Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ok doser View Post

    I was an active participant on PJ's site last year until circumstances arose that made me feel no longer welcome so I logged off and I don't go back. No drama, easy-peasy.
    Speaking of drama, check this out:

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    He's been on my ignore list for over a year and yet he still follows me about and refers to me in posts...
    I think he's referring to you, ok doser, and it makes you wonder how, or why he knows that you "follow him about and refer to him in posts"--that is, it makes you wonder what purpose he imagines it has served him to have had you on "Ignore" all this time, since, somehow, you're still getting on his nerves.

    I, personally, have never understood the point of using, nor felt motivated to use, the "Ignore" function on TOL. If I understood rightly what Arthur Brain said a few days ago, and if it's true what he said, then he's had me on "Ignore", too, for a few days now. But I'm thinking, how's that supposed to stop me from writing future criticism of his posted TOL ravings? For his fragile sake, I hope he always remembers to only use TOL while logged on, and to never peruse the threads while not logged on.....Think how hilarious it would be if, while (not logged on) reading a post by one of us on his "Ignore" list, he gets so agitated by what he reads that he takes us off of the list (at least temporarily) just to post something in reaction to what we wrote, directly quoting us. I cannot help but smile when, as on a few occasions, I see some committed TOL errorist proclaim (almost as if he feels it is cause for a bit of personal pride on his part) that I am on his "Ignore" list. Just because Arthur Brain has us on his "Ignore" list does not me that we have him on our "Do not disturb these TOL members" list.

    As far as expos4ever's having said that he would "welcome" being banned from TOL (apparently because he feels he cannot, in the first place, simply restrain himself from logging onto it, though it apparently rattles his cage to be logged on), a simple solution to his "problem" might be simply to reset his TOL password as something like, "akdsladf3539295823Afua9e36q32423432sdsdfsafaddgds gda", and not write it down.
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

    MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

      Speaking of drama, check this out:



      I think he's referring to you, ok doser, and it makes you wonder how, or why he knows that you "follow him about and refer to him in posts"--that is, it makes you wonder what purpose he imagines it has served him to have had you on "Ignore" all this time, since, somehow, you're still getting on his nerves.

      I, personally, have never understood the point of using, nor felt motivated to use, the "Ignore" function on TOL. If I understood rightly what Arthur Brain said a few days ago, and if it's true what he said, then he's had me on "Ignore", too, for a few days now. But I'm thinking, how's that supposed to stop me from writing future criticism of his posted TOL ravings? For his fragile sake, I hope he always remembers to only use TOL while logged on, and to never peruse the threads while not logged on.....Think how hilarious it would be if, while (not logged on) reading a post by one of us on his "Ignore" list, he gets so agitated by what he reads that he takes us off of the list (at least temporarily) just to post something in reaction to what we wrote, directly quoting us. I cannot help but smile when, as on a few occasions, I see some committed TOL errorist proclaim (almost as if he feels it is cause for a bit of personal pride on his part) that I am on his "Ignore" list. Just because Arthur Brain has us on his "Ignore" list does not me that we have him on our "Do not disturb these TOL members" list.

      As far as expos4ever's having said that he would "welcome" being banned from TOL (apparently because he feels he cannot, in the first place, simply restrain himself from logging onto it, though it apparently rattles his cage to be logged on), a simple solution to his "problem" might be simply to reset his TOL password as something like, "akdsladf3539295823Afua9e36q32423432sdsdfsafad dgds gda", and not write it down.
      That's what I used to do in the past when I'd burn an old account because of constraints in my personal life. Reset my password to a random string log off and delete my cookies.

      As far as ignore goes, Greenrage is the only poster who has managed it in my 17 years experience here. Everybody else like artie wants the ignore button to work in reverse - they don't want to ignore the other person, they want the other person to ignore them. Artie wants the latitude to post ridiculous nonsense here without it being refuted by people who are more intelligent than him (like myself )

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ok doser View Post

        That's what I used to do in the past when I'd burn an old account because of constraints in my personal life. Reset my password to a random string log off and delete my cookies.

