Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan

Saturday, December 19, 2015 -- 4:00 PM
John Perry

This Sunday we're asking about Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan.

The question is: if God knows all, is all-powerful, and is benevolent, why did He create a world with suffering, evil and injustice in it?  That’s what philosophers call “The Problem of Evil”.  

The first and best statement I know of is from Epicurus, around 300 B.C.,
        Is [God] is both able and willing [to prevent evil],
        Then whence cometh evil?
        Is he neither able nor willing?
        Then why call him God?

It is a problem for religions, like orthodox Christianity,  that posit a perfect God.  Such a God should be all-powerful or “omnipotent,” and all-knowing or “omniscient”.  And he should be benevolent, since being mean and uncaring is an imperfection.    But as the quote from Epicurus shows, the problem predates Christian philosophy and theology.

One more bit of termionology.  A “theodicy” is a defense against the problem of Evil, an explanation of how there can be evil in world created by a perfect God.

 I think Saint Augustine’s theodicy, which has been the pattern for most subsequent defenses of God on this issue, successfully solved one important aspect of the problem of evil,  the logical problem of evil.  This is the claim that it is just plain logically impossible for a world created by a perfect being to have any evil and injustice in it. 

The logical problem of evil isn't the whole problem of evil.    Even Augustine or some other philosopher manage to show us that it is a logical possibility that a perfect God created some world with evil and injustice in it, that would be a far cry from showing that an all perfect God was anything like a remotely plausible explanation for this world, with its particular evils and injustices.  That’s the empirical problem.  Showing that something is logically possible, isn’t the same as showing that it is empirically plausible.  But it’s an important first step.

Augustine presents two connected ideas, which I’ll call the Big Picture Defense and the Free-Will Defense.  The Big Picture Defense starts with the idea that something that in and of itself seems quite ugly, and would, by itself, constitute a perfectly ugly picture, might be an essential part of a larger picture of which it is a part.  A little bit of ugliness might make the Big Picture better, more aesthetically powerful.

By  analogy, maybe a little suffering makes an essential contribution to an overall result that is better than we could have had without the suffering.  To take a trivial example, I suffer a little when I jog.   The jogging makes me healthier physically, and the suffering makes me stronger mentally.  My life, with a little suffering, is better than it would be with no suffering.

If we had the big picture, an understanding of God’s whole creation, which as human of course we don’t have, we’d see that what we take to be injustice and suffering is compensated for; the whole turns out better for these ugly parts.  They are necessary parts of the best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz liked to put it. 

Then the Free-Will Defense adds a crucial and powerful point.  A world with freedom in it, where God lets humans and angels make decisions, is better than one without, even if those decisions sometimes lead to pain and suffering.  So freedom is an important part of the Big Picture, even when it brings suffering and injustice with it.

Do you think the logical problem is solved?  Even if it is, there is a lot left to discuss.    For one thing, a lot of suffering and evil, like the pain a fawn feels when it is eaten by a coyote, doesn't seem to be related to human free will. 
Or coyote free will, for that matter, since I don't think most coyotes have the capacity to kill fawns painlessly.  But who knows.

Comments (29)


aaron's picture

aaron

Saturday, May 4, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Actually the problem of evil

Actually the problem of evil and the problem of free will are both troublesome issues for modern theistic belief. Free will, of course, can only be an illusion in a universe with an omnipotent and omniscient creator. Framing the 2 issues as if they somehow resolve each other is a piece of apologetic legerdemain that holds water like a sieve.
If the supernatural creator spirit being knew every decision you would make before he made the earth (and a few days later the sun?), and had the power to change any detail of the creation - then the word "will" is without meaning for any entity but him. (So if you are roasting in hell for eternity, or reincarnated into a life full of suffering as penalty - the responsibility can only lie with the only one who truly made a decision.)
But if we leave that aside, and pretend that will could have meaning, it is no answer at all to the POE. Do those who manage to live up to the expectations of the deity have free will? If so, then why cannot all be created with the moral strength, or whatever characteristic those acceptable people have, that allows them to make the right choice - despite being totally free to make the wrong one?
The only interesting phenomenon here is the bizarre contortions the human mind will perform to prop up the obvious nonsense of supernatural belief systems.

mirugai's picture

mirugai

Saturday, May 4, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Yes, Aaron, you have raised

