Jump to content

How To Get To Heaven When You Die


How To Get To Heaven When You Die  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. DID YOU PRAY THAT PRAYER AT TO BOTTOM OF THIS FIRST POST TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART?

    • YES
      2
    • NO
      1
    • I ALREADY PRAYED/ACCEPTED JESUS CHRIST INTO MY HEART BEFORE
      6
    • OTHER
      5


Recommended Posts

i missed it - when did anybody claim the books included in the canon were written "hundreds" of years after christ? i don't think anybody disputes that many or most of them were written in the first century. however that's trivial information - human history has shown over and over that fables don't need much time at all to get started, particularly if there is religious zealotry driving them mostly through oral tradition, which was certainly the case with 1st-century christianity. I guess I missed all the other times in human history that fables resulted in the impact that Christianity has. Please enlighten me.if it were just a single method you might have a point, but there are over a dozen methods of dating the age of the earth that all corroborate with great precision. that is why we can say how old the earth is with confidence. science doesn't take anything lightly as you seem to think. unlike religion, potential errors and misconceptions are excruciatingly self-policed.Like Global warming?someone who is ignorant of science and incapable of objective rational thought can be shown pretty much anything.As can someone that wants to not believe what his parents believe can.you've probably had this expained to you about 30 times here. the big bang theory is not an explanation for where matter/energy came from. all the big bang theory represents is the notion that all of energy/matter & spacetime were a singularity that expanded to what we see today. it says nothing beyond that about origins. there ARE several other much more complex theories that attempt to do so, but none of those are even testable at this point due to technological limitations, much less accepted as fact. science's answer to where everything came from right now is WE DON'T KNOW. Okay let me get this straight. the Big bang has fallen out of favor? Or it is disproven, or a newer better explanation has arisen that gives you a better excuse for the formation of matter? ( yea, mass was mispeak) I am allowing you to fill in the blank here: The evolutionist theory of___________ that explains where it all started and came from is just as much groundless faith as you claim my beliefs are.you're shifting burden of proof. "we don't know" is NOT evidence god exists. science considers "god" a theory like like the big bang. if you want anyone else to believe your theory it's up to you to provide evidence, it's not up to science to DISprove your theory.Ah you say that, but you dont believe that. What you really believe is that you want me to 'prove' God in a manner that you approve of. You want to stack the deck and then pretend you are open minded. I must use known science, the same known science that can't find Higg's thingy to find a Creator outside of time/space and then bring him to you in a formula. Until then you will ridicule my beliefs as unscientific. If there are reasonable arguments to point to why God does not want to be found that way, and He chose instead to be found in the Bible, so you make me prove the Bible through "non-Christian" sources. I don't imagine many non-Christians at the time were thinking they should keep a record of this Jewish offshoot for future generations to know the validitity of their claims. Again you set the parameters which I must follow to 'prove' something to you you don't want to believe. i think you mean matter, not mass. LLY is about to prove where mass comes from and win the nobel prize by finding the higgs boson.
The value of the Nobel prize has been diluted by awarding it to Algore. In my mind they will probably never recover their former splendour
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 585
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just curious, wouldn't God saying "let there be light" (ie energy) result in a "Big Bang"? By the way, we don't have any concept of God's time. And I believe that Genesis given by God to explain in very simple terms how earth was created. As I've said before, we don't try to explain calculus to the average 3 year old. And it's my contention that God is even higher above us in knowledge and intelligence than we are above the average 3 year old. He gave what was needed at the time which is the fact that He made it all. He didn't clutter it up with a bunch of stuff that would be indeceiferable to the people he was giving it to. Anyway, you say that science doesn't know what created matter in the first place but it wasn't God. So it seems that you are positing a negative here. It could be anything but God is your hypothesis. But the fact remains that YOU DON'T KNOW, SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, wouldn't God saying "let there be light" (ie energy) result in a "Big Bang"?
yeah, in the same way the FSM saying "let there be pasta" would result in a big noodle.
