligence even in a half intelligent person.

Now, there are humans who are special children, in which case mankind has come to the conclusion that such children or persons must be kept alive by society, in the name of humanity.

So, dear colleagues here, allow me to recite again my three statements, namely:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Existence is just one of the many words we use to make sense of the world that we know little about.what do we truly know about anything?everything we do know we made up to give us an understanding.what if everything is just totally different to what we know it to be

Thank you. And I wanted and have, gone back to this particular quote, you quoted, so to try to understand it and it's goal and meanings of going from one thought process to the other. Well, I don't know how it made that leap. 

The identifying of conscious thought of one's own existence, I can agree, well to the point. I have no clue as to why one has to go 'outside' of man's inner awareness of consciousness. (That part still confuses me. ) But, I fail to see how one makes the leap of one's conscious being aware of its self, from that to seeing a default concept of God, (and God being the creator of everything). And thinking, that proves the existence of God. Even more so, when it's still considering that God is just a concept still. (Unless, of course, one is trying to prove that a concept is true, and that is there way of evidence of the 'concept' of God, but not of God himself.) 

I think, I and others have pointed out, that varying degrees of existence have shown one cannot easily jump to the conclusions of one particular concept. My secular raised childhood has shown me, or shall we say, not shown me any concept. I'm going to come to my own conclusion of myself, that I didn't come to the assumption of the concept of God, despite that I was very firmly aware of my conscious existence. I'm going to assume, that there are varying degrees of areas on this planet, where there is cut off societies not aware of varying degrees of religious concepts of God. And I feel, that I have seen that these societies show their awareness of their conscious existence, but have not jumped to the awareness of the concept of God and God being the creator of everything. 

So, I wonder, how does one go from being aware of their conscious existence in itself (and outside itself :no:  :rolleyes: ) to the concept of God and God being the creator of everything? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:
3 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Because raping children is totally the same as eating cake..

Your words, not mine. I'm pointing out that doing something wrong, is doing something wrong.

If you want God to control you... What level would you think is justified? Preventing murder and rape, but not petty theft, or misdemeanor assault? Would a sex crime need to be prevented, but not emotional abuse?

I think, Rlyeh has a point here. And the levels you are using, seems to go to the extremes, in my feeling. There is still the questioning of ethics and knowing one can really not be 'controlled' when it comes to their own habits and how they maybe a danger to themselves. Obesity seems to be a thing to consider, yet there are no laws against diet and over eating, because it deals with the right for someone to be in control of their own lives. 

Raping children, murder, rape, and yup, petty theft, is a wrong against others. In my feeling, I would think, 'not the same thing' In fact, I would think it being self evident that being controlled to not eat cake so 'you' don't get fat, is something that is your right to deal with, when it is very wrong to rape, kill, and steal other people than you. Big difference, right? 

I would think, a god, or higher being would be more concerned with the harm done to others from other people, than how someone controls their own lives. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
On 12/10/2017 at 4:11 PM, Hammerclaw said:

It's yours with a click of the mouse.                 http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/urantia-book-online                             

Thank you Hammerclaw. ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
7 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would think, a god, or higher being would be more concerned with the harm done to others from other people, than how someone controls their own lives. 

Why we are fallen beings is not our fault, the gnostics would say. But it is our responsability. As they say, the first step of an alcoolic joining recovery is to admit how bad things are. Most of humanity is drunk on it's ignorance and high on the narcotic of matter.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
17 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

The Demiurge ''working in mysterious ways'' is a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. It can not be denied that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process.

Everything does seem to be flawed. As beautiful as nature can be, it'll friggin' kill ya. And it won't lose a night's sleep over it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
11 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Because raping children is totally the same as eating cake..

That line of thinking was used by the Church to justify shuffling around pedophiles. 

It was just viewed as another sin, and no sin was worse than any other to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
2 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

 

9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would think, a god, or higher being would be more concerned with the harm done to others from other people, than how someone controls their own lives. 

Why we are fallen beings is not our fault, the gnostics would say. But it is our responsability. As they say, the first step of an alcoolic joining recovery is to admit how bad things are. Most of humanity is drunk on it's ignorance and high on the narcotic of matter.

 

 I don’t think you understood my point of my post.

I’m not knocking taking responsibility and yes the first part of taking responsibility is excepting the problem. But, that is not what I was talking about  in my post you quoted from.  My post was about how it is viewed with God and his responsibility with those who commit harm to others as opposed to commit harm to themselves.  And also. what right does he have to control and why he has the right to control mankind.  My point was on the difference and probably his point of view  of controlling mankind  who wish to harm others and his wish to control the probably not control man’s wish to harm himself. Big difference.

 If we’re going to discuss about man self responsibility and taking responsibility for it, then what’s the point of actually discussing God and God‘s existence?  More so, if it shows that he’s not jumping into controlling everyone, right?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Everything does seem to be flawed. As beautiful as nature can be, it'll friggin' kill ya. And it won't lose a night's sleep over it. 

I'd marry you in a heartbeat though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 If we’re going to discuss about man self responsibility and taking responsibility for it, then what’s the point of actually discussing God and God‘s existence?  More so, if it shows that he’s not jumping into controlling everyone, right?

 

 

In the Gospel of Thomas:

(11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

I wonder who the one above heaven will pass away is? Could it be the Architect of the matrix? The Demiurge is imperfect and has created an imperfect world. Our divine spark has been cut off from the true, ultimate and transcendent God. The goal should be to find our way back to It.

 

 

Edited by TruthSeeker_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
3 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:
4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 If we’re going to discuss about man self responsibility and taking responsibility for it, then what’s the point of actually discussing God and God‘s existence?  More so, if it shows that he’s not jumping into controlling everyone, right?

 

 

In the Gospel of Thomas:

(11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

I wonder who the one above heaven will pass away is? Could it be the Architect of the matrix? The Demiurge is imperfect and has created an imperfect world. Our divine spark has been cut off from the true, ultimate and transcendent God. The goal should be to find our way back to It.

I have no clue what you are trying to say with this or how this relates to and answers my post. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
25 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have no clue what you are trying to say with this or how this relates to and answers my post. 

 

In Gnosticism the "Demiurge" is a heavenly being, subordinate to God and Lord of all things physical and antipathetic to the purely spiritual. TS's personal theology reminds me of LDS beliefs, particularly that "God was once as man is, and as God is now, man one day will be."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

Reality is subjective for every individual and so would their interpretation of god so to define god from reality is not possible in a means of creating a positive and unified description for all people, so it remains a personal experience.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.