Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mfbukowski

Humanism and the Ideal Perfected Human

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If it was good enough for Dewey and James and Rorty- why not for a church who already believes in a God unified with us through love ("romantic") and which then teaches that we too can become gods?

I am not smashing anything together- I am discussing two concepts that need unification and I am not the first to suggest that

I have heard LDS on this board frequently disparage philosophy by claiming that "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" is something negative. Don't CFR me on it, but I think you have said it regarding Greek philosophy (have you?). Don't you run the risk of being accused of mingling secular atheist philosophy with LDS scripture with your claims?

Is all human philosophy bad if it is mingled with scripture? (if so, your humanism project has a serious problem). If not, then is there an authoritative statement that the only certain philosophies mingled with scripture are bad? Why single out Greek philosophy and embrace post-modernism, in a religious context?

Edited by MiserereNobis

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The ban itself was not instituted with revelation OR rational argument really anyway.  I believe its causes were mostly political 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2015/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

 

I'm not sure that this statement flies with the "standard" LDS, does it? In any case, if it wasn't revelation, then why didn't human reason (the heart of humanism) overturn it based on reason and rationality? If you claim it wasn't revelation then it wouldn't have needed revelation to end it. You're actually digging a bigger hole here for the would-be humanist-Mormon.

"There was no revelation or rational argument for the racist ban, but we couldn't use rational argument to end it, we had to wait until revelation."

What humanist would accept that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Having been on both sides of the fence, I agree that the distinction may nearly be without a difference.  I think if there is a difference it is because the doctrine itself causes us to try to have the HG with us "constantly".  It's simply on our mind more, and on our inner "to do list"

It's kind of right there next door to "have a prayer in your heart constantly" and to me is a kind of mindful meditation.  When one learns to observe oneself in thought, it is kind of like that idea of "constant communion" with that other "ideal self" who is watching the antics of the "carnal self" and seeing the follies and praiseworthy acts as they are happening.

That is the ideal of mindfulness- a detachment from losing oneself in thoughts and instead seeing them go by as if watching a movie with you as the subject.   The uberself ;) is ideally constantly in charge.

To me that is the same idea as the "Gift" of the HG.

But both rely practice.  Functionally they are the same as far as I see it.

 

Prior to Christianity I spent a lot of time with the Buddhists, particularly Thai Theravada Buddhism. Mindfulness meditation, or vipassana, is the heart of that Buddhist tradition. It was part of the path for me to Christianity and Catholic mysticism. I know what you are saying here and thank you for saying it :)

ETA: by a lot of time I mean a lot of retreats in Thai Buddhist monasteries. 

Edited by MiserereNobis

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If this is an attack on creedal Christianity's God, it is a straw-man. Catholicism does not believe in a "transcendent amorphous cloud throughout the universe." You were raised Catholic, Mark... you must have forgotten your catechism. One of the great beauties of the Catholic God is that He is both transcendent AND immanent. Otherwise how could have Thomas felt His wounds? God was obviously observable to His disciples. It is a glorious wonder that a transcendent God chose to be immanent to save us. God became human. The transcendent became immanent. Why? To save us! That is a choice most deserving of worship. And upon further reflection, most most deserving of worship! Deo gratias that He chose to become us to save us!

Please don't disparage Catholicism by claiming that we worship a transcendent blob. Quite the contrary. We worship the God who is transcendent and chose also to be immanent for the salvation of all humanity. This is a core tenant of Christianity.

I apologize for saying that and for the overall attitude of the post in any way that was offensive, but I must address the theology of the claim.  Unfortunately there is no way to "prove who is right" on this issue.  These are words and categories and yes even logical constructs.  

In fact all of your examples point to the immanence of the savior's body- I don't even think you would dispute that point- to argue it you need to give examples of transcendence and how we can even experience a transcendent God when the word implies that it cannot be experienced?  Look at this:

Quote

"Otherwise how could have Thomas felt His wounds? God was obviously observable to His disciples. It is a glorious wonder that a transcendent God chose to be immanent to save us. God became human. The transcendent became immanent."

You yourself seem to be admitting that God must be immanent to be experienced or "observable".

That is exactly the problem!  