Yes, Aaron, you have raised the ?only interesting issue? very succinctly. So,
DEFINING GOD
What or who is God?: Humans seek 1. An object for the great gift they feel of being able to give their love to someone or something, and 2. Confirmation of what they think is good and right. For these purposes, they refer to a consciousness outside of their own ? technically impossible to do, but they do it anyway. It is instinctive in the human. Prayer is one method.
The greatest evidence of the ?belief? being instinctive is the statistical fact that 99.9% of humans believe in some form of consciousness after death: heaven and hell, or reincarnation, or other forms of justice visited on the ?surviving? consciousness. If you don?t believe something like this, you are statistically not human.
What is ?existence,? as in the question ?Does God exist?? My consciousness is my only evidence of existence. We are told that God is a consciousness which exists outside my own. The only evidence I have of the existence of a consciousness outside my own is (and this is the crucial point): my decision that certain events selected by me (as well as those convincingly (for some purpose) proposed by someone else), are evidence of God?s consciousness.
The only criterion for selecting such evidence and attributing properties to God ? defining God ? is to justify our (whoever ?we? or ?us? might be, social or individual) purposeful beliefs and practices.
There is no real point in arguing about the attributes, logical or illogical, of God; but it is great good philosophical fun.

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, May 4, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

The guest theologian often

The guest theologian often used the big picture argument to defend the existence of evil in a world created and governed by a loving God. There are two objections to this:-
1) The greater good argument has been often used to justify ethically perverse practices that cause suffering to millions of people in human history. It seems very unconvincing to me that any being (even God) can impose suffering on another sentient being for some greater good plan or the other without the sufferers explicit consent.
2) The big picture argument is itself unconvincing. If one looks at the really big picture of the evolution and flourishing of life on earth for the last 4 billion years, one sees that the very mechanism of life's growth (competition for resources and natural selection) necessarily involves extreme sufferings and deaths of billions of organisms under brutal and unforgiving circumstances.One can look at levels from mass extinctions to continuous processes involving predation, starvation, disease and death to understand that the story of life is the survival of the lucky and the ruthless within a horrifyingly brutal natural world. How is it logically possible for a compassionate God create life systems through a process that has so much suffering built into it? Clearly this is not the only possible way to create living things, neither is it necessary to create life forms that can survive only by killing other life forms, neither does it seem necessary to create beings like us through such a long drawn out 4 billion year saga of death and destruction. I have not yet seen any plausible answer to such questions from theists who insist on holding on to the concept of a loving God.

MJA's picture

MJA

Sunday, May 5, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

If God is merely another name

If God is merely another name for infinitely everything, equitable Oneness, the Universe, who is to say it has free will, you and me? =

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, May 6, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

I'm not big on the divine

I'm not big on the divine plan theory. Good and evil are asspects (misspelling, intended) of the so-called human condition. No, I am reasonably convinced that what Richard Dawkins called the God Delusion has been, primarily, the efforts of humanity to KEEP ITSELF IN CHECK. Nothing else we have devised has been effective in doing so. Law, ethics, moral suasion, shame-shaming---none of it induces the average ego to be compliant with the straight and narrow. We tend to do what we want to do. And that is why the world is as it is. I am no enemy of the tenets of any so-called divine plan. I just do not believe in its authorship. While Einstein's assertion about God and dice is quaint, I wonder if the great scientist was hedging his bets, in favor of immortality.
I might be humorous, if it were not pathetic, that because we CAN THINK we will live forever, some of us do think so.
In anticipation of future possible PT posts, I offer the following:
1. Tweets are for twits;
2. "Social" networking is becoming a cultural nightmare;
3. If you are looking for love, don't embrace a cactus;
4. Always, always---be careful what you wish for...

aaron's picture

aaron

Monday, May 6, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Well - and there it is.

