Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "In the end there must have been a creator"
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 31 of 69 (185769)
02-16-2005 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
02-16-2005 6:14 AM


Re: Hypothetical for you
Lmao, I never read the date it's posted.
Hey you don't expect me to not bust crashfrog's chops, do you?
How did that post surface from so long ago, I think people have way too much time on their hands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2005 6:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2005 8:43 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 69 (185792)
02-16-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by riVeRraT
02-16-2005 7:16 AM


Re: Hypothetical for you
Well it's easy to see who has too much time on their hands Message 20

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 7:16 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 02-16-2005 11:06 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 69 (185836)
02-16-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
02-16-2005 8:43 AM


Re: Hypothetical for you
Yes, Paul. I must confess that I DID have too much time on my hands that day. Actually, I always respected T.C. and I wanted to dialogue with him...but unlike me, he has a life and is not responding as of yet! I respect him because he is a Theist despite being a good young scientist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2005 8:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 34 of 69 (185845)
02-16-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by riVeRraT
02-15-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Hypothetical for you
I would ask him what kind of no-good omnipotent son of a bitch creates a world that provides ample evidence that his own existence is not needed, writes about his existence in a contradictory and historically inaccurate book, and then expects everyone (on pain of eternal torment) to believe in him in a grand and glorius act of unreason. I would also throw in that since he exists, it was he that gave us the faculty of reason and that makes him utterly at fault, since use of that faculty in the fixed game he has set up leads to failure inm his little test.
Then I would wake up from the dream.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 11:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 8:33 AM mikehager has replied
 Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 5:05 PM mikehager has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 69 (185847)
02-16-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by riVeRraT
02-16-2005 6:09 AM


Re: Hypothetical for you
Funny you answered, I wasn't talking to you.
Then you should have sent an email. Or, after almost 1700 posts, have you still not noticed this is a public forum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 6:09 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 69 (186123)
02-17-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mikehager
02-16-2005 11:38 AM


Hypothetical Encounter with God
We are talking about dreams. About hypothetical situations. In an article from Jerry Solomon of Probe Ministries,Worldviews the author asserts
Probe/Solomon writes:
Many books have been written on the subject of worldviews from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives...A variety of definitions have been offered by numerous authors. For example, James Sire asserts that "A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world."{1} Phillips and Brown state that "A worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world and second, an application of this view to life. In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world."{2} Walsh and Middleton provide what we think is the most succinct and understandable explanation: "A world view provides a model of the world which guides its adherents in the world."
Solomon goes on to explain several different worldviews, among them "naturalism" and of course, Christian Theism.
Probe/Solomon writes:
...worldviews have common components. These components are self-evident.(...)First, something exists. This may sound obvious, but it really is an important foundational element of worldview building since some will try to deny it. But a denial is self- defeating because all people experience cause and effect. The universe is rational; it is predictable.
Second, all people have absolutes. Again, many will try to deny this, but to deny it is to assert it. All of us seek an infinite reference point. For some it is God; for others it is the state, or love, or power, and for some this reference point is themselves or man.
Third, two contradictory statements cannot both be right. This is a primary law of logic that is continually denied. Ideally speaking, only one worldview can correctly mirror reality. This cannot be overemphasized in light of the prominent belief that tolerance is the ultimate virtue. To say that someone is wrong is labeled intolerant or narrow-minded. A good illustration of this is when we hear people declare that all religions are the same. It would mean that Hindus, for example, agree with Christians concerning God, Jesus, salvation, heaven, hell, and a host of other doctrines. This is nonsense.
Fourth, all people exercise faith. All of us presuppose certain things to be true without absolute proof. These are inferences or assumptions upon which a belief is based. This becomes important, for example, when we interact with those who allege that only the scientist is completely neutral. Some common assumptions are: a personal God exists; man evolved from inorganic material; man is essentially good; reality is material.
Now, the reason that I am using so much of this article to make my point is that the author explains my position better than I could, (plus I am too lazy to type you out a long response. Bear with me, please! )
In order to understand the difference in our perceptions of an encounter with God, EVEN a "hypothetical" one, I want to contrast how I think with how you think.
While I am not a word for word Biblical literalist, I AM a thought for thought literalist. I am NOT ignorant of the disciplines of scientific thought, and I do not as of this time believe that Ken Ham
and the crew over at Answers In Genesis have in any way convinced me of their position over many respected scientists, whatever their belief.
I will say that I believe that God was the first..and the last. He transcends time in that He cannot be subjected to time. Thus, when we talk of dreams, hypothetical encounters, and imaginative processes, I see it as humanity being an initial product of Gods imagination rather than Him,(or any other religious or secular explanation) being a product of our imagination.
Allow me to tie in my Biblical view:
KJV writes:
Gen 11:1-7- And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Now from my point of view, God saw that humanity was "one"...in other words humanity was in common agreement...a communion, if you will..without Him included. Lets go back to the worldviews.
Probe/Solomon writes:
Let's return to the six questions we asked earlier and briefly see how the Christian Theist might answer them.
Question: Why is there something rather than nothing? There is an infinite-personal God who has created the universe out of nothing.
Question: How do you explain human nature? Man was originally created good in God's image, but chose to sin and thus infected all of humanity with what is called a "sin nature." So man has been endowed with value by his creator, but his negative behavior is in league with his nature.
Question: What happens to a person at death? Death is either the gate to life with God or to eternal separation from Him. The destination is dependent upon the response we give to God's provision for our sinfulness.
Question: How do you determine what is right and wrong? The guidelines for conduct are revealed by God.
Question: How do you know that you know? Reason and experience can be legitimate teachers, but a transcendent source is necessary. We know some things only because we are told by God through the Bible.
Question: What is the meaning of history? History is a linear and meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God's purposes for man.
Now, you may state that you "imagine" a god, and YOU will declare that he is an s.o.b. who gave YOU the faculties of reason and logic that you have...in order to disprove him. Right?
But your logic has been developed by human wisdom.
Probe/Solomon writes:
Even though Naturalism in various forms is ancient, we will use the term to refer to a worldview that has had considerable influence in a relatively short time within Western culture. The seeds were planted in the seventeenth century and began to flower in the eighteenth. Most of us have been exposed to Naturalism through Marxism and what is called Secular Humanism.
What are the basic tenets of this worldview? First, God is irrelevant. This tenet helps us better understand the term Naturalism; it is in direct contrast to Christian Theism, which is based on supernaturalism. Second, progress and evolutionary change are inevitable. Third, man is autonomous, self-centered, and will save himself. Fourth, education is the guide to life; intelligence and freedom guarantee full human potential. Fifth, science is the ultimate provider both for knowledge and morals. These tenets have permeated our lives. They are apparant, for example, in the media, government, and education.
To wrap it up,my worldview is based on a supernatural God as an origin that first imagined me. (thus I can never deny Him as hypothetical) whereas you may see human wisdom as the origin of hypothesis on everything.
Am I right, Mike? Do you believe that human wisdom invented the concept of God?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-17-2005 06:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mikehager, posted 02-16-2005 11:38 AM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 8:58 AM Phat has replied
 Message 45 by mikehager, posted 02-17-2005 1:07 PM Phat has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 69 (186126)
02-17-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
02-17-2005 8:33 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
Just to comment on a few issues.
Firstly Solomon's idea of a worldview conflates Sire's definition with the definitions offered by Phillips and Brown and Walsh and Middleton - even though they are quite different.
I also note Solomon's four issues aren't very well explained:
I'm not sure what the second means and the examples only confuse the issue.
The third fails to consider the possibility that we may not know which view is right (in which case tolerance may be appropriate even though one view must be wrong) or the possiblity that the differences might be unimportant.
The fourth, while not quite as bad as the third also fails to consider that it deals with a whole spectrum of issues. Labelling a provisional belief held with strong evidence the same was as a belief strongly held in spite of the evidence is all too easily used as an excuse to equate the two.
When dealing with the six questions Solomon fails to actually answer the first. And is there any basis other than his worldview's assumptions to consider any of his other answers true ? This is especially worrying in his view of morality - the more so when his opposition to tolerance is taken into account.
Finally his view of naturalism includes far too much that is not really part of naturalism. Perhaps because he needs naturalism to be a worldview, when it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 8:33 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 9:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 69 (186131)
02-17-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
02-17-2005 8:58 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
Hi, Paul! The assertions as defined and framed by Solomon quite naturally are topics worthy of debate and discussion. I used that particular article to frame my logic only because I tend to be of the same worldview that Solomon defines as Christian Theism. It is, agreeably, far too narrow and incomplete for me to lump all scientific and rational thought that runs counter to a literalist, supernatural view as "naturalism."
Any one individual at EvC has been influenced by many of the worldviews that Solomon expounds upon in his article. Indeed, the argument has been brought up that I have adopted a Christian Theist worldview primarily because I was brought up in that environment.
(Thankfully, my parents were not too religious!)
I would assert that my worldview concerning the literal presupposition of God being prior to human intellect and thus unrefuteable has stemmed from my conversion experience when I believe that I was "saved" and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Quite naturally, I need the "human wisdom" of the Christian Theistic supernatural explanation to justify my belief to others..(not to myself)...seeing as how no other evidence is possible. (some call this circular reasoning)
In defense of this, I can only proclaim that the conversion experience where I met God reinforced the adoption of Christian Theism defined by human wisdom...rather than the other way around.
PaulK writes:
I also note Solomon's four issues aren't very well explained
True from your rational way of processing the information. As an example, you say that
The third fails to consider the possibility that we may not know which view is right (in which case tolerance may be appropriate even though one view must be wrong) or the possiblity that the differences might be unimportant.
You are referring to this question?
Third, two contradictory statements cannot both be right.
If I assert that God is the first cause, cannot be denied, and that Original Sin/seperation led to human wisdom in opposition to God...and you said that the concept of god is unimportant because each of us has a relativistic view which should be tolerated, I can see your point. I may not agree with you, yet why need I be an absolutist Monarch and deny you the right to your science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 8:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 9:44 AM Phat has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 69 (186135)
02-17-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
02-17-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
You've pretty much got my objection right. We should allow that beliefs that contradict ours may be correct (unless we have a very strong case - and one that we have critically examined to be sure that it really IS strong). And we certainly should allow that others may be reasonable in holding beliefs contradictory to ours unless we have good reason to believe otherwise (and a personal experience that we have had and they have not cannot be such a reason !).
The issue of giving offence is more contextual - I don't see how a forum like this could exist without allowing the expression of views that some would consider offensive. But those in positions of political power should be very careful of using those positions to promote their beliefs or to denigrate the beliefs of others.
But to go back to other things Solomon said, how would you really answer the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing". Is there any answer that is better than "there is" ? Even the assertion that God necessarily exists - while obviously better than Solomon's non-answer - is no better unless it can explain why that should be so (there is no logical necessity for God to exist and I see no other form of necessity that could sensibly be argued for, bringing it all back to a simple assertion).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 9:26 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 10:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 69 (186139)
02-17-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
02-17-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
PaulK writes:
We should allow that beliefs that contradict ours may be correct
Which is why Ward Churchill should be allowed to air his views at a University. Education needs to have contradictory views within its framework...otherwise, people can never rationally decide what they believe.
PaulK writes:
those in positions of political power should be very careful of using those positions to promote their beliefs or to denigrate the beliefs of others.
Again, this is why the current administration which claims to be based on theistic morality is involved in a war with fundamentalist ideas from another culture and another worldview.
PaulK writes:
Even the assertion that God necessarily exists - while obviously better than Solomon's non-answer - is no better unless it can explain why that should be so (there is no logical necessity for God to exist and I see no other form of necessity that could sensibly be argued for, bringing it all back to a simple assertion).
And the traditional Theistic answer is because the Bible explains how things will be. I would expound on this to add that You have a purpose and a destiny in life that is apart from you. Perhaps this is the mystery of humanity being part of the body and of Christ being the head. Of course, my explanation to you is based upon my own theistic worldview. This is why the Bible makes sense to me and others, while seen as so ridiculous and out of context to so many others.
Theology is absolute, definite, and conclusive within ones chosen belief.
Philosophy is inquiring, inconclusive, and expansive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 9:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 10:18 AM Phat has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 69 (186144)
02-17-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
02-17-2005 10:06 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
"The Bible says so" is not an explanation. At most it is an attempt to back up the assertion with an authority accepted by the beleiver.
There are two issues here. How did Solomon fail to notice that he hadn't answered the question (or that his answer if taken seriosuly implies that God is nothing). And if no satisfactory answer is possible how can we possibly use answering that particuar question as a valid crietrion for comparing worldviews ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 10:06 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 10:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 69 (186151)
02-17-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
02-17-2005 10:18 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
PaulK writes:
"The Bible says so" is not an explanation. At most it is an attempt to back up the assertion with an authority accepted by the beleiver.
Yes, but that is my worldview. You may assert that "The Bible says so" is a poor explanation. You are correct that I am backing my assertion by my belief. Within the context of our discussion, the Bible should be allowed to be presented.
PaulK writes:
There are two issues here. How did Solomon fail to notice that he hadn't answered the question (or that his answer if taken seriosuly implies that God is nothing). And if no satisfactory answer is possible how can we possibly use answering that particuar question as a valid crietrion for comparing worldviews ?
You are referring to which question, again?
Do you mean that if something does not exist, nothing exists?
Let me ask you a question. In math, on a number line, how many points exist between two points on the line?
Imagine, if you will, a line that starts with 0............1
one represents my value system, i.e. God is one. Say that in theory, every other possible belief is correlated with any point between 0 (or nothing) and 1, (absolutist Theistic Belief) We can say that all points exist in theory. All views expressed. Is there an absolute value...an answer to this question?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-17-2005 08:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 10:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 10:56 AM Phat has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 69 (186159)
02-17-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
02-17-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
The question I am referring to is "Why is there something other than nothing".
However I do have to point out that if the Bible states that something is the case it is certainly NOT an explanation of WHY it should be the case. At best it constitutes a reason for beleivers to accept that it is the case.
As for mathematics assuming you are referrign to a continuous space the number of points on the line 0-1 equals the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 which is uncountably infinite (i.e. greater than the countably infinite number of integers - this is proven by Cantor's Diagonal argument).
I'll assume for the sake of argument that we can sensibly set up a mapping on positions on God onto the points of that line. As to the question of an absolute answer I eould say tat there would be - however your choice of analogy suggests that we might not be able to know it, since knowing exactly where on the line a point falls by measurement requires infinite resolution which is not pratcically possible. And I'd argue that any attempt at actual "measurement" has an error margin of +/- 1 (I don't argue that we can't come ot a conclusion - but I argue against certainty).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 10:37 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 11:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 69 (186179)
02-17-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
02-17-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
PaulK writes:
The question I am referring to is "Why is there something other than nothing".
and I use the number line analogy to assert that some would say that every human has a belief and an explanation. If we as humans all count as an equal value(tolerance) than our beliefs can be construed as relative to the individual. You are right. How do we know that there is something rather than nothing? Is God something? This implies room for error +/- in which there is room for doubt...ie "some other thing." My view asserts that God is not only something but is the very source for all things. There is no room allowed by me to be a disinterested observer on this belief. You may very well answer your own question by asserting that you do not believe in something(in this case, God) and that it is NOT a black/white either/or issue. In other words, it is not either 1 or 0, (something or nothing) but it is a relative concept. If so, I'll leave it at that, and we can disagree. We ask: Why is there something other than nothing? In context, Why God?
You say:
I do have to point out that if the Bible states that something is the case it is certainly NOT an explanation of WHY it should be the case.
I will respond by saying that the Bible as a book is no explanation at all. The Bible as representative of a character is, in fact, one explanation of why something(God) is. In other words, the Bible is the word of God. (one worldview, remember. I am not being absolute, yet I am defining the value of absolute(something)
The Bible has this to say related to our philosophical discourse:
NIV writes:
Ex 3:14=God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
In other words, why is there something?
Answer: Something who is something. Someone who is someone. One who is One.
Heb 2:6-9="What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.
In other words, the only "thing" not subject to God is nothing. Nothing who is no one. None who is none.
Hell was never a reality for people unless they denied the absolute truth of One who is One.
The concept of Satan is the concept of nothing.
NIV writes:
Rev 17:7-8= The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
God was, is, and always will be. He is definitely something! The Beast was,(as the reality of Lucifer) now is not(He is nothing. Yet this is the alternative to something!) and yet will come....perhaps only for those who refused to believe in something.
Does this confuse you more, or am I making any sense? I know what I mean to assert, but I am not sure if you see it from the lens that I see it from.
I assert certainty without any proof apart from my belief and logic.
Looking back on this post, I see how my own theories pale in comparison to the Bible. Y'all bear with me when I go off on a tangent!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-18-2005 07:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 10:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2005 2:05 PM Phat has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 45 of 69 (186209)
02-17-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
02-17-2005 8:33 AM


Re: Hypothetical Encounter with God
I absolutely do think that mankind invented gods. How else can one explain the vast variety of theistic and mystic ideas mankind has generated through the ages? Manking imagined Santa Claus, Leprechuans, Smurfs, and Gods; there is no reason to believe that any of them really exist.
I also take issue with this:
Fifth, science is the ultimate provider both for knowledge and morals.
Science is in no way the "ultimate provider" of morals, they are a social construct and a product of evolution. I think this statement reveals the writer's bias.
However, Phat, my compliments for saying that you believe these things as opposed to saying that your belief constitutes proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 02-17-2005 8:33 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 02-18-2005 9:33 AM mikehager 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