And you state that "The transcendent became immanent" but do not explain how that is possible.

Emphasis added:

Quote

 

tran·scend·ent

/ˌtran(t)ˈsend(ə)nt/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.

"the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"

surpassing the ordinary; exceptional.

"the conductor was described as a “transcendent genius.”"

synonyms:superior, supreme, consummate, predominant, preeminent, ascendant, paramount, superlative, unique, unsurpassed, incomparable, unrivaled, unequaled, unparalleled, matchless, peerless, second to none; More

(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.

synonyms:supernatural, preternatural, transcendental, otherworldly, superhuman, mystical, mystic, spiritual, divine, heavenly, exalted, sublime, ethereal, numinous, transmundane, ineffable

"a transcendent god"

 

None of those adjectives apply to the LDS God.  He knows everything there is to know without being "omniscient".  He is locational in principle- as is Christ of course and the Holy Ghost.  The HG is a personage of spirit who is not yet incarnate but He exists as a spirit body in a specific location.  He communicates everywhere as perhaps as an analogy, a radio signal can be heard/received "everywhere" if theoretically powerful enough.  There is also the "Light of Christ" which is said to be pure intelligence which extends forth to fill space.  A human analogy would be how you would "know" something happening far away from you and comprehend the situation at a distance, as one could perhaps understand the problems of Brexit without being in Britain.  The Lord senses it through his intelligence.   OK yes it is kind of like "the force"  ;) but perfect knowledge is projected.  

Where is the savior's body right now?   Does it exist in principle at a theoretically definable location somewhere in the universe as a given object would be?  If He is both transcendent and immanent how is he both in a particular location right now.  How does a transcendent being even hear and answer prayers?  For us he does not need to "be everywhere" to know what is happening everywhere so omnipresence is a misnomer for us.

William James described the Pragmatic God as the master chess player- an immanent being of infinite intelligence who knows us so well he can accurately predict- naturally-  what we will do an infinite number of "moves"before it happens.

Quote

In “The Dilemma of Determinism,” James depicts his image of God with a memorable analogy, comparing God to a master chess player engaged in a give-and-take with us novices.  We are free to make our own moves; yet the master knows all the moves we could possibly make, the odds of our choosing one over the others, and how best to respond to any move we choose to make.  This indicates two departures from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, in that the master is interacting with us in time (rather than eternal) and does not know everything in the future, to the extent that it is freely chosen by us.  In “Reflex Action and Theism,” James subscribes to a theistic belief in a personal God with whom we can maintain interpersonal relations, who possesses the deepest power in reality (not necessarily omnipotent) and a mind (not omniscient).

https://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/

This concept exactly duplicates the LDS view of an immanent God IN MY OPINION or at very least is an acceptable permissible alternate view.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I have heard LDS on this board frequently disparage philosophy by claiming that "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" is something negative. Don't CFR me on it, but I think you have said it regarding Greek philosophy (have you?). Don't you run the risk of being accused of mingling secular atheist philosophy with LDS scripture with your claims?

Is all human philosophy bad if it is mingled with scripture? (if so, your humanism project has a serious problem). If not, then is there an authoritative statement that the only certain philosophies mingled with scripture are bad? Why single out Greek philosophy and embrace post-modernism, in a religious context?

I have repeatedly condemned this idea as it is usually stated.  Ever idea humans can have can be seen as "philosophy" and I discuss it in more detail here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

In short, I distinguish between revelation - which is non-verbal I believe and philosophy.

I have no problem rejecting this notion as a linguistic confusion and impossible to separate philosophy and scripture in principle. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not sure that this statement flies with the "standard" LDS, does it? In any case, if it wasn't revelation, then why didn't human reason (the heart of humanism) overturn it based on reason and rationality? If you claim it wasn't revelation then it wouldn't have needed revelation to end it. You're actually digging a bigger hole here for the would-be humanist-Mormon.

"There was no revelation or rational argument for the racist ban, but we couldn't use rational argument to end it, we had to wait until revelation."

What humanist would accept that statement?

