Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 125 126 127 128 129 ... 188
Send Topic Print
spineless apologetics (Read 350885 times)
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1890 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 12:21pm
 
Brian Ross wrote Reply #1889 - Yesterday at 5:39pm

Quote:
Spoken like a true Protestant, Moses.  Catholicism was, to most Western Europeans the only true Christian religion and to the Spanish in particular.   The Requerimiento was in 1513.  The Christian Reformation did not occur until Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the cathedral in 1517.   The Spanish still remain today primarily Catholics.   They were reacting to centuries of Christian belief in 1513.


So, run away, Moses, you've been tripped up again by history.  When considering Spain's Christian credentials you need to understand it's relationship to the Catholic church and it's teachings, not to Christ's views on matters.


I repeat:

1/. There was no genocide, people died as they lacked immunity to introduced diseases.

2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.

Then you tell us to Disregard Christs' view on Christianity in order to validate your false premisses.

Actually you have conceded to my point:

1/.Men who commit atrocities are Disregarding Christs' view on Christianity.

2/. muslims who commit atrocities are obeying the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1891 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 2:02pm
 
moses wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 12:21pm:
Brian Ross wrote Reply #1889 - Yesterday at 5:39pm

Quote:
Spoken like a true Protestant, Moses.  Catholicism was, to most Western Europeans the only true Christian religion and to the Spanish in particular.   The Requerimiento was in 1513.  The Christian Reformation did not occur until Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the cathedral in 1517.   The Spanish still remain today primarily Catholics.   They were reacting to centuries of Christian belief in 1513.


So, run away, Moses, you've been tripped up again by history.  When considering Spain's Christian credentials you need to understand it's relationship to the Catholic church and it's teachings, not to Christ's views on matters.


I repeat:

1/. There was no genocide, people died as they lacked immunity to introduced diseases.

2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.

Then you tell us to Disregard Christs' view on Christianity in order to validate your false premisses.

Actually you have conceded to my point:

1/.Men who commit atrocities are Disregarding Christs' view on Christianity.

2/. muslims who commit atrocities are obeying the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an. 


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Poor, poor, Moses.  It's not what I say or what you say, it is what the Spaniards said and did which matter here.  The Conquistadori were inspired by their Christian religion and were given the OK by their Christian church leaders.   Now, you can claim what you like but the reality is those Church leaders spoke with the authority of their position in society and used the language of their religious beliefs to justify what they told the Conquistadori was OK.    Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1892 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:01pm
 
Brian Ross Reply #1891 - Today at 2:02pm

Quote:
Now, you can claim what you like but the reality is those [b/]Church leaders spoke with the authority of their position in society and used the language of their religious beliefs to justify what they told the Conquistadori was OK[/b].


Indeed they did, but were their religious beliefs in line with what Christ taught his followers?

History shows that they acted contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

However the Christian doctrine has certain dogma which describes such men and their deeds:

Matthew 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Matthew 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So it is very clear, commit iniquities, you're not a Christian.

Once again my two statements stand:

1/. There was no genocide, people died as they lacked immunity to introduced diseases.

2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1893 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
moses wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 12:21pm:
Brian Ross wrote Reply #1889 - Yesterday at 5:39pm

Quote:
Spoken like a true Protestant, Moses.  Catholicism was, to most Western Europeans the only true Christian religion and to the Spanish in particular.   The Requerimiento was in 1513.  The Christian Reformation did not occur until Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the cathedral in 1517.   The Spanish still remain today primarily Catholics.   They were reacting to centuries of Christian belief in 1513.


So, run away, Moses, you've been tripped up again by history.  When considering Spain's Christian credentials you need to understand it's relationship to the Catholic church and it's teachings, not to Christ's views on matters.


I repeat:

1/. There was no genocide, people died as they lacked immunity to introduced diseases.

2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.

Then you tell us to Disregard Christs' view on Christianity in order to validate your false premisses.

Actually you have conceded to my point:

1/.Men who commit atrocities are Disregarding Christs' view on Christianity.

2/. muslims who commit atrocities are obeying the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an. 


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Poor, poor, Moses.  It's not what I say or what you say, it is what the Spaniards said and did which matter here.  The Conquistadori were inspired by their Christian religion and were given the OK by their Christian church leaders.   Now, you can claim what you like but the reality is those Church leaders spoke with the authority of their position in society and used the language of their religious beliefs to justify what they told the Conquistadori was OK.    Roll Eyes

What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today?
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1894 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:30pm
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today? 


Some Catholics did bad things, centuries ago.  Some Muslims do bad things today.   The entire religious movements were not guilty of those crimes.   My point is that those Muslims are not unique, something many Islamophobes refuse to acknowledge because to do so would prevent their own point being driven home.  History shows that some Muslims are simply one of a long line of religious fruitcakes which exist amongst humanity's numbers.   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1895 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:34pm
 
moses wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:01pm:
So it is very clear, commit iniquities, you're not a Christian.


Never claimed to be a Christian, Moses.  Your point is pointless.  What the Spaniards did, in Christ's name was horrible.  They did it with the full backing of the Church, justified through the Church's teachings.   Until you acknowledge that, you're just pissing into the wind.

Quote:
Once again my two statements stand:

1/. There was no genocide, people died as they lacked immunity to introduced diseases.

2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.


Both items are immaterial.  You seem to believe that the Church was not guilty of these crimes, Moses.  Poor you, history trips you up again.  Tsk, tsk,   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1896 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:35pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today? 


Some Catholics did bad things, centuries ago.  Some Muslims do bad things today.   The entire religious movements were not guilty of those crimes.   My point is that those Muslims are not unique, something many Islamophobes refuse to acknowledge because to do so would prevent their own point being driven home.  History shows that some Muslims are simply one of a long line of religious fruitcakes which exist amongst humanity's numbers.   Roll Eyes

They aren't unique, sure, but they are current.  And that's what most of the regressives seem to ignore.
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1897 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:38pm
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:35pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today? 


Some Catholics did bad things, centuries ago.  Some Muslims do bad things today.   The entire religious movements were not guilty of those crimes.   My point is that those Muslims are not unique, something many Islamophobes refuse to acknowledge because to do so would prevent their own point being driven home.  History shows that some Muslims are simply one of a long line of religious fruitcakes which exist amongst humanity's numbers.   Roll Eyes

They aren't unique, sure, but they are current.  And that's what most of the regressives seem to ignore.


Your use of the term "regressive" is telling, Alevine.   Are you suggesting that by supporting the rights of citizens who are Muslims and are not Terrorists or Terrorism supporters makes me a "regressive"?   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1898 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:48pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:38pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:35pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today? 


Some Catholics did bad things, centuries ago.  Some Muslims do bad things today.   The entire religious movements were not guilty of those crimes.   My point is that those Muslims are not unique, something many Islamophobes refuse to acknowledge because to do so would prevent their own point being driven home.  History shows that some Muslims are simply one of a long line of religious fruitcakes which exist amongst humanity's numbers.   Roll Eyes

They aren't unique, sure, but they are current.  And that's what most of the regressives seem to ignore.


Your use of the term "regressive" is telling, Alevine.   Are you suggesting that by supporting the rights of citizens who are Muslims and are not Terrorists or Terrorism supporters makes me a "regressive"?   Roll Eyes

No. You are regressive by ignoring the pain inflicted by Islam on people, and trying to justify the current illiberal state of Islam.  especialyl with such argument as, 'But catholics did it a few hundreds years ago!'
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44693
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1899 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 9:28pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today? 


Some Catholics did bad things, centuries ago.  Some Muslims do bad things today.   The entire religious movements were not guilty of those crimes.   My point is that those Muslims are not unique, something many Islamophobes refuse to acknowledge because to do so would prevent their own point being driven home.  History shows that some Muslims are simply one of a long line of religious fruitcakes which exist amongst humanity's numbers.   Roll Eyes

So we must deal with them, not excuse them or downplay them.

