Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Tozer Got It

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity.
I am aware that there are those who love to poke fun at the plain man’s idea of reality. They are the idealists who spin endless proofs that nothing is real outside of the mind. They are the relativists who like to show that there are no fixed points in the universe from which we can measure anything. They smile down upon us from their lofty intellectual peaks and settle us to their own satisfaction by fastening upon us the reproachful term “absolutist.” The Christian is not put out of countenance by this show of contempt. He can smile right back at them, for he knows that there is only One who is Absolute, that is God. But he knows also that the Absolute One has made this world for man’s use, and while there is nothing fixed or real in the last meaning of the words (the meaning as applied to God), for every purpose of human life we are permitted to act as if there were. And every man does act thus except the mentally sick. These unfortunates also have trouble with reality, but they are consistent; they insist upon living in accordance with their ideas of things. They are honest, and it is their very honesty which constitutes them a social problem.
The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do. Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep. Wherever life touches them they repudiate their theories and live like other men.
A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

Comments
CannukianYankee: "I think a little fairness with the argument is at hand rather than simply brushing it aside. Do you not agree that the strength of a person’s philosophy is found in their ability to live it out in the real world?" I didn't brush it aside. I answered his misrepresentation of my philosophy in my first paragraph (#22). How an awareness of Oneness is reflected in how one lives one's life is right there if you take the time to understand it. But it really is like the story of the Zen master who started pouring a cup of tea for one of his students and didn't stop. As the tea spilled over everything and the student watched, shocked, the master commented, "Your mind is like this cup; there is no room for any knowledge to come into it. It is already full." The Sufi's have a saying: "Knowledge is given, not acquired." What is NOT meant by this is that knowledge comes from some source like learned books, scripture (be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu), or even a spiritual master. No, the knowledge is given within; it becomes apparent to one's inner knowing, like a kind of seeing. One was blind, but now can see. These "seeings" happen little by little, like a series of veils being removed one by one. But this is not possible until one first "empties his cup" by acknowledging that there might be something that he or she does not know, the knowing of which could change everything.Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
What did the Buddhist say to the hotdog vendor? Make me one with everything. The hotdog vendor replied, “You already are.” And the Buddhist went away hungry, yet satisfied. Don't we all just love a happy ending?Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Whoops, I forgot, you don’t believe there’s any reality outside our minds.
I'm confused. I accept that there is no reality outside the mind of God. I also agree that my mind is one with the mind of God. Yet I am able to think thoughts which are not God's thoughts. There is only one alternative, which is that I am able to think thoughts which are not God's thoughts.
However, we can EXPERIENCE ourselves as separate from God if we believe we are.
It follows that my beliefs are not necessarily the beliefs of God. I am thinking that Bruce David will now disappear. My thoughts are either my own, or they are the thoughts of God. My thoughts may be both mine AND the thoughts of God. My thoughts may be mine OR the thoughts of God. Can Bruce David's thoughts now demonstrate that he exists? To demonstrate that he does exist, he'd have to show that my thoughts are not God's thoughts. Good luck Bruce David! You don't even exist.Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Clive, And the hotdog vendor replied, "You already are."Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Bruce David,
There is a distinction that needs to be made here. In the first place, nothing can ever separate us from God in reality, because in reality we are, as I said, One.
