Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and Satan
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4360 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 4 of 110 (490782)
12-08-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by caldron68
12-07-2008 7:25 PM


misinformation ... the breakfast of confusion
Welcome to the forums caldron68.
Thank you for the exchange ...
Hopefully jaywill and autumnman can afford this thread attention as well.
Caldron68 writes:
So, the problems here are, God is supposed to be Omniscient, but yet does not know that Satan will turn out to be such a little devil ...
Not knowing and not nippin' it in the bud are not equivocal - lol.
The God likely knew.
Yet, being limited by motivating impulses of Love, how can He behave?
The God does not pick on the handi cap; how can Love even find a fault?
The God can only turn His other cheek, and allow division to divide itself.
He will Love when, while another gets stepped down, One gets stepped up.
The God does not abide in every corner of His omnipotence, and this is how we may know ...
The God knows when man has reached the age of accountability, as He loses sight of the man.
That He cannot, then, generously provide saddens the all powerful God; yet, it is an ordinance, whereby, He abides.
This implies, the God does not see a man once he has reached the age of accountability.
The God desires the man to respond so He may further employ His Love.
The God will generously provide when the voice of the man is heard, as this too is an ordinance, whereby, He abides.
There is no evidence what will occur if Adam hides and does not answer.
Only that he will live when he exposes himself and responds.
Heaven is not all it is cracked up to be.
Obviously things like envy, greed and hate are also attributes of those beings that occupy Heaven.
Not necessarily ...
How can this be? haven't we always been told that Heaven is, well.... Heaven, right?
First, the God has not made the blueprints of His mansion available for public record.
He has made, available to the public, blueprints for the salvation of man & agape Love.
Second, the God's teammates have asserted Heaven is, forthright, truly a mystery.
Any perception established therein is likely based on avoiding life's obstacles.
We imagine things the best we can; this does not make such images true.
Third, as in Eden, deceit likely called the watchers to the sphere.
Upon entrance, are they not confined within the constraints of "sin"?
Or rather, unfulfilled Love.
"Sin" is the god of the sphere's law; not the God of Life's.
This implies such substance finds birthright within the sphere.
This is the place where all the good people are supposed to go and drink milk and honey and never ever experience a bad day for the rest
of eternity, right?
The present opinion suggests it is the dwelling for the second species that will evolve from the first, humankind.
The human species will always inhabit the earth, yet, it will likely be remodeled before they are truly settled in.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
The Apostle of the Skeptics writes:
"...picture me alone in that room ... night after night, feeling ... the steady, unrelenting approach of Him
whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by caldron68, posted 12-07-2008 7:25 PM caldron68 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by caldron68, posted 12-08-2008 8:54 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4360 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 18 of 110 (490830)
12-08-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
12-08-2008 4:06 PM


When all is One
Thank you for the exchange.
God claimed to create evil. The devil is evil.
Therefore God created the devil to be the devil he is.
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient perfectly good being create evil?
He created not evil, but Love; yet it identifies Him.
What is distinguished when all is One?
How exactly is knowingly creating evil different from doing evil?
It is not; forcing one to become what they do not want is evil.
The chimera was not created to commit suicide; but perfectly.
Wondering, may it not die, it chose its own destiny.
Hijacking mankind as its own ...
Promoting the collection of gold.
What will it try and do with those resources?
If I were to choose to create a bomb {that I intended to be}, and knew with absolute certainty would be, used to inflict untold pain and suffering on innocent victims would I be "evil" for creating that bomb?
Italics added.
The present opinion agrees with Straggler here.
Providing one does inflict as designed.
How is the creation of Satan different?
The one who made the bomb did not allow it a choice to ...
* bestow untold Love and charity on innocent victims.
* become a bomb that would not explode.
* do what it wanted.
It was a tyrant.
In response to message 16 ...
Well, I guess this is one of those areas where I have always disagreed with the Bible.
The present opinion understands.
If all of God's actions are driven by love, then why are some of his actions so incredibly cruel?
Taxation without proper representation.
All must reason by way of human moral authority.
A rookie public defender is better than none.
Is any man, even of the God, not a man?
Two scenarios come to mind immediately. The great flood and God's treatment of the Amalekites in 1 Sam 15:2-3. First, the flood. God created the entire universe by simply speaking the word, but is required to murder an untold number of innocent peopled (women, children) in order to change mans course of action. Second, the destruction of the Amakekites. God orders Saul to put to the sword every single Amalekite man, woman, child, goat and cow. These actions do not instill in me a sense of 'love' in any way, shape or form. These actions are down right cruel and capricious. Did God really have to tell Saul to kill the children?
Doubtful.
No, to me there is no love in these actions. If God was unhappy with the way man was turning out, he should have fixed things right off the bat. Who was the audience for this action, who was being taught a 'lesson' in all of this? Noah? Was he the prime audience for all of this violence? Did Noah not see the dead bodies floating in the water. The men, women and children floating dead and bloated in the water? If I had seen something like this and could attribute it all to one man, the thought of love for this man/being would be the last thing on my mind.
Regarding the God, it would seem better to complain He saved the eight and the animals.
Granted, nephilm apparently had shit timing.
We are likely better off without them.
The deluge was going to happen whether people were around or not.
Much like the fires in Cali and earthquakes worldwide.
Gee God, wasn't that a little harsh? Couldn't you just blink all the bad people away and still start over with Noah and his sons? Did he really have to destroy the planet?
The God's words have been misrepresented since the break o' dawn.
The Old Man did the best he could do to get the message across.
Even the "great men o' god" cannot help to embellish the story.
For Heaven's sake (and then Some); they killed the Jesus.
By the way, God has promised to do it all again, this time with fire, the next time he sets foot on the planet.
Finally ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : spelling
Edited by Bailey, : add to edit (Mess 16)

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
The Apostle of the Skeptics writes:
"...picture me alone in that room ... night after night, feeling ... the steady, unrelenting approach of Him
whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2008 4:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-09-2008 5:10 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 27 by caldron68, posted 12-11-2008 9:04 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4360 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 21 of 110 (490948)
12-10-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
12-09-2008 5:10 PM


Abortions ok sometimes ...
Thank you for the exchange Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Straggler writes:
Straggler writes:
If I were to choose to create a bomb {that I intended to be}, and knew with absolute certainty would be, used to inflict untold pain and suffering on innocent victims would I be "evil" for creating that bomb?
Italics added.
The present opinion agrees with Straggler here.
Providing one does inflict as designed.
Lucifer was intended to Love.
Satan chose not to ...
How is the creation of Satan different?
Forcing one to become what they do not want is evil.
The one who made the bomb was a tyrant.
It did not allow it a choice to ...
* bestow untold Love and charity on innocent victims.
* become a bomb that would not explode.
* do what it wanted.
It did not afford the benefit of doubt.
An omniscient God knew the choices that creation (i.e. Satan) would make.
Why create that being knowing that outcome unless God wants evil to exist?
Is enforcing your own undivided rule communistic or appropriate?
Or both; appropriately communistic when motivated by seeking to destroy evil.
Many dictators are greatly accused of such ideology.
Should we suggest, back in 1889, a god should have aborted the infant of 29 year old Klara Plzl?
Or the spawn of Subha Tulfah al-Mussallat some years later ...
And all the mean people in the world.
lol - Muhahaahahaahahaahahhaahahaa!!
Seriously, who would quicker serve an Arien god?
Why does God want evil to exist?
He does not.
Yet, without evil, we cannot know good.
What is distinguished when all is One?
He created not evil, but Love; yet it identifies Him.
Easier to "blame it on the man".
Human moral authority allows it.
Why do we love it so much?
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-09-2008 5:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 12-11-2008 5:50 AM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4360 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 29 of 110 (491131)
12-11-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
12-11-2008 5:50 AM


.. who's that babies daddy ..
Thanks for the exchange Brutha Strag.
Much appreciated.
Brutha Strag writes:
If I were to choose to create a bomb {that I intended to be}, and knew with absolute certainty would be, used to inflict untold pain and suffering on innocent victims
would I be "evil" for creating that bomb?
Yes.
How is the creation of Satan different?
Entirely.
Forcing one to become what they do not want is evil.
The God is not the enforcer; He is the Encourager.
The bomb maker did not afford the benefit of doubt.
The God does ...
An omniscient God knew the choices that creation (i.e. Satan) would make.
Why create that being knowing that outcome unless God wants evil to exist?
Is enforcing your own undivided rule communistic or appropriate?
Or both; appropriately communistic when motivated by seeking to destroy evil. Many dictators are greatly accused of such ideology.
Should we suggest, back in 1889, a god should have aborted the infant of 29 year old Klara Plzl?
Seriously, who would quicker serve an Arien god?
No need to destroy it if it was not created in the first place.
Safe sex or kill the baby daddy!
lol - the question was, "why create ..."?
Let us move in this direction tho.
Agreed; this is not to imply the God's creation did not create 'evil'.
Nor that anyone would quicker serve a fascist creator murderer.
Religion and reality established most won't ...
The God is not a murderer ... ever.
Else the God would have iced the snake
Do not be decieved by 'religion'.
That is how absolute morals roll.
They do not compromise Love.
When a participant in the God's creation does, an era of relative moral reasoning ensues.
This process begins to judge the original offense.
That verdict, established by the Man, will be beheld by the God.
The God may have likely kicked 'satan' in the face and bitch smacked it by now, if He was capable of not loving.
Even still, the God continually encourages the defected creation to part from its choice not to Love.
His hands are all but tied when the defective creature continually tells Him to eat poop.
The defected creature eventually kills itself.
The God mourns; He is sad the creature did not Love to Live its Life.
Yet, is He not just for not having forced such behavior?
Or is the God guilty of not compromising absolute Love?
Brutha Strag writes:
Why does God want evil to exist?
He does not.
He created not evil, but Love; yet it identifies Him.
Yet, without evil, we cannot know good.
What is distinguished when all is One?
Hmmmm. Is not God the creator of all things? Including evil?
Is the Father responsible for a child's decision; or its choices?
How much so?
The God created Love; Love created all Life.
Life gave way to reality; including 'evil'.
Who is truly at fault when the love, and law, is broken?
Brutha Strag writes:
Why does God want evil to exist?
He does not.
Easier to "blame it on the man".
Human moral authority allows it.
Why do we love it so much?
Easier maybe. But does this hold up?
All objective evidence would assume so.
What else, visibly, may have created it?
Yet, the present opinion asserts otherwise.
Unless "the man" is employed as slang.
Guilt and Truth are much like Time ...
Relative to the observer.
Care to take a stab at why we love it so much?
Are you saying that there was no evil before man?
A departure from reality.
There was no 'evil' before lucifer, much less Life or man.
Life was created well before 'evil'; Man was created after.
'Satan' is created between them; yet, will not remain.
If there was evil before man then man cannot be blamed for the existence of evil.
Incorrect brutha Strag; 9 out of 10 prosecuters would disagree - lol
If there was evil before man then man cannot be blamed for the creation of evil.
Mankind may still be justly accused of its employment, and intertwined existence, tho.
If I presently stop shaving, you cannot blame me for the existence of future shaving.
Tho, without forgiveness, I am guilty of the past.
Even still, as long as I continue to shave, I am guilty of promoting its existence.
Mankind's continuous employment of evil appears responsible for its continuous existence.
It would be a lie and a shame to accuse mankind of creating "evil".
Can he not be held accountable for its employment benefits tho?
Regulated judiciary systems would suppose so ...
As well as a great number of 'upright' citizens.
lol - and even some dedicated criminals.
If God created all then it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to claim that he did not also create evil.
Correct.
This is to imply the likelihood of Him creating the laptop, being typed on, is plausible as Him creating 'evil'.
He has allowed all that is; the God has created all Life.
I ask: within the sphere, is it evident mankind created apart from the God?
This is not to imply the Man created 'evil'; rather, the fullfillment of Love.
We cannot safely assume man responsible for creating all things, can we?
Should we not suppose another culpable when contemplating such matters?
It is difficult to percieve the epitamy of Love creating it's rival opponent.
How does the God create relative moral authority?
Did it not exist before it killed the Jesus?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
The Apostle of the Skeptics writes:
"...picture me alone in that room ... night after night, feeling ... the steady, unrelenting approach of Him
whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 12-11-2008 5:50 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4360 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 56 of 110 (491704)
12-19-2008 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jaywill
12-19-2008 7:51 AM


What was Eve's crime?
Thank you for the exchange.
jaywill writes:
God set up the system, placed Adam and Eve within the system and told them not to eat of the fruit. Adam and Eve are like children at this point and do not understand the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. They are tempted to eat of the fruit by another of God's creations (Lucifer/Satan) and are punished severely for doing so.
You are suggesting that there should be no consequences for disobedience to God - He should warn of something but not inforce it.
You are suggesting disobedience transpired or that the God punishes the ones He loves; which separation from the Truth is greater? The offense did not lay in eating the fruit, but in believing a lie. The Lovebirds were never told to not question the God, and so they cannot be justly accused of such by the serpent or another. This does not alleviate the effects from the tree of knowledge. They are what they are.
Eve chose a good tree for the wrong reasons. She chose it because she was convinced the God was a dunce of sorts. This was likely more offensive than eating from the tree simply because the God declared it good. Nevertheless, we are told numerous times that all trees are good for food, and pleasing to the eye; Eve's ignorance does not successfully negate this. God's 'chosen people' deny the Jesus the God's Glory in birthing His new creation. It is fitting relative religion and the spirit of the anti Jesus deny Adam the God's glory in birthing His first species as well. The parallel is ironic. Sometimes when the lesser of two evils is chosen, the reality evil was chosen fades ...
The God said the Lovebirds were free to eat from any tree in the garden; but they must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when they eat of it they will be exposed to reasoning within reality by their own moral authority (die).
The God does not say 'you can eat from any tree except this one ...'. Nor does the God tempt the man with the godlike qualities associated with the fruit. Motivated by Love, He appears to place a greater value to the species safety when considering the tremendous gain. Not that the God will provide a bias in the first place, otherwise He would have propogated the Tree of Life in the beginning. He said you can eat from any tree, but this one hurts ... it contains good benefits, as all do, but not without suffering corresponding and concurrent effects and consequences.
It is good, as it may provide confirmation to the child of the God and cause him to become even more godlike; a benefit. It is bad, as it is time spent apart from the One who Loves you most, and shit can be confusing without Him. Respectively, He likely suffered greater than us as His reality contains us; distance will only begin to cause our hearts to grow fonder when we acknowledge His voice. It is Life; the species evolving from out of our reality, into the Jesus reality, is still evolving in such a way. The second species will choose their tree for proper reasons. How could the Lovebird's not have been in God's Grace; how could their decision not have been meant to be used to better serve the God and the species? Not because they chose the wrong tree; they chose the only tree they specifically knew. Rather it was because the Lovebirds chose the right tree for the wrong reasons.
This is why it is very plain to see the Lovebirds were not punished, but rather arbitrary effects and consequences manifested, just like the God said. He really has no reason to lie to and punish the ones He loves as far as the present opinion can reason. When employing dogmatic interpretations directly reaching outside of textual parameters, it may be wise to note the serpent decieves the species in 'the beginning'. Reasonably, it follows, the most accepted interpretations are prone to deception; is this not what the Jesus suggests as well? Why shall we expect anyone to embrace Two Trees, when some who choose One rather embace ten commandments instead of Two?
Additionally, the beguiling serpent is judged and punished. Then, the Lovebirds are foretold of more exceedingly valuable Truth and, next, tended to; hardly punishment.
Genesis 3 writes:
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
When the Lovebirds accepted that provision, any chance of punishment was dissolved; as this was a symbolic sacrafice to protect them from the elements within the sphere and a tangible display of forgiveness, reasonably allowing them within reach of continuous life by accepting the God's Grace. There is a mediator to the God - it is not the 'chosen people', the 'church', the torah, the bible, the serpent or any such thing.
The God does not likely adjust His behavior and ever exceeding Love for Life to better mimick various human misrepresentations of His character. However, our perceptions of Him may change as we propogate various misrepresentations instead of propogating the Truth, and vice versa.
When reality catches up in Colossians we are told the God canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities and shamed them publicly by His victory over them on the cross. If the Lovebirds in the Garden were not forgiven when they accepted the God's symbolic blood sacrafice, than the God is double minded. We are told he is not, which is Truth, but we know we often are ...
The woman appears almost completely pardoned; there is no 'because you have done this' prefix to her interaction. The man's punishment is deflected to the ground; the same ground the serpent crawls on its belly through eating the same 'dust' the species is comprised of. Looks like that is more serpent punishment considering Adam has leather pants and walks upright.
Gen 3:14 writes:

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life."
All the while getting kicked in the head by the offspring of the woman it decieved ...
Gen 3:15 writes:

15 "And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Apparently the God does not punish those who are decieved, but rather the decievers. He is also able to deflect man's punishment, through direct disobedience, to the ground. According to Genesis, that is how He rolls; the religious spirit largely disagrees.
Besides what you call "punished severely" was largly the result of being corrupted by being placed under another master.
The present opinion agrees with this statement to a large degree; depending what 'placed under another master' means - lol. And I guess your 'corrupted' would have to be replaced with 'made complete'; after all, is the glass half full, or half empty?
While the woman was decieved into reasoning by way of human moral authority, the man willingly placed his fate within such parameters. The Lovebirds continue living, subduing all within the sphere and begin fruitfully multipling as asked. The only difference is the species now reasons by their own logic which entails being decieved and consciously choosing the more difficult path. These are the two seeds of our reality. Granted, such reality lies in stark contrast to utilizing the God's Truth indiscriminately; hence the expression, 'dat boy likes to learn the hard way'. These are still very common practices.
Yet, the God Himself spoke of the 'good' benefit within the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and the difficulty contained therein. And we know that as soon as the Lovebirds partake of it, they are introduced to the Tree of Life and its benefits. At this point we have graduated to the reality of continous life. So don’t let anyone condemn you for these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. The present opinion suggests the Jesus himself is that reality.
Is this what is meant by 'master', or are you referring to the evil rulers and malignant spiritual authorities within the sphere?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jaywill, posted 12-19-2008 7:51 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4360 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 64 of 110 (491730)
12-20-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Agobot
12-20-2008 9:56 AM


Unveiling church fathers
Thank you for the exchange.
How can you possibly enter into a loving relationship with God when you know that he ordered the murder of children and infants? And more than once, I might add.
Yep, this is a much much bigger problem than theists like to admit or make it out to be
The problem seems evident enough; the God's 'chosen people' continually misrepresent His character. The torch is then passed to the 'chosen gentiles'; who eventually begin to do the same thing. Why would they not?? Just remember - the God will always Love and religion will always judge. Religion is religion - it will always become corrupt lol. Luckily the God is not the least bit religious. For those who can imagine Him - can you imagine Him continually quoting numerical values to his Words?
jaywill writes:
You know better than John Calvin and Martin Luther? Really?
Some things, yea. Does that shock you?
Martin Luther in no way dismissed the mystery contained within the Unveiling. This is not to imply he did not miss more than one thing within the text which caused him to think it not apostolic. Nevertheless, from the times of his earliest prefaces, Luther encourages all to freely interpret the text and hold to their own opinions; not be bound by his.
Next, Luther suggests he was confused by the different forms of symbolism and visions contained within the Unveiling. They seemed out of conformation to alternate Gospel prophecy employing clear plain words spoken by Peter, Paul, the Jesus and OT prophets. He basically states that until the mysterious text can be clearly and successfully interpreted, it is useless towards propogating the God's ideologies.
Additionally, Luther is peeved by the author's self-commendation within the text, compared to alternate valuable texts he also considered canon. He is irritated 'they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it'. Respectively, he asserts it just the same as if we did not have the book at all, adding, there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Moreover, Luther suggests 'many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago' and underplays St. Jerome's exaltation of the 'glorious mysteries' it contains; all the while seeming to ignore the fact Eusebius reported the Unveiling was indeed conceded by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360. Naturally, it does not occur until the canonicity of Revelation is first disputed. Interestingly, Erasmus noted the Greeks regarded it apocryphal, in connection with chapter 4, within the annotations of his edition. Sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the 'disputed books' became necessary.
Martin luther concludes his first short preface concerning the Unveiling appearing in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527 in this fashion ...
Martin writes:
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
In conclusion, Luther deemed the Unveiling as canon, included it within his testaments, and asserted it was among the least useful texts from which loving disciples may fashioned in the Jesus nature. It was supplanted from 1530 on by a much longer preface which offers an interpretation of the symbolism of the book. Perhaps this indicated a change of heart, or maybe just insurance; perhaps something more ...
It certainly did not indicate it blasphemous - lol
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Agobot, posted 12-20-2008 9:56 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024