Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10531936 -

zouden said:
:lol:

I guess this just proves my point really. Of course Mary wasn't a virgin. That's patently false. Everyone agrees that Jesus probably was a real guy, but only Christians believe he was born to an immaculate conception. It's far more likely that Mary got knocked up by some guy. There's a large disconnect between reality and the fiction that Christians have constructed, and I think the same applies to teenage abstinence programs.



I wouldn't be surprised if all of those Bible people, including the "virgin" (:hehehe:) Mary and Jesus, never even factually existed, and something in my gut, for some reason or another, tells me that they didn't. :shrug:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Poid]
    #10532028 -

Poid said:
I wouldn't be surprised if all of those Bible people, including the "virgin" (:hehehe:) Mary and Jesus, never even factually existed, and something in my gut, for some reason or another, tells me that they didn't. :shrug:



One of the main requirements for the Jewish "messiah" is that he be from the line of King David, and 'Jesus' (according to biblical genealogy) was only a part of that if his father was Mary's husband David.

If Christians would drop the whole "virgin" thing, it would actually lend more credence to their claim from a Jewish perspective.


--------------------
The Prophecy!

Learn To Code

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: blewmeanie]
    #10532068 -

The virgin birth is not mentioned in Mark, the earliest of the four gospels, nor does Paul mention it in many of his letters.  It was likely added later due to a misinterpretation of a verse from Isaiah, saying that the messiah would be born of a "young woman," the word for young woman being misinterpreted to mean virgin.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: blewmeanie]
    #10532070 -

blewmeanie said:
If Christians would drop the whole "virgin" thing, it would actually lend more credence to their claim from a Jewish perspective.



There's a lot more credence needed to be lent for their many other claims, though, if they want to be taken seriously from a intelligent perspective, if you get what I'm saying...


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10535423 -

Quote:
Come on. I'm not going to read the rest of your post if you make a blatant lie like that straight out. How many countries have banned religion? North Korea, and...? What about the other communist countries, like Cuba and China? Because they've got a pretty big religious population.

I'm sorry dude, but you're wrong. Atheists are far more tolerant than religious folk. And religious intolerance is generally more violent than atheist intolerance.




Quote:
When atheists start burning Christians in the name of atheism, I may reconsider my stance.




Well here's clips from a 2005 New York Times articles.
Quote:
Reporting from Zhongxiang, Nicholas Kristof gives a real-life account: "She never broke when she was tortured with beatings and electrical shocks, and even when she was close to death she refused to disclose the names of members of her congregation or sign a statement renouncing her Christian faith. As she was being battered in one room, her son was tortured in the next so that each could hear the other's screams, as encouragement to betray their church.
Dozens of members of her church are still imprisoned, and those free are under tight scrutiny.

Christians are tightly controlled by the Religious Affairs Bureau of the Chinese government. "Police state China" are out to hurt and extinguish Christians from the country. The happy face China image of Bibles sold in the marketplace is one scene. But the damaged and crippled bodies of believers elsewhere is just as much a part of present-day China. Hundreds of Chinese Christians are in ‘re-education through labor’ camps."

Secret Communist Party documents say approvingly that 60,000 Chinese were killed, either executed or shot by police while fleeing, between 1998 and 2001. That amounts to 15,000 a year, which suggests that 97 percent of the world's executions take place in China. And it's well documented that scores of Christians . . . have died in police custody."




Volumes of reporting support the reality that widespread torture, maiming and killing of Christians is taking place.

This isn't even talking about the Cultural Revolution which killed millions for not conforming to the strict Atheist ideals of the Communist Regime.


These Wonderfully tolerant atheist states, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and others killed over 100 million people during the 20th Century. Refusing to renounce your faith was frequently a capital crime. The fact that religious groups still exist in many of them, and that some have even grown doesn't mean they aren't viciously persecuted. If your going to make that argument then I guess Nero's burning of Christians at the stake and feeding them to Lions in Rome was also an example of tolerance, since the Church grew in spite of it.


So a christian politely knocking on your door to talk about God is intolerant but Atheists sending Christians to re-education camps is tolerant?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10535565 -

Abstinence has been pretty successful in the past and is still successful in many countries. If the only justification taught for abstinence is to prevent pregnancy, it will of course struggle in the face of all the the rest of societies pressures to just do it, because condoms do offer a slightly less dependable means of also avoiding pregnancy without the need for the same level of self control. It must compete with peer pressure and the constant bombardment on television and music endorsing rampant wild sexual activity as the accepted norm, and that abstaining is weird, freaky and for losers.

Its got an up hill battle, and needs a lot of support in the home, church and amongst friends in order to have a good success rate. The church shouldn't be about ostracism people for failing to live up to an ideal, and in my experience they usually don't. They should still be trying to promote the ideal however, which many do live up to successfully and not abandon it because some don't. It would be no more logical to abandon the teaching that theft and murder is wrong because people sometimes fail to uphold those standards. Teaching that God wants the best for you, designed sex for marriage to be the ultimate intimacy between a man and woman, and that by waiting you can reach the full potential of what God had planned for you in your relationship, can be a powerful incentive for believers to wait. Avoid unwanted pregnancies, disease and being emotionally scared by insensitive man Ho's or callous trollops is a added bonus.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10535741 -

Quote:
Of course Mary wasn't a virgin. That's patently false.




If you believe God exists and that he created the Universe and that he is carrying and wants a relationship with man, then the idea of him taking human form to interact with man and experience life from man's perspective is not only a possible option but God's logical course of action. And if God was to come to Earth to spread his message why wouldn't he use miracles to back up the validity of what he was saying? A virgin birth is within God's capabilities. The fact there haven't been other virgin births doesn't justify an argument that it didn't happen. Its supposed to be unique event.

If you believe in an all powerful and caring God, the virgin birth doesn't really require any additional faith. It is a logical progression. Since Atheism requires as much faith as a Belief in God does. Believing the virgin birth is beyond God's capabilities only makes sense if you don't believe in God, and so also takes faith.

Quote:
The virgin birth is not mentioned in Mark, the earliest of the four gospels, nor does Paul mention it in many of his letters.




Mark doesn't discuss Jesus birth at all, it starts at the beginning of his ministry. The fact that it isn't discussed isn't a contradiction.  If so, the fact that Mark didn't discuss Gravity must mean that doesn't exist either.

Quote:
It was likely added later due to a misinterpretation of a verse from Isaiah, saying that the messiah would be born of a "young woman," the word for young woman being misinterpreted to mean virgin.




The books of the bible were copied and distributed throughout the Roman world from the moment they were written. The numbers of duplicate copies of early texts still exist and are in larger numbers than any other historical document. They don't support this idea of later revisions, and the fact that the documents were so widespread would have made such a revision a major event, not something that could be swept under the carpet.

The verse from Isaiah is a completely worthless meaningless waste of space if it is interpreted "a young woman will have a son." You might expect that from Ms Cleo, but Old testament prophets were in the habit of giving very specific Prophecies, things they thought had value. All the experts throughout history, who devoted their lives to studying religious texts, and who considered getting it right a sacred duty, seem to disagree with that interpretation as well.

Quote:
One of the main requirements for the Jewish "messiah" is that he be from the line of King David, and 'Jesus' (according to biblical genealogy) was only a part of that if his father was Mary's husband David.




Jewish society gave the same rights to adopted sons as biological ones, so Jesus could still legitimately claim to be of the Line of David.

Edited by Arghhhh (06/19/09 09:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Silversoul]
    #10536845 -

Silversoul said:
zouden said:
In the perfect world, abstinence works 100%, but so would a condom.



And in the real world, abstinence is only 99.999% effective.





Where are her boobies?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10536884 -

Quote:
If you believe God exists and that he created the Universe and that he is carrying and wants a relationship with man, then the idea of him taking human form to interact with man and experience life from man's perspective is not only a possible option but God's logical course of action.



And the 'Lord of the Rings' is a historical thesis proving that Middle Earth did indeed, exist.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #10536888 -

Lakefingers said:
The Bible doesn't promote. Neither does God. People do.

Historically many more people have promoted killing due interpretations of the Bible than for atheist causes. Historically atheist's hands are quite clean.

If you read The Bible (have you done this recently) you'll find much more killing than a few hundred. You'll find much genocide and slaughtering of peoples that makes the Soviet genocide pale in comparison (relative to world populations).



WRONG
read the bible kids
it says ::::::::::::::::
if your wife is raped you CAN MURDER HER
also in the bible it says YOU CAN OWN SLAVES
it goes on and on forever

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: ravenshield420]
    #10537606 -

Those were the laws of the 12 tribes of Israel several thousand years ago, not a set of spiritual laws for all of mankind, and those laws were only applicable when the temple was in place in Jerusalem.

With the second temple the system, and rules changed, as they will again when the third temple is in place.


--------------------
The Prophecy!

Learn To Code

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: blewmeanie]
    #10538695 -

Quote:
if your wife is raped you CAN MURDER HER




whats the chapter and verse on that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10539683 -

Arghhhh said:
Volumes of reporting support the reality that widespread torture, maiming and killing of Christians is taking place.

This isn't even talking about the Cultural Revolution which killed millions for not conforming to the strict Atheist ideals of the Communist Regime.


These Wonderfully tolerant atheist states, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and others killed over 100 million people during the 20th Century. Refusing to renounce your faith was frequently a capital crime. The fact that religious groups still exist in many of them, and that some have even grown doesn't mean they aren't viciously persecuted. If your going to make that argument then I guess Nero's burning of Christians at the stake and feeding them to Lions in Rome was also an example of tolerance, since the Church grew in spite of it.


So a christian politely knocking on your door to talk about God is intolerant but Atheists sending Christians to re-education camps is tolerant?



You're confusing persecution of Christians with persecution of religion. Of course there are places you can be killed for being Christian. But the article you quoted didn't mention persecution of Buddhists or Daoists (the most prominent religions in China), did it? Secondly, your argument that atheist states like the Soviet Union killed 100 million people is irrelevant unless you can show how many of them were killed because they were religious.

There is absolutely no way you can argue that more people have been killed in the name of atheism than in the name of God. This is quite clearly ridiculous.

Religion appeals to the primitive, violent side of humanity. The sooner we grow out of it the better.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10540232 -

I can't speculate to whether or not the bible tends to promote violence or non violence more.  there are plenty of examples of both in there, and it has inspired a whole lot of both.  However, regardless of whether or not the bible promotes violence, I do not like the idea of having the person making the decision whether or not I go out to fight and risk my life think that when I die I will live for ever in bliss.  This delusion can justify a lot of unjustifiable shit and has.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
    #10540371 -

There's a lot more violence in the old testament than in the new one. Yet I don't know of any religions that disregard the old testament the way that Judaism disregards the new. It's a shame. Christianity would be so much better if they just focused on Jesus and not that primitive stuff in the first half.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10540385 -

like believing in zombies isn't primitive.... cmon, jesus is a 2000 year old april fools joke

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: blewmeanie]
    #10540454 -

If Christians would drop the whole "virgin" thing, it would actually lend more credence to their claim from a Jewish perspective.

YES. And as John Shelby Spong points out in Liberating the Gospels, the author called Matthew used the Greek Septuigint version of the Tenach (OT) which was the common language of his day. Greek has only one word for virgin and young woman - parthenos - from which we get the temple to the virgin goddess Athena - the Parthenon. Hebrew has two words: Bertolah for virgin and Almah for young woman. The Greek word in the Septuigint says "virgin" but the word in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah says "young woman."

The whole virgin birth idea belongs to all the gods of antiquity, including Mithras whose rites were celebrated with bread and wine and whose birthday was December 25th. This is why the birthday of Jesus was later given this date - just as the early Christians built churches over the demolished pagan holy structures. A goodly amount of biblical narrative incorporates Hellenistic mythic themes. And people wonder why Jews with an already ancient tradition did not and do not want to embrace pagan notions of Deity taking flesh in the Johannine sense.

Too many people make unconscious assumptions about the historicity of Jesus confounded with mythological overlays. Most of those multitudes just don't see the Jesus stories in perspective with religions of antiquity. All they know is what they were taught by other non-scholars without perspective. Then, suspension of reason become equated with a misunderstood notion of faith. Faith is transrational, not irrational - a HUGE difference.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #10540486 -

nothing will give credence to believing in the mortal son of an immortal invisible, omniscient being, born of a virgin, and who rose from the dead.  All these things combined with no evidence, plenty of evidence the whole story was stolen from other cultures, and the fact none of it makes any sense at all, makes for believers that deserve nothing but derisive laughter from anyone.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
    #10541444 -

Quote:
And the 'Lord of the Rings' is a historical thesis proving that Middle Earth did indeed, exist.




So the existence of works of fiction in literature is PROOF that all literature is fiction? Interesting logic.

Quote:
You're confusing persecution of Christians with persecution of religion. Of course there are places you can be killed for being Christian. But the article you quoted didn't mention persecution of Buddhists or Taoists (the most prominent religions in China), did it?





So Atheists are tolerant because they only kill Christians? Is the Atheist interpretation of tolerance really that you only persecute minorities you outnumber or can get away with persecuting? That's a pretty cowardly morality.

Quote:
your argument that atheist states like the Soviet Union killed 100 million people is irrelevant unless you can show how many of them were killed because they were religious.

There is absolutely no way you can argue that more people have been killed in the name of atheism than in the name of God. This is quite clearly ridiculous.




By that logic the only relevant evidence of "Christian" brutality is when they have killed Atheists. You haven't been so particular in your criticism. Its relevant because it shows that the most brutal regimes, have been Atheist ones, not limited by any morality except what is expedient in achieving their goals. Many "Christian" societies have done terrible things in order to expand borders, for economic gain or power, but in each circumstance there were Christians challenging them, and in the end it was the realization that this activity was contrary to Christian principles that ended them. The only limits on Atheist nations behavior is the economic impact of the activities and the perception of other nations, who do make moral judgments.

Quote:
Religion appeals to the primitive, violent side of humanity. The sooner we grow out of it the better.

the idea of having the person making the decision whether or not I go out to fight and risk my life think that when I die I will live for ever in bliss.  This delusion can justify a lot of unjustifiable shit and has.




The opposite is true.  Religion appeals to ideals and elevates humanity by setting standards of behavior which are not determined by your social and economic status. The concept of the afterlife and Godly judgment and rewards for good behavior encourages good behavior. A person may be more willing to sacrifice them self in a just cause, whether in war or by allowing them self to be martyred rather than reject their faith, but it only justifies it is a just cause.  It limits the stuff people will justify in trying to obtain their goals.

Atheism only motivates a person to fulfill what they consider their needs and wants, and allows no moral judgment upon the means they use to obtain those goals. It unleashes the primitive, violent side of humanity which always exists without placing any moral limits upon it. Survival of the fittest is all that matters. If you are hungry theft is justified, and it is only bad if you get caught. Lying to get a job, or a promotion ahead of your coworker is justified because morality is just a social imposition. If you murder and get away with it, that's the same as being innocent because there is no God to judge and no afterlife.

Quote:
A goodly amount of biblical narrative incorporates Hellenistic mythic themes. And people wonder why Jews with an already ancient tradition did not and do not want to embrace pagan notions of Deity taking flesh

Most of those multitudes just don't see the Jesus stories in perspective with religions of antiquity. All they know is what they were taught by other non-scholars without perspective.




A large portion of the Jewish population did accept it, because it mirrored precisely the thousands of prophesies in the Old Testament predicting it. Everything in the New Testament is a reflection and a natural progression of the Old Testament. Unless you believe the Old Testament prophets were copying the Greeks too?

If there are parallels with other societies how does this make the story less likely? I would have thought ancient Chinese texts of a Noah type figure would support the Biblical text, but somehow atheists use this to support a vast paranoid conspiracy theory that everyone throughout society committed their entire lives, and were frequently willing to sacrifice them, just to trick them.

These parallels demonstrate a common need in man for God, and an effort to understand him, as well as Gods efforts to reveal himself to mankind. It is not unreasonable to expect that some concepts would appear in other religions texts and Judaic ones. That there are parallels with Greek concepts and stories shouldn't be a surprise. It reflects man's common need for God. 

Why is there an assumption that the Jews were the copiers and not the other way around? Particularly when these other societies sought to incorporate other ideas into their societies. A polytheistic society like Greece is more likely to incorporate aspects and adopt aspects of a foreign faith than a monotheistic one. The Jews were consistent in both demonstrating their beliefs, and denying outside influences.  Every teaching in the New Testament was justified by the writers using texts from the Old Testament.  There's not a single quote from Buddha or Zeus in there.

Atheists will latch on to a specific Atheist writers interpretation of scripture, with absolute faith, while ignoring the majority of scholars writings which contradict them. You haven't accepted their teaching because of the correctness of their methodology or completeness of their study, but because their conclusion matches what your faith tells you to believe. If a person has their conclusions written before beginning their research, how is it any more valuable that religious scholars who researched it? You treat the writings of academics with agendas as though they are an unquestionable Priesthood.

Your faith requires you to ignore the historical record, that there is no evidence of scripture being altered, and adopt unprovable concepts like scripture being copied from other religions. It requires you to believe that none one of the early christian leaders believed what they were teaching, that they were all con artists seeking ....well suicide apparently. Most were martyred and didn't renounce their faith, none sought secular positions of authority, and none got rich off it.  Paul had to finance his ministry by making tents. Likewise it requires you to believe that all believers are delirious and stupid, which is a pretty contemptuous and unhealthy position to take, considering the only thing justifying your point of view is faith.

There has been a consistent argument throughout that a persons beliefs do not influence their conduct. Is a person who believes murder is intrinsically wrong, really no less likely to commit murder than someone who believes life is just a cosmic accident, that it is only wrong under the current legal code which changes over time, and that getting cause might be frowned upon by your neighbors or lead to prison time?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10541598 -

Quote:
So Atheists are tolerant because they only kill Christians? Is the Atheist interpretation of tolerance really that you only persecute minorities you outnumber or can get away with persecuting? That's a pretty cowardly morality.



When did I say that? My point was that plenty of people kill Christians. It's not an atheist thing.

Quote:
You haven't been so particular in your criticism. Its relevant because it shows that the most brutal regimes, have been Atheist ones,



No, it shows that the most brutal regimes have been authoritarian ones. Their brutality has nothing to do with being atheist. You could just as easily claim that vegetarianism is responsible for the holocaust because Hitler didn't eat meat.

Quote:
Many "Christian" societies have done terrible things in order to expand borders, for economic gain or power, but in each circumstance there were Christians challenging them, and in the end it was the realization that this activity was contrary to Christian principles that ended them.



Are you kidding? Christian nations stop being violent when they realise it's un-Christian of them? When has that ever happened? Did being Christian stop the US dropping napalm in Vietnam? Christian nations do whatever they can to benefit themselves, just like any other nation.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 1 in 4 women U.S. women suffer domestic violence
( 1 2 all )
MushmanTheManic 4,097 38 02/08/08 07:23 PM
by Boots
* The Holy Bible...
( 1 2 all )
psilo25 4,008 27 09/04/02 10:21 AM
by psilo25
* The Truth About Christmas
( 1 2 all )
chodamunky 5,767 24 12/26/19 07:19 AM
by Metaphysician
* nonviolence and its violent consequences NiamhNyx 1,925 9 08/08/04 11:59 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Changes in the bible
( 1 2 all )
LearyfanS 3,728 29 10/28/03 12:02 PM
by Funguy
* One Glaring Problem With The Bible
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
DiploidM 13,923 132 04/30/05 09:25 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The Bible ... a trip? HB 1,539 6 09/14/01 12:27 AM
by Alowishaus
* The Bible : Bullshit
( 1 2 3 all )
i_eat_planets 4,410 40 12/15/05 09:41 PM
by nakors_junk_bag

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
13,018 topic views. 1 members, 467 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.