|
|
|
|
|
| | Can culture advance without religion?Page 5 of 39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | Hey Aries.........
You asked:
"From which source can you pull this view from to establish that life is special?"
The best way to answer this question is to ask you a question...... Would you want to die before you were "supposed to" die? (whenever that might be.......)
I am not certain where, but if you are looking for a Bible text, then, JC did say something about letting children come to him, and just how special they were. Not too much of a stretch, I would say, to where it means that children are more than protoplasm.
I don't get why you would think that by counting on the ten commandments as part of a basis for a "religion", you would be leaving out Christianity, when according to the Bible, the reason JC came to Earth is to fullfill the old testament, and the ten commandments.
Paul K | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 5:51:59 PM | I haven't posted to this thread because I didn't really have anything to say to the original topic. And I really didn't want to contribute to the derailing that has been going on.
But I don't think culture could start, much less advance without religion. The need to find answers and ask questions is what leads to discovery and experiments. Some of those questions don't have easy answers, so religion was invented to provide them. If we weren't questioning animals we wouldn't have religion; if we weren't questioning animals we wouldn't have civilization. | |
|
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 103 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 6:19:31 PM | "... when according to the Bible, the reason JC came to Earth is to fullfill the old testament, and the ten commandments." Paul K
JC came that we might have life more abundant... not rules. Some people don't get that. JC is quoted as giving two new commandments:" Love God. Love each other. And in doing so, all the law of the Old Testament is fulfilled." For the Christian, it is not that the old law is irrelevant, as it is there to guide and inform, but not to rule us.
And such is a common value of Buddhism and Hinduism and Secular Humanism. Perhaps the heart of Muslim, but I am not informed enough to make that evaluation.
Could a culture advance out without religion? Not without a great deal of investment in education and advancing enlightenment.
Or the decent into Orwell's nightmare. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 6:49:07 PM | Need to change what I said before that natural selection points to authoritarian rule... rather I think it points to supremacy of race and things around that type of thinking that Hitler made popular.
The best way to answer this question is to ask you a question...... Would you want to die before you were "supposed to" die? (whenever that might be.......)
That is subjective. What if I had a horrible form of bone cancer and was in pain every moment? I just might want to die asap.
Again, the question is for advancing culture. And I do not see how it can be done without creating a new hybrid religion that cuts out the bad parts. I guess the possible exception would be to have an acceptance that infallible means perfectly intact but not literal and observe if comfortable. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 7:05:37 PM | InEFFINGcredible....... I disagree with all three posters before me......... Culture can advance without religion, as many have................. Now you may point out that the ones that seemingly didn't have religion had "Gods" and Spirits, and worshipped trees and such...... To me, that is more cultural that religious................
More later..........................
Just a question, if you seem to think that culture cannot advance without religion, and you believe in evolution, then how do you explain civilized advances before religions were prevalent................
AND, when in the time line of man, did religions come about?
Paul K | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 8:41:10 PM | I am confused by ^. I said it can advance without it and there isn't any way for it not to as religion has lost its foundation.
Also, the problem with the advance without it is that there is no longer a foundational support so that leaves it open to pretty much any interpretation and no real authority so there is also a lack of stability and leaves it open to more oppressive types of government.
In order to find that stability you need some basis for that foundation. So you have to pick something. If you pick evolution then there is not a strong basis for things like liberty.
Even now with liberalism there is a strong desire to prevent one from choosing improperly. Eating the wrong foods is bad, having the wrong type of car, the wrong light bulb etc. All of these things must be controlled for the betterment of society and its crazy. The problem with this being in the government role is governments only show of authority is through fines, arrest, or restraint of some type.
With our current messed up and imperfect setup of government and a separation of church and state and people still being religious there is a duality of government authority and an external non governing authority. It's awkward but allows the government to be able to excise itself from the morality questions a bit more effectively and advancements can move forward with an external limiter to keep it from going too fast. Until someone in government doesn't feel that separation is justified and they start legislating morality and holding back advancement and again limiting freedom.
It’s a balance that seems most appropriate but that does not in any way make up for the problem that religion has lost its foundation. That loss of foundation is because of religion itself. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 9:20:35 PM |
In order to find that stability you need some basis for that foundation. So you have to pick something. If you pick evolution then there is not a strong basis for things like liberty.
Even now with liberalism there is a strong desire to prevent one from choosing improperly. Eating the wrong foods is bad, having the wrong type of car, the wrong light bulb etc. All of these things must be controlled for the betterment of society and its crazy. The problem with this being in the government role is governments only show of authority is through fines, arrest, or restraint of some type.