What did the Buddhist say to the hotdog vendor? "Make me one with everything."Clive Hayden
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Whoops, I forgot, you don't believe there's any reality outside our minds. How very convenient.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Bruce, re: StephenB at 14 "Your lack of understanding is entirely the product of your clinging to the notion that reason can reveal truth." Tozer is concerned with taking a philosophy to it's logical conclusions: "The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do. Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep." Same with Chesterton: "At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, ‘Life is not worth living.’ We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter." ...and that's what StephenB has done with yours. I don't think there's any lack of understanding there; nor any lack of charity. I think a little fairness with the argument is at hand rather than simply brushing it aside. Do you not agree that the strength of a person's philosophy is found in their ability to live it out in the real world?CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Mung, "I think his point would be that as each individual became their own interpreter of Scripture, the “authorities” likewise increased. Therefore we were freed from any “certain” authority." Yes, I suspect that's what he meant, and as a bit of an understatement; there does seem to be an increase in that following the reformation. This is perhaps a subtle difference between someone like Chesterton, who is Catholic, and a Protestant who might read a bit more into it than is there. I think I did that.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
StephenB, in response to #14: When one knows (and I am speaking of real knowledge here, not just belief) that he or she is one with all that is, they know that what one does to another one does to oneself and that what one does for another one does for oneself. The universal response to this awareness is to give up self-centeredness and come into the world from and through love. Your lack of understanding is entirely the product of your clinging to the notion that reason can reveal truth. Reason, by itself, is utterly incapable of understanding anything. Real knowledge begins with the realization that one knows nothing whatsoever, which paradoxically actually contains knowledge because for the first time, one has come to an understanding of what knowledge actually is.Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Hi CY, I think his point would be that as each individual became their own interpreter of Scripture, the "authorities" likewise increased. Therefore we were freed from any "certain" authority/. Just a guess. Now to be sure, the Reformation cry is "sola scriptura," but Scripture does not interpret itself, in spite of the motto "Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres".Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
StephenB, My only contention with Chesterton on this matter is his implication about the Reformation leading to these virtues running wild. I don't think that's an accurate depiction of the Reformation if that's what he meant. It could be a consequence of the Reformation, but there are certainly other factors involved. In my view the Reformation freed us from certain authorities, but it never freed us from the authority of scripture. However, his insight is quite remarkable on other levels.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, your quote from Chesterton about virtues gone wild, is one of my favorite of all time. You appear to read widely and profoundly from a wide variety of theological perspectives.StephenB
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Mung, "Were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., merely showing the depth of their love for others?" Good point. And I dare say they experienced a certain measure of "love", "peace" and "joy" in doing so. One can see how meaningless such "virtues" become when they aren't anchored in truth. Bruce apparently wants to possess these virtues without the necessary anchor.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
However, we can EXPERIENCE ourselves as separate from God if we believe we are.
In my opinion, the best way to ensure that people do not EXPERIENCE themselves as separate from God is to ensure that they cannot EXPERIENCE anything at all. If I really love them won't I "release" them from their "separation" from God? Were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., merely showing the depth of their love for others?Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
StephenB That's classic.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Ok, I invoked some scripture, but only for the logical argument.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Judge Arrington: Mr. D, have you paid your child support this month Mr. D: Yes, your honor I have JA: But your ex wife tells me she is receiving no money from you BD: But my wife, child, and I are the same person. When I pay myself I pay them. JA: You and your ex-wife are not even living together BD: If I believe that we are not separated, then we are not separated. I do not allow myself to experience separation. Indeed, there is no such thing as separation except in the mind. Anyway, as I just said, my wife and I are the same person. JA: So, the same person who says she is not getting child support and wants me to take it from the person who is supposed to be giving it, is really the same person who is giving the child support by keeping it for himself. BD: That is correct, your honor. Indeed, not only "is" or "are" we (I never know predicate to use)the same person, YOU and I are the same person. So, if you put me in jail, you are really putting yourself in jail. I think the best solution to this problem, your honor, is for my ex wife to allow herself to experience receiving the child support from me because, again, we are really the same person and I have been keeping the money for myself. Also, I want you to experience the joy of love that comes from being compassionate and non-judgmental. JA: I see your point. I am not going to put you in jail for this. However, I predict that you may have the experience of being in jail, but when that happens, I want you to remember that you allowed yourself to believe you are there by believing you are there. Also, remember that I will be on the golf course all next week, so since you and I are the same person, it will really be you playing golf which means that you will not really be in jail.StephenB
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Bruce, I've been reading Chesterton a lot recently, and here's what he has to say on the matter, which I believe is quite insightful: "The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions." (GK Chesterton - Orthodoxy) Of interest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blatchford True love (charity) in my estimation, stems from forgiveness. If there is no sin, there is no forgiveness, and as such love (charity) becomes meaningless. It's just an aimless wandering virtue as Chesterton points out. It's quite easy to be "charitable", but it is not easy to truly love. And at that, I leave you with this: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (John 15:13 NIV) What did Jesus lay down his life for if not for our sins?CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
To Mung and Cannuckian Yankee: There is a distinction that needs to be made here. In the first place, nothing can ever separate us from God in reality, because in reality we are, as I said, One. However, we can EXPERIENCE ourselves as separate from God if we believe we are. Our experience reflects our beliefs. So when I say that the idea of sin separates us from God, I mean it only in the latter sense, that it causes us to experience ourselves as separate. Now before you come back at me with something like, "Well, if you don't believe anything is bad, then what difference does it make whether we experience ourselves as separate or not?", the ONLY sense in which I would say nothing is bad is in the MORAL sense. However, believing that nothing is bad in the sense of sin in no way precludes the stance that some things are preferable or more desirable than others. And to me it is preferable for our experience to reflect reality as it actually is, which results in the experience of love, peace, and joy, which I for one most definitely prefer to the experience of alienation, aloneness, and even despair that accompanies the experience of separation.Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Mung, You've just picked up on an area in Bruce's philosophy where there is glaring inconsistency (there's many more). Bruce believes that we're all a part of God, so obviously, nothing can separate us from God - well except the idea of sin, of course. Notice I haven't invoked any scripture here - just logic.CannuckianYankee
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
I see the idea of sin as a monumental and pernicious mistake made by Christianity and indeed most religions because it separates us from God (and each other), and thus obscures the most basic Truth, which is that there is no separation. We are all One–One with each other and One with God.