My thesis does not include every humanist agreeing with every statement made by every general authority in history.  ;)

In fact I think a lot of them have just been wrong.  :)

The church now repudiates the "racism" of the past.  It was all a mistake.

emphasis added

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#note24

Quote

 

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My favorite has always been Professor Bennetta Jules-Rosette (UCSD), “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,”
    American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf .

She not only argues that an anthropologist must become part of the tribe he is studying, but she analyzes anthropology itself (or sciology) as a tribe with arcane, esoteric rules of argument and documentation indistinguishable from tribal rituals and laws.

We have met the tribe and they is us.

Jesus became part of the tribe to obtain firsthand, empathetic knowledge and use this to improve the world condition:

Alma 7

10 And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and aafflictions and btemptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will ctake upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him adeath, that he may bloose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to csuccor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit aknoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the bflesh that he might ctake upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My favorite has always been Professor Bennetta Jules-Rosette (UCSD), “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,”
    American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf .

She not only argues that an anthropologist must become part of the tribe he is studying, but she analyzes anthropology itself (or sciology) as a tribe with arcane, esoteric rules of argument and documentation indistinguishable from tribal rituals and laws.

We have met the tribe and they is us.

Yep, we is. Jonathan Haidt did a talk entitled, "Religion, Evolution, and the Ectasy of Self-Transcendence," which I think goes a long way to explain social structures and all the warm fuzzies as evolutionary advantage. It's a powerful feedback loop: we become "one of" and it makes us feel good, and the product of the whole is greater than any of us can do on our own. The collectivity can come with personal risks, but the immediate and personal payout i the good feels of transcendence. It's sounds to me like we go full circle, from the amoeba-like state of a zygote, very much "one" with its environment, to growing, then a fully formed, person, to a distinct grown adult, to an adult participant in the collective, to the sense of transcendence and oneness within it. But we get to move into and out of that state, and thus the collective benefits at any given moment from these individualized and collectivized actors perpetuating it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yep, we is. Jonathan Haidt did a talk entitled, "Religion, Evolution, and the Ectasy of Self-Transcendence," which I think goes a long way to explain social structures and all the warm fuzzies as evolutionary advantage. It's a powerful feedback loop: we become "one of" and it makes us feel good, and the product of the whole is greater than any of us can do on our own. The collectivity can come with personal risks, but the immediate and personal payout i the good feels of transcendence. It's sounds to me like we go full circle, from the amoeba-like state of a zygote, very much "one" with its environment, to growing, then a fully formed, person, to a distinct grown adult, to an adult participant in the collective, to the sense of transcendence and oneness within it. But we get to move into and out of that state, and thus the collective benefits at any given moment from these individualized and collectivized actors perpetuating it. 

Yep.

I guess you finally get it. We create our own worlds from matter unorganized.

Welcome to my world

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

................Alma 7

10 And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God............................

Zosimus 12:9a        the angels of God announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God, from a holy virgin, the Mother of God (Mary)       (cf. 11:14-24)  Charlesworth, OTP II:450-461.

Ugaritic text hl ǵlmt tld b[n . . .] “Behold, the ˁalmat (virgin) shall give birth to a chi[ld]”(“The Betrothal of Moon and Nikkal-Ib” CAT 1.24, line 7), paralleling Isaiah 7:14..

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

I guess you finally get it. We create our own worlds from matter unorganized.

Welcome to my world

Some of the matter we create "our own" (?) world from is matter organized, too. We don't work with only unorganized stuff. Consider how our Father works with all of us regardless of which organization we may already be a part of as it exists in "our own" world.

I've been to your world and I find it sometimes lacks sufficient interpretations and explanations to help me understand everything as it really is.  Only sometimes, though, and I know who to ask for help when I need it.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Zosimus 12:9a        the angels of God announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God, from a holy virgin, the Mother of God (Mary)       (cf. 11:14-24)  Charlesworth, OTP II:450-461.

Ugaritic text hl ǵlmt tld b[n . . .] “Behold, the ˁalmat (virgin) shall give birth to a chi[ld]”(“The Betrothal of Moon and Nikkal-Ib” CAT 1.24, line 7), paralleling Isaiah 7:14..