Do you really see everything through that distorted dogma prism? Liberal = Bad. Evolution = Bad.
You really should recognize that the more influence religion has in any society - it doesn't matter what the religion is, nor the society - the less liberty there is. And definitely the more control over preventing people from making "incorrect" decisions. Rouseau is one of the founders of liberal democratic thought (and yeah, that's the correct phrase to describe what you call "liberty"); he got kicked out of Calvin's Geneva because he was so heretical and refused to obey. Iran today. Cromwell's England. There's a reason the Declaration of Independence is the very first important Western document that includes no mention of the Christian "God." The framers understood very clearly that religion is the enemy of liberty. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 10:55:42 PM | | Clearly, religion isn't necessary for a society to be moral. The proof? Just compare Europe or Japan to America. A lot less religion, a lot less crime. Open your eyes. You may argue about the details of it (for example, you might find that rates of some crimes are the same in Europe, but the big one, homicide, is much much higher in America), but the overall picture is clear. I'm not saying religion or lack thereof is responsible for this. My only aim is to give a counter-example to the claim that secular societies have less morals. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/28/2012 11:55:46 PM |
Do you really see everything through that distorted dogma prism? Liberal = Bad. Evolution = Bad.
You really should recognize that the more influence religion has in any society - it doesn't matter what the religion is, nor the society - the less liberty there is. And definitely the more control over preventing people from making "incorrect" decisions. Rouseau is one of the founders of liberal democratic thought (and yeah, that's the correct phrase to describe what you call "liberty"); he got kicked out of Calvin's Geneva because he was so heretical and refused to obey. Iran today. Cromwell's England. There's a reason the Declaration of Independence is the very first important Western document that includes no mention of the Christian "God." The framers understood very clearly that religion is the enemy of liberty.
Not sure where you get that I said evolution=bad. I do not like liberalism but that is just my opinion because it seems just as crazy and the believers are just as nuts as religious nuts.
I am saying that there is no stable basis for ethics based on evolution. There is no proofs in biology that stealing is bad. Outside of intellectual exercises and introspection is there any other way to derive these things? When a spiritual component is added then the introspection has a wider perspective that extends to an inner world. I don't think that is going to be found in a lab. The problem is that at that point it is a personal discovery and subjective so without authority who is to say that killing is wrong. Almost all of the modern morals and ethics we have are evolved over our shared history and we would probably see anyone a hundred years ago as brutish and cruel. Those modern moral and ethics are largely collected from the nice parts of religions and the nice parts from various cultures with a bit of loving thy neighbor and be kind to strangers. But it isn’t based on any one thing so it slips too far and turns into, “A living wage for all,” which is economic suicide at the scale of a billion people.
If you go by example of the world we live in... It's pretty much open season and everything is acceptable from murder to sainthood. Despite what being happy go lucky liberals want to believe about all pulling together for the common good people suck and do what works to their advantage and evolution tends to lead. Religion and ethics and morality are all attempts to curb nature. Too much liberty doesn't work for large groups of people. Strict rule does a good job of keeping peace for large groups. Individuals lose drive without liberty. Individuals lose drive under strict rule. What works for groups doesn't work for individuals and what works for individuals doesn't work for groups.
That’s why the single solutions don't ever seem to be the right answer but when you start mixing and matching things get too complicated to be effective.
The framers understood that religion is a threat to liberty not an enemy. What you don't seem to recognize is that they also felt that government was even more of a threat to it. That is why the Constitution is pretty much a document of federal government limitations. It is the basis of limited government. Religion can have very little negative impact if the government doesn't have complete control.
They gave credit to the individuals to decide for themselves and that included personal exercise of religion. They granted states the rights to choose how to govern themselves and united under a federal government for strength of defense and dealing with other nations. Religion wasn't considered evil. God wasn't considered evil. The authority of God was used as the foundation for the establishment of the base sets of rights. As natural rights they cannot be taken away. A Christian God was not named because that was a restriction on freedom to practice different religions and not the elimination of religions. One of the biggest freedoms of all that was granted was the freedom to fail miserably. The government wasn’t going to come fix it and make it better. Once that started happening then the government started growing. Just a couple of hundred years later and we are near the edge of asking the federal govt to hold our hands to cross the street.
It’s super complex and I really have to give the founders of the US credit for doing something totally unique in the world. Religion had a lot to do with it. Even if it did get used as a model of what not to do in cases. We need these examples and history to advance. We also need the history to be accurate and that includes the good parts as well as the bad. | |
|
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 110 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/29/2012 2:14:04 AM | The difference between liberals and conservatives are their views of personal accountability.