By the way, we don't have any concept of God's time. And I believe that Genesis given by God to explain in very simple terms how earth was created. As I've said before, we don't try to explain calculus to the average 3 year old. And it's my contention that God is even higher above us in knowledge and intelligence than we are above the average 3 year old. He gave what was needed at the time which is the fact that He made it all. He didn't clutter it up with a bunch of stuff that would be indeceiferable to the people he was giving it to.
this is obviously all just assumption-based speculation on your part in an attempt to validate belief you've already decided is true. if you want to provide real evidence that any of that is true i'd be happy to listen. in my view there is certainly a pattern indicating nothing about the universe is fundamentally beyond our grasp. our ability to understand the universe seems to only be limited by technology & resources.
Anyway, you say that science doesn't know what created matter in the first place but it wasn't God.
science doesn't say it wasn't god. science generally doesn't have the resources to waste trying to prove negatives.
It could be anything but God is your hypothesis.
i'm not making a hypothesis. you are.
But the fact remains that YOU DON'T KNOW, SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW.
yup. the question is why do you think you do know?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I missed all the other times in human history that fables resulted in the impact that Christianity has. Please enlighten me.
pick your religion. islam's impact is almost as big and is currently gaining.
like Global warming?
there was never a scientific consensus on the proportional impact of the causes of global warming, just media hype. i've believe i've pointed that out to you 5 or 6 times now :club:
As can someone that wants to not believe what his parents believe can.
has nothing to do with parents. i'd personally prefer it if there were an eternal afterlife, just don't find any positive value in deluding myself about it.
Okay let me get this straight. the Big bang has fallen out of favor? Or it is disproven, or a newer better explanation has arisen that gives you a better excuse for the formation of matter? ( yea, mass was mispeak) I am allowing you to fill in the blank here: The evolutionist theory of___________ that explains where it all started and came from is just as much groundless faith as you claim my beliefs are.
it's like you didn't even read what i wrote. you're just spouting the same old tired ignorant arguments without even thinking.
Ah you say that, but you dont believe that. What you really believe is that you want me to 'prove' God in a manner that you approve of. You want to stack the deck and then pretend you are open minded. I must use known science, the same known science that can't find Higg's thingy to find a Creator outside of time/space and then bring him to you in a formula. Until then you will ridicule my beliefs as unscientific.
again, if you postulate something as objective truth that intrinsically can't be detected by science, what differentiates you from your average lunatic?
If there are reasonable arguments to point to why God does not want to be found that way
hindus say the same thing about their god(s). do you think they are making reasonable arguments?
I don't imagine many non-Christians at the time were thinking they should keep a record of this Jewish offshoot for future generations to know the validitity of their claims.
that's debatable since there were some prolific non-christian historians of the time, but either way it's irrelevant because you're again trying to avoid the issue by shifting the burden of proof.
Again you set the parameters which I must follow to 'prove' something to you you don't want to believe.
only in the same way you use those exact same parameters to invalidate other religions that you don't want to believe in.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Crow T. Robot,While I'm disappointed that you've responded to everything I would have wanted to respond to, I'm also grateful that you've done it better than I could possibly hope to manage on my own. Sincerely,Speedz 99

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay let me get this straight. the Big bang has fallen out of favor? Or it is disproven, or a newer better explanation has arisen that gives you a better excuse for the formation of matter? ( yea, mass was mispeak) I am allowing you to fill in the blank here: The evolutionist theory of___________ that explains where it all started and came from is just as much groundless faith as you claim my beliefs are.
Forgetting for a second the fact that you (maybe on purpose) completely ignored and/or misunderstood crow's explanation of the big bang theory...do you really think there is no difference between scientific theory and religious faith? You think there is no difference between:a. making postulations (which are almost always testable on some scale) based on careful observation as well as the generally accepted laws of nature andb. basing everything on a book that was written 2,000 years ago (well before humans understood things like chemical structure, physical properties of matter, and even electricity)Not even a little difference in terms of "groundless faith"?
Link to post
Share on other sites
pick your religion. islam's impact is almost as big and is currently gaining. Still a distant second, and also clearly have their beginnings in Jewish Scripture, with Abraham and the slave woman.there was never a scientific consensus on the proportional impact of the causes of global warming, just media hype. i've believe i've pointed that out to you 5 or 6 times now :club:If you have I didn't notice it, I don't think I've been real big on the global warming debate, but I've been wrong before. So chalk one thing up we agree on, global warming is not a definitehas nothing to do with parents. i'd personally prefer it if there were an eternal afterlife, just don't find any positive value in deluding myself about it.I don't know how you can not want to delude yourself with it. Maybe it's the word delude?it's like you didn't even read what i wrote. you're just spouting the same old tired ignorant arguments without even thinking.again, if you postulate something as objective truth that intrinsically can't be detected by science, what differentiates you from your average lunatic?Height?hindus say the same thing about their god(s). do you think they are making reasonable arguments? Never heard a Hindu make that claim, but I don't know many Hindus.that's debatable since there were some prolific non-christian historians of the time, but either way it's irrelevant because you're again trying to avoid the issue by shifting the burden of proof. you are the one deciding that the burden can only be met by a certain type of person ( non-Christain ) How would your argument be relevant if you stated that only tall people could validate the scriptures?only in the same way you use those exact same parameters to invalidate other religions that you don't want to believe in.
The I believe in one less God thing is catchy.simplistic, but catchy.So If I read the holy writings of a group that claims things not Biblical, I can't use the Bible because you don't accept it.Well in a world of no Bible, there is no valid reason to claim I have better knowledge than others, seeing as how God has not seen fit to tell me different, except in His Word.So I use the Bible to test everything, because I hold the Bible as Holy.Now you know that, so when you say you believe in one less God, it doesn't make you nobel, it makes you misdirecting. You know what I believe in, and why I believe it. Just because you have found reason to disbelieve, doesn't mean my belief is in question.Destroy the Bible, then you can destroy Christianity.Should be a piece of cake for you guys.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgetting for a second the fact that you (maybe on purpose) completely ignored and/or misunderstood crow's explanation of the big bang theory...do you really think there is no difference between scientific theory and religious faith? You think there is no difference between:a. making postulations (which are almost always testable on some scale) based on careful observation as well as the generally accepted laws of nature andb. basing everything on a book that was written 2,000 years ago (well before humans understood things like chemical structure, physical properties of matter, and even electricity)Not even a little difference in terms of "groundless faith"?
Speedz, I get what you are saying, but I am trying to go back a step.If we start with here we are and here's life, let's assume this is how it evolved, I think you can make a rational case for evolution.So I go back to where did this life begin, where did this universe begin, where did gravity, matter, light begin.I get that you guys are comfortable with You don't know...YET. It is the only rational way you can look at it considering your world view. I am not the one saying you guys are childish for thinking this, or deluded or lying.In a way it's your faith, because it answers the parts you can't answer yet. I don't even remotely say that in a negative way.My faith is in God being the Creator, and my not knowing the age of the earth when it was created, I can't explain erosion rates, but I can grasp the possibility that God wanted a planet in full maturity, which would mean some erosions would appear to have happened, even though they didn't. What does that mean when it comes to fossils? Harder answers for me obviously. Just like the Big Bang or any other single event ( didn't think I knew what singularity meant did you? ) is harder for you guys to answer.But in my mind, if there is a rational possibility that God is the source of Miggs' Unifying theory ( probably not Miggs but I wanted to appear smart ) Then the rest of the hypothosis's ( hypothosissys?) about evolution are then false.Why would I want to argue the things I have little to no education on, and are harder for me to explain, when I can go to the part where I have a reasonable theory that makes my case?And the FSM arguement is really just an attempt to dodge the question.As is throwing out the fallacy of infinite time to allow for anything, no matter how unlikely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The I believe in one less God thing is catchy.simplistic, but catchy.So If I read the holy writings of a group that claims things not Biblical, I can't use the Bible because you don't accept it.Well in a world of no Bible, there is no valid reason to claim I have better knowledge than others, seeing as how God has not seen fit to tell me different, except in His Word.So I use the Bible to test everything, because I hold the Bible as Holy.Now you know that, so when you say you believe in one less God, it doesn't make you nobel, it makes you misdirecting. You know what I believe in, and why I believe it. Just because you have found reason to disbelieve, doesn't mean my belief is in question.Destroy the Bible, then you can destroy Christianity.Should be a piece of cake for you guys.
The "I believe in one less God" argument can be summed up as follows:You use faith to justify why you believe that the Bible is the word of God.Other religions use faith to justify what they believe, which directly contradicts the Bible.Therefore, since you believe the bible is true, you necessarily believe that they are wrong.Thus, you do not believe that their faith is an acceptable justification for their beliefs.So faith by itself is not an adequate justification for believing something is true. Hence, you cannot use faith as the sole justification for believing the Bible to be the word of God.So he is not saying you can't believe in the holiness of the Bible, just that you should offer a justification for it that can't in turn be used to justify other things that you believe are false.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So I go back to where did this life begin, where did this universe begin, where did gravity, matter, light begin.
who says the universe had a beginning? assumption.
I get that you guys are comfortable with You don't know...YET. It is the only rational way you can look at it considering your world view. I am not the one saying you guys are childish for thinking this, or deluded or lying.In a way it's your faith, because it answers the parts you can't answer yet.
saying you don't know something doesn't involve faith and doesn't answer anything (duh). what it IS is being intellectually honest with yourself.
My faith is in God being the Creator
faith is wishful thinking mutated into self-delusion.
And the FSM arguement is really just an attempt to dodge the question.
what question?
s is throwing out the fallacy of infinite time to allow for anything, no matter how unlikely.
2 assumptions in one sentence. nobody knows if the universe is unlikely, OR whether "what exists" could be infinite or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Still a distant second, and also clearly have their beginnings in Jewish Scripture, with Abraham and the slave woman.
the point was impact is not a measure of truth. lots of false beliefs have had huge impacts on human history, and obviously one of them has to have had the most. the fact that christianity is the one with the most is trivial. it does not make it true.
The I believe in one less God thing is catchy.simplistic, but catchy.So If I read the holy writings of a group that claims things not Biblical, I can't use the Bible because you don't accept it.Well in a world of no Bible, there is no valid reason to claim I have better knowledge than others, seeing as how God has not seen fit to tell me different, except in His Word.So I use the Bible to test everything, because I hold the Bible as Holy.Now you know that, so when you say you believe in one less God, it doesn't make you nobel, it makes you misdirecting. You know what I believe in, and why I believe it. Just because you have found reason to disbelieve, doesn't mean my belief is in question.Destroy the Bible, then you can destroy Christianity.Should be a piece of cake for you guys.
like lois you just made my original point for me. the only thing that matters is whether the bible is objectively/empirically true or false. if it is empirically falsified no amount of faith makes you any different than any other lunatic. if christians really want to distinguish themselves they should just stop using the word faith altogether, and concentrate on arguments that the bible is empirical truth.
Link to post
Share on other sites
who says the universe had a beginning? Higgs assumption.saying you don't know something doesn't involve faith and doesn't answer anything (duh). what it IS is being intellectually honest with yourself.faith is wishful thinking mutated into self-delusion.Which is why I describe your belief in evolution's beginning as Faithwhat question?2 assumptions in one sentence. nobody knows if the universe is unlikely, OR whether "what exists" could be infinite or not.
You've got troubles coming your way man:Ben Stein movieBen realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The "I believe in one less God" argument can be summed up as follows:You use faith to justify why you believe that the Bible is the word of God.Other religions use faith to justify what they believe, which directly contradicts the Bible.Therefore, since you believe the bible is true, you necessarily believe that they are wrong.Thus, you do not believe that their faith is an acceptable justification for their beliefs.So faith by itself is not an adequate justification for believing something is true. Hence, you cannot use faith as the sole justification for believing the Bible to be the word of God.So he is not saying you can't believe in the holiness of the Bible, just that you should offer a justification for it that can't in turn be used to justify other things that you believe are false.
But the Bible is a collection of 66 books by 40 different authors spread over 2000 years. Just because some people grouped it together for convience and clarity doesn't mean I cannot use one book to substantiate another. Anymore than you can use one author: Dickie Dawkins, to justify Origin of the Species.So this collection of writers presents an explanation for the Meaning of Life, and I am supposed to be a second class intellectual citizen because I can't place it in a beaker and fire up a bunson burner?Again, if someone forced you to use science to prove philosophy, or art, or psychology, you would say they are not understanding the point of those schools of thought. Why is religion held to this standard?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is why I describe your belief in evolution's beginning as Faith
for the 13000th time evolution is not a theory of origins. christians are the only ones here who claim to know how life or the universe started.
You've got troubles coming your way man:Ben Stein movieBen realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
old news. simplistic michael moore-like propaganda piece that everyone of any relevance already knows about since it has been in the works for over a year. it will create some media controversy, but otherwise most educated people will know enough not to take it seriously, and it won't change a thing (other than obliterating stein's reputation as a semi-rational intellectual).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, if someone forced you to use science to prove philosophy, or art, or psychology, you would say they are not understanding the point of those schools of thought. Why is religion held to this standard?
in christianity's case because it is based solidly in empirical claims. jesus either rose from the dead or he didn't. if he didn't christianity is invalidated and what you call faith is irrelevant. why is that so hard to grasp?
Link to post
Share on other sites
in christianity's case because it is based solidly in empirical claims. jesus either rose from the dead or he didn't. if he didn't christianity is invalidated and what you call faith is irrelevant. why is that so hard to grasp?
So you can prove He didn't? You can prove that the eyewitnesses are false? So far I have eyewitnesses, extra-Biblical sources for his existance and crucifixion and eyewitnesses to His resurrection. You atheists always say you can't prove a negative. But in a court of law if I had all this testimony on my side, wouldn't you as defense attorney or whatever need to prove a negative? I know I know, I'm plunging once again into the abyss of debating an atheist who will frame the debate in such a way as to exclude anything he doesn't like. It's the nature of the beast. But I guess I'm just a masochist at heart.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you can prove He didn't? You can prove that the eyewitnesses are false? So far I have eyewitnesses, extra-Biblical sources for his existance and crucifixion and eyewitnesses to His resurrection. You atheists always say you can't prove a negative. But in a court of law if I had all this testimony on my side, wouldn't you as defense attorney or whatever need to prove a negative?
in other words you agree that the basis for your belief is more a matter of external evidence that the bible is historically/objectively true, and what you call internal/personal faith is irrelevant without that evidence.
I know I know, I'm plunging once again into the abyss of debating an atheist who will frame the debate in such a way as to exclude anything he doesn't like. It's the nature of the beast. But I guess I'm just a masochist at heart.
i'm not debating what is or isn't true about the bible at this second. just trying to show that referring to faith as a basis for christian belief is invalid. faith is just a lame excuse for belief, not a reason.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you can prove He didn't? You can prove that the eyewitnesses are false? So far I have eyewitnesses, extra-Biblical sources for his existance and crucifixion and eyewitnesses to His resurrection. You atheists always say you can't prove a negative. But in a court of law if I had all this testimony on my side, wouldn't you as defense attorney or whatever need to prove a negative? I know I know, I'm plunging once again into the abyss of debating an atheist who will frame the debate in such a way as to exclude anything he doesn't like. It's the nature of the beast. But I guess I'm just a masochist at heart.
I am not a atheist. Just want to get that one out of the way. I believe in a God. Maybe not your God or maybe so, who knows, I know there must be something out there but I did not come to that opinion based on the bible or any hard evidence. Actually I only have faith that there is a "God". But a big issue seems to be that I am not 100% convinced about JC. Did he exist, probably, but is everything you read about him true? I doubt it. Again I have no proof but now you just posted that you have concrete proof. I would love to see this concrete proof so that I may learn. I am curious how only one man in the history of mankind has this awesome power to rise from the dead. maybe it's my fascination of zombie movies and such but regardless, I would love to see concrete proof that the Bible is 100% real. Because even though I believe there is a God and a heaven and such, I really don't buy a lot into the bible and people who preach about what is written in the bible. Guess that would be the Scully in me. You seem like a decent Mulder.
Link to post
Share on other sites
for the 13000th time evolution is not a theory of origins. christians are the only ones here who claim to know how life or the universe started.
I hear you, yet I don't hear you. You have a theory, evolution, that did just that. Claimed to tell us where we all originated.You have a general consenses that athiest are evolutionist.You have a theory of the Big Bang taught in schools as an answer to where everything came form.LLY is watching France for a particle to explode and explain where matter and energy came from, to explain the origin.And you say that only Christian's claim to have an answer for origins? Like we're the crazy ones. I'm going crazy from not having an atheist program to keep up with the rapidly changing 'truths'
old news. simplistic michael moore-like propaganda piece that everyone of any relevance already knows about since it has been in the works for over a year. it will create some media controversy, but otherwise most educated people will know enough not to take it seriously, and it won't change a thing (other than obliterating stein's reputation as a semi-rational intellectual).
Careful, you're science based 'observe the facts and reserve judgement until you see it for yourself' open-mindedness is slipping.I bet you're just mad that Little Dickie Dawkins got busted trying to sneak into the theater without paying and got marched out by a renta-cop Mall security employee like a jr high school student ditching school.Of course he is probably just trying to cover up the part in the movie where Dawkins says that life could have an intelligent design, but attributes it to space aliens.There's the hard science we've come to know and love from Dawkins.Space Aliens
Link to post
Share on other sites
the point was impact is not a measure of truth. lots of false beliefs have had huge impacts on human history, and obviously one of them has to have had the most. the fact that christianity is the one with the most is trivial. it does not make it true.
So when you were pointing out the growth rate of Islam, you did that because the one with the most is trivial?
like lois you just made my original point for me. the only thing that matters is whether the bible is objectively/empirically true or false. if it is empirically falsified no amount of faith makes you any different than any other lunatic. if christians really want to distinguish themselves they should just stop using the word faith altogether, and concentrate on arguments that the bible is empirical truth.
But the Bible clearly says it's by Faith not works, less any man should boast.You want empiricle evidence? Here it is. Miracles. They prove science doesn't know everything.Oprah did a lot of good shows on Miracles, and if you can't believe Oprah..well then I guess you will have to remain in the dark.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to ask some stupid questions because I have 15 minutes till I can go home for some great TV.1. So is it my understanding that Christians are completely against science as an explanation for anything? Seems that way but I may be taking it too far. So thunder is not the immediate increase of temp and pressure from lighting that produces a quick expansion of air thus forming some sort of sonic shock wave, it really is God bowling? Or is it, some stuff can be proven with science as long as it doesn't mess with our religious belief?2. I guess I only had one. Damn. I still have 13 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have a theory, evolution, that did just that. Claimed to tell us where we all originated.
false. evolution doesn't posit anything specific about origins.
You have a general consenses that athiest are evolutionist.
not sure what you mean, but the large majority of the educated people in the world including the majority of educated theists are evolutionists. among educated humans anti-evolution creationists are a decidedly small minority (except proportionally in the USA, since that's where most of them are). it goes without saying that most atheists believe in evolution.
You have a theory of the Big Bang taught in schools as an answer to where everything came form.
false. big bang doesn't posit anything specific about origins.
LLY is watching France for a particle to explode and explain where matter and energy came from, to explain the origin.
he's looking for discoveries that might inch us closer to understaing origins. the point is they are looking - they don't claim to already know everything like you do.
And you say that only Christian's claim to have an answer for origins?
in this forum yes. everyone else is content to say they don't know.
you're science based 'observe the facts and reserve judgement until you see it for yourself' open-mindedness is slipping.
from reading other forums i'm familiar with most, if not all of the specific cases likely to be cited in the movie. not impressed.
Of course he is probably just trying to cover up the part in the movie where Dawkins says that life could have an intelligent design, but attributes it to space aliens.There's the hard science we've come to know and love from Dawkins.Space Aliens
1. dawkins claims he was not made aware he was being interviewed for an anti-evolution piece and that there was deception involved.2. obviously dawkins would have indicated aliens seeding life is a *possible* answer, since there's no evidence they exist. he doesn't believe that is true.3. why do you think god is more likely to have started life on earth than aliens?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...