Harvard University, realizing that its students were enamored by strange phenomena known as "religion", is considering introducing “faith and reason” courses as a required part of the curriculum. Rob Vischer isn't sure the school is up to the task: "If Harvard can find professors who can lead students to an understanding of the faith-reason dynamics from within a tradition, great. But as a young, believing Christian (or Muslim or Jew), I'm not sure how I'd feel about having my tradition poked and prodded like an animal in the zoo."
This Zogby Poll should have tobacco farmers and libertarians reaching for the smelling salts: 45 percent of respondents would support federal legislation making cigarettes illegal in five to ten years.
Students taking ECON 201 at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro are getting credit for playing a computer game about space aliens landing on earth (watch the trailer). I don't doubt the usefulness of such simulations (I've learned a great deal from playing Civilization and Sim City) but is this really the best way for college students to learn?
Dan Morgan has a thought experiment on abortion: "Imagine it is 100 years from now. By then it will surely be possible for babies to go from conception to birth without being inside of a woman. Imagine a high-tech, well-lit tank where every day you and your spouse can go to a hospital to look at your developing baby in his or her artificial womb...."
Politics
So after two years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama thinks its time to make his move on the White House. Can anyone name a single achievement (other than getting elected) that Obama is known for? Yeah, me neither.
What does it say about the Democratic Party that the two leading contenders for the presidential nomination are two first term Senators with lackluster resumes? At least Obama has a great speaking voice. What does Hillary's claim to fame other than being married to a former President?
When approached about whether tax increases across the income spectrum would be considered, Rep. Charlie Rangel responded, "No question about it." You have to give the Dems credit for his honesty. They used to just promise to tax the rich. Now, they admit that they'll be taxing everyone.
Religion
ChurchCommunicationsPro has asked a number of bloggers (including me) questions to help pastors learn about blogging.
Who said: ""Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause."
Was it Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Ann Coulter, or Barack Obama? Take the Dallas Morning News' "Faith of the Famous" quiz to find out. (HT: GetReligion)
It's no secret that evangelicals have a special affinity for the children of Israel. But are we overlooking the children of Ishmael?
Once you’re sensitized to their presence, the Ishmaelites start to show up all over the place. The Proverbs 31 woman? Arab. Caleb the good spy? Arab (Edomite). Job? Probably Arab. The Magi who brought gold and spices to Jesus? Arab. The Rechabites of Jeremiah, the scribes of IChronicles 2, and so on and so on: Arabs all over the Bible.
Fred Sanders has more on Arabs and the Bible.
Earlier this week I heard a rumor that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth had banned "speaking in tongues." But when I examined the claim in more detail I found that the seminary trustees had voted not to condone "private prayer language."
Since the age of six I've considered myself a Southern Baptist. My mother, though, was a charismatic believer who attended--and thereby forced me to attend--various Pentecostal, Assembly of God, and Vineyard churches. The experience has taught me to reject the dogma of cessationism. I firmly believe that its possible that the charismatic gifts didn't end in the Apostolic age. I also believe that I've never been in a church where anyone has "spoken in tongues." In every one of these churches some form of glossalia, "private prayer language", was used. But not once did I hear anything even remotely like what the Bible describes as "tongues" (i.e., foreign languages) being spoken.
I have no problem with my Baptist brethern banning private prayer language. I also have no problem with my charismatic brethern using such language. I just really wish they'd stop calling it "speaking in tongues." Brothers and sisters, whatever it is--even if it is of the Spirit--glossalia ain't the gift of tongues.
Your 'i.e., foreign languages' is a phenomenon only recorded in Acts 2 and nowhere else (explicitly) in the New Testament. Although Paul criticizes the Corinthian church (in 1 Cor.) about over-emphasizing and over-valuing the gift of tongues (a heavenly language), he does say that it does have a healthy place in services if there is an interpreter involved...and he wasn't referring to somebody speaking a language that somebody else could potentially understand:
14 v.2 "For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you in thinking that you only see 'ethnic' tongues as fitting for worship. I could also be misinterpreting Scripture here...I'm sure I'll know soon. :)
Joel Maybe I'm misunderstanding you in thinking that you only see 'ethnic' tongues as fitting for worship.
That's a good point. When I say "foreign language" I shouldn't necessarily limit it to "ethnic tongues" (though I think there may be some scriptural warrant for that limitation).
I do, however, think that it has to be a language, which implies some form of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. Most of what I've heard is just gibberish; glossalic utterances repeated in a pattern, over and over, as if by rote. I even knew one kid who could "speak in tongues" at will. He had practiced it so much at church that he could do it anywhere.
In my opinion, that sort of "prayer language" is not supportable by scripture. I'm not saying it is wrong or bad, but it shouldn't be confused with the Biblical view of "speaking in tongues."
Thanks for posting that Zogby poll link. When I tell people that cigarettes will go the way of all drugs in a couple decades, they look at me like I'm wearing a loose toupee.
I'm not so sure about your requirement for discernable grammar. On the one hand, how would you recognise grammar from a fundamentally foreign construct - say a tonal language - without a great deal of education in philology? On the other hand, who could discern grammar structure in "Praise God Praise God Praise God," if they didn't already have a good handle on the language? If Europeans could stupidly call African languages "jibberish" and "not a real language," even when the Africans themselves were sensible of what they were saying, how could anyone who wasn't already familiar with the language in question recognise it when even the speaker has little clue what they're saying?
You've a PhD. Stop complaining and apply to Harvard. :)
I like your perspective on the gifts matter. It's dialectoi that's most important but too-oft forgotten.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Paul seems pretty clear (1 Corinthians 14:26-28 below) that, in a church service, one should only speak in tongues if it can be interpreted and therefore edify the others who are gathered. If this condition is not met, the tongue-speaker should be quiet. Moreover, there is a clear limit on how many people can speak in tongues during a service. One can infer that tongue-speaking had gotten out of hand even back then.
My six-month old son makes lots of noises, especially in church. Is he speaking in tongues? It is possible that he is praying in his own way to God. But no one else can understand him, so I try to make sure he is not disrupting the service because it is not edifying the others. (Of course, he does remind us of the beauty of God's creation.)
1 Corinthians 14:26-28 (NASB)
When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
Traditionally, the Magi are thought to be Persian.
Persians are not Arabs.
Being a non-Jew from the Middle East does not make one an Arab.
Also, descendent of Ishmael does not equate with Arab.
This kind of thing is like calling everyone in the 'far east' "Chinese." It's stupid and embarrassing.
Also, descendent of Ishmael does not equate with Arab.
The Arabs, though, have traditionally been thought to have been descendents of Ishmael and the Jews his brother. This isn't just a Jewish or Christian belief but also a Muslim one.
The two groups are genetically related so it is plausible (there is no such thing, though, as a genetically pure racial group) that they descend from a single family that went in two different directions.
Dan Morgan has a thought experiment on abortion: "Imagine it is 100 years from now. By then it will surely be possible for babies to go from conception to birth without being inside of a woman. Imagine a high-tech, well-lit tank where every day you and your spouse can go to a hospital to look at your developing baby in his or her artificial womb...."
A surprising post since Morgan seems to have failed to notice his thought experiment is actually an argument FOR legal abortion rather than against it.
re: your complaints about cigarettes being outlawed, am I to understand that you are in favor of allowing freedom to kill ourselves and our immediate neighbors with cigarettes, yet you favor forced childbearing for raped teens?
Southern Baptists bar New Missions Candidates from Glossolalia
http://www.calvaryroadbaptist.org/news/tongues-tied.html
Hey Joe,
But not once did I hear anything even remotely like what the Bible describes as "tongues" (i.e., foreign languages) being spoken.
What was the basis for your conclusion? (I'm thinking that it has to do with adherence to scripture... could you give a bit more of an explanation?)
am I to understand that you are in favor of allowing freedom to kill ourselves and our immediate neighbors with cigarettes
Am I to understand that I would be endangering my next door neighbor if I were to begin smoking? What about when I grill a couple of steaks in my backyard or burn my yard waste?
"yet you favor forced childbearing for raped teens?"
Just a question, but what did the unborn child in this case do to deserve death? Unfortunately there are no simple answers here and somebody's always going to get hosed. Life sucks that way (not being flip, just making an observation).
"Family-values" Republicans:
Duke Cunningham
Bob Ney
Curt Weldon
Jack Abramoff
Scooter Libby
Tom Delay
Mark Foley
Jim Kolbe (well founded rumors about him)
Dennis Hastert
Conrad Burns
.... and many many more that we don't know about
Baus:
"Traditionally, the Magi are thought to be Persian.
Persians are not Arabs.
Being a non-Jew from the Middle East does not make one an Arab.
Also, descendent of Ishmael does not equate with Arab.
This kind of thing is like calling everyone in the 'far east' "Chinese." It's stupid and embarrassing."
Yes, this is correct and a valid criticism, but I think most people just don't know... I literally did not know until I watched "Crash." Sad, but true.
I think the answer to that question is a solid "Yes". Interactivity is always a prime method of teaching, even if its just questions and answers in classes, etc. Sitting down and reading a book 20 times is just about the most painful and least productive way of learning anything. However if you sit down and re-write the book, its an entirely different concept. Its interactive learning, just without a computer. And its much more effective.
I think you are just jealous because the younger generations are going to enjoy school more than you did because they have more cool toys. Think of it as the next generation of Schoolhouse Rock.
Incidentally, did you also know that immersive video games can be used to help people control pain, such as from extensive burns, etc? They are using it on some soldiers wounded in Iraq. When they are having their burns cleaned (and incredibly painful process), they put on VR goggles and are given a control pad to play a game. In comparison tests its works as good as and sometimes even better than morphine. (Which explains why they can be addictive in some people I think.)
Video games are also used in the treatment of people with phobias and PTSD.
In the next 20 years I think you are going to find video games showing up in many places you might not expect. After all, even using an ATM is a form of playing a video game. Enter the right numbers and press the right buttons in the right sequence and out pops money. I win.
Well, I did play a video game back in college during my History of Modern Warfare class. Of course, the game was extra credit, and was a relatively accurate representation of the Battle of the Bulge (at least, enough so that the professor liked it), and was simply an exercise to see if we could do better than the generals of yore. If we could, we got points. If not, *shrug*.
I have absolutely nothing against games if they are pertinent, topical, educational, and relevant. However, handing a child a copy of The Punisher as an attempt to educate him or her on the history of the Mob... well, not quite. They can be quite useful, yes, but in this day and age of "modern" education, the possibility for abuse is just too obscene to just close your eyes and ignore...
Am I to understand that I would be endangering my next door neighbor if I were to begin smoking? What about when I grill a couple of steaks in my backyard or burn my yard waste?
Not your next door neighbor - the person next to you, the others at your table , in your house. Don't be purposely dense here, friend.
Just a question, but what did the unborn child in this case do to deserve death? Unfortunately there are no simple answers here and somebody's always going to get hosed. Life sucks that way (not being flip, just making an observation).
Actually the "unborn child" you seem to be caring so much about (I'm talking about the first trimester here) hasn't done anything because it doesn't even exist yet as a person. It is no doubt a potential person, but why should we care more about the potential person than the poor unfortunate girl and her family who you believe should bear the pain and costs of extending the brutality. Do you have a young daughter - if so, do you believe she should be required to give birth to the child of her rapist? If you don't have a daughter, you have no right to have an opinion on this.
"If you don't have a daughter, you have no right to have an opinion on this."
I tend to go further, as I feel that if you are not a woman capable of becoming pregnant, you have no right to hold - or at least express - an opinion on this matter. Perhaps that's unclear to those regulars around here who seem to feel that an embryo must always reach birth no matter what. So I'll make it extra clear: It's none of your business what goes on between a woman and her doctor in the examining room. You have plenty of things to worry about, but this isn't one of them.
And Ken, to your comment I'd add, "And what did the embryo do to deserve life?" The little guy has a chance at existence. Maybe he'll make it, maybe not. That's how it goes.
Well put, Raven - of course no one's opinion matters but the woman who is pregnant.
I urge all the conservatives out there to see the new documentary about Barry Goldwater.
Very interesting as it regards this topic.
"If you don't have a daughter, you have no right to have an opinion on this."
Unbelievable. You guys have taken leave of your minds.
So as a Christian not only am I not not allowed to advocate on behalf of my beliefs, I can no longer even have them!
So as a Christian not only am I not not allowed to advocate on behalf of my beliefs, I can no longer even have them!
Oh you can have 'em, Bryan. You can have all the ideas you want. But when you seek to restrain the liberty of others, you are on very tenuous ground when you labor to strip people of a freedom that you do not possess by reason of your gender.
This is the kind of thinking that gives us a chamber of white-haired, wrinkled old Caucasian Fundamentalist Christian hardliners, and these guys sit around and take their gnarly long cold fingers and giggle as they metaphorically slip them into the wombs of every woman in this country. It's disgusting and wrong - prima facie evil.
And what it shows is fear of female sexuality. Fear of not having control over every aspect of the horrible hussies, the teasing temptresses out there who flaunt their bodies and lead good, upstanding righteous men into temptation. Is that about it? Makes me sick.
What the hell is so hard about just minding your own damned business? Forget about abortion. Get out there and clean the gutters, mow the lawn - surely your energies can be put to productive use somewhere. But maybe someday, when you're drunk or something, you'll have an epiphany and realize what a scared 14-year-old feels like when that pregnancy test turns up positive and she knows the guy who did it isn't going to marry her, and her parents (let's pretend they are exactly like Joe Carter) have zero chance of ever signing a consent slip. What's she going to do? She has zero options, zero choices, zero freedom, zero ability to plan her future if you people get your druthers.
No, you can't see it at all. It's just a chess game to you.
Joe has stated twice that he can't understand the appeal of Barack Obama, complaining that the average person cannot name one great achievement of his. I don't have time right now to explain Obama's appeal, but let me ask you something, Joe. Honestly, now, what great achievements was George W. Bush known for prior to 2000?
As for your jibe that Hillary is trading off her relationship to a famous person, do you really believe that W. would be president now if his daddy hadn't been president? Gimme a break.
Raven you said that under certain conditions, "you have no right to hold - or at least express - an opinion on this matter."
I could respond by saying, this is the kind of thinking that gives us a chamber of misogynistic cackling hags running our public universities as a kind of thought police, metaphorically slipping their fingers into our children’s minds and twisting what they find to match their perverse vision of what a socially reconstructed society should look like. Because, you know, they fear the phallus.
I could respond that way, but I won’t, because that kind of vapid rhetoric doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
As for Raven’s “chess game”, I wonder what options the unborn child get in that situation. Oh right, the option to be killed. "It" is merely a pawn to be sacrificed to pay for mistakes of the past. What a dreadful way to think of a child.
"If you don't have a daughter, you have no right to have an opinion on this."
I guess if I don't have any children, then I have no right to worry about whether or not my neighbor eats his.
Considering they have the earth rotating the wrong way, I have to question the quality of the simulation. :-)
Actually the "unborn child" you seem to be caring so much about (I'm talking about the first trimester here) hasn't done anything because it doesn't even exist yet as a person.
Will you describe for me the magical transformation that occurs between 13 weeks and 13 weeks plus 1 day that changes a potential person into an actual person? To follow the logic further, why is a 5 month premmie considered a person, but an 8 month old pre-born not?
but why should we care more about the potential person than the poor unfortunate girl and her family who you believe should bear the pain and costs of extending the brutality.
I don't think it is a contradiction to say that I care more about the "poor, unfortunate girl and her family" than I do about the "potential person", but that doesn't mean I think it is right or should be a right to kill the "potential person".
Do you have a young daughter - if so, do you believe she should be required to give birth to the child of her rapist? If you don't have a daughter, you have no right to have an opinion on this.
Fortunately I do have a young daughter, so by your standards I do have a right to an opinion on this matter, though I do doubt that you would apply this standard universally, say to the death penalty for example, i.e. unless you have had a close family member murdered, you have no right to an opinion on the death penalty. As to whether or not I would want my beautiful little girl to carry her rapist's child, no I would not, but that wouldn't make killing the unborn child an appropriate alternative. The reality is that I don't want my beautiful little girl to experience sadness or pain or want, but I know she will. My job as her father is to help her to do the right thing even when it is painful, even when it is something I wouldn't want for her. Again, not to be flip, but life sucks that way.
ucfengr - very good response. Arguments that "If you're not X, you have no right to an opinion on Y" are childish in addition to being flat-out wrong. I also have a daughter, and while I would not want her to suffer neither would I want my grandchild to be killed.
But to play the same game, here's my response: having been an unborn child myself, I am qualified to champion the rights of other unborn children.
To Alex Scott:
Good'un! That's one of the best rejoinders to the pro(allowing women to have their unborn babies killed)choice attitude that nonpregnant women (or some other similarly idiot restriction)aren't justified in holding an opinion on the matter. What a canard.
But, despite the persistence of the Ravens etc who seem to post here regularly, take heart: their philosophy is doomed to failure, and not just when Jesus returns. See, something like 80 % of kids hold basically the same worldview as their parents when they grow up (probably higher if you're wise enough to homeschool them so the libs don't have access to them 6 hrs a day 5 days a week; why do conservatives DO that, anyway?). Therefore, whoever wins the grandchild race will tend to win the worldview race. Take my family, e.g. I am the youngest of 4 kids of highly lib parents. I am the only black sheep, being a conservative 'orthodox' (small 'o') Christian. I have 4 kids. But only one of my sibs has kids, and he has only 2. I suspect he'll be lucky to get 2 grandkids out of those 2. My oldest says he's going to have 6 all by himself (I suppose he'll need a wife first...) let alone his 3 sibs. So guess who's going to win the grandchild race, most likely? And all my kids, being homeschooled and raised in a conservative church by conservative parents, are conservative. My 3 teenage boys are fully capable of spotting the inherent self-contradictions in most of what passes for 'liberal thought' all by themselves, so I suspect they'll not waver in their convictions.
On the other hand, the average lib's got a prob. It's tough to pass your philosophy on to the next generation if you don't have much of a next generation. Let's face it: same-sex 'marriage', aborting a good share of your offspring, and having one designer child at 39 make it hard to reproduce.
So enjoy your arguments with the 'progressives' and the 'liberals' now; in 10 to 20 years they'll be a scarce breed.
Doc, I respect and salute the price you've paid to raise your kids properly. I would share your optimism on the death of “liberal thought” if biological offspring was the only way to reproduce a lib. But they have other ways to reproduce: through entertainment media and public schools. Many who lack the conviction of your faith will not pay the price to prepare their children for a world saturated by hostility to faithfulness, truth, and justice. And so many will fall for the siren song of "progress at any price (and never you mind who defines 'progress')".
It all makes sense now. Al Gore's head is filled with air, and that's why he gets to speak out for air everywhere.
I am the Lorax and I speak for the trees, woops, nevermind; never been a tree, can't do that..
Somebody here has a therapist that has to have just bought a third house in the Hamptons. But I'll not name names. The insane need not be pointed out.
"So guess who's going to win the grandchild race, most likely?"
Reproduction as competition? You're a Darwinist!
"And all my kids, being homeschooled and raised in a conservative church by conservative parents, are conservative. My 3 teenage boys are fully capable of spotting the inherent self-contradictions in most of what passes for 'liberal thought' all by themselves, so I suspect they'll not waver in their convictions."
Homeschoolers comprise a small percentage of the population and will continue to do so. Most people are too lazy to sacrifice as much time, effort, and potential income on brainwashing their progeny as you are.
Now share with the E.O. readers your plan for imposing a worldwide Pax Americana, Doc. Doc likes the idea of nuking every nation that doesn't "toe the line", and he thinks Jesus would approve. This is the mindset he hopes to propagate with his rabbitlike strategy of flooding the gene pool with conservative Christian DNA.
If you think I'm making this up, ask Doc to deny it.
Rob Ryan: I guess you only think that inflammatory rhetoric about education is bad if it is directed at smarmy high school English teachers who have views on every subject save their own limitations.
And then you wonder why parents who love their children more than a double-income lifestyle refuse to allow their children to be exposed to the tender mercies of the public schools populated with teachers who cannot even thinly viel their contempt for Christianity. You, sir, are Reason #32,927 on the list of Reasons to Homeschool.
"...who have views on every subject save their own limitations."
Pot, kettle. Insult noted, dismissed for source.
"And then you wonder why parents who love their children more than a double-income lifestyle..."
Fallacy no. 1: You seem to assume that parents who don't homeschool love income more than their children. Laughably false.
Fallacies 2 and 3: You assume my blog demeanor mirrors my classroom demeanor. I teach English, Cheesehead, just English. I would not risk alienating my charges, the offspring of a conservative community, to further my socio-political views even if I were so inclined. I take my job seriously. Also, you assume my contempt for Christians like Doc, whose nuke-o-philia you don't even bother to question in your haste to rush to his defense, translates to contempt for Christianity as a whole. In fact, my view of that faith is more nuanced and ambivalent. My family and friends are predominantly Christian, and I love them and don't try to change them.
Homeschool all you want, Cheesehead. I approve of it in general even if I don't approve of many who do it, the way they do it, and their motivations for doing it.
Rob Ryan,
Interesting comments. You seem to have a healthy philosophy concerning your roll in the classroom. I hope most public school teachers share it. Speaking for myself, as a product of public schools, and given that my children are students in public schools, I personally don't think the situation is as dire as some folk feel. Even if I wanted to homeschool, I've got to be realistic and honest, and say that I just don't think I could get the job done. I commend those who can. I'm not that patient and talented.
However, given that brainwashing in the classical sense is generally regarded as using very negative tactics such as drugs, torture, and psychological stress, I don't believe it's fair to use that term for homeschoolers or any other teachers. We could then accuse folks of doing that anytime they discuss, or present as truth concepts we personally find offensive.
Having grown up in a Christian home, it may come as a shock that I was encouraged to be a free thinker. To me this means being able to talk about all of the issues (academic) at hand and all sides of the issues in search of truth.
Anyhow, your comments on your Christian friends and family are interesting, and I have found nothing different in my experiences with friends and family with opposing beliefs. It's amazing how differently people relate when they actually know one another.
RB: "However, given that brainwashing in the classical sense is generally regarded as..."
Point taken. My use of the term was hyperbolic and directed at Doc, with whom I have issues. As I said, I approve of the concept of homeschooling. I think my children are better off in the public schools, though.
RB: "Having grown up in a Christian home, it may come as a shock that I was encouraged to be a free thinker."
I'm not shocked at all, RB. I grew up in a Christian home as well. My father is very conservative, but I too was encouraged to think for myself. I have a funny story about my dad, who just turned 80:
When Dad was being considered for a position at the National Laboratory in Oak Ridge following his military service, he was subjected to a polygraph examination. One of the questions was "Are you now or have you ever been a member of an organization that advocates the overthrow of the United States government?" Dad didn't pass muster on that one. Twice. Finally, the operator stopped and said, "Mr. Ryan, is there any thing you would like to tell me in the way of clearing this up?" Dad paused and said, "Well, I'm a Republican." The operator smiled and repeated his question with the modification "Besides the Republican party,..."
Dad successfully negotiated the rest of the examination.
RR: "You assume my blog demeanor mirrors my classroom demeanor."
I don't know you, but I do remember the teachers I had in public school. You remind me of the classroom demeanor exhibited by many of them, notably the English teachers. It was not until I went to college that I finally got an English teacher who was as interested in teaching English as he was in challenging the beliefs of anyone who didn't hew to the NEA vision for society.
Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik
Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik
Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik
Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
This is a great blog!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
Visit my webpage!!
I founnd outside this site some great links
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]