Well - and there it is.
Mirugai - the few parts of your post that I found comprehensible, I disagree with.
Philosophical analysis of the attributes of gods is exactly equal in fun (and usefulness) to analysis of the attributes of Santa Claus.
Discussions on the the topic of what people believe about these alleged attributes of this alleged entity have the advantage of being discussions about
actual rather than imaginary phenomena. Those discussions can be useful, and fun - but also deadly serious, since people are much less likely to torture and
murder each other over their Santa Claus beliefs.
Sayak - the "big picture" defense was already hamstrung in the original article; you have done a nice methodical breakdown further exposing its lack of
substance. I actually think Voltaire said all that needed to be said on the "best of all possible worlds" hypothesis. But believers just don't care. If
believers were willing to think rationally about their beliefs for a few nanoseconds, they would recognize it as the childish, primitive, superstitious
nonsense that it is.
But faith - in the sense of the word that applies only to religious belief, is nothing else but a technique to forcibly suppress critical thought about the
particular flavor of fairy tale favored by the believer's family, friends, culture, favored internet sites, whatever.
That is why the whole concept of "reasoned faith," or any attempt at rational discussion of the objects of faith, are such exercises in pointlessness.
MJA - if God is merely a name for x, then why use "God" instead of x, being that God, in common usage, carries a whole lot of meaning with it that clearly
you do not intend if you embrace some sort of pantheism?
And - if free will and consciousness are phenomena that we observe only in the context of evolved biological systems - the only context in which the concepts
make any sense - why would we feel any urge to project them onto a rock or a galaxy or a universe (or an equitable oneness, whatever that may be)?
To discuss the Problem of Evil context of serious modern philosophical thought is just silly.
The simple and obvious "solution" to the "Problem" is to not place our faith (normal version of faith, not blind religious faith) in the absurd and plainly false belief system that spawns the imaginary paradox.

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, May 6, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

One of the problems of the

One of the problems of the English language is that the word "good" has two antonyms: "bad" and "evil." Though often treated as synonyms, "bad" and "evil" can also be understood to have distinct meanings. Bad can refer to something undesirable but not evil; that is, bad can refer to something physical without a moral dimension. Vice versa for evil.
The question then is this: Should suffering be considered in terms of bad, or evil, or both?
A distinction can also be made between suffering and pain. It can be argued, indeed has been (although I forget by whom) that pain is physical, suffering is mental.

Fred Griswold's picture

Fred Griswold

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Regarding Augustine's big

Regarding Augustine's big picture argument, the implication is that if an omnipotent God can pull the strings any way he wants, then he can make a world with both good and evil in it no matter how incompatible they might seem. Explanations like this always seem too facile to me, a little too convenient, almost a cop-out. On the other hand, if you look at the really big picture, what you see, in my view, is the laws of physics. The big picture argument wouldn't have to be changed much to make it compatible with Darwinian evolution. But if we take that skeptical, scientific attitude, then it's a bit of a stretch to think that the same natural processes could produce both Adolf Hitler and Pat Boone. So the question is, which of these two arguments is less plausible?

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

I was disappointed that your

I was disappointed that your discussion was confined to Christianity. I think a wider focus on other religions? responses would have illuminated the problem better. By focusing on Christianity, you entered into the minutae of Biblical interpretation. Some of have already been there; ugh. Also, I think that your experience of ?wanting? to believe and why you turned to religion could have been more fruitful.

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Searching for a "More Loving

Searching for a "More Loving God"
I was inspired during grade school to become a missionary because of the Bible's phrase:
"If you do not believe in Me, you will go to Hell."
But during seven years of study no one could answer my question:
"What happens to people who have not heard about Jesus?"
I was shocked to learn, after umpteen years of "This is the Holy Bible", that it was written and re-written by man! Would a loving God write about all those lurid stories of sex and violence?
Who can believe in the spectacular concept that there are 3 Gods in one? Answers were like:
"Oh, you are like an ant questioning the wisdom of man?"
On my exit interview from my Lutheran Seminary I answered:
"I am going to look for a 'More Loving God' than the one in the Bible."
Really read the Bible and you may find that the God in the Bible is NOT kind?

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Interesting comments here ...

Interesting comments here .... I suggest reading a book called "Caveman Logic" Read it with an open mind. I read it twice. I am very comfortable being a skeptic and questioning many belief systems. Guess I have my scientific mind to thank for that.

MJA's picture

MJA

Wednesday, May 8, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

A New Plan

A New Plan
I think it is time for a new divine plan, One that unites mankind equitably with not only himself but with all of Nature. One that removes the uncertain measures of science and the religious dogmas of faith or doubt that have so clouded our vision and led us so astray. One that leads us to real justice, not the grey area of fairness we see today. A new plan that equates the governed and the governors, One that declares a new independence led by our inalienable right of self-evidence and the strength or power of self-reliance, One that unites us All. It is time for a new plan, One based on the light of truth, built on the foundation of absolute, a plan that will takes All the Way, to the promised land of free at last.
The divine plan is equality, equality is freedom, the truth we've been fighting and searching for.
When All is equal All is One
Equal is the plan,
Truth is the Way.
=

MJA's picture

MJA

Wednesday, May 8, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

.Dear Dave,

.Dear Dave,
Search no further than Oneself. =

Guest's picture

Guest

Wednesday, May 8, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Your guest touched on the

Your guest touched on the book of Job. The usual reading of the book is that bad things happen to good people, but (although it's a bit forceful literary way out of the trap) in the end Job is being rewarded for his faithfulness, id being made whole. He's got new flocks, new children.
Now I am troubled by two aspects of this vision:
1. All of this, all bad things that fall on Job, is explained as sort of wager between God and the Evil one, to prove the latter wrong.
2. What about the collateral? What about children of Job? I mean the first set?
Now, given the book is (inspired or not) a literary figure it reflects a way of thinking, a troublesome perspective very much alive today: as in the concept of the survivor of a nazi concentration camp saying "thank you" to God for giving him/her the opportunity to go through a time of trial victorious. What about his parents, siblings, children who did not make it. What would they say to their maker? All 6 millions of them? Millions of Kambodjans? Armenians? Rwandan Tutsis? Etc. etc.
I live out natural cataclysms. But working up human hearts is, we seem to believe very much the divine business of God. And He seems to lose millions of lives per event... Uh... That's though... If this is some way of communication with humans, an argument, a parable of good and evil, it is VERY EXPENSIVE. Ans it does not seem to be very effective. What does it say about the "divine economy" or "economy of salvation" (both are technical terms in christian theology)?
With best regards
Lech
PS. I really like your shows.

Guest's picture

Guest

Thursday, May 9, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Thank you, Lech. You stated

Thank you, Lech. You stated things with admirable restraint. Welcome to the discussions. Hope you stick around for further topics.
The Doctor.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Sunday, May 12, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

I am certain of three things

I am certain of three things and only three:
1. I am alive now, and have, therefore lived once. I'm thankful for this.
2. As with most living units, I will die, sooner or later. I accept this, thankfully.
3. All notions connected with item 2 and its finality, or extensivity, are speculative. And, boring.
Cordially, Neuman.

Guest's picture

Guest

Friday, May 24, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Word is that the Pope

Word is that the Pope performed a miracle several days ago. The actual account alleged "exorcism", but, this was refuted---why, I do not know, except that it may not be acceptable to accept a sitting pope as an exorcist.
Too much previous bad publicity, perhaps. Still, if it IS accepted that the Pope is the divinely anointed emissary of God (for Catholics, at least), why would he not be capable of exorcism? Um, maybe that would lead to too much bad publicity.

Guest's picture

Guest

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 -- 5:00 PM

Let's start with this life is

Let's start with this life is a game. For all life that existence. Whats the purpose of this game called "Life". Our (life) purpose is merely to survive. The plants,the insects,the animals. This is an amazing game who wouldn't want to play it .We're all connect not spiritually but physically. I like to call God "The Ultimate Chess Player" because if you ask him for something he sets up a chain of events to make it come true. Now imagine a trillion+ life asking for favors. Of course there's going to be some collisions because of selfishness. Which all life possess except humans (i'll guess that's because we have evolved and have become so intelligent we can question our own nature.This happened along time ago "Buddha" who clearly possessed superior intelligent is proof). In which the "Bible" (the prehistoric life guide) created by an intellectual. Who specifically told us to be pride-less. Do not take the "Bible" so literally. I haven't read it but I can tell you that much. I bet a lots of writings of that time were written figuratively with subliminal messages. A simple one "Jesus died for our sins". Rephrase it you get "Jesus died in the benefit of everyone" because he lived in the benefit of everyone (Pride-less). Evil & Good are merely words used to describe something limited to ones own perceptive. No different from Beauty & Ugly subjective as well. The Ultimate Chess Player is neither good nor bad. You merely perceive his action as good or bad.
A million people might say "Your beautiful". "A thousand might say "Your ugly". You might say "I'm the best looking person in the world". In truth your nothing only what you and others perceive you as.

mirugai's picture

mirugai

Sunday, December 20, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

K(NO)W GOD

K(NO)W GOD
The question: ?Why did God, the all-powerful and all-knowing, allow [whatever terrible thing] to take place?? 
Those who want to know who or what God is search the sacred books and sacred stories for evidence of Him.  These portrayals are full of seeming contradictions about what God does, and his apparent goals for his followers.  All searchers, regardless of the degree of their orthodoxy, sift through the portrayals for concrete guidance, and piece together the nature of their God from what they select.  Un-fundamentalists faced with the contradictory evidence, simply make up their own God, usually based on what they ?want,? to the extent it conforms to what they view as ?good?? and ?bad?: moral outrage is man?s greatest pleasure, and piety displays are a close second.
So, we have the most orthodox believers debating and piecing together God from analysis of sacred texts and stories; and the less fundamentals completely making up their God. By the way, I don?t have any objection to either approach as ways of attempting to connect with ?Other Consciousness,? let?s call it.
What I do find faulty in the reasoning of God followers is: the expectation that God should or shouldn?t do something, or allow something?that God must follow some human rules of morality or behavior.  Under the all knowing, all powerful view of God, it is not for believers to ascribe any explanation to God?s will; ?reason? and ?understanding? and ?meaning? and ?justice? are human constructs (mostly with nefarious purposes, in my view) which do not constrain God.  If anything, whatever your God does or allows is more certain, more ?right? than any of these human constructs.
A better inquiry for philosophers is ?If God, what is He doing,? not ?why.? ?If God,? then what he does and ?allows? is the best evidence of His nature. The inquiry needs to be free of ?good? and ?bad.?

Gary M Washburn's picture

Gary M Washburn

Sunday, December 20, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

Ancient gods are often little

Ancient gods are often little more than a language to give events coherence. Monotheism is the fantasy of induction. That is why it is so protean. There is no logical induction, but there must be terms that warrant or give surety to reductive reasoning. It is therefore impossible to reason without intuiting induction, induction that is not warranted logically. Therefore the god offers itself as the abstracted term of the more concrete divinity the polytheists found rendering events coherent or at least able to be characterized. But the point is, if you think you have the indiuctive term sussed, why preach? Why insist on convincing the world? Why evangelize? What does the true believer care that others don't? What skin off god's nose? And if there were such an inductive term, reductive reasoning would be the matter of faith, not god. And so the whole matter is a vapid battle over a conviction in an intuition that has no warrant to it at all, and yet is prerequisite to reasoning.
The Biblical gods, and there are any number of them, all orbit the promise of time unworthy of us, if we but believe in it and follow its law. The fallacy here, of course (if we conceive it clearly), is that worth is what time is. There is no other time that is anything of what worth is. Time is the stranger is nigh it is through us, and we will do anything, conceive anything, to keep that stranger at bay so that we can recieve that facile term that time is unworthy of us and that we are right to believe in whatever revision to the intuition of induction that is required by the reductive rigor that always ends in evidencing its fallacy, and so proving the promise of time unworthy of us eternally unkept.

Gary M Washburn's picture

Gary M Washburn

Monday, December 21, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

When Einstein says god doesn

When Einstein says god doesn't throw dice he really only means science must subscribe only to determinate cause and explanation. But if reality is at rock bottom randomness, then who wins? You see, only if the one throwing the dice, the random event, effaces itself in the interest the rest of time space and matter has in finding itself more completed in the character of that otherwise inexplicable event than any determinist principle can  render coherent is there anything we could rightly call "time". Time is the stranger, the rebel against the normative, that is most real defying the norm at that moment just as that norm seems closest to clinching its grip on it. That elusive quality no quantifier can bring to heel is the worth of time espousing all the inductive terms we assume are quantitatively prior to what is real. No god can supply such an explicative term.
 
A couple other matters of interest, though perhaps off topic. A recently released study that shows cyber-cars twice as accident-prone as human operators claims that all the accidents recorded were really the the fault of human driving. I am reminded of all the times Han Solo pleads "It's not my fault!" IT's a form of cyber road-rage, I suppose. But it goes to show that even artificial intelligence has its subjective side, and that its reasoning is flawed, even if its driving is not.
Also, it seems we have proof that the so called law of supply and demand is a hoax after all. One expert states that the Saudis believe that oil is going out of fashion and that the oil they do not pump today will not sell tomorrow. But, it seems, the renewable juggernaut is off the drawing-board and out of the barn. And that economists have to revise their fundamentals.

ryoudelman@gmail.com's picture

ryoudelman@gmail.com

Tuesday, December 22, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

The subject of why the

The subject of why the innocent must suffer needlessly is a good argument against religion and philosophies influenced by religion.

Or's picture

Or

Saturday, January 2, 2016 -- 4:00 PM

I believe that it also poses

I believe that it also poses a problem for the secular part of our modern society, as we don?t seem to accept anything less than perfect in the same way religious people speak about a perfect God and how evil, ugliness and suffering are dimensions that really don?t fit with belief in the all-mighty. In our secular modern society there is zero tolerance to pain (physical and emotional/spiritual); therefore, we have developed paths and drugs to attempt to eliminate it from our lives. Also, secularity has, to say the least, certain aesthetic cannons that exclude almost anything that is not shaped by them, so we really try hard to avoid confronting problems like physical and mental diseases/imperfection. The way the secular society seems to resolve the existence of evil is by somehow accepting that it is OK as long as it is happening out of your personal/familial bubble.

Gary M Washburn's picture

Gary M Washburn

Sunday, January 3, 2016 -- 4:00 PM

Sounds like a combination of

Sounds like a combination of NIMBY and Realpolitik, on the moral front. There is no personal evil any more than there is a personal goodness. As Morse says to Lewis (quoting an author I do not remember and have not been able to identify by the use of any search engine): "There may not be a devil, but there's deviltry!" But the motive of giving the "absolute" or generality a name is to render it amenable to categorical determinism. But far from promoting relativism, the absence of that determinacy rescues us from the most relentless mode of relativism that determinacy is. The relation between the personal and the divine is the heart of all vexation in moral matters. What keeps us from ditching the appeal to divinity in hopes of differentiating good and evil is that we assume the alternative is that each is a determinate personal possession or attribute, when good and evil is a dynamic not of possession but of loss. The four great heresies of the Christian era have to do with the relation of the personal to the divine, and the most abiding resolution on offer is the idea of a hermetic seal between them that is only breach as a divine gift. The pernicious result, however, is that the gift and its receipt, too, get differentiated, each obviating the other. That is, the recipient of divine grace is the subjective determinacy of the inaccessible absolute. And so, there cannot be a personal good that is not, by fiat of its being received the gift, the voice of the idea of absolute good. And thence, of course, the arbiter of those who are not received it. But such possession is the best candidate for what evil is. It is not being so possessed of good that we can name the bad that brings home what good and evil is. It is only where the greatest discipline of the matter is that we do not know that we are most possessed of it. We are most possessed of good judgment where we are most disciplined in finding our certitude incomplete. It is the disciplined changing of the mind that is the life of morality, not the presumed determinacy of our judgment that always somehow falls short of that extreme rigor of finding certitude the unfinished project of our time. Or any time.

Guest's picture

Guest

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 -- 5:00 PM

i have seeen your post.i

i have seeen your post.i seems your blog. thanks for sharing it.
hostgator coupon

Guest's picture

Guest

Thursday, May 5, 2016 -- 5:00 PM

This is quite educational

This is quite educational arrange. It has famous breeding about what I rarity to vouch. Colossal proverb. This trumpet is a famous tone to nab to troths. Congratulations on a career well achieved. This arrange is synchronous s informative impolites festivity to pity. I appreciated what you ok extremely here. color switch, mortal kombat x, roblox, a10

stoixima's picture

stoixima

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 -- 5:00 PM

those who started Sunday?s

those who started Sunday?s encounter followed a special program with decompression and recuperation drills in the gym and jogging on the pitch. The rest did tactical work and ball passing drills.dorean prognostika has suffered a left hamstring strain, but will undergo further medical tests that will determine the exact nature of his injury.froutakia continued his recovery program in Thessaloniki, while a prognostika stoiximatos is training at a higher pace in order to make it in time for the last encounters of the season. After the session held at the installations of Atromitos FC, the squad returned to the hotel for lunch, before taking their flight back to Thessaloniki, due to the change of the play-offs? schedule.
Thanks for share and have a good day

 

Listen:

 
 
 

Blog Archive

2018

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

2017

December

November

October

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

2016

December

October

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

2015

December

November

October

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

2005

December

November

October

September

August

July

June

May

April

March