Evolution? How?

Setanta wrote:

........More hilarious still, though, is the contention that people were required to return to the place of their birth. That implies that Roman officials were somehow incapable of counting someone who was not resident at their place of birth. More foolish than that, however, is the consideration of the logistical nightmare invovled if even only Roman citizens has been required to return to the place of their birth.......

Perhaps not all would agree, but I found this possible explanation interesting, at least.

Quote:

Some scholars have scoffed at the notion that people in faraway Palestine (such as Joseph and Mary) would have had to travel to their ancestral birth place for a census. But we have evidence to show that such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least. A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt, in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D. has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2) his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name; (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest, because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and Mary would have had to provide for the census.......

6. This is cited in Maier, Fullness, 4, who is quoting from A. H. M. Jones, ed., A History of Rome through the Fifth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), II, 256f.

from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html

0 Replies

(A little) closer to the topic

Quote:

Early humans colonized northern Europe around 700,000 years ago, some 200,000 years sooner than previously thought, British archaeologists believe.

The finding will rewrite the odyssey of Homo erectus, the ancestor of modern man, who ventured out of Africa and spread northward into Eurasia.

The established timeline has these humans colonizing the southern Caucasus about 1.8 million years ago, then venturing westward along the Mediterranean, reaching Spain and Italy around 800,000 years ago.

But, until now, it was thought that bitter cold from a lingering Ice Age thwarted these Stone Age pioneers from moving northward for hundreds of thousands of years. ............

full story at http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20051212/earlyhumans_arc.html

0 Replies

This is old news. Ever since theyve found evidence of Ice-Free margins . Note that ths was about Homo erectus, not Homo sapiens. H erectus was as different from us as H erectus was from H neanderthalensis, and H ergaster.

At least weve got you accepting that the earth is older than 6 or 10000 years. Thats good, well keep working on you.

0 Replies

In MArk, the crucufixion presents Christ as silent, hes mocked by 2 other criminals being crucified, and the only thing he says at the the end is "My God, why have you forsaken me"
In Luke, Christ is calm , a bit chatty, says "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Invites one o the co-crucified thieves to heavan, and then cries out "It is finished " and "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit"

The various authors had their books as "stand alone" personal testimonies for specific times and audiences. We, like to combine them all by doing a "mashing together" of the words in each separate volume.
To me , Mark presents Jesus as one "not with the program" .If he was to die for our sins , he didnt seem to be aware of the ceremony expected of him. In Luke, its just the opposite, we have a transcendant Christ with aclear vision of his destiny.

Of course, in the Q'uran we read that Jesus was never killed on the cross anyway.

The Nativity is another means to cobble together the legends from each of the gospels and to smush them together to a modern composite tale which extracts something from each gospel. We never seem to be concerned that the gospels themselves seem to contradict each other.
Mark has a "mean spirited " Jesus and Luke has Jesus as a more compassionate man who doesnt go around smoting fig trees cause they are dormant and not bearing fruit at the time.
Weve already discussed Genesis and the errors it contains

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Perhaps not all would agree, but I found this possible explanation interesting, at least.

Quote:
Some scholars have scoffed at the notion that people in faraway Palestine (such as Joseph and Mary) would have had to travel to their ancestral birth place for a census. But we have evidence to show that such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least. A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt, in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D. has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2) his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name; (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest, because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and Mary would have had to provide for the census.......

6. This is cited in Maier, Fullness, 4, who is quoting from A. H. M. Jones, ed., A History of Rome through the Fifth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), II, 256f.
from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html

In the first example, no details are provided of the nature of the census, and whether or not it were an official imperial census, or simply a local count by local officials, and perhaps not even Roman officials. In the second example, note that the Egyptian is not required to return to the place of his birth to have himself recorded. The Romans were at least that competent. Also note that your source does not explain why the gentleman is being registered. If he were claiming Roman citizenship in one of the many examples in which the opportunity were offered to people in the provinces, this would be very necessary information.

At the time of the alleged birth of the putative Jesus, the only people to whom Roman citizenship had been extended outside the Italian penninsula were the Narbonensii of what we would know of as southern France. You are referring to information provided at least at third hand here, and more than a century later, when Roman citizenship was being extended to residents of the provinces who could show descent from a citizen. As you do not quote the original source, a good deal of the context is missing--we cannot know if any information contradictory to the impression your source wishes to create has been left out. This, however, is typical of the manner in which you approach science. It is more the appearance of support for your position than actual, verifiable information which appeals to you.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

I'm sure a bobble reader such as you will recognize Luke. Once again, a census of the entire empire in that time frame is not mentioned in any other source, and certainly not in any known imperial documents. Once again, the Censors did not count people who were not citizens, because they simply did not matter to imperial officials, for whatever the interests of local officials might have been. Once again, the logistical consideration of every Roman citizen in the empire attempting to return to their birth place, let alone every person in the empire, beggars any belief in such a contention. And, finally, once again, you are playing games and dancing, because the passage above refers to an imperial order issued by the Princeps, and such an extraordinary event would not go unnoted, especially in the era in which Roman historians began to flourish (Titus Livius and Ad urbe condite being the first great work of this era).

Very poor job, "real life," and exactly what we should expect given your low, low standards of scientific proof--why would one expect you to do any better in history?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Perhaps not all would agree, but I found this possible explanation interesting, at least.

Quote:
Some scholars have scoffed at the notion that people in faraway Palestine (such as Joseph and Mary) would have had to travel to their ancestral birth place for a census. But we have evidence to show that such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least. A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt, in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D. has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2) his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name; (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest, because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and Mary would have had to provide for the census.......

6. This is cited in Maier, Fullness, 4, who is quoting from A. H. M. Jones, ed., A History of Rome through the Fifth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), II, 256f.
from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html

In the first example, no details are provided of the nature of the census, and whether or not it were an official imperial census, or simply a local count by local officials, and perhaps not even Roman officials. In the second example, note that the Egyptian is not required to return to the place of his birth to have himself recorded. The Romans were at least that competent. Also note that your source does not explain why the gentleman is being registered. If he were claiming Roman citizenship in one of the many examples in which the opportunity were offered to people in the provinces, this would be very necessary information.

At the time of the alleged birth of the putative Jesus, the only people to whom Roman citizenship had been extended outside the Italian penninsula were the Narbonensii of what we would know of as southern France. You are referring to information provided at least at third hand here, and more than a century later, when Roman citizenship was being extended to residents of the provinces who could show descent from a citizen. As you do not quote the original source, a good deal of the context is missing--we cannot know if any information contradictory to the impression your source wishes to create has been left out. This, however, is typical of the manner in which you approach science. It is more the appearance of support for your position than actual, verifiable information which appeals to you.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

I'm sure a bobble reader such as you will recognize Luke. Once again, a census of the entire empire in that time frame is not mentioned in any other source, and certainly not in any known imperial documents. Once again, the Censors did not count people who were not citizens, because they simply did not matter to imperial officials, for whatever the interests of local officials might have been. Once again, the logistical consideration of every Roman citizen in the empire attempting to return to their birth place, let alone every person in the empire, beggars any belief in such a contention. And, finally, once again, you are playing games and dancing, because the passage above refers to an imperial order issued by the Princeps, and such an extraordinary event would not go unnoted, especially in the era in which Roman historians began to flourish (Titus Livius and Ad urbe condite being the first great work of this era).

Very poor job, "real life," and exactly what we should expect given your low, low standards of scientific proof--why would one expect you to do any better in history?

Your rendering of the passage in Luke is a poor one, and although it may serve your purposes, it is misleading.

Don't know that the purpose of the census in Egypt matters much (the first example), it simply shows that requiring people to return to their home city for a census was NOT unheard of in the Roman world (of which Egypt was a part).

Also you might read the link, since it indicates there were 3 imperial orders to complete a census during his reign.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

In MArk, the crucufixion presents Christ as silent, hes mocked by 2 other criminals being crucified, and the only thing he says at the the end is "My God, why have you forsaken me"
In Luke, Christ is calm , a bit chatty, says "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Invites one o the co-crucified thieves to heavan, and then cries out "It is finished " and "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit"

The various authors had their books as "stand alone" personal testimonies for specific times and audiences. We, like to combine them all by doing a "mashing together" of the words in each separate volume.
To me , Mark presents Jesus as one "not with the program" .If he was to die for our sins , he didnt seem to be aware of the ceremony expected of him. In Luke, its just the opposite, we have a transcendant Christ with aclear vision of his destiny.

Of course, in the Q'uran we read that Jesus was never killed on the cross anyway.

The Nativity is another means to cobble together the legends from each of the gospels and to smush them together to a modern composite tale which extracts something from each gospel. We never seem to be concerned that the gospels themselves seem to contradict each other.
Mark has a "mean spirited " Jesus and Luke has Jesus as a more compassionate man who doesnt go around smoting fig trees cause they are dormant and not bearing fruit at the time.
Weve already discussed Genesis and the errors it contains

Farmer, I have much admiration for your achievements in natural science. And now you tell me, in addition to the bible, you read the Q'uran as well? Outstanding!

