Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 9:12 PM
213 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,774 Year: 18,597/29,783 Month: 542/2,043 Week: 94/386 Day: 44/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Is the creation/evolution debate taboo in our churches?
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2408 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 16 of 51 (529062)
10-08-2009 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
10-07-2009 4:38 PM


wow!
I coming to quebec (hehe)
Nothing like that here in NZ. I've been mainly in Methodist, Presbytarian, Baptist, Salvation Army, plus numerous other churches for various reasons and never heard of anything like that. Over here it feels like they are trying to sustain the church on "baby food" without ever getting to the "meat".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 4:38 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 12:18 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2408 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 17 of 51 (529068)
10-08-2009 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
10-06-2009 6:58 AM


What are these 'far reaching implications' you speak of?

Well, it influences on how you view the bible,
also your view of sin
and a number of other doctrines.
Also most importantly when i hear phrases like this:
I imagine that folk just don't see the issue as having much relevance this way or that.

But again, the creation/evolution debate isn't mission-critical to Christian apologetics.

Jazzns writes:

What good would talking about evolution denial do in terms of saving that person at the end of the pew or at the other end of the table?


which when placed next to phrases like this:
SammyJean writes:

I must say that the subject 'evolution vs. creation' is probably one of the most heated points that drove me away from the JW's and ultimately all religion.


SammyJean writes:

There's probably no better way to drive away some followers then to make them choose between being rational or believing.


Larni writes:

I find it just does not make sense that the universe needs some kind of supernatural element for it to work.


I think it becomes quite obvious why the first set of quotes have missed the mark. If Christianity is just about "believeing" without having any reasons for why we believe it, and just helping us to more "christian living" then what's the point. Sammy jean is spot on with the comment that in the end it seems like a choice between being rational and believeing. I believe Christianity is rational however most christians don't seem to be able to defend a rational faith, also because they see no-one else defending it rationally many walk away because they think it cannot be defended rationally.

Another thing brought out in some of the other replies is that for most church leaders these sort of discussions are just way out of their league and so they stay away. OK, fair enough, but why is this way out of their league? Why aren't they trained in this? Is it not important? I think it is.

Also i agree with DavidOH that yes these discussions can get quite emotional and confrontational (as exemplified on EvC), but is that a good reason to ignore the debate altogether? I'd rather be confrontational and get to the truth, than just sit back and watch more people walk out the door.

Also Jaywill I think your right that it is also avoided in spritual terms, I think mainly because of the fear that that whatever is said will be controversial. However from a YEC perspective it is not enough to just raise these spiritual issues but it is also important to YEC theology that these things actually occured in history.

Thanks for all the responses, keep them coming


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-06-2009 6:58 AM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-11-2009 9:58 PM Arphy has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2904 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 51 (529111)
10-08-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arphy
10-05-2009 2:46 AM


Arphy writes:

1. Have you ever experienced a sermon that mentions the debate, or preferably a whole sermon on the topic?

No not the whole sermon. Evolution often comes up in some topics as a side point rather then as a subject under discussion.

Arphy writes:

2. Do you know what the leadership of your local/denominational church believes on this issue?

yes. Every every congregation around the world holds to the direct creation by God. We do not believe in 6 literal 24hr days of creation, we hold to the view that each creative day spanned a very long time. We also believe we are still in the 7th creative day - Gods rest day.

Arphy writes:

3. Is it ever discussed outside of sermons (so in other additional church meetings, etc.)?

No not that I can think of. No JW believes in darwinian evolution...i doubt you could find even 1 fence sitter on this issue.

Arphy writes:

4. In fact is there any emphasise put on apologetics at all?

Not at all.
The idea has never been entertained as plausible or possible. It has been outrightly rejected from the beginning of my church to today. As far as I'm aware they have never written one word in acceptance of evolution.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arphy, posted 10-05-2009 2:46 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by SammyJean, posted 10-08-2009 7:41 PM Peg has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2615 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 19 of 51 (529139)
10-08-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Arphy
10-08-2009 4:05 AM


Yeah well the church I attend here is non-denominational. And in terms of the quality of teaching, I'm pretty sure it is bout the best in the whole province, we get a lot of meat.

But I sometimes I go to other churches and they also try to sustain it on 'baby food', no rational thinking, no deep theological inquiry, just appeal to the emotional. I don't feel this is the way to go at all.

Now yo useem to be very interested on the impact the Creation/evolution debate can have on the modern church. I would suggest that you go and buy the book 'already gone' which is a major study AiG conducetd and published this year. The results are simply jawbreaking, with the issue of evolution being the main reason why young adults leave our churches.

I would even suggest that you go right now listen to Ken Ham' recent 'state of the Nation' which was held when the book was published, very enlightening and it will surely reaffirm your beleif that this issue isn't a 'side-issue'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media.../state-of-the-nation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Arphy, posted 10-08-2009 4:05 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 51 (529154)
10-08-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arphy
10-05-2009 2:46 AM


Welcome!
Hello Arphy,

Over at Dreamcatcher your topic has been copied for the members there to talk about. If you would be interested, we would love to have you join over there and let us know your thoughts on our questions about your post.

We don't bite, really; and it's a lot of fun.

We all look forward to seeing you there and getting to know you.

Regards,
Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arphy, posted 10-05-2009 2:46 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 21 of 51 (529257)
10-08-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals
10-06-2009 8:25 PM


Re: Also not much discussed on MTV.
AnswersInGenitals writes:

2) they really don't give a flying fugue about the matter and they know that the vast majority of their parishioners also really don't care. Those of us who frequent this forum sometimes delude ourselves that this is a really hot topic in the world of discourse. In fact, their are only a few dozen of us - a couple of hundred at most - and that is out of the roughly 200 million people (in the US) who frequent the web.

I suspect that the churches are nervous of approaching the subject. It divides the clergy and congregations, so it's a minefield for them.

As for the internet, there are loads of places where you can find evolution vs. creation being hotly debated. Other boards like this, the comments sections on blogs, and the comments sections on news articles on the subject, for example. We're a tiny (but erudite!) part of it all.

Here's an example. This video by a young unknown went up about 3 weeks ago. It has had 940,000 views, 20,000 ratings, 18,000 text comments, and 115 reply videos.

On YouTube - see stats here

Embedded:

We are not alone!

And books on the subject can hit bestseller lists, as Dawkins' current effort just has. (Although it has to be said that they probably have to be by Dawkins in order to achieve that)!

On Amazon.com, there are special evolution and intelligent design "communities" on which you'd expect the EvC debate to be raging, and it does. But the really telling thing is that the general "science community" is dominated by the EvC debate as well.

So, plenty of people in church congregations will be interested, but what's a preacher to say without offending one faction or another?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-06-2009 8:25 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 10-19-2009 9:08 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 2048 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 22 of 51 (529303)
10-08-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
10-08-2009 9:24 AM


Sister Peg?
Hi Peg,

No JW believes in darwinian evolution...i doubt you could find even 1 fence sitter on this issue.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?


"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 9:24 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 8:58 PM SammyJean has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2904 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 23 of 51 (529319)
10-08-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by SammyJean
10-08-2009 7:41 PM


Re: Sister Peg?
Hi Sammyjean

yes i am

I see you were once from your post on page one. Was it really the evolution debate that made you leave?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by SammyJean, posted 10-08-2009 7:41 PM SammyJean has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by SammyJean, posted 10-08-2009 10:43 PM Peg has responded

    
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 2048 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 24 of 51 (529328)
10-08-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Peg
10-08-2009 8:58 PM


Re: Sister Peg?
Hi Peg,
I've been a member here for 6 months or so but I have been mostly lurking here. I have been watching your posts in other threads and had been left with the impression that you are were a JW.
Wow! Confirmation, I just knew it!

Was it really the evolution debate that made you leave?

It's a really long story how I fell away from the 'truth' but in short it's not the evolution vs. creation debate that did it completely, although it is was what kept me from coming back.

I was a rebellious teen that ran away from home at the age of 16. The reasons: Some had to do with the religious restrictions that were in place, some had to do with other family issues. Spiritually, I kind of floated around for awhile. Looking for the religion that worked for me.

Eventually, I ended up landing in a the field of biology at the age of 19, an outsider really at this point, seeing as I was a high school drop-out (at the time). Being bright and curious I was rewarded for my interest and given a chance to learn more. From the bottom I work my way up. The biotechs paying and paved the way to my education.

Knowing biology all to well, I can't go back to believing in scripture.

I do have this to say regarding Christianity; I do believe that the JW's have the best interpretation of the bible, compared to the other Christians.


"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 8:58 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 12:39 AM SammyJean has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2904 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 51 (529335)
10-09-2009 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by SammyJean
10-08-2009 10:43 PM


Re: Sister Peg?
well good on you for taking a stand!

I think its good that you questioned your beliefs...i know not many do that especially those who are brough up in a religion. I wasnt bought up as a jw but found it in my late teens, so i was able to question it from the start

but its good that you've taken a stand either way...thats much better then being a fence sitter.

And i agree with you on the jw interpretation being the best one. Its not complicated and its inline with the scriptures which is what i like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by SammyJean, posted 10-08-2009 10:43 PM SammyJean has not yet responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 26 of 51 (530019)
10-11-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Arphy
10-08-2009 5:12 AM


Is it taboo to explore different interpretations of scripture?
Thank you for a really good start to a really good discussion, Arphy. I haven't attended a sermon since my late teens, which was about 40 years ago now -- and the evo/creo debate really wasn't much of an issue at that time, so it should be no surprise that I never saw it discussed in church.

But something that I did see in one of the last sermons I attended would be relevant here, I think, and I'd like to know what others -- current church-goers -- think about this. I expect the church I was visiting would be considered a "mainstream Protestant" American church, but I don't know what denomination it was part of (not Baptist, and probably not Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Episcopalian -- sorry, I wasn't a regular attendee, and it just wasn't clear to me at the time.)

Anyway, the sermon made a lasting impression on me. The pastor went into detail about a particular passage in the Old Testament, and even though I don't remember most of the particulars of what he said, I do remember how he explained that this passage was meaningful to us today.

He spoke about the period of time when this passage was first introduced into biblical text, and about what was happening in history at that time -- not the time or events described in the passage, but the time when the passage was added into the scriptural record. He described what was going on, what must have been on the minds of the people for whom this passage was written, their concerns and fears and hopes. Based on these matters as explained by our pastor, the content of the passage made a lot of sense, not only in what it said, but also in how it was stated.

If he mentioned where he got this historical information, it was very brief (and of course I can't remember it); providing references was less important than providing a coherent explanation that helped the congregation to understand the message that (in this pastor's view) the passage was trying to communicate.

He may have actually said something about questions or doubts regarding the "truthfulness" of the passage, and his explanation served to make it clear how there was an important truth coming through the text, when viewed in the context of the time and place where it was initially presented. The interpretation being provided to the congregation in that sermon was not a literal one -- the literal meaning of the passage was less important than the symbolic meaning that it held for the original audience.

Altogether, I was struck by the compassion and wisdom of this pastor, and after the sermon I honestly felt that I understood the value of the passage, whereas I surely would have never understood it so well on my own. In terms of assessing the "literal historical value" of the passage's content, my own personal sense would have been that "independent evidence" would either be impossible to find, or as likely as not, would have disagreed in at least some details with the passage, and in any case, I couldn't imagine why it should make any difference to me either way. But the crucial lesson from this pastor was that literal historical record-keeping was not the real point of the passage.

Thinking about it again now, I can see that even with that pastor's interpretation, such a passage could be readily accepted as divinely inspired. Whoever wrote it could very well have been conveying God's message to the people -- a particular group of people at a particular time. The question then becomes, how does that passage remain meaningful when presented to other people at other times? How do we get to the intended meaning, unless we try to understand what was on the minds of the first audience?

Have you heard sermons that take this approach? Are alternate, non-literal interpretations of Genesis and other OT books discussed in church? Does it make sense that preachers and congregations can look for more subtle interpretations that explain why these particular stories are told in these particular ways?

{AbE -- I forgot to mention:} I chose the particular message I'm replying to because of this comment:

Arphy writes:

If Christianity is just about "believeing" without having any reasons for why we believe it, and just helping us to more "christian living" then what's the point.

Could you elaborate? How does this relate to a literal interpretation of Genesis in opposition to scientific theories? What do you think should be the "reasons for why we believe" Christianity, and what do these reasons have to do with literal vs. non-literal interpretations of particular OT passages? Can people have reasons for believing in Christ that do not involve ignoring, misrepresenting, or falsely denying physical evidence?

Is there a problem with "just helping us to more 'christian living'"? Why would this, taken by itself, be pointless?

Edited by Otto Tellick, : added last bit about Arphy's comment

Edited by Otto Tellick, : adjusted attitude/tone in the question about "physical evidence"


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Arphy, posted 10-08-2009 5:12 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 11:36 PM Otto Tellick has responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 27 of 51 (530037)
10-12-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Arphy
10-06-2009 1:07 AM


About the question posed to the non-religious
Arphy writes:

... So i was wondering when you (the non-christians...) confront some christian on why they believe what they believe are they able to give a decent answer? Or do you think "I,ve heard better arguments for christianity from my own mind." ?
In other words, is it noticeable even to non-christians that this topic is never really addressed in churches?

Arphy writes:

(rephrasing:) is it noticeable to non-christians that these sort of matters are never discussed in our churches by the inability of christians to answer questions properly.

I think the question is misstated both ways -- that is, the statement of the question is too general to fit properly under the topic of this thread. I know there are many questions (religious ones) that Christians can "answer properly". I also think that the inability to properly discuss answers for other (scientific) questions is not limited to Christians -- anyone who lacks suitable instruction in scientific methods and in particular fields of research will have trouble with that.

If taken as relevant to the thread topic, these questions seem to imply that there is some necessary/essential connection between "arguments for Christianity" and certain literal (scientifically counter-factual) interpretations of Genesis, because that is the central issue in the evo/creo debate -- at least in America, where it is being played out in the actions of religious fundamentalists on public school boards.

Personally, I reject that implication, and based on my own limited experience (e.g. the pastor I described in my previous post here), there are people who sincerely consider themselves true and faithful Christians, and also reject any notion that they must renounce astronomy, physics, geology and biology in order to profess their Christian faith.

The reason why "these sort of matters" (i.e. literalist creationism) "are never discussed in our churches" is because a lot of churches do not consider these "matters" essential, or even relevant, to their various concepts of Christian faith.

The fact that some Christians disagree with that majority position is an indication of what happens when there is no objective basis for establishing a consensus.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Arphy, posted 10-06-2009 1:07 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 11:43 PM Otto Tellick has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2408 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 28 of 51 (531309)
10-16-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Otto Tellick
10-11-2009 9:58 PM


Re: Is it taboo to explore different interpretations of scripture?
To the first part of your post.
The sermon might have made sense to you, but did it make sense to everyone. Without hearing it I can't really tell whether or not it makes sense. But yes, i have heard sermons like this. Often they are accompanied by a lot of conjectures seemingly the musings of the pastor as he sits at his desk wondering how to fill up time for his sermon on sunday. Hmm.. maybe a bit too critical.

What do you think should be the "reasons for why we believe" Christianity, and what do these reasons have to do with literal vs. non-literal interpretations of particular OT passages?
People should believe or reject Christianity based on whether or not it is true or not, as in whether the claims it makes are true. These claims come from the bible. Taking millions of years, common descent, etc. and adding them to the bible means that you are now adding claims to the bible. You are no longer evaluating the bible according to the truthfulness of what it claims. If you no longer take it as literal (and I mean not a "wooden" literalism, but rather a natural literalism) and you begin adding claims then basically you can end up making the bible say anyhting you want it to say.

Can people have reasons for believing in Christ that do not involve ignoring, misrepresenting, or falsely denying physical evidence?
Yes, hence why I believe in Christ

Is there a problem with "just helping us to more 'christian living'"? Why would this, taken by itself, be pointless?
It becomes pointless because there are other religions out there that promote "being nice", prayer, meditation etc. You can even be atheistic and still practice most of "christian living", however if christianity is not based on truth then why not just throw it out altogether? You can still practice "christian living" without Christianity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-11-2009 9:58 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-17-2009 6:41 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2408 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 29 of 51 (531311)
10-16-2009 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Otto Tellick
10-12-2009 12:08 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
anyone who lacks suitable instruction in scientific methods and in particular fields of research will have trouble with that.
Fair enough.

but...

The reason why "these sort of matters" (i.e. literalist creationism) "are never discussed in our churches" is because a lot of churches do not consider these "matters" essential, or even relevant, to their various concepts of Christian faith.

It is important!! as me and slevesque have pointed out.

there are people who sincerely consider themselves true and faithful Christians, and also reject any notion that they must renounce astronomy, physics, geology and biology in order to profess their Christian faith.
And you think I do "renounce astronomy, etc...."?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-12-2009 12:08 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-17-2009 2:17 PM Arphy has responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 30 of 51 (531388)
10-17-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Arphy
10-16-2009 11:43 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Arphy writes:

And you think I do "renounce astronomy, etc...."?

I don't know -- it depends...

Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe in Young Earth Creationism? If so, then yes, you must renounce astronomy, physics and geology at least, since these fields provide ample evidence that the earth and universe are vastly older than several thousand years.

Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe that there really was a global flood within the period of human civilization in the Middle East, after which the only surviving surface life on earth was the crew and passengers of Noah's ark? If so, then yes, you must renounce at least geology and biology, because such an event would have left unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, plainly obvious to researchers in those fields. But all the evidence clearly shows that no such global event could have occurred at any time, let alone within the span of human civilization in the MIddle East.

To hold such beliefs is to ignore, misrepresent, or falsely deny the evidence. There's no way around it. The question this raises in my mind is: why would anyone consider such beliefs to be essential to their faith in God/Christ?

Apparently, many people have understandings of scripture (and faith in God/Christ) that do not require them to hold these particular beliefs in contradiction to physical evidence. They do not interpret the text that way. The text is presumably still important to them, but not as a factual record of events in history ({AbE:} at least, not as far as the creation and flood stories are concerned; presumably, they do view the stories about Christ as historical fact, which is a separate matter involving no dispute with major fields of science). In that regard, it's pointless to devote church services to the "evo/creo" debate -- it's an irrelevant topic for church-goers.

In your other reply to my other post, you said:

If you no longer take it as literal (and I mean not a "wooden" literalism, but rather a natural literalism) and you begin adding claims then basically you can end up making the bible say anyhting you want it to say.

Can you explain the distinction you are trying to make between "wooden literalism" and "natural literalism"? Is YEC a "wooden literalism" as opposed to OEC "natural literalism"? If not that, then what?

With all due respect to scripture and to people who are sincerely devout, I believe it is inescapably in the nature of scriptural text and personal belief that each reader makes the text say what he/she wants it to say -- whether the particular thing they want happens to be something they make up themselves or is something they are willing to accept from some other source (priest, parent, friend, famous commentator, charismatic snake-oil salesman, ...)

That's one reason why religious freedom is so important to folks in the U.S., even to those who may not agree with the concept or its enforcement.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : added parenthetical remark about history in scripture


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 11:43 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Otto Tellick has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018