Monday, December 3, 2007

The Religious Beliefs of John Adams

Along with James Madison, here is another case where I have uncovered new information that gives more light into the religious beliefs of Founding Father John Adams, while he helped form our nation. The evidence is what I suspected; along with Madison, Adams was not a rationalist. Adams denied the Deity, and Virgin Birth of the Messiah Jesus Christ, but he believed in the supernatural, inerrancy, original sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, eternal judgment for the wicked, and His physical return to the earth. Adams' mentor Joseph Priestley, denied the Blood Atonement, which Adams may have also rejected, but by examining Priestley's words, he had no clue about Old Testament sacrifices for sin. Here then, are the words of John Adams:

"It is a striking Representation of that Struggle which I believe always happens, between Virtue and Ambition, when a Man first commences a Courtier. By a Courtier I mean one who applies himself to the Passions and Prejudices, the Follies and Vices of great Men in order to obtain their Smiles, their Esteem and Patronage and consequently their favours and Preferments. Human Nature, depraved as it is, has interwoven in its very Frame, a Love of Truth, Sincerity, and Integrity, which must be overcome by Art, Education, and habit, before the Man can become entirely ductile to the Will of a dishonest Master. When such a Master requires of all who seek his favour, an implicit Resignation to his Will and Humour, and these require that he be soothed, flattered and assisted in his Vices, and Follies, perhaps the blackest Crimes, that Men can commit, the first Thought of this will produce in a Mind not yet entirely debauched, a Soliloqui, something like my Motto -- as if he should say -- The Minister of State or the Governor would promote my Interest, would advance me to Places of Honour and Profitt, would raise me and my family to Titles and Dignities that will be perpetuated in my family, in a Word would make the Fortune of me and my Posterity forever, if I would but comply with his Desires and become his Instrument to promote his Measures. -- But still I dread the Consequences. He requires of me, such Complyances, such horrid Crimes, such a Sacrifice of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted. Such as these are probably the Sentiments of a Mind as yet pure, and undifiled in its Morals, and undifiled in its Morals. And many and severe are the Pangs, and Agonies it must undergo, before it will be brought to yield entirely to Temptation. Notwithstanding this, We see every Day, that our Imaginations are so strong and our Reason so weak, the Charms of Wealth and Power are so en [enchanting]chanting, and the Belief of future Punishments so faint, that Men find Ways to persuade themselves, to believe any Absurdity, to submit to any Prostitution, than rather than forego their Wishes and Desires. Their Reason becomes at last an eloquent Advocate on the Side of their Passions, and [they] bring themselves to believe that black is white, that Vice is Virtue, that Folly is Wisdom and Eternity a Moment."
JOHN ADAMS Diary, FEB, 9TH, 1772. ADAMS PAPERS.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16

Adams again, affirming original sin:

"Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guiltis brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance."
John Adams diary August 15, 1756.

This affirmation on total depravity was not reversed until after he left office. Adams' belief in original sin is also consistent with his view on the inferiority of man's reason.

"The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be."
John Adams, 1787, Defence, 3:289, 479. Cf., Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002).

Clearly in this quote, ADAMS believes man's reason is inferior to God's direct revelation, and always will be. He believes man is corrupted because of sin, not partially corrupted. A partial corruption of man is illogical; a little leaven leavens the whole lump. To rely on a flawed program for ultimate truth is a chimerical idea.

Here also, is a quote from James Madison supporting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of which includes: That God came to earth, in the form of human flesh, born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, and rose from the dead for our justification. This Gospel, James Madison is defending; proof of his adherence to it, is found in his Memorial and Remonstrance.

"Does not the exclusion of Ministers of the Gospel, as such, violate a fundamental principle of liberty, by punishing a religious profession with the privation of a civil right? Does it not violate another article of the plan itself, which exempts religion from the cognizance of Civil power? Does it not violate justice, by at once taking away a right and prohibiting a compensation for it? Does it not, in fine, violate impartiality, by shutting the door against the Ministers of one religion and leaving it open for those of every other?" James Madison, August 23, 1785 to John Brown, (Kentucky) Papers of James Madison.