So to you, it's the mere idea of sin that separates us from God, whereas in Christianity it is actual sin which separates us from God. But you seem to agree that there is something that can separate us from God, even if that something is just an idea. So what is wrong with calling anything which separates us from God, sin? What word do you use for "that which separates us from God"? Why not call it sin?Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Brent: in response to, "I’m (genuinely) curious what you make of sin." This question, and my response, has stirred up some rather lengthy, heated discussions on other threads. My position is an anathema to most Christians, at least most of the ones I encounter here at UD. I really don't want to get into another such long thread that basically goes nowhere, since neither I nor my opponents in such discussions ever move from their initial positions. However, since you ask, and since you include that word "genuinely" in your question, I will offer at least one response. Whether I will be willing to continue into another long thread will have to wait and see. At the risk of oversimplifying the case, I see two aspects to Christianity, which I like to characterize as the love side and the sin side. Basically, I applaud the notion of love as I see it understood and practiced by Christians. However, I see the idea of sin as a monumental and pernicious mistake made by Christianity and indeed most religions because it separates us from God (and each other), and thus obscures the most basic Truth, which is that there is no separation. We are all One--One with each other and One with God. In my view the notion of sin also contradicts the idea of God as unconditionally loving. I don't believe that there is any sin in God's eyes. The notion of sin, as I see it (which came into Christianity from Judaism), was invented as a way to keep the flock in line, to make members of society behave through fear, intimidation, and shame. I don't believe that God operates through fear and shame. He operates through Love, since that is what He is. But then how are we to know how to act, you may ask. We have to decide for ourselves in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in each eternal moment of now. However, God not only gave us free will, He also gave us true Freedom, without taking it back by threatening us with punishment if we don't do what He wants us to. This is so we can be truly free to explore and create Who We Really Are, which is in His image and likeness. Since His image and likeness is Love, the way to decide what action to take in any given moment that will be most in line with Who We Really Are will be to answer the question, "What would Love do now?" Christians in general who object to my views usually invoke scripture to back up their positions, so let me say up front that since I do not accept the Bible as an authority, such arguments would be wasted on me.Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
I’m (genuinely) curious what you make of sin.
It's bad.
I’m (genuinely) curious what you make of sin.
