Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
17 Pages«<910111213>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Cheesey  
#151 Posted : Monday, October 10, 2011 11:38:12 AM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 162
Applause Received: 354

Oh,....and seriously, i don't care if a guy wants to stick his weiner into some other guy's orifice. That's his choice. I just don't think it's right to force his beliefs on me.
How about the "aids epidemic". I keep hearing how not enough money is being spent to cure this horrible disease.
I HAVE the cure. If men learned to KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS, and women kept their legs closed, and drug adicts stopped using dirty needles, the disease would die off.
But that would be asking people to take some self control instead of doing "whatever feels good at the time".
Gay or straight, have some morals and AIDS would die off instead of people.
UserPostedImage
Offline Packers_Finland  
#152 Posted : Monday, October 10, 2011 11:45:56 AM(UTC)
Packers_Finland

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 88
Applause Received: 45

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post
Oh,....and seriously, i don't care if a guy wants to stick his weiner into some other guy's orifice. That's his choice. I just don't think it's right to force his beliefs on me.
How about the "aids epidemic". I keep hearing how not enough money is being spent to cure this horrible disease.
I HAVE the cure. If men learned to KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS, and women kept their legs closed, and drug adicts stopped using dirty needles, the disease would die off.
But that would be asking people to take some self control instead of doing "whatever feels good at the time".
Gay or straight, have some morals and AIDS would die off instead of people.


You might kill AIDS off with condoms/abstinence and proper needle usage in the developed world in theory.

Go to the Sahel and areas around it and tell the people who have NOTHING that they can't procreate, thus dooming them to a certain early death because they don't have children to help them survive. Things are not that simple (e.g. keep it in your pants), and if you say it is, I'll probably punch my screen because of the massive amounts of ignorance emitted.
This is a placeholder
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#153 Posted : Monday, October 10, 2011 11:49:41 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

Uh, Cheesey, you might want to check up on your statistics, old buddy. The violent crime rate in the United States has been declining for decades. It spiked immediately after Nixon declared his war on drugs and started going back down fairly shortly thereafter. It is now in line with historical rates dating all the way back to the beginning of this country.

Edited by user Monday, October 10, 2011 12:36:21 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#154 Posted : Monday, October 10, 2011 2:19:53 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 645
Applause Received: 657

I think I agree about 2/3rds of the way with you, Alan. At least if I'm reading you correctly.

1. If you believe the Bible is the actual inspired Word of God, and not just something cooked up at Nicea, or just another how-to book, or a hundred other variations on "its just another book written by imperfect human beings, then I don't see how you can see homosexuality as often practiced as anything other than a sin. And by inference, the same for gay marriage.

If the whole thing, Law as well as Gospel, parts that bug me as well as parts that don't, is God's Word, then those "thou shalt nots" in Leviticus or wherever are not just the rules of a historical human sect. They're God saying, "Do these things, and you are sinning."

Since I'm such a believer, since I do believe the Bible is the actual inspired Word of God -- Nicea doesn't bother me, because "all powerful" includes the ability to get past any schemes of Catholic bishops and popes and influential people), I'm with Alan on this point.

2. And I don't believe you get to pick and choose. To my mind, anyone who teaches that you get to pick and choose which bits of the Law to follow is simply wrong. The Grace of God doesn't make the sinning okay. Those who would teach otherwise, to me, are, the kinds of false teachers Paul was railing against in, e.g., the Book of Galatians, the kind whose lack of obedient faith threatens not just the state of their own souls as teachers but those who would listen to them as their students.

And, this is where I worry about my own practice. Not only do I sin with regularity, I sin knowing that what I am doing is sinful. And it's going to be such regardless of how I might try to rationalize it. And regardless of how much my priest/pastor/spiritual advisor/friends will support me.

I worry because the real problem is my rationalization. I can't say those adulterous thoughts I have are okay because God has forgiven me; I can only say that He has forgiven me. I can't excuse my lusts or whatever other sin I have committed in the past hour by calling it "human nature", because that merely says my human nature is that of a sinner.