I would venture that nature selects against a too liberal state as it would lose its cohesion. A too conservative state could exist as a totalitarian form of society...but I doubt it would be much fun unless you were part of the ruling elite.
Religion provides a moral reason why one ought to conduct themselves in a particular way. At least toward one's in-group. Liberals have less in-group morality than conservatives. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/29/2012 4:47:24 AM | I think that a good part of why this subject area is so difficult, in addition to what's been said already, is the fact that everything that we humans do gets mixed up with everything else we do. That is, we start out simply trying to answer why it rains some days, and not others, and along the way someone decides to try to use whatever answer we come up with, to explain as well why they are low on spending money or whatever.
When it comes to religion and science, both are in many ways outgrowths of the same basic desire to understand the world and to gain some sense of control over our lives; but once the initial sense of insight is gained from one or the other, someone is bound to rush in from the side, and try to use the solution to do even more. Thus religion sets out to comfort, and then someone says "okay, now lets also use it for control." Science gives us a calming method to get something done, and someone else comes in and tries to use it to declare that the mechanical ways that things happen, are in and of themselves, commandments that we should accept as guidelines for our lives.
In the event, a culture sets out to advance, utilizing religion and/or science as tools to do so. But it's like a race where everyone carries along a helping system of some sort, and that helping system intermittently gets in the way and holds them back as much as it helps.
Big challenge we face at the core of this thread: that amorality is often put forth as a replacement for morality, to the point where amorality is declared to BE a moral form.
Liberals have "less in-group morality than conservatives"??? Obviously, you don't actually listen when conservatives complain about liberals, ever. Among the MOST common complaints conservatives have always made about liberals, is that liberals have too MUCH in-group morality. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "political correctness?"
Frankly, being as I find both liberal and conservative ideals at my own core, I look at both groups, and find that both include plenty of contradictory "in group" morality. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/29/2012 7:29:16 AM | Religion does indeed give us morals to follow, but what horrible morals they are. I do not need to fear the dictator in the sky to love my neighbour, and of to do to others that which I don't want done to me or my family or friends.
I don't want morals that make me throw acid in the face of a woman or to decide who can marry whom.
No religion invented morals, they simply codified the prevailing zeitgeist. and then failed to keep up to date. Read the ten commandments again and tell me how they are somehow morals worth following! | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/29/2012 11:00:45 AM |
I don't want morals that make me throw acid in the face of a woman or to decide who can marry whom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing
It isn't solely a religious invention. People suck. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/29/2012 11:56:34 AM |
Religion provides a moral reason why one ought to conduct themselves in a particular way.
This just in....
http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-does-the-brain-secrete-morality
University of San Diego neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland said our values come from a combination of our in-born social instincts,habits, and reason. The hub of these instincts is the molecules oxytocin and vasopressin that encourage attachment and trust. Mammalian attachment and trust are the platform from which moral values derive.
Bigger brains help by giving humans greater capacity to learn habits and override and repress impulses and to plan. Better memories help us keep track of who did what to whom and why, thus enabling us track reputations and seek out cooperators. Culture is an essential part of the story, guiding and limiting our moral choices.
Biology is the mechanism. Just like a car having an engine does not change the purpose of the car from being a transportation device to an engine. Although it is exceptionally easy to forget that when you are focused on the engine and how it works.
What we need is to keep both sides from rewriting history. | |
|
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 115 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/29/2012 12:31:27 PM | Re: Msg 110.
That should be, conservatives have a higher level of in-group loyalty than do liberals.
"c"onservatives also have a higher level of conformity, desire for order - even at the expense of some personal freedom, and higher level of respect for authority, than do liberals.
Re: Above message.
"Bigger brains help by giving humans greater capacity to learn habits and override and repress impulses and to plan.
Bigger brains also allow humans to rationalize their thoughts and actions. Including moralizing their actions as good, and moralizing as bad anyone who disagrees.
And yes, Igor, I think a balanced person would find merit in both conservative and liberal philosophies. There are few black and white answers. Single minded people of any kind are dangerous. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/30/2012 3:29:08 PM | a_gent
We agree that single minded people and philosophies are dangerous. And we seem to both have an agreement that religion, despite negatives, also had many positive impacts on society and the advancement of culture especially western culture and probably most likely Christian.
As an exercise for the future advancement that this topic is about.
Can you name a prominent religious leader outside the Catholic Church that would be consulted on and would be important in describing how religion / morality / and culture can move forward and work together? I guess I am excluding the Vatican because of the separation in America from the Catholic church and American Christianity.