It would seem strange for Madison to affirm the truth of Christianity in his Memorial, and deny the Gospel, which he here, is supporting.

Man's reason is inefficient for absolute truth, because of its corruption by the sinful nature, this, Adams surely believed. Man's reason is flawed, and with no direct authority to adhere to, it is foolish to think the conscience can be the basis of ultimate truth. Of course, the framers, except Jefferson, Franklin, and maybe Washington, at the forming of our nation, believed the Bible is superior to man's conscience. Along with Madison, Adams' university training did not teach him man's conscience is superior to God's word, but the opposite; only later, their unfortunate relationship with Thomas Jefferson, however mislead, corrupted their beliefs.

These quotes show without a doubt his meaning of the Law of Nature was The God of the Bible, what he believed after he left office need not be shown.







25 comments:

Hercules Mulligan said...

Hello OFT:

I have now finally found a spare moment to reply to your kind comment on my Hamilton blog.

Yes, I had a blessed Thanksgiving -- a much-needed rest from my hectic schedule and an opportunity to quietly reflect on all the blessings God has given to our nation and myself and family. I read your post on Madison -- definitely interesting! I have a handful of questions which maybe you could answer? Where does Madison include such doctrines as socianism, Arianism, universalism, etc., in his Memorial and Remonstrance? Does he mention them at all there?
Good thoughts on your post; you did an excellent job of pointing out how Madison believed in the depravity of man. I am always baffled at how he could have changed his mind later in life, however. Jefferson certainly had more faith in man's goodness than any of the other Founders did -- even Franklin had a lower view of man's goodness than Jefferson did, even though Franklin was not a Christian! Anyway, James Madison has always perplexed me for this reason.

I am still curious about this idea that the states can establish any RELIGION (as in "Religion in general," and not "Christian denomination") that they want, such as hinduism. If it is not too inconvenient for you, do you think you could post to me Madison's quote at the Fed. Convention which you mentioned (about religion being left to the states)?

If I may add precociously, though:
If Madison simply said, "RELIGION is left to the states" in so many words, than it is important to qualify what he meant by "religion." True, "religion" was used to apply to religions in general, but it was also used, particularly in American context to refer to general Christianity. When the Founding Fathers used "Religion" in an American context (referring to America, or American belief), they were talking about all the denominations of Christianity, and not religion in general. If they were talking about religion in general, they usually specified.

If is very difficult for me to believe that the Founding Fathers would have allowed the states to establish a foreign religion such as hinduism, for the following reason, and I have pointed this out before:

The Founders wrote the Constitution upon the basic Christian belief that man is depraved. They also most emphatically warned the American people that Christianity, and no other foundation, was the only secure foundation of our govt. If the people established another religion, they would be threatening the Constitution, and America itself. Perhaps the Founders made no provision for the federal government to intervene should the states breach the spirit of the Constitution by establishing hinduism, for example. HOWEVER, WE THE PEOPLE of the United States have a duty to preserve the Constitution (Washington said that THE PEOPLE are the keepers and guardians of the Constitution), and if the govt. of one state should establish a religion contrary to the foundation of the Constitution, than the people of that state should take action, not the federal govt. (Unless it can be demonstrated from the Framers' writings that they themselves wanted the Fed. govt. to intervene). The state govts. are not completely sovereign in everything; they are accountable to the Constitution just as much as the Federal govt. is. The reason the Constitution was made was to restrict the state govts. from being so independent that they destroy the union (which caused many problems during the Revolution).

Neat discovery on Hamilton! I am already convinced that he believed the Constitution was based upon the Bible, but you have piqued my curiosity! I wish you Godspeed in undertaking publishing this info in a book! When it is printed, be sure to let me know that it is, and what its title is, so I can read it! In the mean time, do you think you can give me an indication? Which one of his writings are you referring to?

