<

Christianity Infantilizes Adults

Cross Examined is a novel about Christian apologetics and atheismYeah, I know the Christmas season is over, but have you heard the song “Christmas Shoes,” which came out about ten years ago?  Patton Oswalt tore it up in a clever comedy bit (video, rated R), and he makes an excellent point about the illogic of what Christians tell themselves.

The song tells the story of a guy who’s in yet another long line before Christmas, not really in the Christmas spirit.  Ahead of him in line is a grubby kid holding a pair of shoes.  When it’s the kid’s turn, he tells the clerk his story, that he’s buying his mom shoes to make her feel better.  She’s sick, and he wants her to look her best if she meets Jesus that night.

The kid counts out the price in pennies, and it turns out that he doesn’t have enough.  So he turns to our hero who feels sorry for the kid and pays for the shoes.  The story concludes:

I knew I’d caught a glimpse of heaven’s love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about.

It’s a sweet story, and lots of people filter life’s events through a Christian lens in this way to see God’s benevolent purpose behind things.  But let’s analyze this to see how “heaven’s love” worked in this situation.

God sees the cranky guy in line.  He gives the kid’s mom some hideous disease, puts the kid in line in front of Mr. Cranky, and makes the kid a little short on cash so that this Christmas miracle could happen.  In other words, God needs to make someone die and leave a kid motherless to spread a little Christmas spirit.

Is that the best explanation for the evidence?  Is that an explanation that a Christian would want?  What kind of insane deity would do that?  Perhaps good and bad things just happen, without divine cause, and we can use events in our lives to prod us to consider what’s important.  We don’t need God and we don’t need to be a Christian to be delighted by life, find silver linings, and use everyday events to remind us of things to be thankful for.

It’s easy to reinterpret events through a Christian lens.  It can be comforting, and it patches leaks in the Good Ship Christianity where reason leaks in.  But this is simply a rationalization to support a presupposition, not an honest following of the evidence, and when you stop to think of what you’re actually saying, you’ll see that the reality you’ve invented makes no sense.

When Christians wonder why atheists get agitated, this kind of empty childish thinking is often the cause.

Consider another story.  Suppose a girl sick with cancer throws a coin into a wishing well and wishes to get better.  The net effect is that the girl is a little happier, like she took a happiness pill.

But this wishing well belief is just an ancient custom.  We all know that wishing wells don’t really do anything.  Should you break the news to her?

Few of us would.  What’s the point?  She actually does feel better, and she’ll have plenty of time as an adult to deal with reality.  She has adults in her life who will protect her as necessary, shielding her so that she can hold this belief.

But as she becomes an adult, she must grow up.  We leave behind wishing wells, Santa Claus, and other false beliefs as we become independent.  No longer are the necessities of life given to us; as adults, we must fend for ourselves—indeed, we want to fend for ourselves.  The parent who sugarcoats reality or keeps the child dependent for too long is doing that child no favors.

Reality is better than delusion, happy though that delusion may be.  The doctor saying, “You’ll be just fine” feels a lot better than “You have cancer,” but if I really have cancer, which one allows me to take steps to improve my future?

Religion infantilizes adults and keeps them dependent.  That’s a good thing for the 100-billion-dollar-a-year U.S. religion industry, but what is best for the individual—a pat on the head or reality?

Photo credit: seq

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Bob Calvan

    Bob said:

    “..When Christians wonder why atheists get agitated, this kind of empty childish thinking is often the cause…”

    Why would you get agitated what Christians think? So you have no tolerance for what Christians believe, but push your intolerance on Christians.. Ah, we see the results of another case of moral relativism. Total contradictory, inconsistent, worldview..Just arbitrary absurdity.

    Bob said:

    “..The parent who sugarcoats reality or keeps the child dependent for too long is doing that child no favors…”

    Well, I raised my Daughter about why there is evil in this world. Why there is sickness and grief. And of course taught her that behind all this fallen world is a Sovereign God who is accomplishing His purpose. And God has a means to His ends. And there is no purposeless evil. And we are made in the image of God so we can account for human dignity. And there are absolute moral truths so we know what is right and wrong. So my daughter was prepared for reality. In fact I saw the e-mail my daughter sent you sticking up for her dad..