However your assessment of the differences between the gospel accounts is an example of trying to apply bean counting intellectualism to the bible. Impartial observers have inconsequential differences in their accounts. And that's a deal breaker?

The bible was written for the benefit of the unlettered and ordinary. I would think one as intelligent as you could put yourself in the position of Joe Sixpack. And I don't mean to dumb yourself down, but for the purpose of understanding what the scriptures are saying to him and, by extension, you and me.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

In MArk, the crucufixion presents Christ as silent, hes mocked by 2 other criminals being crucified, and the only thing he says at the the end is "My God, why have you forsaken me"
In Luke, Christ is calm , a bit chatty, says "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Invites one o the co-crucified thieves to heavan, and then cries out "It is finished " and "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit"

The various authors had their books as "stand alone" personal testimonies for specific times and audiences. We, like to combine them all by doing a "mashing together" of the words in each separate volume.
To me , Mark presents Jesus as one "not with the program" .If he was to die for our sins , he didnt seem to be aware of the ceremony expected of him. In Luke, its just the opposite, we have a transcendant Christ with aclear vision of his destiny.

Of course, in the Q'uran we read that Jesus was never killed on the cross anyway.

The Nativity is another means to cobble together the legends from each of the gospels and to smush them together to a modern composite tale which extracts something from each gospel. We never seem to be concerned that the gospels themselves seem to contradict each other.
Mark has a "mean spirited " Jesus and Luke has Jesus as a more compassionate man who doesnt go around smoting fig trees cause they are dormant and not bearing fruit at the time.
Weve already discussed Genesis and the errors it contains

If you have something that is a true contradiction (or seems to be) I would be glad to discuss.

But if it is only that Mark emphasized or included some details, while Luke emphasized or included others, then it doesn't seem like much of an issue. Everyone who has read the Gospels can see they were written with different audiences in mind and therefore may include different material without there being a contradiction.

0 Replies

If the gopsels were "peer reviewed" by "questioned documents" experts, they would be presented with a sizable differentiation in what the two Jesus represent. In my primary education we were already presented with some of the differences in the Gospels. It wasnt until many years later that I became aware of the very existence noncanonical Gospels which , if included in the NT, wed be running in ever decreasing circumferences. Im fascinated by the descent and presentation of the gospels as "stand alone" documents (which is, after all , how they were written.

I think that the NT especially should be given a "questioned document" looksee by forensic experts with no sectarian ties. The author of :Misquoting Jesus" began as an Evangelical Christian and wound up as a "happy agnostic" (those are his words)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If the gopsels were "peer reviewed" by "questioned documents" experts, they would be presented with a sizable differentiation in what the two Jesus represent. In my primary education we were already presented with some of the differences in the Gospels. It wasnt until many years later that I became aware of the very existence noncanonical Gospels which , if included in the NT, wed be running in ever decreasing circumferences. Im fascinated by the descent and presentation of the gospels as "stand alone" documents (which is, after all , how they were written.

I think that the NT especially should be given a "questioned document" looksee by forensic experts with no sectarian ties. The author of :Misquoting Jesus" began as an Evangelical Christian and wound up as a "happy agnostic" (those are his words)

I'll admit you have a point which probably should deserve a thread of its own, namely 'how reliable is the bible canon?" I am considerably more qualified to expound on that topic than evolution.

However, we are trying to establish a length record with this thread, are we not? Laughing

0 Replies

real life said

Quote:

If you have something that is a true contradiction (or seems to be) I would be glad to discuss.

Humor me please. I consider the POV differences between Mark and Luke into the PAssion of Christ to be very important contradictions, dont you? These are two gospels included in the canon after centuries of Biblical scholarship and church leaders dont seem to want to "get into" this apparent contradiction. I dont wanna be a noodge but I dont get it.
For years (while I was still a believing Catholic ) I was always questioning the "mashing" together (where convenient) of the messages of the four gospels, while totally taking each one in its own context.
The fact that many of these writers nd scribes were derivative of the others , or they had different intended audiences, or they were just "made up" should be part of the information given the faithful. These , and many more , seem to belike, dark little secrets of the included books of the NT while totally avoiding the processes that excluded the many other books which presented totally different testaments.

Youve been rather particular about the level of evidence we in the sciences must explain, yet there seems to be a pronounced double standard in Biblical scholarship.

PS, I have to admit that my reading has been mostly people like Eliade and Bart EhrmanRL Numbers, L Mooreshead and,
Michael Ruse

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If the gopsels were "peer reviewed" by "questioned documents" experts, they would be presented with a sizable differentiation in what the two Jesus represent. In my primary education we were already presented with some of the differences in the Gospels. It wasnt until many years later that I became aware of the very existence noncanonical Gospels which , if included in the NT, wed be running in ever decreasing circumferences. Im fascinated by the descent and presentation of the gospels as "stand alone" documents (which is, after all , how they were written.

I think that the NT especially should be given a "questioned document" looksee by forensic experts with no sectarian ties. The author of :Misquoting Jesus" began as an Evangelical Christian and wound up as a "happy agnostic" (those are his words)

If you ask my wife and several of my kids to write the story of my life and words (in 20,000 words or less) for a three and a half year period, you will have one including details that another excludes, one may have a certain emphasis that another lacks, etc. Both may very accurately record each event and still produce quite distinct documents. No contradiction there.

And no contradictions between the gospels either.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life said
Quote:
If you have something that is a true contradiction (or seems to be) I would be glad to discuss.

Humor me please. I consider the POV differences between Mark and Luke into the PAssion of Christ to be very important contradictions, dont you? These are two gospels included in the canon after centuries of Biblical scholarship and church leaders dont seem to want to "get into" this apparent contradiction. I dont wanna be a noodge but I dont get it.
For years (while I was still a believing Catholic ) I was always questioning the "mashing" together (where convenient) of the messages of the four gospels, while totally taking each one in its own context.
The fact that many of these writers nd scribes were derivative of the others , or they had different intended audiences, or they were just "made up" should be part of the information given the faithful. These , and many more , seem to belike, dark little secrets of the included books of the NT while totally avoiding the processes that excluded the many other books which presented totally different testaments.

Youve been rather particular about the level of evidence we in the sciences must explain, yet there seems to be a pronounced double standard in Biblical scholarship.

PS, I have to admit that my reading has been mostly people like Eliade and Bart EhrmanRL Numbers, L Mooreshead and,
Michael Ruse

I don't see the conspiracy of silence that you seem to want to see.

Much of the discussion of the differences in the gospels, the similarities of the synoptic gospels, etc are available --- not only in THOUSANDS of books at Christian book stores-- but also in notes, outlines and discussions that are included as part of literally dozens of 'study Bibles' on the market today. These are put out by organizations and individuals with different points of view and emphases of their own and are easily available. They are also discussed ad infinitum in Sunday school lesson plans, on Christian radio programs, etc.

Having come from a Roman Catholic background also, I know that these things are not as well known in Catholic circles, which generally have a much lesser emphasis on the Bible generally.

Again if there was a real contradiction involved, I would be very interested in it. But this just doesn't seem to be the problem that your Misquoting Jesus author may want to make of it.

0 Replies

Separate testimants that deviate from a presented picture of the divinity of Christ is what's at stake. You deeply question scientific data that is supported by multiple crafts and evidence, yet here is a whole passle of "Supposed testimony" that has caused many people to just drop any faith they may have had just because faith needs some bolsters otherwise its myth. You dismiss the contradictory evidence of this single testament (I havent even touched on Genesis myths).
Youve given me what I wish to know, and you , once again, provide evidence for the statement from the Dancing Wu Li Masters

Rejection , without evidence, is the basis of modern science

Belief without evidence , is the basis of modern religion.

Im not playing with you (at least not at first). However, I would have thought that the more honest response concerning MArk And Luke would be to (if you knew ) what the intended direction and what sources were in support of each gospel. Also howcome MArk , whos the earlier chronicaller, whose work is separated from Luke by maybe 10 of the Gnostic or non canonical goaspels . WHY isnt Luke more derivative , especially with the "Q" sayings well in between???
Is someone making it up? Has Luke taken a look at Mark and said"hey guys , we cant have this guy Jesus come off like a biker" and, the most forensically important question. WHO was this JESUS, and did he really exist. Im not taking a contrary position but , if this were a court of law, trying to establish a "Corpus delecti" I think we could have a hung jury in , say Canada or UK.

0 Replies

Farmer; have you really examined the apocryphal books and determined they should be part of the canon?

You don't see anything in them that might be suspect?

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

If you ask my wife and several of my kids to write the story of my life and words (in 20,000 words or less) for a three and a half year period, you will have one including details that another excludes, one may have a certain emphasis that another lacks, etc. Both may very accurately record each event and still produce quite distinct documents. No contradiction there.

. Thats really begging off here rl. Lets have your wife write about your grandfather , then your son 's schoolfriend write about him, and then 150 years later have your sons friend's great grandsons tax man write about him. That would be a little closer. See, by the time we get to Luke, Christ is "all with the program" that hes dying for sins (a total breakage of Judaic law). Mark doesnt show that at all, in fact evidence from marginal notes on available Greek scripts , show that some of Christs "better moments" have been added into the testament well after Mark.
There may have been a Christ. But he may not even have been crucified , or if he was, his apparent transcendance "evolves" with succeeding gospels. When I read Darwin, I have read , at least 3 separate editions and have been surprised at his increasing boldness in successive editions was more a function of his supporters capabilities at debate.

0 Replies

neo, yes Ive read the Apocrypha. I can see why Bible centered religions would reject 11 of the 14 , but I never understood why the Catholics embraced the 4 .

0 Replies

Nor could I.

New thread?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your rendering of the passage in Luke is a poor one, and although it may serve your purposes, it is misleading.

Not my rendering. If you got one you prefer, dredge it up. Any version you will come up with will assert that the Princeps ordered an empire-wide census, and go on to assert that everyone was obliged to return to their place of birth. You've never addressed directly the absurdity of expecting the transportation systems available at the end of the first century BCE to accomodate such a movement. You also give no consideration to the disasterous dislocation this would cause within the empire.

Earlier, you referred to the possibility that the Romans were, in so many words, jerking the Jews' chain. A good deal of your deception here depends on no precision of historical reference. At the end of the first century BCE, there was no insurrection in Judea, and the Herods ran a minor satrapy--there was no need for the Romans to cop an attitude toward the Jews at that time. Any census conducted there would have been their (the Herod's) business, as they were only obliged to provide tribute in an agreed upon amount, and the Romans were indifferent to the means by which they collected it. Equally, your references to Egypt are to records of the beginning of the second century CE, and not to the period in which the putative Jesus is alleged to have been born. Octavian, who later declared himself Princeps and took the dynastic title of Caesar Augustus, was the adopted son of Iulius Caesar, and only the second emperor per se. He created the administrative system under which the empire was governed for centuries to come. Your Egyptian examples date from after the Julian dynasty, the brief era of the three emperors after the death of Germanicus (Nero the the christians), and at the end of the Flavian dynasty. Different kettles of fish altogether.

To compare imperial administration at the dawn of the principiate empire to imperial administration more than a century later is certainly an oranges to apples activity. It also ignores the particularities of imperial administration of provinces and tributary kingdoms. There were consular provinces, senatorial provinces and imperial provinces; there were tributary kingdoms, legated kingdoms and satrapies. There were a wide variety of administrative systems in place, and as much as possible, the Romans stayed out of local administration, and simply compounded for the amount of tribute or a flat-rate, province-wide tax contribution. This is another reason to seriously doubt that, especially at the end of the first century BCE, any census was ever made of anyone other than Roman citizens.

Quote:

Don't know that the purpose of the census in Egypt matters much (the first example), it simply shows that requiring people to return to their home city for a census was NOT unheard of in the Roman world (of which Egypt was a part).

No, all it shows is that someone whose work you have read, alleges, based on evidence at third- or fourth-hand, that such a thing was done in Egypt. Given the large Jewish population of Alexandria, an early center of cult influence for the christians, it would be just a plausible to suggest that "Luke" (if such an individual ever existed) was simply and stupidly projecting an Egyptian practice with which he was familiar onto the entire empire. Once again, you sidestep the issue of the logistics of millions upon millions of people rushing across the empire to the places of their respective births.

Quote:

Also you might read the link, since it indicates there were 3 imperial orders to complete a census during his reign.

No we get down to the nitty-gritty of this specious excursion into history. You have steadfastly avoided responding to the question of what circumstantial evidence you have for a creation--instead, you attempt to divert the discussion into celestial mechanics or any other number of scientific areas in which you are no better informed than you now appear to be in history.

Here you're attempting to dodge the issue again. I've never disputed that the imperial administration would conduct a census of Roman citizens, and do it on a regularly recurring basis. What is ludicrous is the contention that the Princeps personally ordered such a census to include the entire population within the borders of the empire. Bring in any version of Luke you wish, that is still the contention with which you must deal. Bring in as many attempts at distraction in the form of references to records of procedures in later centuries and in other places--none of it will alter the necessity to support a contention quoted in Luke, or acknowledge that you cannot sustain the assertion that the "gospels" are inerrant scripture. And that is what this is all about.

0 Replies

This is fun. When we're done with this, let's move on to the conflicting geaneologies for Jeebus . . . i'm sure you've got other web sites from which you can dredge up any number of apologia which attempt to claim that canonical scripture remains inerrant, despite the contradictions.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know