Featured CALVINISM’S GREATEST FALLACY

Revmitchell · Dec 18, 2017

Many Calvinists insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously “brought to pass” or “decreed” by God otherwise it would prove (1) God has no purpose for evil’s existence or (2) He is powerless to do anything about it.[1]

For instance, Calvinistic scholar, Matt Slick states,

“…if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it. It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal. God is sort of left helpless in the matter.” <link>

These Calvinists are committing the “false dilemma” fallacy by insisting that there are only two alternatives to the problem when other valid options are clearly available and not being offered for objective consideration.

Logical fallacies serve to confound an issue and make a false perspective appear to be valid. In this article we will debunk this fallacious argument and present a much more robust answer to the problem being presented.

First of all, let’s dispose of the second alternative presented by the Calvinist’s false dilemma, “God is powerless to do anything about moral evil.” We can all agree that God has the power to stop sin, just as He had the power to prevent it from ever entering into our world, so let’s just dismiss that as an option. We are not debating about what God COULD do, we are debating about what God is PLEASED to do. This is not about God’s abilities, its about His character.

We can affirm that “God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him,” (Ps. 115:3) while still holding on to the equally valid truth that, “the highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Ps. 115:16). This means it pleases God to give man a certain level of “libertarian freedom” or “dominion.” This is a biblical view of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As A.W. Tozer rightly explains:

“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

One cannot presume that it did not please God to create libertarian free creatures, as do the Calvinists who present this false dilemma.

Now, let’s consider the Calvinist’s first alternative, which was, “God has no purpose for evil’s existence.” The shortsightedness of that statement is revealed by simply asking, “Did God have a good purpose in creating libertarian free creatures who have the ability to choose moral evil?”

Calvinists are failing to acknowledge the possibility that evil is a consequence of libertarian free will (the ability of morally accountable creatures to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). The only way they can ignore this possibility is to deny God’s omnipotence by suggesting He is not powerful enough to have created libertarianly free creatures even if He was pleased to do so. Surely Calvinists do not want to suggest God is incapable of doing as He pleases.

Now, it must be noted that Non-Calvinists do believe that God does have a GOOD purpose in giving man the ability to make libertarianly free choices, even if those choices have an EVIL purpose. So, it is only in presuming that God did not purpose to create libertarianly free creatures that one is left with the dilemma of either (1) a Holy God purposing evil Himself or (2) purposeless evil.

A clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using creaturely evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the Holy, perfect, sinless Creator.

Soteriology101

agedman · Dec 18, 2017

You present as if the sides are merely one has freedom to choose, or one does not.

That is not the case.

Calvinistic thinking is generally (for there are extremists) that an unbeliever has the ability to choose. They may choose from all choices available to them.

It is what actually are the choices available to them from which to choose that you seem to desire to enlarge. They may choose only from that which the fallen nature permits.

Certainly, the heathen father knows how to give both that which is good (healthy, wise, ...) to their child. Yet that same father has no ability to give righteousness to that child, and may only select of that good from which is common good given by God to all humankind. For the father of all lies knows no good to give but only to seek and destroy.

What Calvinists agree (generally posting again) is that the heathen do evil because it is their heart to do evil. They have dominion to do evil because as you pointed out, God has given certain dominion (authority) delegation into humanity (and the same throughout all His creation).

God does not "purpose evil" but allows such to be formulated and carried out for His ultimate goal. Best example that comes to mind is that of the pharaoh. His heart was already hard and God that which was already twisted toward evil and used it by confirming it evil and displaying it as evil against the pharaoh and by extension all Egyptians.

When it comes to believers encountering evil or evil is either purposed, incited, and even committed upon them, the Calvinistic generally consider that such is God allowed for both instruction and testimony. God does not author evil, but will allow evil to serve as He desires.

For example, the statement of the disciples, "Who sinned, the parents or the child?" Paul (as Saul) going out thinking he was doing the will of God by imprisoning believers. Isaiah's statement as to the crucifixion thinking that humanity thought they were doing what was right and authored by God when smiting and afflicting the Lord. Yet in each situation the evil done was used (not authored) by God for his purposes.

The Pilgrim saying, "It pleased God...." was not a statement of God purposing evil, but allowing the fallen nature of humankind and even nature to run that natural fallen course and He using that for His purposes.

One of the aspects of "American Exceptionalism" is the thinking that "good always overcomes evil." It is a theme of most Hollywood and literature productions.

But it is not true. Such is a lie.