Until then, I will try to hold the suspense!

Well, it looks as if I given you another comment the size of an ordinary post! Your comment gave me so much to say, though.

P.S. I got your comment on the "Fragment on the French Revolution," and your estimate of its date of writing. I responded at the post itself. Thanks for your researched input! I appreciate it!

Until we talk again,

H. Mulligan

Our Founding Truth said...

Where does Madison include such doctrines as socianism, Arianism, universalism, etc., in his Memorial and Remonstrance?>

It's in his notes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=o7l6yAIqznQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22what+is+xnty%22&source=web&ots=-IVXF8PyeI&sig=Ny7sEvA9gm-R64xYKSG1p1ti-Gs

I am still curious about this idea that the states can establish any RELIGION (as in "Religion in general," and not "Christian denomination") that they want, such as hinduism. If it is not too inconvenient for you, do you think you could post to me Madison's quote at the Fed. Convention which you mentioned (about religion being left to the states)?>

I found this one of Madison claiming it:

If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest.
James Madison, June 12, 1788Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution(Virginia)

I am always baffled at how he could have changed his mind later in life,>>

Jefferson had a big hold upon him, he must of had powerful friends, those rationalist whigs Jon Rowe was talking about. We have proof James Madison became a Polytheist, he told the Indians they were worshipping God, so he believed all roads lead to God, which is he believed in many gods.

True, "religion" was used to apply to religions in general, but it was also used, particularly in American context to refer to general Christianity. When the Founding Fathers used "Religion" in an American context (referring to America, or American belief), they were talking about all the denominations of Christianity, and not religion in general. If they were talking about religion in general, they usually specified.>>

You're right, it had to be specified, and regarding the first amendment(religion) they did, the first amendment only referred to xtianity, as only xtianity could be the national church, but religion entirely, was left to the people, to do what they wanted:

“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

Now here, where religion is referring to xtianity, by the same guy:

"I know but two or three States where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other State, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe prevail...I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.
Governor Samuel Johnston, North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788

and

"As to the subject of religion, I thought what had been said would fully satisfy that gentleman and every other. No power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be a usurpation.
No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest. I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office, unless the people themselves be of the same opinion. He says that Congress may establish ecclesiastical courts. I do not know what part of the Constitution warrants that assertion. It is impossible. No such power is given them." --
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Signer of the Constitution, Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 30 July 1788

"Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. Henry Abbot, Signer of the Constitution "Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, pp. 191-192, July 30, 1788

If the people established another religion, they would be threatening the Constitution, and America itself.>>

Exactly, but free will was supreme to them.

if the govt. of one state should establish a religion contrary to the foundation of the Constitution>>

Remember, the feds are exempt from interfering with religion, because it's left to the states. The first amendment is referring to a national Christian church which cannot be established. That's it, they aren't supposed to have nothing else to say about the matter.

I want to give you a hint on the Hamilton quote, but I can't. No one has ever claimed Hamilton believed the Constitution was based on the Bible, no one, but, I can, and have his own words to back it up.

I don't know how long it will take but, if someone rejects my claim, then they are claiming Hamilton BLATANTLY contradicted himself, because I have the quote.

Adieu.



The state govts. are not completely sovereign in everything;>>

They are in religion though.

Hercules Mulligan said...

Hello OFT.

Thanks for your quick response to my questions.
And thanks also for sending me Madison's notes.
I don't think that Madison was necessarily including heterodoxy like socianism, arianism, etc., as definitely being Christian; he was just ASKING his audience (the VA state legislature) a question to illustrate his main point: that it was dangerous for the government to decide which religious sect was Christian and which ones weren't. So if Jon Rowe or others point to this passage as proving Madison's heterodoxy, they are assuming far too much. Such would never be accepted as evidence either in a court of law, or in an ordinary rational discussion. I must concur with you that Madison, at least at this time, was not a rationalist.

Thanks for bringing out Madison's quote (and those of the others) on religion. I must point out, however, that they speak of "religion" religious sects" in a Christianity/America context. With the exception of the first Sam Johnson quote, they do not make any reference to any other foreign religion, They qualify what they mean by "religion" and "religious sects" by speaking of Christian DENOMINATIONS, not foreign religions included.

Now, as to Johnson's quote, his does not allow the states to establish a foreign religion. Notice that he does not talk about the STATES, but rather the PEOPLE of the states. Should the PEOPLE, who are the last barrier against encroachment upon the Constitution adopt a foreign religion -- as Johnson says, "unfortunately," implying the death of the Constitution -- then our country goes kaput.

I fully understand that the fed. govt. should not intervene with the states in the case of religion, but that does not negate my point that the states, if not held accountable by their respective POPULATIONS will be encroaching the very US Constitution they are bound by honor and justice to preserve and observe. The states may be free from federal govt.-intervention in this case, but that does not allow them to establish, say, hinduism. They must be held accountable by the people.

"If the people established another religion, they would be threatening the Constitution, and America itself.>>

Exactly, but free will was supreme to them. "

But free will of the people must not be supreme over the RULE OF LAW, which is rooted in the Bible, and our Constitution in turn is firmly rooted in this biblical rule of law. Remember, the will of the people is not supreme, although the will of the people will eventually decide where this country goes. In this area, we sure could use some of Alexander Hamilton's philosophy, which emphasized that not only the govt. but the people must be held accountable, otherwise this nation will be a govt. of man, not of law, and therefore subject to the whims of man's depraved nature:

"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint." Federalist No. 15

If the states adopt a foreign religion, then there is still hope -- the people can check that decision. But if the people adopt a foreign religion, then the Union is doomed.

Again I wish you good success (and hope for a speedy publication) of your book!

Jonathan said...

"If is very difficult for me to believe that the Founding Fathers would have allowed the states to establish a foreign religion such as hinduism, for the following reason...."

Keep the following in mind: Even if the evidence Founders believed Hinduism a valid religion doesn't convince you [John Adams himself termed Hinduism as valid as "Christianity" in a letter to Jefferson], I can name a plethora of Founders who believed Unitarianism was "Christianity." Indeed, two Founders who argued Christianity in particular had some kind of organic connection to United States government -- Joseph Story and John Marshall -- were themselves Unitarians and believed that system which denies the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement and Original Sin was "Christianity." Such theological system was brewing in New England as of the early 18th Century and by 1805 or so Harvard University officially became Unitarian.

Many of the established Congregational Churches in Mass. receiving tax $$ preached or had ministers who otherwise believed in this infidel Unitarian heresy. And the only thing that kept the Calvinists at bay for a while was that the Unitarians refused to establish official creeds that would alienate the Calvinists. Eventually the Calvinists actively disfellowed themselves from the Unitarians and tried to sue to take over those Congregational Churches. In 1820 (google the "Dedham decision") they did and lost. The Mass. Supreme Court, filled with Unitarians, gave the Unitarians victory and now Unitarianism had the official stamp of approval as a legally established "Christian" sect. This is what led to Mass. finally disestablishing in 1833. [And it shows the wisdom of Roger Williams' case that for orthodox Christianity, better to separate Church & State so as to preserve the purity of the Christian religion.]

So you see, from the very start, the notion of "Christian sects in general" was corrupted by the inclusion of Unitarianism which denied Original Sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement as part of "Christianity." Think of that the next time you read Joseph Story's Commentaries where he notes the real aim of the First Amendmentment was not to advance non-Christian religions but eliminate rivalry among Christian sects. He included his own heretical Unitarianism as a "Christian" sect, which is not unlike equally including Mormonism as just another "Christian" sect.

Our Founding Truth said...

I don't think that Madison was necessarily including heterodoxy like socianism, arianism, etc., as definitely being Christian; he was just ASKING his audience (the VA state legislature) a question to illustrate his main point: that it was dangerous for the government to decide which religious sect was Christian and which ones weren't.>.

You could be right, but, until I go through the rest of his writings, I can't make that assumption; however, the words I've seen, along with the Memorial, tells me, at this point, he was orthodox.

They qualify what they mean by "religion" and "religious sects" by speaking of Christian DENOMINATIONS, not foreign religions included.>>

I've only scratched the surface of their writings, I still have half of Madison's and almost all of Adams' writings. But Spaight, in his quotes, alludes to all encompassing religion:

"As to the subject of religion...I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office, unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.
Richard Dobbs Spaight-Signer of the Constitution

Now, as to Johnson's quote, his does not allow the states to establish a foreign religion. Notice that he does not talk about the STATES, but rather the PEOPLE of the states. Should the PEOPLE, who are the last barrier against encroachment upon the Constitution adopt a foreign religion -- as Johnson says, "unfortunately," implying the death of the Constitution -- then our country goes kaput.>>

I humbly disagree with this interpretation, the framers made it vitally clear, the people refer to the states, and vice versa:

IX Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others(rights)retained by the people(states).

X Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

This means any right enumerated cannot deny other rights given to the States.(people)

II Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people(states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In my humble opinion, the Constitution is silent on religion, with Madison giving the states "Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion..."

That word utmost, means total authority in all areas.

But free will of the people must not be supreme over the RULE OF LAW, which is rooted in the Bible, and our Constitution in turn is firmly rooted in this biblical rule of law. Remember, the will of the people is not supreme,>>

I hear you, but, to me, its common sense. Jesus is not going to appear yet, and rule us with righteousness, the people can do what they want. Republican law can only be supreme, by the consent of the governed. As Gov. Johnston said, "the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves."

Our Founding Truth said...

So you see, from the very start, the notion of "Christian sects in general" was corrupted by the inclusion of Unitarianism which denied Original Sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement as part of "Christianity." Think of that the next time you read Joseph Story's Commentaries where he notes the real aim of the First Amendmentment was not to advance non-Christian religions but eliminate rivalry among Christian sects. He included his own heretical Unitarianism as a "Christian" sect, which is not unlike equally including Mormonism as just another "Christian" sect.>

I believe your principle is correct, but the percentage is against you. Overall, among the framers, I would say, unitarians were a very small minority. I can only name a couple compared with the two hundred or so orthodox.

I can name a plethora of Founders who believed Unitarianism was "Christianity.">

Forgive my indulgence, but enlighten me?

So you see, from the very start, the notion of "Christian sects in general" was corrupted by the inclusion of Unitarianism which denied Original Sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement as part of "Christianity.">>

Unless proof can be presented that shows the words of the framers included arianism, unitarianism, socianism, etc. orthodoxy must prevail over heterodoxy, especially in the beginning. It is true, Story was a unitarian, but, are not his remarks regarding the first amendment fifty years ex post facto? Did John Adams believe in Original Sin?

"Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guiltis brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance."
John Adams diary August 15, 1756.

This quote is interesting, because Adams tells Jefferson he was a unitarian at this time.

I think Story's opinion is a small minority.

So, was unitarianism, arianism, socianism, etc. encompassed in the first amendment? Maybe you're right, but until I see framers, not unitarian churchmen, espousing your theory, I can rest in the orthodoxy of the founding fathers, and the application of it, into our documents.

123 123 said...

Great article you got here. It would be great to read something more concerning that topic.
By the way check the design I've made myself Overnight escorts

Anonymous said...

http://markonzo.edu Beautiful site, actual ashley furniture [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536072]actual ashley furniture[/url], pewud, watch allegiant air [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536075]watch allegiant air[/url], lmvqhfw, best pressure washers [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536078]best pressure washers[/url], huwnm, follow dishnetwork [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536080]follow dishnetwork[/url], 42547, fresh adt security [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536076]fresh adt security[/url], gmnbl,

Anonymous said...

http://lumerkoz.edu Thank you, http://soundcloud.com/zetia yakimas yearincome http://soundcloud.com/furosemide wavertree subsurface http://www.comicspace.com/paxil/ coadjutors http://www.comicspace.com/zocor/ indians http://barborazychova.com/members/Buy-Cleocin.aspx reopened vester

Cris said...

This information is very interesting, I really enjoyed, I would like get more information about this, because is very beautiful, thanks for sharing! costa rica investment opportunities

niz said...

Hello .. firstly I would like to send greetings to all readers. After this, I recognize the content so interesting about this article. For me personally I liked all the information. I would like to know of cases like this more often. In my personal experience I might mention a book called Generic Viagra in this book that I mentioned have very interesting topics, and also you have much to do with the main theme of this article.

Anonymous said...

clomid results | buying clomid - clomid tab, clomid success pcos

Anonymous said...

clomid vs nolvadex for pct | http://buyclomidonline.jimdo.com/#81301 - is it safe to buy clomid online, success rate of iui with clomid

Anonymous said...

clomid days 3-7 when will i ovulate | 200 mg clomid - buy clomid online australia, when should you take clomid

Anonymous said...

ttc on clomid | to buy clomid - clomid for sale no prescription, clomid and infertility

Anonymous said...

internet dating north carolina http://loveepicentre.com/advice.php over 50 dating site review complaints

Anonymous said...

http://site.ru - [url=http://site.ru]site[/url] site
site

Anonymous said...

clomid delay period | http://buyclomidonline.webs.com/#26973 - clomid 100, how much clomid to take for pct

Anonymous said...

clomid and trigger shot | clomid pcos success - order clomid, does clomid increase chances of twins

Anonymous said...

[url=http://loveepicentre.com/][img]http://loveepicentre.com/uploades/photos/3.jpg[/img][/url]
black telephone dating free trial code [url=http://loveepicentre.com/testimonials.php]dating women who were once lesbian[/url] dating a catholic military guy
bondage online dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/]girls limit-setting dating[/url] jason gedrick dating
free single dating site in canada [url=http://loveepicentre.com/articles.php]hotel for dating in faisalabad[/url] dating site sign up free

Anonymous said...

how to tell if clomid is working | [url=http://ordergenericclomid.webs.com/#55515]clomid without prescriptions uk[/url] - clomid 100, ipde two follicles on clomid

Anonymous said...

alien wars ebook http://audiobookscollection.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product/review&product_id=10434&page=2 ebook liptak [url=http://audiobookscollection.co.uk/fr/Drug-Use-A-Reference-Handbook/p224979/]business letters ebook[/url] manual de buceo ebook

Anonymous said...

Unleash the hаve гight apρliеd thе sωeet
tеchniquеs of Tantrіc Μаѕѕаge%u2026 techniques that are comprehensively discussed and explained in the pages of Discover the amour... Tantric Massage.

Anonymous said...

word filtering media player software http://buysoftwareonline.co.uk/es/product-34841/QuarkXPress-8-5-Multilingual accounting procedures for internal control software [url=http://buysoftwareonline.co.uk/it/product-37178/VeryPDF-PDF2Word-3-0]webshots desktop software[/url] bmc software employee benefits
[url=http://buysoftwareonline.co.uk/de/category-100-114/Anderes]Anderes - Software Store[/url] brady idxpert software update
[url=http://buysoftwareonline.co.uk/es/category-100-105/Diagn-stica-del-ordenador?page=2][img]http://buyoem.co.uk/image/3.gif[/img][/url]

Anonymous said...

california christian dating free so [url=http://freeinternetdating.info/brides/rank-countries-for-mail-order-brides]rank countries for mail order brides[/url] teenage violent teenage dating
hentai dating games http://freeinternetdating.info/singles/singles-dance-illinois true love dating
dating website for short guys [url=http://freeinternetdating.info/romantic/romantic-cancun-getaways]best single online dating services[/url] paralegal dating client