        As far as ignore goes, Greenrage is the only poster who has managed it in my 17 years experience here. Everybody else like artie wants the ignore button to work in reverse - they don't want to ignore the other person, they want the other person to ignore them. Artie wants the latitude to post ridiculous nonsense here without it being refuted by people who are more intelligent than him (like myself )
        Well put!
        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

        MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

          Speaking of drama, check this out:



          I think he's referring to you, ok doser, and it makes you wonder how, or why he knows that you "follow him about and refer to him in posts"--that is, it makes you wonder what purpose he imagines it has served him to have had you on "Ignore" all this time, since, somehow, you're still getting on his nerves.

          I, personally, have never understood the point of using, nor felt motivated to use, the "Ignore" function on TOL. If I understood rightly what Arthur Brain said a few days ago, and if it's true what he said, then he's had me on "Ignore", too, for a few days now. But I'm thinking, how's that supposed to stop me from writing future criticism of his posted TOL ravings? For his fragile sake, I hope he always remembers to only use TOL while logged on, and to never peruse the threads while not logged on.....Think how hilarious it would be if, while (not logged on) reading a post by one of us on his "Ignore" list, he gets so agitated by what he reads that he takes us off of the list (at least temporarily) just to post something in reaction to what we wrote, directly quoting us. I cannot help but smile when, as on a few occasions, I see some committed TOL errorist proclaim (almost as if he feels it is cause for a bit of personal pride on his part) that I am on his "Ignore" list. Just because Arthur Brain has us on his "Ignore" list does not me that we have him on our "Do not disturb these TOL members" list.

          As far as expos4ever's having said that he would "welcome" being banned from TOL (apparently because he feels he cannot, in the first place, simply restrain himself from logging onto it, though it apparently rattles his cage to be logged on), a simple solution to his "problem" might be simply to reset his TOL password as something like, "akdsladf3539295823Afua9e36q32423432sdsdfsafad dgds gda", and not write it down.
          You don't seem to understand how the ignore feature works on here so let me educate you. I have doser on ignore and have done for over a year. That means that any post he makes or thread he starts are invisible. The only times his posts appear are when he's quoted by others or when a thread he's started has the latest post crop in a section posted by somebody else, that's it. Now, I wouldn't mind if the function was modified even more to where anything anybody says who's on ignore is invisible altogether but currently that's the way it is and it's fine.

          It's my prerogative to use the feature as I see fit. I can continually keep someone on it or I can take them off it as and when. I can also choose to react to the poster who's quoted the guy if I see fit as well and after the unsurprising projection I decided to address such to Lon. Probably quite needless to be fair as Lon is an intelligent, rational man who doesn't fall sway to that kind of garbage and we can profoundly disagree and do on matters. Otherwise, I can't even remember the last time I even acknowledged doser in a post.

          As you may have surmised, you're not on my ignore list, at least currently. I simply scroll past your posts for the most part at present because they're just tiresome shtick. Anyone who uses the term "Nazi leftard" outside of the context of irony has disqualified themselves from rational conversation/adult debate and relegated themselves to the children's table or just the mantle of idiot. Your tendency to post "LOL" on every given post is something that any self respecting adult just wouldn't...do.

          Where it comes to "fragility/ravings"? I've been on this board for years kid and you don't bring anything new to the table that ain't been seen so many times before.
          Last edited by Arthur Brain; August 1, 2020, 07:09 PM.
          Well this is fun isn't it?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

            Well put!
            Only if you're not all that bright. But there's time for you to mature yet hopefully. Let me ask you this. Do you think it's a sign of intelligence or emotional maturity to continually stalk other posters to the point of getting routinely banned for it? Your "buddy" did this to one of the most respected members this forum has had from people from left to right including the then forum owner here. Why? Because he was highly intelligent, reasoned in debate, preferred the defusing nature of argument rather than the acrimonious in the heat of exchange including the self deprecating but wasn't above the pointed barb when merited. He also enjoyed the more life affirming conversations here and would treat people with respect and promoted the positive attributes of humanity. He didn't go around calling people "tards" or obsess over them to the point of distraction by way of.

            The latter is the mark of those lacking the intelligence to properly reason, behave like an adult if of such an age and ironically, a sign of stunted or damaged emotional growth.
            Last edited by Arthur Brain; August 1, 2020, 07:08 PM.
            Well this is fun isn't it?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

              Well put!
              artie seems to think "ignore" means obsessively discussing me every chance he gets

              Because he's retarded

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                Yep, pretty straightforward stuff. I wear one each time I go to shopping, no big deal. Anyone who whines about wearing one is a snowflake and then some, seriously, what hassle is it to wear a darn mask?
                Sigh. Anything to distract from the fact that trump and the GOP own the pandemic and all of the after affects and deaths attributed to it. IF it weren’t for the responsible and innocent being affected by the trump virus, I would shrug my shoulders ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                  . . . one of the most respected members this forum has had from people from left to right including the then forum owner here. . . he was highly intelligent, reasoned in debate, preferred the defusing nature of argument rather than the acrimonious in the heat of exchange including the self deprecating but wasn't above the pointed barb when merited. He also enjoyed the more life affirming conversations here and would treat people with respect and promoted the positive attributes of humanity. He didn't go around calling people "tards" or obsess over them to the point of distraction by way of.

                  The latter is the mark of those lacking the intelligence to properly reason, behave like an adult if of such an age and ironically, a sign of stunted or damaged emotional growth.
                  Town was sophisticated, allegedly and probably a lawyer by trade, which means a doctor of jurisprudence. He or she had his or her political preferences, and he or she went to lengths to defend his or her personal political preferences in such a way, employing his or her sophisticated language, which is what 'legalese' basically is, that it sounded like it was an argument based on principle, and that the opposite political preferences were unprincipled or typical of an inferior political ideology to his or her own. This enormous chip on his or her shoulder was only perceivable to a minute handful of users, Ok Doser being one of them. Hopefully one day Town will heed his or her friend's advice here and choose Christ over his or her wrong ideology stemming from his or her wrong ideas that are false but that Town believes to be facts. For one thing Town believes that there exist domains outside of the law or jurisprudence where his or her status as a doctor /expert constitutes valid dictatorial authority as to whether an idea is a true one or not. When confronted with the fact that in certain topics even all the lawyers in the world do not uniformly agree even though the matter would fall under the legal profession's umbrella, Town would answer in such a way that he or she was doubling down on being a valid authority w r t the matter even though his or her entire profession was not uniformly agreed on the matter, which automatically invalidates any appeal to authority w r t the matter. Town either did not understand this, or he or she did understand it but chose to act as if he or she did not understand it, and I can't decide which is worse. If Town did not understand this then Town had a big head, that isn't arguable, not if he or she did not understand that his or her valid authority in the domain of law and jurisprudence does not extend to matters where the collection of lawyers and doctors of the law and jurisprudence do not uniformly agree. And, but if Town did understand this fact, then he or she chose to behave deliberately in such a way that would indicate to anyone trying to interpret the ideas that he or she believes to be true (i.e., Town's ideology, the collection of ideas that he or she is committed to believing) that he or she believed that his or her valid authority in the domain of law and of jurisprudence does positively extend to having the power to dictate that a personal political preference is the only right answer, that it was the right answer based on an argument of principle, and therefore morality, and that therefore opposing political positions were unprincipled and therefore purely political and also immoral.

                  It's the basic ideological flaw in what are wrongly called liberals. These people are not liberal when they practice this error. The opposite of liberal is savage, one step removed from savagery is absolute monarchism where the monarch is above the law, and this is how these wrongly named liberals go awry, because they act like, in this particular context, I believe in absolute monarchism and I am that monarch. I can dictate, in this context, and I am going to do that. Town did that. He or she was exceptionally passive aggressive and skilled in gas lighting and did it all the time.