The Righteousness of Christ will one day slay and destroy human evil, not just subjugate it, or even subdue it. The father of all lies will be cast away and permanently held against his will in that which was prepared, he is never "subjugated" and never surrenders, but is confined.

Psychologically, humans can do extreme violence, and that ALL humans (believers included) when given the conditions will ignore the "better angels" and commit even the most horrendous of crimes. This was verified in studies following WWII. It is part of the fallen nature.

God doesn't have to "author" what is already a part of the very core value system of humanity, both that of believer and unbeliever. Evil.

agedman · Dec 18, 2017

When using the term "libertarian free will" one must assume you mean free from any constrains or imprinting.

Such does not exist.

As even the worldly psychological studies have shown, no one goes through life "tabula rasa" but are subjected to personality traits as intricate parts of the genetic coding.

Therefore, the evidence of some "libertarian free will" is an aspiration dead of suffocation. For there is no true science that supports such an extension of indulgence.

One is born in sin, they are not born with a "libertarian free will."

The Archangel · Dec 22, 2017

You say....

Revmitchell said: ↑

These Calvinists are committing the “false dilemma” fallacy by insisting that there are only two alternatives to the problem when other valid options are clearly available and not being offered for objective consideration.

Logical fallacies serve to confound an issue and make a false perspective appear to be valid. In this article we will debunk this fallacious argument and present a much more robust answer to the problem being presented.
Click to expand...

And then you commit the logical fallacy of "Begging the Question" by assuming "Libertarian freedom" of the creature. And so, by your own standards, you are making your own "false perspective appear to be valid."

Revmitchell said: ↑

One cannot presume that it did not please God to create libertarian free creatures, as do the Calvinists who present this false dilemma.
Click to expand...

Have a nice day.

The Archangel

Yeshua1 · Dec 22, 2017

Revmitchell said: ↑

Many Calvinists insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously “brought to pass” or “decreed” by God otherwise it would prove (1) God has no purpose for evil’s existence or (2) He is powerless to do anything about it.[1]

For instance, Calvinistic scholar, Matt Slick states,

“…if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it. It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal. God is sort of left helpless in the matter.” <link>

These Calvinists are committing the “false dilemma” fallacy by insisting that there are only two alternatives to the problem when other valid options are clearly available and not being offered for objective consideration.

Logical fallacies serve to confound an issue and make a false perspective appear to be valid. In this article we will debunk this fallacious argument and present a much more robust answer to the problem being presented.

First of all, let’s dispose of the second alternative presented by the Calvinist’s false dilemma, “God is powerless to do anything about moral evil.” We can all agree that God has the power to stop sin, just as He had the power to prevent it from ever entering into our world, so let’s just dismiss that as an option. We are not debating about what God COULD do, we are debating about what God is PLEASED to do. This is not about God’s abilities, its about His character.

We can affirm that “God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him,” (Ps. 115:3) while still holding on to the equally valid truth that, “the highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Ps. 115:16). This means it pleases God to give man a certain level of “libertarian freedom” or “dominion.” This is a biblical view of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As A.W. Tozer rightly explains:

“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

One cannot presume that it did not please God to create libertarian free creatures, as do the Calvinists who present this false dilemma.

Now, let’s consider the Calvinist’s first alternative, which was, “God has no purpose for evil’s existence.” The shortsightedness of that statement is revealed by simply asking, “Did God have a good purpose in creating libertarian free creatures who have the ability to choose moral evil?”

Calvinists are failing to acknowledge the possibility that evil is a consequence of libertarian free will (the ability of morally accountable creatures to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). The only way they can ignore this possibility is to deny God’s omnipotence by suggesting He is not powerful enough to have created libertarianly free creatures even if He was pleased to do so. Surely Calvinists do not want to suggest God is incapable of doing as He pleases.

Now, it must be noted that Non-Calvinists do believe that God does have a GOOD purpose in giving man the ability to make libertarianly free choices, even if those choices have an EVIL purpose. So, it is only in presuming that God did not purpose to create libertarianly free creatures that one is left with the dilemma of either (1) a Holy God purposing evil Himself or (2) purposeless evil.

A clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using creaturely evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the Holy, perfect, sinless Creator.

Soteriology101
Click to expand...

God either determines directly all things that came to pass, or else he permitted what came to pass, either way, He could have chosen to intervene always in the situation.

Revmitchell · Dec 22, 2017

The Archangel said: ↑

You say....

And then you commit the logical fallacy of "Begging the Question" by assuming "Libertarian freedom" of the creature. And so, by your own standards, you are making your own "false perspective appear to be valid."

Have a nice day.

The Archangel
Click to expand...