 

Interesting diversity in the years these were first written, later discovered and then translated and published by westerners. The first (the poem, 1400 BC) was last (1955), and the last (Zosimus, 490 AD) was first (1576). Alma "the virgin" (150 BC / 1830 AD) forms the chiasma 😊

@Robert F. Smith and @mfbukowski : Apologies for the awkward silence I've evidently created - just having some foolish fun!

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/5/2019 at 3:42 PM, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

I guess you finally get it. We create our own worlds from matter unorganized.

Welcome to my world

Not quite, we are biological beings, products of processes and systems, and we may just by a convergence of properties have the ability to create. Yet that capacity would be limited and finite...but still worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/4/2019 at 6:53 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'd strongly disagree over the claim of "no one was victimized." The fact that something evolves either due to biological instincts or social evolution doesn't mean no one gets victimized either by the structures themselves or are allowed by the structures. It's not terribly hard to compare primitive societies and see some engage in a lot of victimization while others don't. The fact that it's natural doesn't entail it is good. I think Peterson is just fundamentally wrong here.

I'd also add, that while I have many issues with feminists, the main issue is the terminology. Once you figure out how they're using the terms they're far less objectionable. I'll not get into a discussion of how terminology, particularly in the last 25 years arose and how it fundamentally miscommunicates to those not exposed to it academically. But toxic masculinity, as used, just means those stereotypical masculine characteristics that are anti-social. It doesn't mean masculinity is itself is bad. (Although that's how it's often portrayed particularly in conservative polemics) Most of the characteristics that get called toxic masculinity are considered evil "natural man" within our own religion. So in practice there's less problem here than some portray. Likewise while I hate the term "patriarchy" it actually just means structural inequities that no particular person has responsibility over.

I think the idea that our current structures are due to cooperation and negotiation rather than sometimes unfortunate accidents of history is just difficult to accept. I'm enough of a Burkean styled conservative to think we should be careful with revolution without first asking if there are good reasons for a structure. Something that typically is not worried about enough in feminist critiques from the days of Simone de Beauvoir to the present. (The place of motherhood being the classic example).......................

 

Share this post


Link to post

To refer to Jesus Christ as simply a “perfect human”, does not capture who he is. He is the Son of God, He is God, one who overcame all human impulses, and to both evolve, or transcend it all. 

Edited by Bill “Papa” Lee

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

To refer to Jesus Christ as simply a “perfect human”, does not capture who he is. He is the Son of God, He is God, one who overcame all human impulses, and to both evolve, or transcend it all. 

Yes of course I agree with you that he is infinitely above us.  But that means that the human species is capable of doing that and to believe in exaltation implies that we too can become like God.  To deny that is to deny exaltation and the whole purpose of the temple ordinances.

Furthermore  the reason for the point was that "Even Humanists" and their position implies belief in good better and best strategies for human improvement which parallel ours.

And that implies that even the godless have ideas about what a god could be, even if they are not like ours

Which implies a weak spot in atheism.   If someone only postulated that God is an IDEA of what a perfect human being could be, and that we should behave as the IDEA to become better humans, we would all be better off

Indeed if one simply believed ONLY that the golden rule evolved as a peace-making idea which has survival value because one makes more babies and they live longer to reproduce in a peaceful society than one constantly at war,  IF one ONLY believed that and so everyone decided to treat others as they want to be treated- even without a concept of any god whatsoever- just for the good of humanity- we would be far ahead of where we are now.

These are eternal truths- and I do not use that phrase lightly.  As long as there are humans it will always be better to treat others as we want to be treated.  Period. 

One Eternal and Pragmatic truth right there.  (along with the 10 commandments by the way- same argument for each of them.  Social evolution?  From a Pragmatic pov it doesn't matter)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

And?

Some people face the gospel of Christ and decide it they are damned and kill themselves or give up. I know lifelong members whose conception of the gospel is flawed and it causes a lot of pain to themselves and others. That a movement can be perverted or misunderstood does not mean it is fundamentally flawed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

A thousand yesses!!  Thanks!

We hear these women all the time right here on the board. l get jumped on all the time right here for the same kind of things- the other day I got mild flak for quoting Sister Eubanks.

Are you serious?  In 2014, at the Fair conference, she got cheers from everyone, and now her views are "inadequate"

Bill Maher is now a conservative.  What is this world coming to ?  Bernie Sanders is a sexist pig for forcing his oppressed workers into horrible living conditions.   It is unconscionable that he has now also become a fascist.

;)

Where is that little red book I used to carry..... ?   

But to get this back on topic- I think this kind of thing is the perfect justification for my belief that Humanism can be as dogmatic in pursuit of perfection as any path of belief.

If this is not religious fervor taken too far I don't know what is.   These are true blue black and white fundamentalists believers in action.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In 2014, at the Fair conference, she got cheers from everyone, and now her views are "inadequate"

I have no doubt that there were those in 2014 that saw her views as inadequate just as there are now. 

One person expressing such on a message board when if you made a topic to see you would get a dozen or more women applauding her is not some earthshaking change, if it is a change at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That a movement can be perverted or misunderstood does not mean it is fundamentally flawed.

I am not quite sure what that could mean.  If a movement is perverted or misunderstood how is it the "same movement" which is ACTUALLY not "fundamentally flawed"?

I am just trying to understand the function of the point you are trying to make.

Is it perhaps like that the church is not fundamentally flawed because we have some wacko members?   Is that the purpose of the statement?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I have no doubt that there were those in 2014 that saw her views as inadequate just as there are now. 

One person expressing such on a message board when if you made a topic to see you would get a dozen or more women applauding her is not some earthshaking change, if it is a change at all. 

Gosh I guess senility must be setting in.  I didn't understand that comment either.

So you are saying this was the progression?  1- one person responded to a topic I conjured up to see if I could get a dozen or more negative replies? And -2- what would be my motivation to do that- to derail my own thread ?  And therefore 3- because I got only one response to my nefarious plot that designates that there was "no change since 2014"?

Just trying to understand your point, my old unchanging buddy!   I still have Calmoriah in my siggy for her brilliance in understanding how we create our own pictures of reality.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Gosh I guess senility must be setting in.  I didn't understand that comment either.

So you are saying this was the progression?  1- one person responded to a topic I conjured up to see if I could get a dozen or more negative replies? And -2- what would be my motivation to do that- to derail my own thread ?  And therefore 3- because I got only one response to my nefarious plot that designates that there was "no change since 2014"?

Just trying to understand your point, my old unchanging buddy!   I still have Calmoriah in my siggy for her brilliance in understanding how we create our own pictures of reality.  :)

 

I am just saying I don't see much difference in views of Sister Eubank's talk between then and now.  I saw a lot of negative on some exmormon sites back then.  Depending on who one was and is paying attention to, it may seem like there has been change, but little significant change overall.  I bet if the talk was mentioned in this past FM conference and people were asked to signify their favorite talks, that talk would still rate cheers.  People still cheering at FM conferences, church critics still seeing it as inadequate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And?

Some people face the gospel of Christ and decide it they are damned and kill themselves or give up. I know lifelong members whose conception of the gospel is flawed and it causes a lot of pain to themselves and others. That a movement can be perverted or misunderstood does not mean it is fundamentally flawed.

Christina, Bill, and me are concerned with the metamorphosis of a good cause.  It has now become its own enemy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/4/2019 at 11:32 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I have heard LDS on this board frequently disparage philosophy by claiming that "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" is something negative. Don't CFR me on it, but I think you have said it regarding Greek philosophy (have you?). Don't you run the risk of being accused of mingling secular atheist philosophy with LDS scripture with your claims?

Is all human philosophy bad if it is mingled with scripture? (if so, your humanism project has a serious problem). If not, then is there an authoritative statement that the only certain philosophies mingled with scripture are bad? Why single out Greek philosophy and embrace post-modernism, in a religious context?

"philosophies of men mingled with scripture" is actually LDS shorthand for a bad mix leading to heresy.  It is used specifically in an esoteric liturgical context.  And you are correct to suppose that it isn't just any philosophy which is being condemned, but only those philosophies which are favored by Satan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Christina, Bill, and me are concerned with the metamorphosis of a good cause.  It has now become its own enemy.

Every cause and organization will eventually face a faction or challenge that will threaten to undermine its founding goals.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...