                  He or she also attracted sycophants.
                  "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                  @Nee_Nihilo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                    Town was sophisticated, allegedly and probably a lawyer by trade, which means a doctor of jurisprudence. He or she had his or her political preferences, and he or she went to lengths to defend his or her personal political preferences in such a way, employing his or her sophisticated language, which is what 'legalese' basically is, that it sounded like it was an argument based on principle, and that the opposite political preferences were unprincipled or typical of an inferior political ideology to his or her own. This enormous chip on his or her shoulder was only perceivable to a minute handful of users, Ok Doser being one of them. Hopefully one day Town will heed his or her friend's advice here and choose Christ over his or her wrong ideology stemming from his or her wrong ideas that are false but that Town believes to be facts. For one thing Town believes that there exist domains outside of the law or jurisprudence where his or her status as a doctor /expert constitutes valid dictatorial authority as to whether an idea is a true one or not. When confronted with the fact that in certain topics even all the lawyers in the world do not uniformly agree even though the matter would fall under the legal profession's umbrella, Town would answer in such a way that he or she was doubling down on being a valid authority w r t the matter even though his or her entire profession was not uniformly agreed on the matter, which automatically invalidates any appeal to authority w r t the matter. Town either did not understand this, or he or she did understand it but chose to act as if he or she did not understand it, and I can't decide which is worse. If Town did not understand this then Town had a big head, that isn't arguable, not if he or she did not understand that his or her valid authority in the domain of law and jurisprudence does not extend to matters where the collection of lawyers and doctors of the law and jurisprudence do not uniformly agree. And, but if Town did understand this fact, then he or she chose to behave deliberately in such a way that would indicate to anyone trying to interpret the ideas that he or she believes to be true (i.e., Town's ideology, the collection of ideas that he or she is committed to believing) that he or she believed that his or her valid authority in the domain of law and of jurisprudence does positively extend to having the power to dictate that a personal political preference is the only right answer, that it was the right answer based on an argument of principle, and therefore morality, and that therefore opposing political positions were unprincipled and therefore purely political and also immoral.
                    Hmm, where to begin...

                    If you're unsure as to the gender of TH, then that pretty much shows how well you actually knew the man. So at least that should be cleared up for you now. There's no "alleged" about his lawyer credentials. These were verified by AMR after doser's monumentally ill advised call out thread for aforementioned to be proved on pain of a permanent ban from TOL for the loser. He lost. He's still here and TH wasn't interested in him being permanently banned regardless. You tell me, who had the massive chip on their shoulder on that score? If you equate sophisticated language with "legalese" then does that mean that Wilde, Twain, Dickens, Shaw etc were all lawyers by trade? Of course not. It means that they were adept in writing in their native tongue. What "massive chip on his shoulder" do you imagine TH to have had? He's a happily married, family man and has had a long running thread here in regards to his son on here. You talk about "wrong ideology" and yet you're thoroughly ignorant to the fact that TH is a Christian and posted as one from the very start on here. Not only that, he made no secret of his faith so who is really the one with the chip on their shoulder here Idolater? He also has a keen sense of humour including the self deprecating variety, something I've rarely seen from those like yourself. TH addressed ignorance where it came to misunderstanding of legal matters and law and often in regards to people who deserved it. That these people got bent out of shape after having their misconceptions corrected is hardly the fault of the one who corrects ignorance. Not to mention the more moronic elements who would associate anyone working in law as a "scumbag" and the like. You seem to have some personal hangups but I'm wondering why, considering how little you know about the person who happens to be my friend.

                    It's the basic ideological flaw in what are wrongly called liberals. These people are not liberal when they practice this error. The opposite of liberal is savage, one step removed from savagery is absolute monarchism where the monarch is above the law, and this is how these wrongly named liberals go awry, because they act like, in this particular context, I believe in absolute monarchism and I am that monarch. I can dictate, in this context, and I am going to do that. Town did that. He or she was exceptionally passive aggressive and skilled in gas lighting and did it all the time.
                    He doesn't even identify as a liberal and was bemused by the likes of those on the far right who would call him a "leftist" and the like. Again, you just don't know the man and seem to have a personal grudge for whatever reason. Passive aggressive? No, and I know what to spot where it comes to that. You really do have that chip on your own shoulder there.

                    He or she also attracted sycophants.
                    Sycophants? No, friends yes, including many on the right including the long time, then owner of this forum. Also trolls and those who'd get their panties in a bunch when schooled as well but for the most part, friends. Which, for your information included people who had strong disagreements on certain matters. In some senses, you can blame me for his long tenure on here as back in the days when I was in a position to subscribe members I awarded TH one. He was a fresh new voice at the time, a tad eccentric but refreshing and obviously highly intelligent and that played a part in his staying on here. If you think that we didn't have disagreements to the point of diametric opposition on certain subjects and that I subsequently lapped up anything he had to say on any given subject then you haven't a clue. Then again, you hadn't a clue as to the man's gender or faith at the beginning of this post of yours, so remove that chip off your own shoulder.


                    Last edited by Arthur Brain; August 2, 2020, 05:34 PM.
                    Well this is fun isn't it?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rusha View Post

                      Sigh. Anything to distract from the fact that trump and the GOP own the pandemic and all of the after affects and deaths attributed to it. IF it weren’t for the responsible and innocent being affected by the trump virus, I would shrug my shoulders ...
                      As if wearing a mask is such a huge deal. Geez, put one on before you go into a shop and take it off afterwards. And yes, distraction. No wonder Trump wants to try and delay the election...
                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                        As if wearing a mask is such a huge deal. Geez, put one on before you go into a shop and take it off afterwards. And yes, distraction. No wonder Trump wants to try and delay the election...
                        Indeed. Like last time, without interference, he cannot win.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rusha View Post

                          Indeed. Like last time, without interference, he cannot win.
                          His desperation is indicating that much...

                          Well this is fun isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                            Hmm, where to begin...

                            If you're unsure as to the gender of TH, then that pretty much shows how well you actually knew the man. So at least that should be cleared up for you now. There's no "alleged" about his lawyer credentials. These were verified by AMR after doser's monumentally ill advised call out thread for aforementioned to be proved on pain of a permanent ban from TOL for the loser. He lost. He's still here and TH wasn't interested in him being permanently banned regardless. You tell me, who had the massive chip on their shoulder on that score? If you equate sophisticated language with "legalese then does that mean that Wilde, Twain, Dickens, Shaw etc were all lawyers by trade? Of course not. It means that they were adept in writing in their native tongue. What "massive chip on his shoulder" do you imagine TH to have had? He's a happily married, family man and has had a long running thread here in regards to his son on here. You talk about "wrong ideology" and yet you're thoroughly ignorant to the fact that TH is a Christian and posted as one from the very start on here. Not only that, he made no secret of his faith so who is really the one with the chip on their shoulder here Idolater? He also has a keen sense of humour including the self deprecating variety, something I've rarely seen from those like yourself. TH addressed ignorance where it came to misunderstanding of legal matters and law and often in regards to people who deserved it. That these people got bent out of shape after having their misconceptions corrected is hardly the fault of the one who corrects ignorance. Not to mention the more moronic elements who would associate anyone working in law as a "scumbag" and the like. You seem to have some personal hangups but I'm wondering why, considering how little you know about the person who happens to be my friend.



                            He doesn't even identify as a liberal and was bemused by the likes of those on the far right who would call him a "leftist" and the like. Again, you just don't know the man and seem to have a personal grudge for whatever reason. Passive aggressive? No, and I know what to spot where it comes to that. You really do have that chip on your own shoulder there.



                            Sycophants? No, friends yes, including many on the right including the long time, then owner of this forum. Also trolls and those who'd get their panties in a bunch when schooled as well but for the most part, friends. Which, for your information included people who had strong disagreements on certain matters. In some senses, you can blame me for his long tenure on here as back in the days when I was in a position to subscribe members I awarded TH one. He was a fresh new voice at the time, a tad eccentric but refreshing and obviously highly intelligent and that played a part in his staying on here. If you think that we didn't have disagreements to the point of diametric opposition on certain subjects and that I subsequently lapped up anything he had to say on any given subject then you haven't a clue. Then again, you hadn't a clue as to the man's gender or faith at the beginning of this post of yours, so remove that chip off your own shoulder.


                            The real kicker of course with TH was that on a social media site literally called theology online, he or she would never ever permit himself or herself to get into a scenario with another user who was better versed in theology. It was abundantly clear that he or she would carefully choose his or her battles in all matters of theology, including faith and morals. He or she stuck consistently to political or other discussions, again on a social media site advertising itself as theology, online. Not politics, not musings, not photography or sports or whatever, theology---and Town never entered the virtual arena. You could follow him or her around the site, getting into every thread that he or she entered into, and try to draw him or her to something resembling theology, but he or she was remarkably careful to avoid anything touching theology, short of his or her penchant for engaging with (typically) new users who claimed to be atheist and who invited a Christian to convince him or her to the faith. I always hoped that his or her efforts in this regard might possess some magical (in that it would be to me highly unexpected to work) power to woo a seeking self-identifying atheist to Christ, but it never not once materialized. I appreciated that he or she made the effort, even if his or her tack was doomed to fail 100 percent of the time when tried.

                            This is not something I've seen in yourself just b t w. You've never shied away from a rugged theological discussion, you don't pull punches and while you engage in the political just as much as Town used to, you've never eluded someone who wanted to discuss theology with you. By contrast Town along with just a few other users display this sort of elusive behavior on a social media site called, again, theology, online.

                            b t w the only thing I've seen to confirm that Town is a male is his or her quote-unquote "Andrew" f-book account, that leaked out, when he or she quote-unquote "accidentally" revealed it to other TOL users once, years ago, a leak that he or she quickly stopped up. I cannot responsibly use a f-book account as any sort of confirmation of an otherwise anonymous internet user's sex, gender, or any other sort of personally identifying information.
                            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                            @Nee_Nihilo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                              The real kicker of course with TH was that on a social media site literally called theology online, he or she would never ever permit himself or herself to get into a scenario with another user who was better versed in theology. It was abundantly clear that he or she would carefully choose his or her battles in all matters of theology, including faith and morals. He or she stuck consistently to political or other discussions, again on a social media site advertising itself as theology, online. Not politics, not musings, not photography or sports or whatever, theology---and Town never entered the virtual arena. You could follow him or her around the site, getting into every thread that he or she entered into, and try to draw him or her to something resembling theology, but he or she was remarkably careful to avoid anything touching theology, short of his or her penchant for engaging with (typically) new users who claimed to be atheist and who invited a Christian to convince him or her to the faith. I always hoped that his or her efforts in this regard might possess some magical (in that it would be to me highly unexpected to work) power to woo a seeking self-identifying atheist to Christ, but it never not once materialized. I appreciated that he or she made the effort, even if his or her tack was doomed to fail 100 percent of the time when tried.

                              This is not something I've seen in yourself just b t w. You've never shied away from a rugged theological discussion, you don't pull punches and while you engage in the political just as much as Town used to, you've never eluded someone who wanted to discuss theology with you. By contrast Town along with just a few other users display this sort of elusive behavior on a social media site called, again, theology, online.

                              b t w the only thing I've seen to confirm that Town is a male is his or her quote-unquote "Andrew" f-book account, that leaked out, when he or she quote-unquote "accidentally" revealed it to other TOL users once, years ago, a leak that he or she quickly stopped up. I cannot responsibly use a f-book account as any sort of confirmation of an otherwise anonymous internet user's sex, gender, or any other sort of personally identifying information.
                              Okay, plenty people here knew the gender of TH along with his faith, it was hardly a secret from the get go and you are just being pretty much bonkers here. Not interested. This forum that you're posting on is called "theologyonline.com"

                              Well this is fun isn't it?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                                Okay, plenty people here knew the gender of TH along with his faith, it was hardly a secret from the get go and you are just being pretty much bonkers here. Not interested. This forum that you're posting on is called "theologyonline.com"
                                So this means, I'm presuming, that you have met Town i r l, correct? Yes?

                                Or does it just mean that you have been sufficiently convinced, in your opinion, even though you have not met him or her i r l?

                                [/QUOTE]Oh . . . this was yours.
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X