Actually I didn't do that. Good luck though

HeirofSalvation · Dec 22, 2017

Yeshua1 said: ↑

God either determines directly all things that came to pass, or else he permitted what came to pass, either way, He could have chosen to intervene always in the situation.
Click to expand...

Nope, there are other options.

Yeshua1 · Dec 23, 2017

HeirofSalvation said: ↑

Nope, there are other options.
Click to expand...

You mean things happen outside and apart from God?

utilyan · Dec 25, 2017

Yeshua1 said: ↑

You mean things happen outside and apart from God?
Click to expand...

Could God run the world in an Armenian fashion if he wanted to? (not insisting he is doing it) Or is GOD too STUPID and WEAK for that to be an option?

^this might have to be a whole new thread because its a question avoided often.

utilyan · Dec 25, 2017

Revmitchell said: ↑

Many Calvinists insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously “brought to pass” or “decreed” by God otherwise it would prove (1) God has no purpose for evil’s existence or (2) He is powerless to do anything about it.[1]

For instance, Calvinistic scholar, Matt Slick states,

“…if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it. It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal. God is sort of left helpless in the matter.” <link>

These Calvinists are committing the “false dilemma” fallacy by insisting that there are only two alternatives to the problem when other valid options are clearly available and not being offered for objective consideration.

Logical fallacies serve to confound an issue and make a false perspective appear to be valid. In this article we will debunk this fallacious argument and present a much more robust answer to the problem being presented.

First of all, let’s dispose of the second alternative presented by the Calvinist’s false dilemma, “God is powerless to do anything about moral evil.” We can all agree that God has the power to stop sin, just as He had the power to prevent it from ever entering into our world, so let’s just dismiss that as an option. We are not debating about what God COULD do, we are debating about what God is PLEASED to do. This is not about God’s abilities, its about His character.

We can affirm that “God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him,” (Ps. 115:3) while still holding on to the equally valid truth that, “the highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Ps. 115:16). This means it pleases God to give man a certain level of “libertarian freedom” or “dominion.” This is a biblical view of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As A.W. Tozer rightly explains:

“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

One cannot presume that it did not please God to create libertarian free creatures, as do the Calvinists who present this false dilemma.

Now, let’s consider the Calvinist’s first alternative, which was, “God has no purpose for evil’s existence.” The shortsightedness of that statement is revealed by simply asking, “Did God have a good purpose in creating libertarian free creatures who have the ability to choose moral evil?”

Calvinists are failing to acknowledge the possibility that evil is a consequence of libertarian free will (the ability of morally accountable creatures to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). The only way they can ignore this possibility is to deny God’s omnipotence by suggesting He is not powerful enough to have created libertarianly free creatures even if He was pleased to do so. Surely Calvinists do not want to suggest God is incapable of doing as He pleases.

Now, it must be noted that Non-Calvinists do believe that God does have a GOOD purpose in giving man the ability to make libertarianly free choices, even if those choices have an EVIL purpose. So, it is only in presuming that God did not purpose to create libertarianly free creatures that one is left with the dilemma of either (1) a Holy God purposing evil Himself or (2) purposeless evil.

A clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using creaturely evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the Holy, perfect, sinless Creator.

Soteriology101
Click to expand...

Matt Slick would be a better god then Calvinist version of God. In their attempt to force humility on sinners they inadvertently trashed the image of God and insult God by making him out to be a monster.

Calvinist say "its a absolute miracle that God was kind enough to save me, because I thought he was going to give everyone hell."

Shocked and Surprised that God isn't completely EVIL.

The whole thing is insult to God. You have got to be a well suffered soul to be a ex-Calvinist, Because where power and fear are the virtues , and you are told Love and Kindness is weakness. Thats a hard nut to crack.

Yeshua1 · Dec 26, 2017

utilyan said: ↑

Could God run the world in an Armenian fashion if he wanted to? (not insisting he is doing it) Or is GOD too STUPID and WEAK for that to be an option?

^this might have to be a whole new thread because its a question avoided often.
Click to expand...

No, for the natural man receives not the things that are spiritual.

Yeshua1 · Dec 26, 2017

utilyan said: ↑

Matt Slick would be a better god then Calvinist version of God. In their attempt to force humility on sinners they inadvertently trashed the image of God and insult God by making him out to be a monster.

Calvinist say "its a absolute miracle that God was kind enough to save me, because I thought he was going to give everyone hell."

Shocked and Surprised that God isn't completely EVIL.

The whole thing is insult to God. You have got to be a well suffered soul to be a ex-Calvinist, Because where power and fear are the virtues , and you are told Love and Kindness is weakness. Thats a hard nut to crack.
Click to expand...