I wanted to see what I could find as the popular voices here
911 the fault of abortionists and pagans since they made God angry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I
Harry potter is witchcraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUlNjr9NXrA
Satan lives in your living room
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyLT9hcp0Q0&feature=related
CBN Network is pretty much the Christian news network here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNwihmtKj6s&feature=bf_next&list=UUYI_ychRnL7sJrG6PUSBpQA&lf=plcp
Here are the 100 largest churches in America. Many have websites with lots of reading
http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Top-100-Largest-Churches
Here is even a nice list of sermons to sort though
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons-illustrations-this-weeks-top-online-sermons-preaching-topics/
I found "God Hates Abortion" rather easily.
There is the community side:
http://www.prestonwood.org/plano/messages--media/current-message/the-laws-of-the-harvest/
Amazing production value for a community church don't you think?
The power to think right:
http://www.tscnyc.org/media_center.php?pg=sermons&spg=video#top
Message: They are oppressing us with lies. The Enemy is the unbelief. We are an opposed people.
Religion has to be seen for what it is and it isn't the Sunday school sanitized version. It is a very large enterprise based on the giving of oneself fully in body and spirit without question and with full love to where it becomes identity.
Who is the leader?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming
Sylvia Buford, an associate of Ted Patrick who has assisted him on many deprogrammings, described five stages of deprogramming (Stoner, C., & Parke, J. (1977). All God's children: The cult experience - salvation or slavery? Radrior, PA: Chilton ):
1.Discredit the figure of authority: the cult leader
2.Present contradictions (ideology versus reality): "How can he preach love when he exploits people?" is an example.
3.The breaking point: When a subject begins to listen to the deprogrammer; when reality begins to take precedence over ideology.
4.Self-expression: When the subject begins to open up and voice gripes against the cult.
5.Identification and transference: when the subject begins to identify with the deprogrammers, starts to think of him- or herself as an opponent of the cult rather than a member of it.
How do you tell the difference between religion and a cult?
I just don't see a way for religion to recover from its current state. | |
|
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 117 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/30/2012 6:32:19 PM | Aries.
It seems to me that the global Christian church is too fractured and sectarian that any one group or person would emerge as a leader. That is not the fault of the religion per se, as the basic tenants support humility, not judging each other, and as much as possible and even sacrificially living in peace and respect with and for each other. It is more the fault of people and their egos and their territoriality and their greed.
As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
And there seems to such resentment from many secular minded and radical atheist that I doubt there would be much tolerance to anything the church may have to say, even if it were entirely wholesome and constructive.
The last guy who offered such advice got hung from a tree.
And .. a tad off topic... I don't support a literal interpretation of Revelations... but the turmoil in the world sure sets the stage for the emergence of THE antichrist. A scary thought.
The difference between a cult and a religion? Religion operates by offering a reasoned and respectful choice... a cult attempts to control and coerce.
I think the way for the Christian religion to recover, if it can, is to start following the teachings of that guy who got hung on the tree. Gandhi was a good example. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/30/2012 7:45:28 PM | I would say that culture has advanced precisely because religion is no longer the driving force. The Enlightenment took religion off its pedestal and society has progressed at a rapid pace ever since (the Dark Ages is called as such for a reason). Religion may give people comfort but it does very little to advance society.
IMO, God is basically just mankind reflecting upon itself. All the personal gods throughout history share this trait - they are entirely human. They have human feelings, emotions and desires (it is only humans who are vain enough to want worship and sacrifice). In short, evey society takes what they perceive to be their best traits, places them into a god, and then bows down and worships it. The ancient Israelites worshipped a god that was a tyrannical middle-eastern despot, since they were seen as the most powerful men at that time. Today, we have a god that values democracy and freedom (as the former POTUSA so clearly indicated). Either God changes his preferences to coincide with mankind, or we create God in our image (I think the latter is far more likely).
When I was a Christian, I truly believed that religion was the source of all morality. I also believed that Jesus Christ was unique in his moral philosophy and ethical teachings. I was wrong on both counts (ethical principles arose even in non-theistic philosophies like Confucianism and Jesus' teachings are strikingly similar to the teachings of Hilel and the other great pharisees of the time). If society was really based on the Ten Commandments then we'd have laws against blasphemy and adultery would be a capital punishment (in other words, we'd be very similar to Islamic societies). As part of my education, I took a lot of ethics courses in university and it helped overturn what I had previously believed about morality (in short, it has nothing to do with religion).
Now, as an atheist, I prefer to cut out the middle man and just worship mankind directly - by participating in our own advancement, in art, science and everything else that we do. We are responsible for our own advancement, no one else will do that for us. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/30/2012 11:32:31 PM | | The reason why western culture has Not advanced as far as it could is because the influence of religion and the religous, has held it back. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/31/2012 4:44:09 AM | | you could extend that to any religion and any culture. christianity just happens to be the most familiar to most of us here | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 3/31/2012 5:37:16 AM |
The difference between a cult and a religion? Religion operates by offering a reasoned and respectful choice... a cult attempts to control and coerce.
Couldn't disagree with you more on that small item. I would say that the accurate delineation betwixt a religion and a cult, is that it's a religion if you respect or follow it, and it's a cult if you think it's annoying or dangerous. In other words, it's an entirely subjective thing.
The difference between a science and a religion, might be closer to that description you gave. In fact, a good thing to watch out for in the world of science is, that when the community members stop listening to "reasoned and respectful differences in observations and opinions," that they have ceased to be supporters of science, and have crossed over into being religious leaders instead.
Turning this back to the original heart of this thread, that is precisely where religion does go wrong, in the "helping culture to advance" department. It helps, when it provides gentle positive guidance and comfort, thus freeing a people of the struggle to feel okay about themselves as they move forward, but as soon as it crosses over into either claiming "special knowledge which only it's leadership can parcel out," or it closes itself off, rather than opens itself up, to modification as life progresses, then it becomes a preventer of cultural advancement.
And unfortunately, most religions are based entirely around the notion that their original leader or set of leaders "had all the answers way back when." I sometimes envision the epiphany which starts a religion up, to be akin to one brilliant person suddenly gaining a very clear perspective on where all of us are at a given moment, and then conveying that insight to the rest of us with grace and accuracy....and unfortunately for the society, everyone is so overjoyed with the drunken way they feel at finally having a correctly placed "You Are Here" marker erected in their midst, they pick it up and start carrying it around with them wherever they go.
And as you should realize, comparing that notion to moving whilst looking at a map with "you are here" marked cheerfully on it, is bound to result in your ever after claiming to be "found," even as you become more and more profoundly lost. | |
|
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 122 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 4/1/2012 10:05:20 AM | The origin of the term cult was applied to new religious movements. Contemporary usage identifies coercion and mind control... I would venture adherence to dogma ... as characteristic of a cult. Ergo, not just religion, but business, social movements, political ideologies.
Of course, the more one is in line with the ideology of a movement, the less one is likely to see it objectively as a cult.
From wikipedia ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult....
....scholars and non-academic researchers who use the word do so from explicitly critical perspectives which focus on the relationship between cult groups and the individual people who join them. These perspectives share the assumption that some form of coercive persuasion or mind control is used to recruit and maintain members by suppressing their ability to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best interest. However, most social scientists believe that mind control theories have no scientific merit in relation to religious movements.
[edit] Mind control
Main article: Mind control
Studies have identified a number of key steps in coercive persuasion:[17][18]
People are put in physical or emotionally distressing situations;
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
They get a new identity based on the group;
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.[19] | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 4/1/2012 10:16:39 AM | A_Gent... I'll only add to that, by pointing out that one needn't have the pressure or coercion applied from the outside. Frankly, the most common victims of cultist behavior, and thereby limited lives, are the ones who did all of what you listed there, to themselves.
Lots of people join cults, not because they were "captured and brainwashed," but because they had already brainwashed themselves, and were looking for others who to help reinforce their self-inflicted delusions. | |
|
| |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 4/1/2012 1:26:10 PM |
A_Gent... I'll only add to that, by pointing out that one needn't have the pressure or coercion applied from the outside. Frankly, the most common victims of cultist behavior, and thereby limited lives, are the ones who did all of what you listed there, to themselves.
And all of this just reinforces that the rules of religion itself are why it can no longer be a foundation. You can't claim a religion for cultural advancement because it would require creating a new religion without the restrictions of current religions and claiming that infallible beliefs of the past were ...mistaken.... Once you have done that you have just created a cult.
The choirs, the showmanship, the energetic and emotional speeches and sermons all look like, sound like, the demand for giving in, to release, to let in to your heart, and to let the spirit wash over... all of it can be classified as matching all of the characteristics of a cult. It is all for the same reason that cults can even exist.
It is even scarier when people put this level of faith into governments. That’s my problem with socialism and communism. Government takes this role and then people with guns decide what you believe in. That’s the duality that we need to protect. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
|
|
Home
login 