NOW it's  (still) Islam.  Now we must deal with islam. Not excuse it, not equivocate about it like spineless, squishy apologists do, Brian.  We are facing islam as the problem, not some Albigensian heresy that died centuries ago.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1900 - Sep 19th, 2017 at 9:29pm
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:48pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:38pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:35pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
What is the point of your argument? Are you suggesting that because Catholics did something centuries ago it means Muslims can do it today? 


Some Catholics did bad things, centuries ago.  Some Muslims do bad things today.   The entire religious movements were not guilty of those crimes.   My point is that those Muslims are not unique, something many Islamophobes refuse to acknowledge because to do so would prevent their own point being driven home.  History shows that some Muslims are simply one of a long line of religious fruitcakes which exist amongst humanity's numbers.   Roll Eyes

They aren't unique, sure, but they are current.  And that's what most of the regressives seem to ignore.


Your use of the term "regressive" is telling, Alevine.   Are you suggesting that by supporting the rights of citizens who are Muslims and are not Terrorists or Terrorism supporters makes me a "regressive"?   Roll Eyes

No. You are regressive by ignoring the pain inflicted by Islam on people, and trying to justify the current illiberal state of Islam.  especialyl with such argument as, 'But catholics did it a few hundreds years ago!' 


I do not ignore it.  I acknowledge that it inflicts equal pain to that of all religions, Alevine.   Islam is not a "Borg"-like creation.   It is made up of ~1.6 billion individuals who all have their own views on their own religious beliefs.   To try and state that Muslims in Australia or Indonesia or Malaysia are identical in their views on their religion and it's beliefs to the Muslims in Saudi Arabia is ludicrous.   It's like trying to claim that the Christian beliefs of Australians are the same as the Christian beliefs of Europeans or Latin/South Americans or Oceania.   Everybody takes what they like from their religion's belief system.

As to the claim that I have made the statement that, "But catholics did it a few hundreds years ago!" is just as fascicle.  I have made statements which Islamophobes like Moses challenge.  I have defended those views - backing them invariably with references.  When he does the same, rather than referring us to his fairy story book, I may believe him.  That those references I use may start out during the 16th century is immaterial.  They are relevant to the discussion underway.   What occurred then, shapes today.   It's like a Christian stating that the existence of Chris is immaterial to their religion.    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44693
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1901 - Sep 20th, 2017 at 8:07pm
 
What happened to Christianity since the 16th century has not happened to Islam and that is why the West and Islamic beliefs are incompatible. We do see this every day.

The christians, after 200-odd years have stopped killing each other for religious reasons and wouldn't dream of another relious war over christian dogma.
Muslims after 1400 years show no diminished apetite for killing each other and tghe kuffar on a large scale, over I slamic dogmas.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1902 - Sep 20th, 2017 at 8:15pm
 
Brian Ross wrote Reply #1895 - Yesterday at 8:34pm

Quote:
Never claimed to be a Christian, Moses.  Your point is pointless.  What the Spaniards did, in Christ's name was horrible.  They did it with the full backing of the Church, justified through the Church's teachings.   Until you acknowledge that, you're just pissing into the wind

&

Both items are immaterial.  You seem to believe that the Church was not guilty of these crimes, Moses.  Poor you, history trips you up again.  Tsk, tsk,
.

You simply can't post an honest statement, can you Brian?

I have previously posted the following

Reply #1892 - Yesterday at 7:01pm; Indeed they did, but were their religious beliefs in line with what Christ taught his followers?

Reply #1888 2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.

I have challenged your description of these past deeds as being the fruits of Christianity.

They are the upshot  of Catholicism

I have pointed out to you that these atrocities were the result of men who departed from the teachings of Christ and followed the commandments of men.

Now you've falsely claimed that I believe the catholics were not guilty of these crimes, why?

Everybody on earth knows that the Catholics over the centuries have committed the foulest of deeds in the name of their religion, my contention (which has you on the backfoot) is that these deeds prohibit them from being called Christians, they disobeyed Christ.

I disputed your claims of genocide by using your own link which clearly says the indigenous people died from introduced diseases.