    So what does an Atheist tell his children? Well, son we have all evolved from slime, so as far as the universe is concerned you are no more important then lettuce. You are just molecules in motion. But the reality is there is evil and sickness because that is just the way it is. This is what random chance has dealt us. There is no purpose to this evil so just do the best you can. Oh, and by the way son always remember what is true for you may not be true for anyone else. And that is ok. And remember there are no absolute right and wrongs. But if you think you are right go ahead and give your opinion. But try to remember your opinion has no more weight then anyone else’s opinion.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Why would you get agitated what Christians think?

      Christians who disregard evidence and rework the world to fit their presupposition get as many votes as I do. Often, they try to get prayer and Creationism in schools or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

      How would you like it if I took LSD before voting? Wouldn’t bother you?

      So you have no tolerance for what Christians believe

      They can believe what they want. It’s when they cross the constitutional boundary that I get annoyed.

      So what does an Atheist tell his children?

      And what does the Christian tell his children? Well, son, science says that all life has a common ancestor from about 3.5 billion years, the universe has 100 billion galaxies with (if you can believe it) 100 billion stars apiece, and matter is made up of tiny, tiny atoms, which are themselves composed of even tinier components. Indeed, our 21st-century world is built on the back of science–electricity, airplanes, computes, and all that. Of course, we Christians grant ourselves license to believe whatever we want, and we find evolution theologically inconvenient, so we reject that piece of science. But as long as science conforms to the bizarre ramblings of a 3000-year-old blog of an Iron Age nomadic desert people, it’s good!

      It’s weird that Christians imagine that they see wonder. “Wonder” from the standpoint of the Bible is “My god could lift that mountain and throw it into the sea.” Only when we discard those shackles and follow the evidence without bias do we truly find wonder in quarks and galaxies and everything in between.

      Your odd caricature seems to say that the biological explanation is to be rejected because it’s unpleasant or yucky or something. Who cares? Don’t you want the truth?

      But try to remember your opinion has no more weight then anyone else’s opinion.

      Or not.

      You really need to avoid characterizing my moral stand because your mind simply can’t accept it. Or something. My guess is that an accurate statement of my thinking is so reasonable that you’d have to throw out your prejudice that my moral approach is illogical or unworkable or that it can’t be followed consistently.

  • Rick T

    As usual, your answer to Bob Calvan included rewordings that attempt to belittle the Christian view and recast it as something we make up because it is convenient, rather than allowing for the possibility that one of two competing world views is TRUE. Either Christianity or some form of Intelligent Designer did it, or random forces without an absolute moral truth claim oozed us into existence. Like you, we are interested in what is TRUE rather than what is helpful to make our case.

    You made this restatement of the Christian view: “Of course, we Christians grant ourselves license to believe whatever we want, and we find evolution theologically inconvenient, so we reject that piece of science. But as long as science conforms to the bizarre ramblings of a 3000-year-old blog of an Iron Age nomadic desert people, it’s good!”

    Since no one suggested this, you made it up. This is simply a poorly twisted restatement of the Christian view that you created out of thin air. It isn’t even close enough to qualify as a straw man argument that is anything closely related to Christianity.

    If you would treat your adversaries as worthy opponents rather than as punching bags to be made into fools and foils for your quick wit, you would be taken as seriously as you take yourself. Until then, there is no point in answering your outlandish attempts to belittle, ridicule, make straw man arguments and conduct your one man ad hominem wrecking crew sort of tactics.

    Once again, you demonstrate that this blog is anything BUT clear thinking about Christianity. You can do better. You ought to do better.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Rick T:

      As usual, your answer to Bob Calvan included rewordings that attempt to belittle the Christian view and recast it as something we make up because it is convenient, rather than allowing for the possibility that one of two competing world views is TRUE.

      My suggestion that the Christian view is convenient is always a reaction to something from the Christian camp. I don’t think I ever bring it up otherwise.

      I interpreted Bob’s comments to mean that the pleasantness of a view is relevant to whether we accept it or not. (As a tangent, I’ve heard this same thing from William Lane Craig–crazy, right?) Are you saying that Bob C had no element of this in his comment?

      Like you, we are interested in what is TRUE rather than what is helpful to make our case.

      That’s a reassuring thought, but I keep seeing evidence (your use of “oozed” might be a tiny example) that the fact that the natural explanation can be interpreted in an icky or unpleasant way is relevant to whether we should accept it as accurate or not.

      Since no one suggested this, you made it up.

      I did indeed! And you can see the parallelism of my story with Bob’s, so I’m sure you see how I was trying to contrast those two views.

      Bob C said, in part, “Well, son we have all evolved from slime, so as far as the universe is concerned you are no more important then lettuce.” Here you can see the icky description, with the suggestion that whether it’s unpleasant or not has some bearing on whether we should accept it or not. This gets back to your concern (above).

      If you would treat your adversaries as worthy opponents rather than as punching bags to be made into fools and foils

      Ah … I once had your naïve optimism! It’s refreshing to see a glimpse of it again, thanks.

      I keep trying to do that with Bob C and he continues to open his comments with “Ah well, once again we see Bob’s nonsensical ramblings” (or something like that). As I mentioned in another comment, I feel like I’m dealing with a bratty child.

      I try my best to elevate the conversation and ignore the slurs, but I’ll admit that your concern is valid, that I do sink to that level sometimes.

    • Retro

      Rick T wrote: …rather than allowing for the possibility that one of two competing world views is TRUE.

      Do you really allow for the possibility that one of two world views is true?

      Either Christianity or some form of Intelligent Designer did it, or random forces without an absolute moral truth claim oozed us into existence.

      I like how you have phrased the choices. Like any good sales pitch, it makes it seem as if there is only one logical choice. Even though it seems illogical that “random forces without an absolute moral truth claim oozed us into existence”, this is no more illogical than simply saying that a god did it.

      So let’s look into these two choices further to see if it’s as simple as it seems:

      If some form of Intelligent Designer did it, then we should be able to define this designer and explain how this designer actually did it. We should be able to directly demonstrate that this designer exists.

      Did this Intelligent Designer use Evolution to create humans? If yes, then it hardly seems like an “intelligent” way to do things. Why would an intelligent designer use trial and error over billions of years? Why would an intelligent designer create a system that requires death and suffering? Why would an intelligent designer create a system where over 99% of all species so far have gone extinct?

      If this Intelligent Designer didn’t use Evolution to create humans, then you need to explain how it was actually done. This explanation should explain away the evidence for Evolution, and not just simply wish it away. Just stating that “an intelligent designer did it” is not good enough.

      Once again, you demonstrate that this blog is anything BUT clear thinking about Christianity. You can do better. You ought to do better.

      Rick, this is the same stalemate these discussions always seem to end in. It’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Complaining that Bob could, and should, do better is nothing more than cursing the darkness. If you feel that Bob is wrong, then please light a candle by bringing some information to the discussion.

      • Rick T

        We don’t pretend to know HOW the designer did it. You don’t pretend to know HOW undirected evolutionary actions resulted in organized information content in the DNA code that builds each organism. That is not a stalemate, because reality fits better with one of those two explanations. Your comments are a reasonably powerful argument against evolution, which is useful for both sides to note and realize the weaknesses of that theory. Design seems more reasonable based on the evidence.

        I am pretty convinced that a designer is the way it happened because what we see has all the earmarks of design and functionality. But I try to phrase my arguments in a way that respects the other side and the points of view as they are expressed. Bob S clearly crossed the line on his “made up out of whole cloth” paraphrase caricature of the Christian position. That is what I was responding to. Lighting a candle only does good in an environment where it will not be snuffed out immediately by unfriendly winds. When I find that environment, I always do try to light a candle. Thanks for the reminder.

        • Retro

          Rick T wrote: Design seems more reasonable based on the evidence.

          What evidence are you looking at? Life competes against life. For you to live, other things must die. The “DNA code that builds each organism” often goes wrong. The percentage of spontaneous abortions and birth defects has already been brought up, so you should be able to explain how this fits into an intelligent design.

          I am pretty convinced that a designer is the way it happened because what we see has all the earmarks of design and functionality.

          Are you familiar with the concept of a bottom-up design? Simple elements being fused by the stars into the heavier elements is a good example of a bottom-up design. Simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms as time goes on is another. If there is an intelligent designer, it seems like it’s a bottom-up designer, which is the exact opposite of the top-down designer that most religions are proposing. So which type of an intelligent designer are you proposing Rick, a bottom-up designer, or a top-down designer?

          Lighting a candle only does good in an environment where it will not be snuffed out immediately by unfriendly winds. When I find that environment, I always do try to light a candle.

          Then by all means, let’s try to create and promote a good environment here then.

        • Rick T

          Retro: Definitely top down design. That is what an intelligent designer means.

          So are you saying that bottom up change from one element to another in a nuclear reaction is the same thing as a DNA code that functions? If you can show me something infinitely many times more complex than a computer operating system coming out of a star nuclear star’s complexity factory, then perhaps your bottom up idea can get to something alive. Until then, the Bible’s explanation of the fall of man and the curse of Genesis chapter 3 explains why we have genetic imperfections and why some embryos do not develop to maturity.

          Bob: Are you really confused or simply arguing for the sake of arguing? Do you really think biology explains complexity and functional changes in the genetic code expressing into new species and new characteristics? Even Dawkins admits there isn’t enough time in the alleged 13.5 billion years and in the alleged 4.5 billion years of life on Earth to account for random changes yielding life as we know it. That is why he admitted to Ben Stein he secretly holds hope for directed panspermia. There’s science at work for ya!

        • Bob Seidensticker

          We don’t pretend to know HOW the designer did it. You don’t pretend to know HOW undirected evolutionary actions resulted in organized information content in the DNA code that builds each organism.

          Are you saying that biology has no explanation for how evolution works? Or that it doesn’t understand the connection between continuing evolution and DNA? You’re saying that biology doesn’t understand something, and I’m trying to figure out what.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick T:

          Even Dawkins admits there isn’t enough time in the alleged 13.5 billion years and in the alleged 4.5 billion years of life on Earth to account for random changes yielding life as we know it.

          I hadn’t heard this. Show me the source.

          That is why he admitted to Ben Stein he secretly holds hope for directed panspermia.

          “Secretly holds hope”? Why secretly?

          Panspermia addresses abiogenesis. I thought you were talking about evolution.

        • Rick T

          See the movie, “Expelled.” That is where the reference comes from.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Do you have a transcript? Or is this just from your memory?

          I don’t remember this.

          I’m not sure what you think Dawkins says. Is he rejecting evolution? If not, what is his point?

        • Rick T

          I’d be happy to do your research for you. It is well documented. But I’d rather return to your statement made up out of whole cloth maligning the Christian position as merely something we made up to be conveniently in support of our understanding of reality. Deal with that, then we can go back to tangential side trips that are secondary to the point I made. Are you wiling to admit that you wholly made up the statement you attribute to the Christian position? For reference, it is this one:

          “Of course, we Christians grant ourselves license to believe whatever we want, and we find evolution theologically inconvenient, so we reject that piece of science. But as long as science conforms to the bizarre ramblings of a 3000-year-old blog of an Iron Age nomadic desert people, it’s good!”

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick T:

          I’d be happy to do your research for you.

          My research? You’re the one making the claim. But I think I’ve found it here. Let me know if this is your evidence that “Dawkins admits there isn’t enough time in the alleged 13.5 billion years and in the alleged 4.5 billion years of life on Earth to account for random changes yielding life as we know it.”

          If I have the right transcript, you’ll have to show me how that backs your claim because I don’t see it.

          Are you wiling to admit that you wholly made up the statement you attribute to the Christian position?

          Uh, yeah, we’ve been over this. From my last comment:

            Rick: Since no one suggested this, you made it up.

            Bob: I did indeed!

        • Rick T

          You make up a misstatement and then proudly (exclamation point) admit you used it to summarize the alleged Christian position? You do this in support of your position as if that is the position you want to attack, when you just made it up? And you want to be taken seriously?

          Yet you question my summary of Dawkins’ position, for which you easily found citations. The 4.5 and 13.5 billion year time spans are the normal spans used to describe life on Earth and the time of the universe, but you want me to justify those while you make stuff up?

          I think I am done. There is no point discussing these issues further when allegedly scientific consensus positions that you claim to believe are questioned, but fantasies you make up are proudly used as evidentiary points.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick T:

          I’ve already addressed this question. If you find a flaw in it or don’t understand it, tell me so I can respond from that point. By simply repeating your initial complaint, I’m left with repeating myself.

          Bob C tried to lampoon my position by imagining a man discussing things with his son. I attempted a parallel approach. (But I repeat myself.)

          If you find flaws in my approach (obviously, it was told from my standpoint, as Bob C gave his story from his), point them out. Or, if sophisticated literary devices like this gives you the heebie jeebies, avoid my comments! ;)

          My own guess is that bluster is all you’re left with since there’s not much of an argument left here, but that’s just my speculation.

          Yet you question my summary of Dawkins’ position

          Yes, I do. And you’ve done nothing to dispel the malodorous question that still hangs in the air: What did Dawkins say that is damaging to evolution?

          I don’t know why you’d bring up Dawkins’ comments unless he was withdrawing his support for evolution. Did he? If so, you need to point that out, because I seem to be too stupid to see it. And if he didn’t–that he remains convinced that the evidence clearly points to evolution as the best explanation–then why bring up this Dawkins anecdote?

          I think I am done.

          Suit yourself.

        • Rick T

          What did Dawkins do? He simply moved the evolution problem to an unknown foreign destination where unnamed intelligent stuff must have evolved and deposited the seeds of life here. That is the definition of directed panspermia. It is totally without evidence, yet he claims to believe it as a strong possibility. This is the best your high priest of “science” can do. No science. No evidence. No rational reason to believe it except he doesn’t want to accept an intelligent designer that might be called “God.” He’d rather use an “alien of the gaps” theory instead. ET did it. Silliness.

          Why couldn’t you see that without having it spelled out? That is the kind of nit picking you do while making up your evidence to support your atheistic position. That is why I am done.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick T:

          [Dawkins] simply moved the evolution problem to an unknown foreign destination where unnamed intelligent stuff must have evolved and deposited the seeds of life here. That is the definition of directed panspermia.

          1. The issue here is abiogenesis, not evolution.

          2. Yes, that’s what directed panspermia is. But note that it’s not simply relabeling a problem and then pretending that this has actually taught us something. “God did it!” stated without evidence would be in this category

          Here’s how panspermia is interesting. Take the initial conditions on the early earth. It might have been conducive to abiogenesis or it might not have been. But now take the initial conditions of a billion planets–on any of those, were conditions conducive to abiogenesis? Obviously, the odds are a lot better. So if the early earth couldn’t have enabled abiogenesis, how come we have life?? It’s possible that life formed elsewhere and came here on an asteroid.

          This complaint about Dawkins and panspermia is common, but a little thinking shows that it’s no help to the Creationist.

          It is totally without evidence, yet he claims to believe it as a strong possibility.

          Less emotional bluster and more reason, please.

          Assuming the transcript that I found for you is where Dawkins makes the point you’re claiming he makes, you need to go back and find it for me. Dawkins says, “Well, it could come about in the following way.” Nowhere do I see anything about this being a strong possibility in his mind.

          This is the best your high priest of “science” can do. No science. No evidence. No rational reason to believe it except he doesn’t want to accept an intelligent designer that might be called “God.” He’d rather use an “alien of the gaps” theory instead. ET did it. Silliness.

          Down, boy. Go back and read the transcript. Dawkins is responding to the question from Stein, “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?” Stein asks, and Dawkins gives him a possible answer. No probabilities are given, and we don’t even know if Dawkins thinks that this is likelier than not (I suspect he thinks that abiogenesis happened here on earth).

          If you have some other source for these nonsensical statements by Dawkins, show me. If not, then your complaints are without merit.

        • Retro

          Rick T said: Definitely top down design. That is what an intelligent designer means.

          Thanks for clarifying.

          So are you saying that bottom up change from one element to another in a nuclear reaction is the same thing as a DNA code that functions?

          It was only an example, I never said it was “the same thing” as DNA.

          It is interesting to note that all of the heavier elements needed for life are created and dispersed by supernovae. Also, complex organic molecules and amino acids exist in interstellar space. These molecules are called “organic” because they contain carbon, not because they were created by life. These organic molecules created by non-life are the building blocks of life on this planet.