ALL of us as sinners deserved to go to Hell, and God was within His right to allow that to happen, correct?

Revmitchell · Dec 26, 2017

Yeshua1 said: ↑

No, for the natural man receives not the things that are spiritual.
Click to expand...

Yea this is one of the bigger errors of cals. It usually comes from 1 Corinthians 2:14:

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.

The mistake made by cals is to believe this is a comparison between the regenerate and the unregenerate. Its not by any means. It is simply a comparison between worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.

Iconoclast · Dec 26, 2017

Revmitchell said: ↑

Actually I didn't do that. Good luck though
Click to expand...

No...you just quoted the failed musings of leighton flowers so he could do it for you You follow him down the philosophical yellow brick road...

Iconoclast · Dec 26, 2017

Revmitchell said: ↑

Yea this is one of the bigger errors of cals. It usually comes from 1 Corinthians 2:14:

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.

The mistake made by cals is to believe this is a comparison between the regenerate and the unregenerate. Its not by any means. It is simply a comparison between worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.
Click to expand...

total misunderstanding of the verse as usual...

TCassidy · Dec 26, 2017

Revmitchell said: ↑

It is simply a comparison between worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.
Click to expand...

The natural MAN. The man according to nature and according to his nature.

The only way to get around it is to deny it says what it means and means what it says.

1 Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Clearly a contrast between the natural man and the spiritual man. The natural man according to his fallen nature, and the spiritual man according to his redeemed nature.

Revmitchell · Dec 26, 2017

TCassidy said: ↑

The natural man according to his fallen nature, and the spiritual man according to his redeemed nature.
Click to expand...

This is where you read into the passage that which is not there. The comparison begins in chapter one where the wisdom of mean and the wisdom of God begins its comparison. That context does not change in chapter two. What is meant by the natural man and the spiritual man? Have you proven your context simply because you quote that passage and assert what it mean with no break down or clear explanation?

Does it have to mean the unregenerate and the regenerate simply because you place the word natural and spiritual in your own context of the nature of man? I am not convinced since scripture refuses to do that. Paul was speaking of the wisdom of the world because he was addressing the Greeks and the Jews but with regards to the Greeks he knew they loved the wisdom of the world and sought out more wisdom all the time.

If that is not clear enough to you let's look at other things Paul wrote on this subject:

Eph 3:5 Which in other generations was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit:

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

God clearly uses men to deliver his word, which by the way is the singular place to find the power unto salvation Romans 1:16, to bring the wisdom of God. This is the context of I Cor 2:14-15. So when men choose to only follow the wisdom of this world and choose to reject the wisdom sent to us by God through His prophets and His word then they will not understand. The natural man is the one who rejects the things of God for the wisdom of the world. There is nothing there about only being able to follow your so called nature. Its not in the passage only imposed on it.

thatbrian · Dec 27, 2017

agedman said: ↑

When using the term "libertarian free will" one must assume you mean free from any constrains or imprinting.

Such does not exist.
Click to expand...

Yes. Men are unable to accept the biblical position of God's sovereignty in election and man's bondage to sin because he starts with the false presupposition that he has Libertarian Free Will.

utilyan · Dec 27, 2017

Yeshua1 said: ↑

ALL of us as sinners deserved to go to Hell, and God was within His right to allow that to happen, correct?
Click to expand...

WRONG.
ALL of us as sinners deserved to go to Hell = You believe you deserve to sin against God eternally.

Hell requires active separation from God. Sin is a bad thing in all its ways.

You think justice is about what YOU deserve.

No son, its about what God deserves.

He doesn't deserve the existence of anything cursing his name for an eternity.

Yeshua1 · Dec 27, 2017

utilyan said: ↑

WRONG.
ALL of us as sinners deserved to go to Hell = You believe you deserve to sin against God eternally.

Hell requires active separation from God. Sin is a bad thing in all its ways.

You think justice is about what YOU deserve.

No son, its about what God deserves.

He doesn't deserve the existence of anything cursing his name for an eternity.
Click to expand...

Sinners deserve to go to Hell, period, correct?

Featured CALVINISM’S GREATEST FALLACY

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

agedman Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

agedman Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

The Archangel Well-Known Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

thatbrian Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Featured CALVINISM’S GREATEST FALLACY

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

agedman Well-Known Member Site Supporter

agedman Well-Known Member Site Supporter

The Archangel Well-Known Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus Administrator

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

thatbrian Well-Known Member Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

agedman Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

agedman Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

thatbrian Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

utilyan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter