Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8794 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-16-2017 11:56 PM
331 online now:
DC85, DrJones*, nwr, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 820,722 Year: 25,328/21,208 Month: 955/2,338 Week: 76/450 Day: 34/42 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 226 of 305 (768999)
09-15-2015 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
09-15-2015 12:46 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
ringo writes:

They met because he was leaving on the next day. Presumably, if he was leaving on the fourth day, they could have met on any day before that.


The text doesn't say that; read it again. Perhaps the NIV translation makes it a bit clearer:
quote:

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

The text says two things:
1) they met together on the first day for the purpose of breaking bread (not necessarily because Paul was leaving the next day)
2) they extended their meeting until midnight because Paul was leaving the next day

Was this meeting on the first day their normal habit, or was it an unusual occurrence? We can't say for sure from this text alone. But since the purpose of their meeting was to "break bread", and this was a regular habit (Acts 2:42 "They were devoting themselves to the apostles teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer") it is likely that they had already begun to habitually meet on the first day of the week.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 09-15-2015 12:46 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 09-16-2015 3:12 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 227 of 305 (769013)
09-15-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
09-15-2015 1:09 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
jar writes:


Nor is Sunday necessarily "the first day of the week". In Jewish tradition the Sabbath is sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Sunday is considered the first day of the week. In Roman times Monday (Diana's day) was considered the first day of the week.


The Hebrew names for the days of the week are simply the numbers of the days. I.e. the Hebrew name for "Sunday" is "first day". The book of Acts was written in a Jewish context. The "first day of the week" in Acts was Sunday.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 1:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 3:57 PM kbertsche has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29423
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 228 of 305 (769019)
09-15-2015 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by kbertsche
09-15-2015 3:31 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
No one is arguing otherwise as I pointed out and you quoted.

Abe: But neither the Jews or Early Christians used Sunday as the name for the first day of the week. We really have no way to accurately determine what day would correspond nor is it of any importance.

The point is that religions, including Christianity have been making it up and changing practices and dogma since the very beginning.

Worrying about what day Paul and company broke bread is just a continuation of the theater of the absurd.

Edited by jar, : hit wrong key


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 3:31 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 4:28 PM jar has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 229 of 305 (769024)
09-15-2015 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by jar
09-15-2015 3:57 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
jar writes:


No one is arguing otherwise as I pointed out and you quoted.
Abe: But neither the Jews or Early Christians used Sunday as the name for the first day of the week. We really have no way to accurately determine what day would correspond nor is it of any importance.


Agreed, they did not use the name "Sunday" for the first day of the week. They were Hebrews, so they used the name "first day" for the first day of the week. There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 3:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 6:59 PM kbertsche has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5097
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 230 of 305 (769030)
09-15-2015 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
09-15-2015 6:39 AM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
Who knows whether a site calling itself Sabathtruths is reliable but according to this guy, it was simply a declaration.

About 100 years before Christianity, Egyptian Mithraists introduced the festival of Sunday, dedicated to worshiping the sun, into the Roman Empire. Later, as Christianity grew, church leaders wished to increase the numbers of the church. In order to make the gospel more attractive to non-Christians, pagan customs were incorporated into the churchs ceremonies. The custom of Sunday worship was welcomed by Christians who desired to differentiate themselves from the Jews, whom they hated because of the Jews rejection of the Savior. The first day of the week began to be recognized as both a religious and civil holiday. By the end of the second century, Christians considered it sinful to work on Sunday.

The Roman emperor Constantine, a former sun-worshiper, professed conversion to Christianity, though his subsequent actions suggest the conversion was more of a political move than a genuine heart change. Constantine named himself Bishop of the Catholic Church and enacted the first civil law regarding Sunday observance in A.D. 321.

On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrate and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however, persons engaged in agricultural work may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain growing or for vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. Schaffs History of the Christian Church, vol. III, chap. 75.

Note that Constantines law did not even mention Sabbath but referred to the mandated rest day as a the venerable day of the sun. And how kind he was to allow people to observe it as it was convenient. Contrast this with Gods command to observe the Sabbath even during the plowing season and harvest (Exodus 34:21)! Perhaps the church leaders noticed this laxity as well, for just four years later, in A.D. 325, Pope Sylvester officially named Sunday the Lords Day, and in A.D. 338, Eusebius, the court bishop of Constantine, wrote, All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week) we (Constantine, Eusebius, and other bishops) have transferred to the Lords Day (the first day of the week) as more appropriately belonging to it.

- See more at: http://www.sabbathtruth.com/...e-change#sthash.BF7A6ryG.dpuf


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2015 6:39 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29423
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 231 of 305 (769038)
09-15-2015 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by kbertsche
09-15-2015 4:28 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week.

So you claim but where is the evidence to support that assertion?

Dating, even determining when holy days should happen, was an inexact science and varied based on local. The Hebrews used a lunar calendar based on local conditions. By the time "Hebrews" would have been written there was in addition the influences of Greece and Rome to add confusion to "days of the week".

But there is also the actual topic to consider, stuff like what day the week begins is simply another of the many things people made up.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 4:28 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 8:37 PM jar has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 232 of 305 (769044)
09-15-2015 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
09-15-2015 6:59 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
jar writes:

kbertsche writes:


There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week.


So you claim but where is the evidence to support that assertion?

Our week has seven days, numbered one through seven. The first day is named "Sunday" and the seventh "Saturday".

The Hebrew week as followed by Jews (OT, NT, and modern) has seven days, numbered one through seven. The first day of their week is named "First Day" and the seventh is named "Sabbath", a word related to the word for "seven".

To this day, the Jewish Sabbath is the same day as our Saturday (yes, the Jewish Sabbath day starts at sundown the previous evening and continues through the daylight hours of Saturday, but this is a minor correction).

So when the NT speaks of the "Sabbath", we should understand this as "Saturday" (but realizing that the Sabbath day actually started at sundown Friday evening). When the NT speaks of the "first day of the week", we should understand this as "Sunday" (again realizing that the first day actually started at sundown after the Sabbath).

This should all be obvious and self-evident. Why is there any question or confusion at all about this?!? It would be nonsensical to say that the Jewish Sabbath is not Saturday. This would mean that the Jews had mixed up their own calendar. This is possible, of course, but one would need evidence for this assertion. Where is your evidence?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 6:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2015 8:54 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 234 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 9:59 PM kbertsche has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 233 of 305 (769045)
09-15-2015 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by kbertsche
09-15-2015 8:37 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
Why is there any question or confusion at all about this?!?

Easy!

When belief is one's guide, rather than evidence, anything goes!

You believes it, that settles it! Phooooey on evidence.

This accounts for the tens of thousands of different denominations, sects, and flavors of christianity, as well as tens of thousands of different religions throughout history.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 8:37 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29423
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 234 of 305 (769048)
09-15-2015 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by kbertsche
09-15-2015 8:37 PM


Thank God religions evolve
... or at least some religions evolve.

You still miss the point.

The fact that there was a seven day week is not questioned.

The fact that Jews today celebrate the Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is not in question.

What evidence is there though that the sequence has been continual and consistent?

BUT... I repeat... all that is still irrelevant!!!!

The fact is that what day a week starts on is simply yet another example of humans making stuff up and in particular the Judaic religions making stuff up that is different than what other religions and even other Christian religions made up. There is no such thing as a right "First day of the Week" and any such designation is just something (in this case religions) make up.

Dates were a major problem and the idea of uniform dates is a really new thing. Even important dates like Easter were often observed weeks apart depending on location, season and culture.

The changes in the Roman Catholic church all seem to be examples of evolution, of a return to morality and humanity; and Praise God, will hopefully lead to similar reformation particularly among "Biblical Christianity".


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 8:37 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 10:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 235 of 305 (769051)
09-15-2015 10:15 PM


The Important Stuff
Without a doubt, the lack of consistency in the Sabbath day is the Trojan Horse that will precipitate the destruction of religion in the modern age.
    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 236 of 305 (769052)
09-15-2015 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by jar
09-15-2015 9:59 PM


Re: Thank God religions evolve
jar writes:


What evidence is there though that the sequence has been continual and consistent?

BUT... I repeat... all that is still irrelevant!!!!


I agree; this is completely irrelevant. It is doubtful that the Jewish calendar slipped a day or two; but even if it did, it would be irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not the sequence has been continual and consistent.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 9:59 PM jar has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13715
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 237 of 305 (769097)
09-16-2015 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by kbertsche
09-15-2015 1:55 PM


Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
kbertsche writes:

Was this meeting on the first day their normal habit, or was it an unusual occurrence? We can't say for sure from this text alone.


Exactly. It's quite a stretch to use it as a basis for Sunday worship.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2015 1:55 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(5)
Message 238 of 305 (769108)
09-16-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Tangle
09-11-2015 11:13 AM


Papal Infallibility
It's been argued and fought over ever since - hence even people that call themselves Christians can't agree on it. There's thousands of versions of this 'truth' - even liberal Christians can't agree. The particular dumped 'truths' we've been talking about where imposed on the laity by decree from a man claiming infallibility - for god's sake.

Sorry if the point I'm about to make has been made already, but new pages appear on this thread faster than I read them, so I thought I'd give up on ever catching up to the end.

You keep talking about papal infallibility, but don't seem to really understand what it means - despite at one point quoting from the Wikipedia article on the topic.

Papal infallibility was formally promulgated as doctrine, it must be remembered in 1870. The bishops who defined the doctrine were not simpletons, whatever you may think of their beliefs, and they were conversant with Church history.

What this means is that even the most dogmatic amongst them was fully cognizant of the fact that a doctrine defined in some form like 'the Pope is infallible and everything he says is therefore correct' would be self-evidently contradictory, since they all knew in some detail the theological disputes of the past between different Popes. Clearly, popes are sometimes wrong - this is a fact no theologian would deny.

The doctrine of infallibility, then, does not apply to every idle thought expressed by a Pope. It does not, even, apply to most of their deeply held and forcefully expressed beliefs. To be considered infallible, a doctrine has to be expressed in a certain form, often with the explicit declaration that you're going to hell if you doubt this fundamental fact. The actual wording used in one of the very few examples of an infallible doctrine promulgated since the concept's formal definition (by Pius XII, in 1950) goes:

quote:
"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma(...)

You keep talking about the Church changing its mind about 'core truths', and they may well have done so, but I'm not sure you've given any convincing any examples. Limbo is a doctrine the church has argued over what centuries - in what sense is it 'core' to Catholic belied?

The things that Catholics themselves argue to be their core truths, as taken from the Nicene Creed, still seem pretty steady 1,700 years later:

quote:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same being as the Father, through whom all things came to be, both the things in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, becoming human, who suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, who is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

The catholic and apostolic church condemns those who say concerning the Son of God that there was a time when he was not or he did not exist before he was begotten or he came to be from nothing or who claim that he is of another subsistence (hypostasis) or essence (ousia), or a creation (ktistos), or changeable (alloiōtos), or alterable (treptos).



This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Tangle, posted 09-11-2015 11:13 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by petrophysics1, posted 09-16-2015 8:13 PM caffeine has responded
 Message 240 by Tangle, posted 09-17-2015 5:45 AM caffeine has responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 305 (769127)
09-16-2015 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by caffeine
09-16-2015 4:16 PM


Re: Papal Infallibility
Great someone who knows what they are talking about.

Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means "from the chair." It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world.

So when was the last time a pope did this? And do you disagree with what he said.

I was born in 1949 and I don't know of a pope who I think would say he had everything in the world figured out. Compare that to Tangle and Faith who know everything about existence and tell you so again and again and again...........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2015 4:16 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Tangle, posted 09-17-2015 6:01 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 242 by caffeine, posted 09-22-2015 8:42 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5097
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 240 of 305 (769183)
09-17-2015 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by caffeine
09-16-2015 4:16 PM


Re: Papal Infallibility
Caffeine writes:

You keep talking about papal infallibility, but don't seem to really understand what it means

Coming from an Irish background, I do indeed know exactlty what it means.

The doctrine of infallibility, then, does not apply to every idle thought expressed by a Pope. It does not, even, apply to most of their deeply held and forcefully expressed beliefs. To be considered infallible, a doctrine has to be expressed in a certain form, often with the explicit declaration that you're going to hell if you doubt this fundamental fact.

Popes rarely speak infallibly, but they always speak authoritively - a point I have already tried to make. The Catholic church believes that popes are gods represetatives on earth, a role handed down hand by hand directly from Peter. It hammers that message home in all its teachings to the laity. Adding the infalibilty clause legitimises the godliness and power of his proclamations and makes it easier to enforces them. In any case the pure concept of proclaiming a human infalible in ANY circumstances is a massive hubris.

You keep talking about the Church changing its mind about 'core truths', and they may well have done so, but I'm not sure you've given any convincing any examples. Limbo is a doctrine the church has argued over what centuries - in what sense is it 'core' to Catholic belied?

I have given several examples of the church changing its mind over what was once hard and fast fact as preached in its churches and schools. The fact that Vatican accademics have squabbled over some of them, is irrelevant. If you just take the limbo fantasy, it was hammered into Catholic parents that you must baptise your newborn quickly or risk it never finding everlasting happiness. That was definately a core belief - it was a heaven or not event for everyday Catholics.

The things that Catholics themselves argue to be their core truths, as taken from the Nicene Creed, still seem pretty steady 1,700 years

Sorry that is incomplete by a very long margin and would define anyone calling themselves a Christin. To be a Catholic you have to buy into the whole 'tradition' which is defined by the Catechism. An extraordinary work of fiction

This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".15

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

The Catholic faith have a massive overlay of tradition that circle the basic beliefs that all Christians have; if you don't sign up for them you're excommunicated by default.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2015 4:16 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by caffeine, posted 09-22-2015 9:05 AM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017