|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2002 : 21:23:48 [Permalink]
|
I've been following this exchange, but not participating. I find it clear that those taking part in the debate have done a lot more investigation of the subject than I have, so I'm content to just passively read and learn. One comment though, as an observer.
Slater's arguments have been clear to me. I'm, not saying I agree or disagree. just I can follow his arguments and follow the reasoning behind them. I have no idea what Darwin is talking about for the most part. Maybe I'm just not reading carefully, I tend to skim. Funny though, everyone else came across clear enough.
Not trying to pick on you darwin, just can't seem to follow your reasoning.
Um... Is that my beer? |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 22:10:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now as it pertains to the subject at hand,namely how can "KNOW" anything that happend in the past in in general and more particulary about the origins of the NT and the events of Nicea,I'm not bringing in any other meaning than what I just stated.Namely ,How can we have confidence as to what "REALLY" happened.Gotta go
Darwin, you're asking two different things here. There is no point in admonishing us for not "KNOWING" what happened in the past if all you intend to do is remind us that we weren't there. Point conceded and I think I speak for the others. If part of your idea of knowledge is that everyone who claims to have it must have personally witnessed the event in question, well, I don't know what to tell you but you'd better break out those frequent flier miles, 'cause you're going to have to do a whole lot of witnessing if you can't trust others' logical and empirical reconstructions of the facts.
Now, if you want to join the rest of us in the world of reason and logic, you will have to address Slater's and Garrettes' arguments point by point. Otherwise, you've already conceded.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 22:48:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater's arguments have been clear to me. I'm, not saying I agree or disagree. just I can follow his arguments and follow the reasoning behind them.
The reason that I have brought these arguments to SFN is because they are a detective story kind of logic. The historical facts just don't fit the claims the church makes. I'm trying to reach a conclusion based solely on known facts. What better place to try it out than SFN. If my reasoning is off some one here will set me straight. Lars is coming up with some good points that I'll have to rethink. If you see flaws in the logic please chime in.
I have no idea what Darwin is talking about either. I know he doesn't like me, but don't particularly mind. He seems to exist in a "Demon haunted world" of fear and superstition. I'm grateful that he is so rude as it relieves me of having to feel sorry for him. But I do wish he would learn to use the commands.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 22:50:26 [Permalink]
|
I would have to agree. Retreating to the "You weren't there so you don't know" position is not a valid argument here or anywhere in light of what we do know about past events based on actual evidence.
Granted, Slater's theory is not iron tight or 100% provable and he freely admits that but many of the points leading towards his conclusion are well known and accepted.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 23:21:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never). 
quote:
First, we'll establish what is known:
1. The NT exists
To Garrette,The reason I brought up the fact of "disputed facts" was because you claimed(in your above quote) that the following 9 items are "KNOWN" now from my perspective the only one I'm sure about is #1 (although I 'll grant ,I think it's #7 about the Romans record keeping).However,in my original proposal I believe I stated that we come up with an ageeable working defnition on how we "KNOW" anything hitorically then appliy it to the NT and the events around Nicea. Sorry I got to go I'm at work and breaks overuote]
quote:
8) Equivocation.
"You know sometimes words have two meanings," as the song goes. [77] Equivocation occurs when a person changes the meaning of a word during the course of the discussion. This is commonly done with religious terms.
Theist: "I have faith in the lord Jesus Christ, and because I have this faith he will take me to Heaven when I die."
Atheist: I do not have such faith, and don't even understand the concept. Can you give me a reason [78] for your faith?"
Theist: "Of course you have faith. You have faith that this building we're in will not fall down on you. You have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you. Why, you even have faith in evolution!"
To Tokyo,I believe it was you who brought up the "blind faith" subject(p.12).But your "quite right bloody well right"that words in general and the biblical word faith in particular(in Greek I believe it's
pistes), quote:
it has meaning as noun such as THE FAITH ,a body doctrine,but also as a verb which means simply to have confidence in or to place your confidence in someone or something.In latin I believe it's
fides [quote]from which we get fidcuary trust which I'm sure if you ever and any dealings with legal matters or loans you understand quite well "the concept".Now as it pertains to the subject at hand,namely how can "KNOW" anything that happend in the past in in general and more particulary about the origins of the NT and the events of Nicea,I'm not bringing in any other meaning than what I just stated.Namely ,How can we have confidence as to what "REALLY" happened.Gotta go[quote]
[quote]I would have to agree. Retreating to the "You weren't there so you don't know" position is not a valid argument here or anywhere in light of what we do know about past events based on actual evidence
To all ,I'm not trying to state the ridiculus position being attribiuted to me by Atomic and Phd "you weren't there you don't know".It seems you guys continualy want to bring up smoke screens and red herings.My point is what criteria do historians use to determine the reilabilty of any historical event(Ihave one).Next lets take that criteria appliy it to the origin of the NT and the council of Nicea add little occam's razor and see what comes out.Gotaa go!
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 23:36:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point is what criteria do historians use to determine the reilabilty of any historical event
Let's see...written records and physical evidence to back them up. If there were no written records a lot can be learned from just the physical evidence.
quote:
Next lets take that criteria appliy it to the origin of the NT and the council of Nicea add little occam's razor and see what comes out.
That, DA, is precisely what Garrette did earlier and you have avoided responding too in a similar manner.
There is no smoke screen, no red herring. You are avoiding the real questions and evidence presented with this silly business about "how do we know something happened" crap. Get real
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 00:38:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
quote:
First, we'll establish what is known:
1. The NT exists
To Garrette,The reason I brought up the fact of "disputed facts" was because you claimed(in your above quote) that the following 9 items are "KNOWN" now from my perspective the only one I'm sure about is #1 (although I 'll grant ,I think it's #7 about the Romans record keeping).However,in my original proposal I believe I stated that we come up with an ageeable working defnition on how we "KNOW" anything hitorically then appliy it to the NT and the events around Nicea. Sorry I got to go I'm at work and breaks overuote]
quote:
8) Equivocation.
"You know sometimes words have two meanings," as the song goes. [77] Equivocation occurs when a person changes the meaning of a word during the course of the discussion. This is commonly done with religious terms.
Theist: "I have faith in the lord Jesus Christ, and because I have this faith he will take me to Heaven when I die."
Atheist: I do not have such faith, and don't even understand the concept. Can you give me a reason [78] for your faith?"
Theist: "Of course you have faith. You have faith that this building we're in will not fall down on you. You have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you. Why, you even have faith in evolution!"
To Tokyo,I believe it was you who brought up the "blind faith" subject(p.12).But your "quite right bloody well right"that words in general and the biblical word faith in particular(in Greek I believe it's
pistes), quote:
it has meaning as noun such as THE FAITH ,a body doctrine,but also as a verb which means simply to have confidence in or to place your confidence in someone or something.In latin I believe it's
fides [quote]from which we get fidcuary trust which I'm sure if you ever and any dealings with legal matters or loans you understand quite well "the concept".Now as it pertains to the subject at hand,namely how can "KNOW" anything that happend in the past in in general and more particulary about the origins of the NT and the events of Nicea,I'm not bringing in any other meaning than what I just stated.Namely ,How can we have confidence as to what "REALLY" happened.Gotta go[quote]
[quote]I would have to agree. Retreating to the "You weren't there so you don't know" position is not a valid argument here or anywhere in light of what we do know about past events based on actual evidence
To all ,I'm not trying to state the ridiculus position being attribiuted to me by Atomic and Phd "you weren't there you don't know".It seems you guys continualy want to bring up smoke screens and red herings.My point is what criteria do historians use to determine the reilabilty of any historical event(Ihave one).Next lets take that criteria appliy it to the origin of the NT and the council of Nicea add little occam's razor and see what comes out.Gotaa go!
written records
TO ATOMIC, are you conceeding already the acceptence of the NT documents as "physical evidence "?What about the standard used by historians,such as:1.the biblographical;2.the internal evidence;3.the external?(C.Sanders, INTRODUCTION IN ENGLISH LITERARY HISTORY, New York,THE MACMICLIAN COMPANY,1952,pp143ff).
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 00:44:17 [Permalink]
|
I accept that the NT was made in the 4th century. Yes. There is evidence that is was created then. As Slater has said, the minutes of the event were recorded.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 03:33:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What about the standard used by historians,such as:1.the biblographical;2.the internal evidence;3.the external?
I can only guess that Darwin Alogos wishes to apply these standards to the New Testament. If this is the case, then, by all means, let's start applying.
I will assume that the first standard is bibliograghy. There appears to be no question that the NT as we know it began to take shape around the third or fourth century. At least, this seems well established by the previous posts of all, including Mr. Darwin. I don't think that anyone could argue that some manuscripts might have been written before the third century, but no original manuscript still exists of these early gospels, or letters. I have not even been able to find the existence of original, pre-third century Apocraphal manuscripts, though this means only that I have not found them. If anyone is to claim that there is archeological or corroborated historical evidence of original Christian manuscripts predating the third century, then that person must provide that evidence. Otherwise, we are left with nothing but hot air, and a whole lot of wishing.
Now, the internal evidence I will assume refers to historical, geological, and etymological evidences within the NT itself. This is actually one of my favorite subjects. I spend most of my time online debating conservative biblicists and apologists on this subject. The facts are quite simple, and apparent to anyone who decides to read this book, (the NT), with an open mind, and starting from a clean slate, as I did twenty years ago. I had never even heard of apologetics at the time. I knew only that the science was primitive, the references to the OT were oblique at best, if not completely inaccurate, and the contradictions within the NT were too frequent to gloss over with a paint roller. Furthermore, these contradictions weren't due to translation or transcription errors. These contradictions were many, and were of major events, not little things like the Gospel geneologies, or who found the empty tomb. I am speaking of major precepts of Christian beliefs and historicity, such as questions of prophecy fulfillment, and things like did Joseph and Mary with the baby Jesus flee Herod into Egypt, or did they, instead, put the infant Messiah on display in Herod's own temple. Then, there is the difference of opinions of Jesus and Paul, Jesus and Jesus, and Paul and Paul. Simply put, if the NT cannot establish a standard of truth within its' own pages, how can it ever realistically establish credibility in the real world of history?
The external evidence of the NT fares little better. Yes, some characters in the NT are mentioned in authenticated Greek and Roman Records, but these are few and far between. These are people like Caesar and Pilate. Unfortunately, most figures within the NT have little or no reliable corroboration outside these same pages. Plus, the few attempts at corroboration are rife with valid charges of interpolation and redaction. What's worse is that of all the grandeur surrounding the Messiah, the miracles performed by him, and the adventures of the Apostles, it seems astonishing that these great events could have gone completely unnoticed by the non-Christian world. If these events did indeed occur, then I eagerly await the person making this claim to present the information to me.
Now, let's apply Occam's Razor, shall we. Since we do not wish to multiply entities unnecessarily, and verifiable or corroborated evidence is rare concerning the NT, then the simplest theory is that veracity of the NT is questionable, in the least.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the documen |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 03:47:25 [Permalink]
|
As for “swallowing the camel of all Slater's tall tales…” who said any one did? I will say this, however. Slater has gone to great lengths to show the efficacy of his argument, which is a rarity among those more theologically inclined, and I'm being nice. Slater's theories do appear to be supportable by outside evidence. In contrast, biblicists seem to be convinced that forcing oneself to swallow the giant pill of superstition makes all the questions from reason magically disappear. But, isn't that what religious faith is all about--The disappearance of reason?
To be perfectly honest, I may not be completely sold on Slater's theories of Christianity being a created religion, as opposed to an evolved one, but I do think his case would make for an excellent book, and peer review would be enlightening. Personally, I would be one of the first in line to buy it.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 13:15:30 [Permalink]
|
What about the standard used by historians ,such as:1.the biblographical;
We have used that and shown you the literary sources of the NT in pre-existing religions. You said you didn't like it, but you didn't insestigate it.
2.the internal evidence;
This "internal evidence" claimed by Xians is nonsense. It is based on language use and ignores physical evidence.
Here's an example. In this blurb of mine which you are reading right now I'll use the phrase "Twenty-three skid-doo!"
The blurb now has internal evidence that it could not have been written before 1922.
However the physical evidence shows a date on the top of the page, plus the fact that it uses computer technology that did not exist in 1922. A Christian scholar would claim that this blurb is a copy of one from eighty years ago, even though it doesn't claim to be. The fact that there are no earlier copies is supposed to mean nothing to you.
The NT uses some language that didn't exist before 90 CE. The earliest version we have is dated 325 CE. It is recorded in a technology that didn't exist in 90 CE, namely a codex. To declare that internal evidence says it was definitely written earlier is ridiculous.
3.the external
There is no external evidence that Jesus is non-fiction character.
But before you post another copy of every damn thing you've written only to say that you disagree-present some evidence. Put up or shut up.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2002 : 20:00:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What about the standard used by historians ,such as:1.the biblographical;
We have used that and shown you the literary sources of the NT in pre-existing religions. You said you didn't like it, but you didn't insestigate it.
2.the internal evidence;
This "internal evidence" claimed by Xians is nonsense. It is based on language use and ignores physical evidence.
Here's an example. In this blurb of mine which you are reading right now I'll use the phrase "Twenty-three skid-doo!"
The blurb now has internal evidence that it could not have been written before 1922.
However the physical evidence shows a date on the top of the page, plus the fact that it uses computer technology that did not exist in 1922. A Christian scholar would claim that this blurb is a copy of one from eighty years ago, even though it doesn't claim to be. The fact that there are no earlier copies is supposed to mean nothing to you.
The NT uses some language that didn't exist before 90 CE. The earliest version we have is dated 325 CE. It is recorded in a technology that didn't exist in 90 CE, namely a codex. To declare that internal evidence says it was definitely written earlier is ridiculous.
3.the external
There is no external evidence that Jesus is non-fiction character.
But before you post another copy of every damn thing you've written only to say that you disagree-present some evidence. Put up or shut up.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory
Well I see we have a basic agreement on the 3 test for the validating of the NT view of who Jesus is and that he exist.On #1 I think we have some confusion the "bibliographical test"listed by Prof. Sanders,(who by the way is a military historian so his test aren't skewed toward the Xian position)has to do with the amount of available manuscripts and their closeness to the events they are describing in time.For example,the information we have from Thucydides(460-400B.C.)comes from just 8 MSS dated 900A.D. that is about 1300 years after he wrote it and yet no classical scholar would doubt the authenticity of Thucydides.The same could said for almost for any piece of ancient history(Aristotle 5 Mss wrote 343 BC earliest copy 1100AD,)the NT has over 5000 MSS some which date back to 130AD ,the John Ryland Papyri,the Chester Beatty Papyrus 155 AD,and the Bodmer Papyri 200AD all these MSS predate the 325AD Nicene conspiracy by Slater and company the origins to the NT(not to mention the 300 years of church history Eusebius had to invent,even skeptics like Proprhy).These illustrations are sufficient to demonstrate that when you compare the NT to any other historical document it has far better manuscript evidence closer to the time of the events than any other. Gotta go just one question for Slater where are you getting your information the Nicene counsel ?
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 08:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Prof. Sanders,(who by the way is a military historian so his test aren't skewed toward the Xian position)
Prof. Sanders may very well not be biased, but how is being a military historian proof of this?
Being a military historian doesn't prevent him from being biased, or just plain mistaken.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 09:19:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Prof. Sanders,(who by the way is a military historian so his test aren't skewed toward the Xian position)
Prof. Sanders may very well not be biased, but how is being a military historian proof of this?
Being a military historian doesn't prevent him from being biased, or just plain mistaken.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
I think it does not has much to do with christianity either way.
The way I understand it Prof. Sanders wrote a book called "Introduction to Research in English Literary History" in wich he describes three principle tests of historiography.
He appears to have conceived him without the special intent to use them on the bible.
I don't know how this test are regarded by other historians and if they are widley used. (A web search on the three test as keywords brought up almost exclusivley christian sites that try to use them to proof the validity of the bible.)
Never the less as a leyman these tests make sense to me. And since they make sense, their origin does not matter.
A Christian site I visited explained the three test thus:
quote:
The Bibliographical Test for the Reliability of the Bible
The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliability are the copies we have in regards to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?...
The Internal Evidence Test for the Reliability of the Bible
In this test one must listen to the claims of the documents under analysis and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies. In the Bible no contradictions have been proven and many alleged contradictions have been cleared by archaeology and systematic understanding. A lack of systematic theology has led to the confusion of many.
The External Evidence Test for the Reliability of the Bible
History, science and archaeology have externally confirmed the authenticity of the Bible. Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote that "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference..."
It might be noted that they do not clearly distinct between the defintion and their opinions of the tests results.
In my eyes the Bible fails in all three of test for reasons that have either been already brought forth by others or in the case of last two tests should be obvious.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 10:14:31 [Permalink]
|
Well I see we have a basic agreement on the 3 test for the validating of the NT view of who Jesus is and that he exist.
We agree on the validity. What we don't seem to agree upon is the results.
On #1 I think we have some confusion the "bibliographical test" listed by Prof. Sanders,(who by the way is a military historian so his test aren't skewed toward the Xian position)
What on Earth does being a military historian have to do with religious bias?
has to do with the amount of available manuscripts and their closeness to the events they are describing in time.
Exactly what we are talking about with Jesus. There are no available manuscripts from his time at all.
For example,the information we have from Thucydides(460-400B.C.)comes from just 8 MSS dated 900A.D. that is about 1300 years after he wrote it and yet no classical scholar would doubt the authenticity of Thucydides.The same could said for almost for any piece of ancient history(Aristotle 5 Mss wrote 343 BC earliest copy 1100AD,)
I am always amazed at the deceitfulness of Christians. How readily they'll use half-truths to try to trick you.
The reason that we are missing so much from the brilliant minds of the early philosophers is because the Christians destroyed it. You may have heard of it, "the Dark Ages." Christian mobs at the urging of the church destroying all "Pagan" knowledge they could get their hands on.
Several times on these pages we have talked about one of the greatest minds who ever lived, Hypatia of Alexandria and how the mob flayed her alive in the street as they burned the Library at Alexandria. All under orders of Archbishop Cyril, who was promptly made a saint after a blood soaked life.
Now you would have us believe that the ancient learning was just forgotten. How absent minded of us.
Or are we supposed to believe that the Christian mobs were so intent on destroying all Pagan learning that they destroyed all Christian while they were at it?
the NT has over 5000 MSS some which date back to 130AD ,the John Ryland Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyrus 155 AD, and the Bodmer Papyri 200AD all these MSS predate the 325AD Nicene conspiracy
No there aren't. There are a handful of manuscripts in each of these collections that make a Pre-Nicaea claims. If you check the web sites of these collections you'll find them categorized as 3rd Century, with an implication of being from the year 200CE. But a careful reading of the literature gives dates in the 290's with the Beatty people, I believe, making a claim for a single sheet of papyrus being from the 270's. However it must be noted that all of these manuscripts were dated between the 1930's and 1950's, using the inaccurate methods of the day. These methods come with very large "fudge factors" of nearly a century. The dates claimed are the earliest possible. But using a median date places every last manuscript comfortably after Nicaea.
None of these documents have been dated by modern accurate methods. I don't mean to imply that they are trying to hide anything. They are content with the dates that they claim and the modern methods would require sacrificing small sections of extremely valuable documents. It not like there is a controversy.
Yet.
Nicene conspiracy by Slater and company the origins to the NT
You keep calling it a "conspiracy" in hopes of discrediting it. For Imperial Roman this sort of thing was just business as usual.
not to mention the 300 years of church history Eusebius had to invent,
The Roman Catholic Church admits that for several hundred years it concocted it's "history." You may have noticed a few years back that a number of Saints (including the very popular Saint Christopher- of medal fame) were quietly demote to "legend." This is part of the Roman Catholic Church's present policy to discreetly undo some of the wrongs they have done in the past.
These illustrations are sufficient to demonstrate that when you compare the NT to any other historical document it has far better manuscript evidence closer to the time of the events than any other.
These illustrations show that you are not a very honest person.
one question for Slater where are you getting your information the Nicene counsel ?
It wasn't in Nice, it was held in Nicaea.
The Church says that it was held to fix a date for Easter and anathematize the Arians. But even a cursory glance reveals that they did much much more.
I've taken my facts from Edward Gibbon, Joseph Campbell and the Vatican Library. My conclusions are my own.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