So your attempt at excusing todays' muslim atrocities with false versions of past catholic events has proven to be a failure. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44693
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1903 - Sep 20th, 2017 at 8:28pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
moses wrote on Sep 19th, 2017 at 12:21pm:
Brian Ross wrote Reply #1889 - Yesterday at 5:39pm

Quote:
Spoken like a true Protestant, Moses.  Catholicism was, to most Western Europeans the only true Christian religion and to the Spanish in particular.   The Requerimiento was in 1513.  The Christian Reformation did not occur until Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the cathedral in 1517.   The Spanish still remain today primarily Catholics.   They were reacting to centuries of Christian belief in 1513.


So, run away, Moses, you've been tripped up again by history.  When considering Spain's Christian credentials you need to understand it's relationship to the Catholic church and it's teachings, not to Christ's views on matters.


I repeat:

1/. There was no genocide, people died as they lacked immunity to introduced diseases.

2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.

Then you tell us to Disregard Christs' view on Christianity in order to validate your false premisses.

Actually you have conceded to my point:

1/.Men who commit atrocities are Disregarding Christs' view on Christianity.

2/. muslims who commit atrocities are obeying the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an. 


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Poor, poor, Moses.  It's not what I say or what you say, it is what the Spaniards said and did which matter here.  The Conquistadori were inspired by their Christian religion and were given the OK by their Christian church leaders.   Now, you can claim what you like but the reality is those Church leaders spoke with the authority of their position in society and used the language of their religious beliefs to justify what they told the Conquistadori was OK.    Roll Eyes



Well, then, ISIS THEREFORE is completely Islamic, completely in line with Islamic doctrine - soldiers of allah and their imams say so, Brian. It doesn't  matter what YOU say, big thick (mince in treacle). Islamic terrorism is as Islamic as the conquistadors were true christians.

But who today is till a conquistador? Nobody. But there are plenty of Islamic jihadist.

I
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 40938
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1904 - Sep 20th, 2017 at 9:27pm
 
moses wrote on Sep 20th, 2017 at 8:15pm:
Brian Ross wrote Reply #1895 - Yesterday at 8:34pm

Quote:
Never claimed to be a Christian, Moses.  Your point is pointless.  What the Spaniards did, in Christ's name was horrible.  They did it with the full backing of the Church, justified through the Church's teachings.   Until you acknowledge that, you're just pissing into the wind

&

Both items are immaterial.  You seem to believe that the Church was not guilty of these crimes, Moses.  Poor you, history trips you up again.  Tsk, tsk,
.

You simply can't post an honest statement, can you Brian?

I have previously posted the following

Reply #1892 - Yesterday at 7:01pm; Indeed they did, but were their religious beliefs in line with what Christ taught his followers?

Reply #1888 2/. The deeds of the Spanish Conquistador were at the behest of men who made their own rules and regulations, which were 100% at odds with the teachings of Christ, as such they are not acts of Christianity.

I have challenged your description of these past deeds as being the fruits of Christianity.

They are the upshot  of Catholicism

I have pointed out to you that these atrocities were the result of men who departed from the teachings of Christ and followed the commandments of men.

Now you've falsely claimed that I believe the catholics were not guilty of these crimes, why?

Everybody on earth knows that the Catholics over the centuries have committed the foulest of deeds in the name of their religion, my contention (which has you on the backfoot) is that these deeds prohibit them from being called Christians, they disobeyed Christ.

I disputed your claims of genocide by using your own link which clearly says the indigenous people died from introduced diseases.

So your attempt at excusing todays' muslim atrocities with false versions of past catholic events has proven to be a failure. 


As I have said before, Moses. Catholicism is Christian.  It is one denomination - the major denomination - amongst many denominations all describing themselves as "Christian".

The Churches are all nearly equally of the crimes ascribed to the Catholic church.   They have all basically supported genocide, massacre, imperialism, etc.  at one time or another.   As much as you keep trying to disown it, claiming it is not representative of Christ's message, etc. you are simply trying to obscure what Christianity as a movement has done.

While you keep attacking Islam, you're just indicating how hypocritical you and it appears many other Christians are about your religion and it's beliefs, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 125 126 127 128 129 ... 188
Send Topic Print