I worry because my guilt doesn't have enough power in my soul. I worry that I have surrendered to certain temptations too easily, without trying hard enough to love Him by doing what He wants rather than what my gonads or my brain have rationalized.

That's the second place I think I'm with Alan.

Indeed, I may even be more radical in my fundamentalism that he is. The real evildoers here aren't the gay couple, its the "believers" and priests, the modern day scribes and Pharisees, who would say it's okay with God to keep sinning. Who would argue that the forgiveness of grace enables their parishioners to continue on guilt-free as if there were no sin going on.

Those believers who would suggest that the forgiveness of sins means there is no sinning. Those who are encouraging nothing less than idolatry. Those who would suggest because our human nature leads us to desire in ways that break God's Law, said breaking will not give pain to God. Those who would say that our following of our human nature cannot be idolatrous, when in fact rationalized following of that nature is the epitome of idolatry, an idolatry that puts our human nature above God in the importance of things.

What God won't forgive is the gay person's denial -- or mine -- of our need to strive to follow His will and His Law in all things. What he won't forgive is our denial about our need to admit guilt when our "human nature" kicks in to frustrate our striving to follow.

God doesn't expect us to always obey the 10 commandments. He does expect us to try, and he expects us to be repentant when we try and fail.

So, here, too, I think I'm with Alan.

3. We part ways, however, because I am more troubled by *my* willingness to judge others sinful activity than I am about how sinful *their* behavior might be.

Because only God can be holier than they are. I can't. Just because I may not commit this or that particular sin, I know that I am still guilty of at least as many violations of His Law as they are.

In the end, I am saved not because I have avoided this small subset of sins that gays, lesbians, and sheep lovers have not, but because He took the problem out of my hands.

I can't wear the robe of judgment. I just can't.

Sure, I can say that this or that gay person or whoever committed this or that sinful act. But what I can't judge is how that sinner believes. I can't judge the quality of someone's repentence, the quality of their belief, the quality of faith. Heck I can't even judge my own.

That kind of judgment is God's alone. And that is the only kind of judgment that matters. God isn't counting sins any more than he's counting good works. God's only counting the quality of our belief in Him and the quality of our commitment to striving to please Him. If he counted sins, we'd all be doomed. If he counted works, none of us would have enough.

But he doesn't count either works or sins. They've all been forgiven at Calvary. God merely asks of us, "Do you want to please me and don't you just hate it when you fall short, again, and sin?" If you can answer, yes, then not only will he forgive you your sins. He's not going to be bothered when you mistakenly identify as "ok" that which He has said is sinful.

But, again, how He's going to hear my answer, or yours, or that of the most flaming gay dude, only He knows how to get that right. I can't. I can't even tell for me. So how in the heck can I get off criticizing or judging someone else?

I don't believe they're the "ten suggestions," either. But even more important, I can't tell how God sees the quality of faith of someone who believes they are.

I can't. I just can't. None of us can.

The only standards of morality I can claim sufficient knowledge of are going to be human standards. Today's standards. Yesterday's standards. It makes no difference.

But the only standards of morality that matter with regard to "sin" and "faith" and "salvation" are divine ones. And of those I not only don't I have enough knowledge; I can't have it.

And if I claim to have it, I'm committing idolatry and breaking the Great Commandment itself. I'm worshiping an idol, the idol of my own claimed wisdom and reason.

Worse than if I had got to the pearly gates and tried to sodomize Peter.

This, I believe.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline zombieslayer  
#155 Posted : Monday, October 10, 2011 4:29:19 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland Go to Quoted Post
Like 95% are either lutheran or atheists. Calling the lutheran church "the church" is pretty accurate.

To summarize, no religious groups in Finland allow same sex marriage.


OK, thanks Finny. That's exactly what I wanted to know.

I'm surprised. I thought Finland would have more than Lutherans and atheists. Can't atheists make up their own church and marry gays? Seriously. We have hundreds of made up religions in this country. I personally know a guy who started his own church. You need only 150 people and it qualifies for all the benefits of a full on religion.

Is that legal there?
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Cheesey  
#156 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:20:05 AM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 162
Applause Received: 354

Wade, i see what you are saying. But are we NOT to warn others when we see what they are doing is wrong according to God? Not to "judge" them, but to warn them of the consequences of their actions? So that they too can gain salvation?
It's not judging them. As you said, that's God's business. But we can't just ignore it and act as if we don't care, can we?
If you see someone standing in the middle of the road, and a truck is about to run them over, would you not yell "LOOK OUT! YOU'RE ABOUT TO BE RUN OVER!" Or would you be afraid of someone telling you to mind your own business?

Fin.....think of all the countries where they keep popping out kids like they were PEZ dispensers, yet they can't even feed or take care of the kids they already have. So they should just keep popping them out so that SOME might survive and allow their race to continue? Haven't you seen the "feed the children" ads? I can't understand HOW people could care more about having sex then care about "How are we going to feed, clothe, and take care of the health needs of our children?"
I should smash my computer screen over that stupidity.
Once again, mankind's sex drive is more important then anything.

It always seems to win out over common sense. Excuses always are made for it.
UserPostedImage
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#157 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:40:28 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post
Once again, mankind's sex drive is more important then anything.

Yet again you miss the point entirely. For these people, having lots of children isn't about getting their rocks off, as you chauvinistically seem to think. It's a calculated bet -- a business decision, if you will -- that by producing enough progeny, enough of them will survive long enough to take care of the parents in their old age. In cultures like that, it is virtually impossible for older people to provide for themselves, so they need offspring to care for them. Yes, it results in a lot of kids dying, but guess what? That is the norm throughout the animal kingdom. The whole point of sexual reproduction is to have lots of diverse offspring in the hope that a few of them will be well enough adapted to survive to reproductive maturity. It's dirty, messy, and inefficient, it produces horrifying numbers of maladapted individuals (most of whom, thankfully, die in utero), but it also produces astonishingly well-adapted individuals who survive to pass their adapted traits onto their own/ offspring.

If that sounds harsh and cynical, you'll have to take it up with God. He designed the system, not I.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Packers_Finland on 10/13/2011(UTC), evad04 on 10/14/2011(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#158 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:04:15 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 645
Applause Received: 657

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post
Wade, i see what you are saying. But are we NOT to warn others when we see what they are doing is wrong according to God? Not to "judge" them, but to warn them of the consequences of their actions? So that they too can gain salvation?
It's not judging them. As you said, that's God's business. But we can't just ignore it and act as if we don't care, can we?
If you see someone standing in the middle of the road, and a truck is about to run them over, would you not yell "LOOK OUT! YOU'RE ABOUT TO BE RUN OVER!" Or would you be afraid of someone telling you to mind your own business?
Fin.....think of all the countries where they keep popping out kids like they were PEZ dispensers, yet they can't even feed or take care of the kids they already have. So they should just keep popping them out so that SOME might survive and allow their race to continue? Haven't you seen the "feed the children" ads? I can't understand HOW people could care more about having sex then care about "How are we going to feed, clothe, and take care of the health needs of our children?"
I should smash my computer screen over that stupidity.
Once again, mankind's sex drive is more important then anything.
It always seems to win out over common sense. Excuses always are made for it.

Do we have a duty to warn? I'm no longer sure.
Certainly you make a good argument, and the one I have agreed with most of my life, including most of that part of my life since I have gotten serious about my faith (fits and starts over the last 15 years).
But here's why I'm no longer sure. The problem was crystallized by a David Jeremiah CD I was listening to just the other day on the way to work. I've just finished his series of sermons on Galatians (15 CDs!). Whole series is on legalism, grace and how we should look at "the Law". Anyway, here goes.
Following Paul, the function of the Law is to point out our inherent hopelessness as sinners without the grace provided by Christ. As believers, its there to provide guidance on the manner in which we should strive to follow Christ. But if we aren't believers in grace, this or that part of the Law that we might or might not comply with isn't going to make a difference. Because no matter how good we are at one provision, we're going to be breaking others all the time by our very nature.
I think my duty to warn might exist IF the person has already come to believe in Jesus Christ as Saver of us by His Grace. It would come by way of "We all know we're going to sin, but loving Him means we want to do our best to follow His example and we don't do that by intentionally breaking what we believe Him not to approve of.
But if the person isn't yet a believer, or if the person's a believer that believes that salvation comes via obedience to the Law, then I don't think so. In fact, for those cases, I think "warning" just reinforces the wrong way of thinking about Jesus. It just re-inforces the notion that Christian belief is just another religion with rules to be followed. It just re-inforces the notion, all too prevalent among both non-believers and believers, that salvation comes from following rules and damnation comes from breaking them.
And it doesn't. It can't. Salvation can't come from ANY of our choices except the one that says "I trust you and I accept your gift of something I can never do anything to deserve. And no worse damnation can come about from breaking any other part of the Law if that offer is being refused.
If my concern is my neighbor's salvation -- and I absolutely agree that such should be my concern -- then my effort should be on helping my neighbor to understand that it all comes down to agreeing that Jesus did "it" and accepting his gift. Because if the neighbor can't do that, for whatever reason he doesn't do it, he's doomed. But if he can do that, then all the pieces involving dangly bits and sin have been taken care of to God's salvation.
Now back to those already believing, the ones I tentative accepted a duty to warn about sin X several paragraphs back. To the extent that my warning is of the "what do you think Jesus would feel about this choice you are making? Would it pain him?" then okay, the warning has value. But it has to be very carefully done: it is not only not judging of the sinner, it is not judging or even claiming that the action is sinful, that I should be doing. It's merely another example of saying to my fellow believer, "what would Jesus do/say/feel?" Another example of telling him that its all about making His feelings first, not mine, yours, or any other sinners.
The question of the relative importance we place man's sex drive, in the end, is irrelevant. The relevance of any of our drives, the relevance of ALL of our drives taken together, is a grain of sand next to the universe that is the relevance of His Drive. How we choose among our human drives makes no difference at all. How we believe about His makes all the difference.

Edit: I apologize for the lack of space between paragraphs. I can't figure out why it doesn't show up. (I also had to type the bolding code in -- I couldn't get the button to work.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline DakotaT  
#159 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:06:04 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 642
Applause Received: 1,320

So all this time I was suppose to be filling the earth with little Dakotas, instead of fulfilling my hedonistic desires with responsible action? What an incredible decision I made to only give the world three of me - albeit in female form.
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#160 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:10:08 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 642
Applause Received: 1,320

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Do we have a duty to warn? I'm no longer sure.
Certainly you make a good argument, and the one I have agreed with most of my life, including most of that part of my life since I have gotten serious about my faith (fits and starts over the last 15 years).
But here's why I'm no longer sure. The problem was crystallized by a David Jeremiah CD I was listening to just the other day on the way to work. I've just finished his series of sermons on Galatians (15 CDs!). Whole series is on legalism, grace and how we should look at "the Law". Anyway, here goes.
Following Paul, the function of the Law is to point out our inherent hopelessness as sinners without the grace provided by Christ. As believers, its there to provide guidance on the manner in which we should strive to follow Christ. But if we aren't believers in grace, this or that part of the Law that we might or might not comply with isn't going to make a difference. Because no matter how good we are at one provision, we're going to be breaking others all the time by our very nature.
I think my duty to warn might exist IF the person has already come to believe in Jesus Christ as Saver of us by His Grace. It would come by way of "We all know we're going to sin, but loving Him means we want to do our best to follow His example and we don't do that by intentionally breaking what we believe Him not to approve of.
But if the person isn't yet a believer, or if the person's a believer that believes that salvation comes via obedience to the Law, then I don't think so. In fact, for those cases, I think "warning" just reinforces the wrong way of thinking about Jesus. It just re-inforces the notion that Christian belief is just another religion with rules to be followed. It just re-inforces the notion, all too prevalent among both non-believers and believers, that salvation comes from following rules and damnation comes from breaking them.
And it doesn't. It can't. Salvation can't come from ANY of our choices except the one that says "I trust you and I accept your gift of something I can never do anything to deserve. And no worse damnation can come about from breaking any other part of the Law if that offer is being refused.
If my concern is my neighbor's salvation -- and I absolutely agree that such should be my concern -- then my effort should be on helping my neighbor to understand that it all comes down to agreeing that Jesus did "it" and accepting his gift. Because if the neighbor can't do that, for whatever reason he doesn't do it, he's doomed. But if he can do that, then all the pieces involving dangly bits and sin have been taken care of to God's salvation.
Now back to those already believing, the ones I tentative accepted a duty to warn about sin X several paragraphs back. To the extent that my warning is of the "what do you think Jesus would feel about this choice you are making? Would it pain him?" then okay, the warning has value. But it has to be very carefully done: it is not only not judging of the sinner, it is not judging or even claiming that the action is sinful, that I should be doing. It's merely another example of saying to my fellow believer, "what would Jesus do/say/feel?" Another example of telling him that its all about making His feelings first, not mine, yours, or any other sinners.
The question of the relative importance we place man's sex drive, in the end, is irrelevant. The relevance of any of our drives, the relevance of ALL of our drives taken together, is a grain of sand next to the universe that is the relevance of His Drive. How we choose among our human drives makes no difference at all. How we believe about His makes all the difference.
Edit: I apologize for the lack of space between paragraphs. I can't figure out why it doesn't show up. (I also had to type the bolding code in -- I couldn't get the button to work.



So when I tell all you greedy tax evaders that your souls depend on paying that tax - I'm being righteous? Thanks Wade, you've given me peace.
UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#161 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:08:18 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 645
Applause Received: 657

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
So when I tell all you greedy tax evaders that your souls depend on paying that tax - I'm being righteous? Thanks Wade, you've given me peace.


Er, no. Er. Probably not. Er. I dunno.

You might be correct on the human question of ethics (theoretically anyway). But righteous -- in the sense of obeying the Great Commandment -- er.... only if you are doing it because you believe that is loving Him, etc.

Your righteousness is still God's call. Only your faith is yours.

And neither is mine.

(All I can do is point out the silliness of your goody-goody whacked economics. :) )

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Packers_Finland  
#162 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:17:51 PM(UTC)
Packers_Finland

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 88
Applause Received: 45

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post

Fin.....think of all the countries where they keep popping out kids like they were PEZ dispensers, yet they can't even feed or take care of the kids they already have. So they should just keep popping them out so that SOME might survive and allow their race to continue? Haven't you seen the "feed the children" ads? I can't understand HOW people could care more about having sex then care about "How are we going to feed, clothe, and take care of the health needs of our children?"
I should smash my computer screen over that stupidity.
Once again, mankind's sex drive is more important then anything.
It always seems to win out over common sense. Excuses always are made for it.


Nonstopdrivel already summed up many of the aspects of this of which you were ignorant but I'll continue.

Did you know that if we properly fed the people in the poorer areas of Africa, and cured AIDS, that the population most likely probably grow slower than it does now? Sounds silly I know, but if their children wouldn't die with such a high percentage, they wouldn't make so many of them. This is already visible in some of the more developed countries in Africa.

It's not always about the sex drive. In some places it's just about surviving.
This is a placeholder
Offline Formo  
#163 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:38:56 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

I don't even know, nor do I care, what is going on in this thread anymore.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Packers_Finland  
#164 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:06:24 PM(UTC)
Packers_Finland

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 88
Applause Received: 45

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
I don't even know, nor do I care, what is going on in this thread anymore.


I can sum it up in three words:

1) religion
2) Africa
3) taxes

It's basically what every thread boils into if you let it go on long enough.
This is a placeholder
Offline zombieslayer  
#165 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:37:14 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
So all this time I was suppose to be filling the earth with little Dakotas, instead of fulfilling my hedonistic desires with responsible action? What an incredible decision I made to only give the world three of me - albeit in female form.


As long as they end up looking more like your wife than you, it's all good.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
17 Pages«<910111213>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
25m / Green Bay Packers Talk / RaiderPride

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

1-Sep / Random Babble / nyrpack

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.