          If God specially created life on Earth, then what’s the design and purpose of complex organic molecules being created in outer space?

          Until then, the Bible’s explanation of the fall of man and the curse of Genesis chapter 3 explains why we have genetic imperfections and why some embryos do not develop to maturity.

          No, actually Genesis chapter 3 explains why snakes crawl on their bellies, women have pain in childbirth, why women should be submissive to men, and why man has to work so hard just to eat. And don’t forget, this was all over eating a single piece of fruit.

          If God’s intelligent design was so good, then how could it have been so easily disrupted and distorted? Why create a fruit that is sinful to eat in the first place? These things are not indicative of an intelligent design.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Retro:

          If God specially created life on Earth, then what’s the design and purpose of complex organic molecules being created in outer space?

          Maybe God is trying to trick us??

          Why create a fruit that is sinful to eat in the first place? These things are not indicative of an intelligent design.

          No, but they are indicative of mythology.

  • http://gibbsone.com gibbs a williams ph.d

    How is this for a different perspective? Whether or not there is in fact a transcendent intelligent designer that is compassionate is a matter of faith. If it makes a person better able to bear the inevitable frustrations and limitations of daily living then so be it. However, in my experience there is no getting around the fact that believe in such a deity (or whatever) is ultimately a projection of one’s inescapable final authority. One only really knows for certain their own experience. Their experience of their experience. The conscious and unconscious meanings attributed to their experience. And finally, the conclusions reached that guide attitudes and behavior.

    For me, the avalanche of by products of man’s inhumanity to man makes my belief in a just and fair minded conscious God an absurdity. Or if I am incorrect I give myself the right and the responsibility of having a dialogue with this presence and expect him, her, or it to hear my complaints and dissent. And if I find a reasonable answer to why a supposedly good God permits evil often on genuinely good people I will be the first to come down off of my high horse and bow my head in deference to greater wisdom than I can imagine currently.

    AMEN

    • Bob Seidensticker

      gibbs:

      For me, the avalanche of by products of man’s inhumanity to man makes my belief in a just and fair minded conscious God an absurdity.

      This reminds me of Stephen Law’s Evil God Hypothesis. In short, when you look around at the mix of good and bad, why posit a good god? An evil god is just as plausible.

  • Pingback: hefalimp cardijon

  • Pingback: www.blucarpet.com

  • Pingback: cialis libido

  • Pingback: cialis site sur

  • Pingback: online slot games

  • Pingback: web link,

  • Pingback: prix cialis 20mg

  • Pingback: music download

  • Pingback: prix du cialis en espagne

  • Pingback: apple products

  • Pingback: Browse Around Here

  • Pingback: cialis avant repas

  • Pingback: how to delay male ejaculation

  • Pingback: cialis 40 mg

  • Pingback: My Homepage

  • Pingback: best condoms to make you last longer

  • Pingback: automotive

  • Pingback: Education

  • Pingback: goat sex

  • Pingback: good

  • Pingback: how long does premature ejaculation last

  • Pingback: tannreiser.info

  • Pingback: noumax.com

  • Pingback: myrexis.info

  • Pingback: lcbla.info

  • Pingback: facebook real likes

  • Pingback: cialis postepay

  • Pingback: penis enlargement pills

  • Pingback: goodlipodoctor.info

  • Pingback: xlwonen.info

  • Pingback: mmpr licensed producers mmpr licensed producers

  • Pingback: rmra.info

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: cfks.info

  • Pingback: moneywizer.info

  • Pingback: yougetbmw.info

  • Pingback: smokeless cigarettes

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: nutribullet 900 series

  • Pingback: how do you last longer in bed yahoo

  • Pingback: health

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: tomturbo.info

  • Pingback: Link

  • Pingback: gestong.info

  • Pingback: Ultralase Reviews

  • Pingback: find more

  • Pingback: New Songs

  • Pingback: Optimax Reviews

  • Pingback: Slendera

  • Pingback: Paignton Driving School

  • Pingback: seo training

  • Pingback: ροζ τηλέφωνα

  • Pingback: escort in Sydney

  • Pingback: cememc.info

  • Pingback: Penis enlargement

  • Pingback: terms of use

  • Pingback: Robert Shumake


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X