Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 204 (251733)
10-14-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
10-13-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Ringo writes:
Seems that the law contains blessings as well as cursings. Maybe condemnation isn't the sole purpose after all?
If you follow the law you will feel the warmth that comes with it..and vice(sic) versa. We all experience that. We all feel good when we do good and feel bad when we do what we know is bad (even if it quickly gets buried)
The point is you can't break any part of the law or else it is the same as breaking all of it. Condemnation is guarenteed. Not much blessing in that is there?
Loving God and loving thy neighbour don't sound like condemnation, do they? Jesus seemed to think that was the purpose of the law.
Jesus summed up the whole law in this. The spirit behind the letter if you like. You don't see condemnation in there? Try following it to the letter - say for a month. Let me know how you get on
So, sorry, I still can't work up any feeling of condemnation
Thankfully, you don't have to work it up. God works it up. Essentially, all you have to do to be saved is to stop burying what he works up. Do it. Spend a little quiet time examining your conscience - say a 10 minute trawl through what you've done wrong recently. Follow through on the consequences for others because of what you've done: the people you've hurt, the selfishness (of shellfishness if you're Chiro ), the nastiness, the gossip, the malice. It's difficult, (I know) but do it. You may find yourself feeling uncomfortable.
Then watch the discomfort evaporate. Watch it disappear. Buried.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 10-13-2005 1:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-14-2005 11:52 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 47 of 204 (251737)
10-14-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Chiroptera
10-14-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Chiro writes:
Indeed. If the Law is so unreasonable that it cannot be expected that anyone keep it, it is not the fault of the person, it is the fault of the jack-ass bureaucrat who thunk it up.
Your answer was ambiguous. I'll assume you mean that you agree that the law against adultery is a good law. It is also achievable. No one MUST commit adultery. They just choose NOT to keep it. The law is reasonable and good. It is people who break it who are not reasonable or good.
Why can't people just be reasonable and good? Well...they've fallen. That's why they can't follow the law - reasonable and good though it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2005 11:12 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2005 11:46 AM iano has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 204 (251744)
10-14-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by iano
10-14-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
quote:
Why can't people just be reasonable and good?
I don't understand your post. Can people be reasonable and good, or can they not?
If people can be reasonable and good, then I would expect that there must be some people somewhere who are or have been reasonable and good, and so they don't need Christ's sacrifice.
However, if it is impossible for people to be reasonable and good, then the standards for reasonable and good are unachievable, and so are themselves not reasonable or good.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 11:28 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 1:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 204 (251746)
10-14-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
10-14-2005 11:15 AM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
iano writes:
Condemnation is guarenteed. Not much blessing in that is there?
Well, I quoted the Bible. Did you?
Point is, some of us - the Biblical geezers and me - do find blessings in the law, not just condemnation. Maybe you need to think that "sole purpose" thing through a little more clearly.
Jesus summed up the whole law in this. The spirit behind the letter if you like.
You didn't answer my question. When Jesus said:
quote:
... Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
where do you see condemnation in that?
Point is, the spirit of the law is not about condemnation. It's about love. And the spirit of the law was the same in the Old Testament as it was in Jesus' time. He was just trying to get that through their thick heads.
Spend a little quiet time examining your conscience.... Follow through on the consequences for others because of what you've done: the people you've hurt, the selfishness... the nastiness, the gossip, the malice.... You may find yourself feeling uncomfortable.
That's where you missed the trolley. Feeling guilty about what I've done wrong accomplishes nothing. Instead of feeling "condemnation", I try to figure out how to unscrew the screw-ips and try not to screw up the same things again. (There's that word "try" again, for all the jar fans out there. )
That's what Jesus was all about: Forget about the condemnation. Forget about kicking yourself. Shape up. Do something.
The last sacrifice has been made. No more sacrifices necessary. Do something productive instead.
Thus endeth today's sermon. Go to your homes and enjoy your fish.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 11:15 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:02 PM ringo has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 50 of 204 (251749)
10-14-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
10-12-2005 6:30 PM


Re: knowing how to do the right thing is often much harder
holmes writes:
It seems inconsistent with the fact that he clearly dumped the Mosaic Laws.....
He didn't dump the Mosaic Law, he just wanted to free it from wrong interpretation
"Do as they [Pharisees] say, just don't do as they do" (Matthew 23:2-3 )
"I'm not here to destroy the law, I'm here to fulfill it"(Matthew 5:17-18)

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 10-12-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 51 of 204 (251766)
10-14-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Chiroptera
10-14-2005 11:46 AM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Chiro writes:
However, if it is impossible for people to be reasonable and good, then the standards for reasonable and good are unachievable, and so are themselves not reasonable or good.
Or the people were good but then became bad and a method for making them good again was decided upon. Showing people how far they've fallen (which is what the law is intended to do) might result in the people asking for the only person who can make them good to make them good again.
The alternative is to lower the standard of the law. Bad then becomes the new good. He is God. He chose the former. His right. And there's little point in getting into a tizzy about it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2005 11:46 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2005 3:11 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 204 (251772)
10-14-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
10-14-2005 11:52 AM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
iano writes:
Condemnation (under law) is guarenteed. Not much blessing in that is there?
Ringo writes:
Well, I quoted the Bible. Did you?
Romans 8
1 There is therefore (ie: as a result of what I have been saying earlier) now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus 2 For (because) the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death (The Law). 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do (ie:save): sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (who is he addressing? Christian in Rome. Christ in's
Law does not save. It cannot.
Romans 5
19 For as by one man's (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience (jesus - the second federal head of humanity) many (not all) will be made righteous. 20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
Anybody out there feeling the pressure of their sin in their lives. Rejoice then... the Gospel is good news for bad people (ie: people who know their bad)
Romans 4
13 The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
Read Romans 4 and see where righteouness comes from. Faith. Not law. But the law is there. It has a purpose.
Romans 7
8 But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; 10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.
"Keep of the grass" and what do we do? "40mph zone" and what do we do? "Don't touch the exhibit" and what do we do? Put a law up and we'll want to break it.
It seems obvious doesn't it. If there is no law there is no transgression of the law. The law was necessary in order to show transgression against a holy God in a way we could understand. The law shows us that we are sinners. The downside is that we have no excuse: we know we are sinners.
Read on the rest of Romans 7. Only a man who has had the law do its work on him can empathise with the man here. A man lead to Christ by the workings of the law

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-14-2005 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-14-2005 3:45 PM iano has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 204 (251799)
10-14-2005 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by iano
10-14-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
quote:
Showing people how far they've fallen (which is what the law is intended to do) might result in the people asking for the only person who can make them good to make them good again.
But that is then the question, isn't it? Is the problem that the people are unworthy because they cannot meet the arbitrary standards that have been set, or are the standards unreasonable high? Or even if they can be met, are the restrictions they set reasonable?
-
quote:
He is God. He chose the former. His right. And there's little point in getting into a tizzy about it...
I agree, an omnipotent being can pretty much do what he wants. My local mafia don can set standards for me to meet too, not much I can do about that either, but I don't see why I should feel any respect or loyalty for a thug even if he can force me to do what he wants.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 1:32 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 10-15-2005 8:59 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 204 (251807)
10-14-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
10-14-2005 2:02 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Hmm.... I quoted Jesus. You quoted Paul. Who has the high card?
As Jesus said, the spirit of the law is the law. The spirit of the law does not condemn. It uplifts. (You still have not told us where you see condemnation in "love thy neighbour as thyself".)
Paul was talking about the letter of the law. The letter of the law seems to condemn because it has been corrupted by human authors, copyists, translators, commentators, etc.
Jesus came to save us from the letter of the law, but without changing the spirit of the law. Salvation is not just some woo-woo "belief". It's how we live our lives. That's all God cares about and that's what He sent His Son to tell us.
That's also what Paul was saying to the Romans. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death." That is, the spirit of the law has set me free from the letter of the law.
The spirit of the law is about helping us to live better, not about condemning us when we miss the mark.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:02 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 3:51 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 56 by iano, posted 10-15-2005 8:43 AM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 204 (251810)
10-14-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
10-14-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
On these two hang ALL the Law, and the Prophets.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-14-2005 3:45 PM ringo has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 56 of 204 (251933)
10-15-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
10-14-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Ringo writes:
Hmm.... I quoted Jesus. You quoted Paul. Who has the high card?
You quoted someone quoting Jesus, I quoted Paul quoting Paul. Who has the high card now? We go on the basis that all scripture is of equal merit or this discussion becomes impossible. The discussion is about what scripture says not about the relative weight of one piece versus the other - which is a different discussion altogether. Agreed?
Jesus said the law is summed up in those two commandments. Condensed down to, all pointing towards, etc. The condemnation is in the fact that he who is guilty of breaking any of the law is guilty of breaking it all. Do you keep the two laws Jesus said were it, in a nutshell. If you don't, you are breaking the law and your condemned.
Forget the fact you're in a discussion for the moment Ringo. Answer the question for your very own self and see what I mean:
Do you love God with all you heart soul and mind?
Do you love your neighbour as yourself?
Well do you Punk?
Paul was talking about the letter of the law. The letter of the law seems to condemn because it has been corrupted by human authors, copyists, translators, commentators, etc.
Which means you cannot trust reports on what Jesus said or anybody else. Which just terminates the discussion. What is there to discuss if none if it can be trusted as accurately recording what the original writers wrote?
You need to decide the terms under which you discuss Ringo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-14-2005 3:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 12:06 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 57 of 204 (251934)
10-15-2005 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Chiroptera
10-14-2005 3:11 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
iano writes:
Showing people how far they've fallen (which is what the law is intended to do) might result in the people asking for the only person who can make them good to make them good again.
Chiro writes:
But that is then the question, isn't it? Is the problem that the people are unworthy because they cannot meet the arbitrary standards that have been set, or are the standards unreasonable high? Or even if they can be met, are the restrictions they set reasonable?
People are unworthy to start with. They are born unworthy. That's the whole point. The default position is that everybody born has destination hell stamped on there forehead. The 'game' doesn't start in a neutral position. God is on a mission to rescue whoever would be rescued. The mission has constraints in that all Gods attributes must be satisfied. He can't just step in out of love and save us all. That would conflict with his Just-ness. He can't just stand by and watch us all be condemned - that would conflict with his Love.
The standards aren't arbitary. God's standards are simply perfection because that is who he is. He can't be less than that. He can't have a relationship in eternity with less than that (which is why even the tiniest (by human standards) breaking of any of the law results in condemnation.
Get this whole concept of jumping over the bar out of your head. The purpose of the law is not that we meet it. The purpose is to show us we can't meet it. THAT'S ALL. Quit talking about whether it is fair or not. Examine it's place in the full plan then you'll see the sense in what he did. Get condemned by the law. Let it do what it was meant to do.
Relax and let it condemn you Chiro. When the pressure of it condemning you gets too great, you will cry out to the only person possible to cry out to. Then he will save you.
I agree, an omnipotent being can pretty much do what he wants. My local mafia don can set standards for me to meet too, not much I can do about that either, but I don't see why I should feel any respect or loyalty for a thug even if he can force me to do what he wants.
An interesting juxtapositon. The thus versus the goody (Chiro). However the bible describes YOU as the filthy sinner. "Whilst we were still sinners, Christ died for us". You would have to wonder about a God who sacrificed his own son for a person steeped in filth. Thug is hardly an accurate description.
Like it ain't his sin CP. It's yours. And like us all, you know it. Take a look inside and see it sometime. Really check out your own badness. Examine it and cringe...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2005 3:11 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 12:43 PM iano has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 58 of 204 (251962)
10-15-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by iano
10-15-2005 8:43 AM


Blessing, not Condemnation
iano writes:
We go on the basis that all scripture is of equal merit....
Yes, I am assuming for the purpose of this discussion that both Jesus and Paul were quoted accurately. What Jesus said trumps what Paul said every time.
When I refer to translators, etc., I am referring to the letter of the law and how words can be changed by multiple copyings, etc.
That is precisely why Jesus came to tell us that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter. Not one jot or tittle of the spirit of the law can be changed, ever. But the letter of the law has had all the jots and tittles removed and the letters themselves have been changed to Latin characters, etc.
The Ten Commandments were a fairly simple codification of the law. Then the Levites got a hold of them and "amplified" them - largely for their own benefit. By Jesus' time, the letter of the law had been further corrupted to the point that there were money-changers doing business in the temple.
But Jesus didn't amplify - He simplified the Ten Commandments, condensing them into two sections - one relating to God and one relating to our fellow man.
(Unfortunately, Paul kind of took a step backward with his detailed advice to the young churches. The devil is in the details, you know. )
Let's look back at the OP:
Nuggin writes:
It seems that the Thou Shall Nots are very well defined. You definitely know if you are violating it. However, the Thou Shalls are in a big old gray area.
That hits the nail right on the head. The spirit of the law is a "gray area". It is something that we need to examine in ourselves. It is a big responsibility.
But that is the antithesis of condemnation. Condemnation is somebody else - e.g. God - telling us, "Do this or I'll do that to you." That's the letter of the law. (Notice that there is none of that in the Ten Commandments.)
The spirit of the law tells us, "Do what feels right - i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself. By doing that, you are loving God and keeping His commandments."
It is true that we can never succeed 100% in loving our neighbours. A sprinter can never run 100 meters in zero time either. The key is to try to do a little better every time.
The spirit of the law is fulfilled by our constantly trying to improve ourselves and our relations with others. That is a blessing, not a condemnation.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 10-15-2005 8:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 5:40 AM ringo has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 204 (251973)
10-15-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by iano
10-15-2005 8:59 AM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Hello, iano.
quote:
People are unworthy to start with....
God's standards are simply perfection because that is who he is....
However the bible describes YOU as the filthy sinner....
The first two statements are simply claims that someone has made. The third is a statement that tells me who is making these claims. There is no reason for me to simply accept these claims, especially since these claims make very little sense.
Accepting for a moment that there is a god, that this god is all-powerful, that this god as created this world, and that the Christian Bible describes this god, what can we conclude? Very little.
An omnipotent god can set whatever standards he wishes and punish those who do not keep those standards. That is a simple fact. However, being able to do something is not the same as saying that doing that something is right.
An omnipotent god can set standards that interfere with the personal lives of the created and punish those who disobey. Okay, that is a fact. However, this is not to say that this god has a moral right to do such a thing, at least not unless you subscribe to a philosophy that "might makes right."
An omnipotent god can set standards that are impossible for the created to live up to, and can punish those (which would be everyone) who does not live up to those standards. Again, this is a fact, as an omnipotent being can do anything that he pleases. However, it does not preclude the possibility that an omnipotent being is morally wrong. One has to wonder about a moral system that would justify such a being.
Then this being, instead of being reasonable and admitting that he was wrong and made a mistake, and then make changes in the standards to make them more reasonable, he instead makes a bizarre procedure of crucifying a deity in order to provide a means of pardoning those (who are everyone) who have violated standards that are so unreasonable that they should never have been set to begin with. This is a being worthy of worship? If a mortal human made demands that are so clearly unreasonable, couldn't back down from them, and then just make the situation even more bizarre by providing a such "remedy", that person would be labelled as highly neurotic at best, and psychological treatment would be suggested.
Okay, so this omnipotent being has set very, very high standards, will punish those who do not meet those standards, and has provided a rather strange way of pardoning those who do not meet his standards. So what? Even if I were to believe this, what good does it do me? If I remember my theology correctly, even Satan and his angels know the truth of the Gospels but that is not going to be enough to save them. One needs to sincerely love and trust this deity in order to achieve salvation. But how can a reasonable people possibly trust a being who, in his own scriptures, admits that he engages in such sociopathic behavior?
How does one trust in the goodness of such a being? Because the Bible says so? According to the evagelicals, the Bible was written under the direct inspiration of this being, so of course it is going to claim that God is just and good. This god is trustworthy and worthy of worship because his followers know that he is just and good? But they are being led by the Holy Spirit which is a part of God or God himself or whatever, so of course they are led to feel such a thing.
There are two assumptions being made here. One is that there is some absolute standard of good, and the other is that God exemplifies this standard. Not only is the first assumption simply not at all an obvious fact, but the only evidence for the second is the claims made by this god's partisans.
Maybe his partisans truly believe this, and maybe (although I don't see how anyone can trust this) this deity will actually keep his promises and reward them for this belief, but how can anyone expect a person who cannot just close her eyes and hope that everything will turn out alright to take any of this seriously?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 10-15-2005 8:59 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 1:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 60 of 204 (251985)
10-15-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Chiroptera
10-15-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
Chiroptera writes:
There are two assumptions being made here. One is that there is some absolute standard of good, and the other is that God exemplifies this standard.
This is exactly in line with what I've been trying to say. The spirit of the law is for our benefit (our blessing), not God's (whether or not She exists). Obeying the "thou shalt nots" makes our lives better. That's the ultimate standard of good.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 12:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-15-2005 1:14 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 1:22 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024