It's one of those things where you really have to ask yourself whether you're willing to pay for it.Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
"The greatest disaster of the nineteenth century was this: that men began to use the word “spiritual” as the same as the word “good.” They thought that to grow in refinement and uncorporeality was to grow in virtue. When scientific evolution was announced, some feared that it would encourage mere animality. It did worse: it encouraged mere spirituality. It taught men to think that so long as they were passing from the ape they were going to the angel. But you can pass from the ape and go to the devil." - G.K. Chesterton, OrthodoxyBrent
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Bruce David, I'm (genuinely) curious what you make of sin.Brent
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
"The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do." An airline pilot straps herself into the cockpit of a flight simulator and immerses herself in a virtual world that she knows is not real. Yet during the time she is in the simulator she acts as though it is. She agrees to do this because she knows that there is a purpose for her doing so, a purpose that would be thwarted should she, say, fly her virtual aircraft into a mountain. I believe that each of us does essentially the same thing when we agree to be born again into a physical body. Living on earth as though it is real serves a purpose, a purpose that at a deep instinctive level we all know would be thwarted should we act in ways that ignored the "rules" of the virtual reality we inhabit while we have a physical body. However, I also believe that there comes a point in the spiritual journey that each of us is taking where our knowledge of the true nature of reality becomes so vast and deep that we realize our innate capacity of "break" those rules. These actions are called miracles, and there are many examples, recorded and not throughout history. In Yogananda's book, Autobiography of a Yogi, there was an enlightened man who taught in India while wearing no clothes. He was repeatedly arrested and locked in a cell, and every time magically appeared on the roof of the police station, still naked, walking back and forth. They eventually gave up and left him alone. Another story concerns a Hindu sage who had his arm cut off at the shoulder by an overzealous police officer and simply picked it up and stuck in back on his body. Three days later there was no trace of a wound. I know of a woman who went from HIV positive to HIV negative by imagining a waterfall of healing energy coursing through her body every day. This, according to medical science, is impossible. And finally, I personally know a woman who once teleported herself from one side of her yard to the other to escape a man who was about to attack her. The man fled in terror. (She doesn't know how she did this.) The tone of the piece quoted in the post is distressing, I must say. It's implication is that people cannot disagree with the author without being hypocrites, something I have been accused of more than once in threads where these metaphysical questions have been discussed. I wish to state again that it is possible for people to hold philosophical views that constitute a minority opinion genuinely, as a result of deep and life-long thoughtful contemplation of the human condition and situation. The contempt that drips from the words of the above quote bespeak a kind of metaphysical chauvinism that I frequently encounter in these threads and which, frankly, is not very attractive.Bruce David
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
"What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity." In the light of quantum physics, what precisely is there that "does not depend on the observer for its validity"? In his article in The Nature of Nature, "A Quantum-Theoretic Argument against Naturalism", Bruce Gordon argues from the findings of Relativity and Quantum Entanglement that "One of the...achievements of quantum theory ...is the accurate prediction of phenomena...that have NO physical explanation." [emphasis added] He concludes, "I contend that there is one quite reasonable way to ground this ontology and obviate any puzzlement: metaphysical objectivity and epistemic intersubjectivity are maintained in the context of an occasionalistic theistic metaphysics that looks a lot like the immaterialism defended by George Berkeley and Jonathan Edwards and in which the only true causation is agent causation. The difference in the present case is that this explanatory hypothesis is grounded by ontological deduction from fundamental physical theory and experiment, rather than by epistemological analysis (Berkeley) or philosophico-theological argument (Edwards)." (In case you don't remember, Berkeley was a thorough idealist--matter does not exist, only mind.) In their book, Biocentrism, Robert Lanza and Bob Berman argue, again from the findings of modern science including but not limited to quantum physics, that it is precisely our observation that brings "reality" into existence. And of course, there is Berkeley himself, one of the giants of British empiricism, who argues quite convincingly, IMO, that matter does not exist and that we live in a Universe of virtual reality, maintained and orchestrated by God (although of course he doesn't use the term "virtual reality", since it had not yet been coined when he was alive).Bruce David
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
A. W. Tozer: "What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it." On that definition, is anything real except God? Just asking.vjtorley
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
I like GK Chesterton's take on relativism's lack of interest in Truth (capital T) in "Heretics:" "Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: 'The golden rule is that there is no golden rule.' We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything. Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist. Le me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, 'Life is not worth living.' We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter. This was certainly not the idea of those who introduced our freedom. When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back in the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed. Sixty years ago it was bad taste to be an avowed atheist. Then came the Bradlaughites, the last religious men, the last men who cared about God; but they could not alter it. it is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But their agony has achieved just this--that now it is equally bad tasted to be an avowed Christian. Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch. Then we talk about Lord Anglesey and the weather, and call it the complete liberty of all the creeds." A little dated, I know, but he does have a particular insight into what is still apparent today - except for the issue of it being in bad taste to be an avowed atheist.CannuckianYankee
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do. Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep. Wherever life touches them they repudiate their theories and live like other men. I'm a big fan of Greg Koukl, whom I consider to be one of the great Christian apologists of our time. A male student at a university once called up Greg's talk-radio show and asked how he should counter his female professor's claims about moral relativism. Greg advised (obviously, tongue firmly implanted in cheek) that the student should steal the teacher's stereo. Case closed.GilDodgen
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply