Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   King David found guilty on all counts.
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 151 of 174 (381078)
01-29-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by riVeRraT
01-29-2007 5:24 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
None of us knows what God perceives.
We only know what we perceive as good or bad. If we perceive something as bad, we should conclude that God didn't "choose" it - humans did.
You are in direct contradiction with, yourself.
There is nothing contradictory about it.
  1. We do not know what God perceives.
  2. We know what we perceive.
  3. Therefore, we can only use what we perceive to determine "bad" and "good".
  4. If God is good, then things that we perceive as bad can not be His choice.
You might not agree with #4, but it isn't self-contradictory.
We should base our conclusions on what we do know, not what we don't know.
I am absolutely basing it on what we know.
No you're not. You're basing your entire argument on God making the "right choice". But we don't know if there was a better choice than David. Your entire argument is based on the "God works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
The creator does have a responsibility to his creation.
That is just an opinion from someone who cannot create anything. You only make stuff from the creation, only God can create.
Once again, we can only go by our own perception. We don't know whether God "feels" such a responsibility, so we can only go with what we do know. And human creators do feel a responsibility to their creations.
Why do you expect less of God?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 5:24 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2007 9:42 AM ringo has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 152 of 174 (381149)
01-29-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by riVeRraT
01-29-2007 5:19 PM


Re: model of morality?
iceage writes:
But there is absolutely nothing internally or externally to recommend the bible (especially the OT) as the word of god or inspired!
riverrat writes:
Yes there is, there is the Holy Spirit
That was a great non-answer.
Specifically what properties, manifestations or evidences emanating from the Holy Spirit leads you to believe that this Spirit inspired, approves or validates the collection of writings that we know as the bible.
If this is too off topic I would be happy to create a new thread if you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 5:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2007 9:44 AM iceage has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 153 of 174 (381226)
01-30-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
01-29-2007 6:18 PM


Re: model of morality?
There is nothing contradictory about it.
1. We do not know what God perceives.
2. We know what we perceive.
3. Therefore, we can only use what we perceive to determine "bad" and "good".
4. If God is good, then things that we perceive as bad can not be His choice.
You might not agree with #4, but it isn't self-contradictory.
#4 is in direct contradiction with #1
No you're not. You're basing your entire argument on God making the "right choice".
Just the possibility of it, stop mis-quoting me.
Your entire argument is based on the "God works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
It is not a cop-out, it is a very real truth. I explained it in several ways.
Once again, we can only go by our own perception.
That is exactly what I am doing. I have explained that several times also.
Why do you expect less of God?
I don't know God that well, to expect more or less. I do my best to not put "God in a box". I only really know what God has done in my life, and life in general, and then compare it to the stories in the bible, and I can see clearly the distinct possibility that God did in fact choose David.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 6:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 01-30-2007 11:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 154 of 174 (381227)
01-30-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by iceage
01-29-2007 11:59 PM


Re: model of morality?
Specifically what properties, manifestations or evidences emanating from the Holy Spirit leads you to believe that this Spirit inspired, approves or validates the collection of writings that we know as the bible.
Because after my first encounter with the Holy Spirit I went from maybe understanding 20% of the bible, to understanding 80% of it.
Now I am the person that I used to make fun of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by iceage, posted 01-29-2007 11:59 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by iceage, posted 01-31-2007 9:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

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


Message 155 of 174 (381245)
01-30-2007 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by riVeRraT
01-30-2007 9:42 AM


Possible but not Probable
riVrRraT writes:
1. We do not know what God perceives.
4. If God is good, then things that we perceive as bad can not be His choice.
#4 is in direct contradiction with #1
How can what we perceive contradict something we don't know?
You're basing your entire argument on God making the "right choice".
Just the possibility of it....
I have said right from the beginning that David probably wasn't God's choice. You have been arguing against that.
If you're switching from probability to "possibility", you're moving the goalposts.
Your entire argument is based on the "God works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
It is not a cop-out, it is a very real truth. I explained it in several ways.
But you can't "explain" it because you can only speculate on what God's motivations might be. That's why it's a cop-out - any old "explantion" will do because it might be true.
... I can see clearly the distinct possibility that God did in fact choose David.
Once again, I have never denied the possibility that God chose David. I have said that, based on human reasoning, He probably didn't.
Do you understand the difference between probability and possibility?
Do you know what it means to move the goalposts?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2007 9:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2007 9:31 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 156 of 174 (381487)
01-31-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by ringo
01-30-2007 11:10 AM


Re: Possible but not Probable
riVrRraT writes:
1. We do not know what God perceives.
4. If God is good, then things that we perceive as bad can not be His choice.
#4 is in direct contradiction with #1
How can what we perceive contradict something we don't know?
It is not what we perceive that is in contradiction, it is you claiming what can not be God's choice. You cannot know God's choice, if you cannot know what God perceives.
Is God good, yes or no?
If you're switching from probability to "possibility", you're moving the goalposts.
I have done no such thing. in [msg-113] I explain that it is possible. Just like your scenerio is possible. But for me, I am taking a leap of faith and just believing the story happened, and try to learn from what I perceive as the morals.
But you can't "explain" it because you can only speculate on what God's motivations might be.
I am not speculating. I have pointed out in several ways that God always done things to us in llife that we perceive as bad, yet they turn out good.
I am claiming that we cannot know what God perceives as good or bad, and that we do not understnad His ways, so therefor it is a possibility that God could have chosen David, and to think that He didn't because David was a "bad choice"(according to our perception) would be a mistake IMO. Your trying to let God off the hook or something, and I don't think God needs that. The only way we can let God off the hook is by loving others.
I look around at life, my own and others, and I see stories like David happening all the time. That leads me to think that it is entirely possible that God could have chosen David. It has nothing to do with what "might be true".
Do you know what it means to move the goalposts?
Yes, and I haven't done that, only been mis-understood. You can retract that statement now.
This whole thread was about David being Guilty, which I agreed to. Then someone tried to blame God, because God choose David, which I disagreed too. Then you came in and said God didn't choose David, trying to let God off the hook.
Tell me, since you think it is possible that God did choose David, would it then be God's fault for all the calmity?
Also if you were giving a sermon on this story, what would be your moral of the story?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 01-30-2007 11:10 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 01-31-2007 4:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 157 of 174 (381490)
01-31-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
01-30-2007 9:44 AM


Re: model of morality?
iceage writes:
Specifically what properties, manifestations or evidences emanating from the Holy Spirit leads you to believe that this Spirit inspired, approves or validates the collection of writings that we know as the bible.
RiverRat writes:
Because after my first encounter with the Holy Spirit I went from maybe understanding 20% of the bible, to understanding 80% of it.
I have a simple empirical method that disproves your assertion that the Holy Spirit elucidates the bible.
If what you say is true one would expect to find a certain consistency within the Christian religious faith.
If there is a single reliable timeless entity that facilitates the understanding of the incoherent collection of writings we call the bible, you would see a coherence in religious views.
This is demonstratively not true!!!!
Christianity is fractious as any other ancient religion with branches and trigs and yet smaller trigs. Interestingly this variety of religious creeds and beliefs are reminiscent of animal taxonomy.
.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2007 9:44 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2007 1:57 PM iceage has replied

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


Message 158 of 174 (381530)
01-31-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by riVeRraT
01-31-2007 9:31 AM


Re: Possible but not Probable
riVeRraT writes:
It is not what we perceive that is in contradiction, it is you claiming what can not be God's choice.
One more time, I have not said anything about "what can not be God's choice".
If you're switching from probability to "possibility", you're moving the goalposts.
I have done no such thing.
I have only talked about "probabilities" I have never denied "possibilities". Do you or don't you understand the difference?
You are either changing your position (moving goalpoats) or you are misrepresenting my position (strawman).
... if you were giving a sermon on this story, what would be your moral of the story?
One moral would be that we are all responsible for our own actions. We should not claim that something was God's choice when it was our own. We should not use the "God's ways are not our ways" cop-out.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2007 9:31 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2007 2:02 PM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 159 of 174 (381651)
02-01-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by iceage
01-31-2007 9:42 AM


Re: model of morality?
I have a simple empirical method that disproves your assertion that the Holy Spirit elucidates the bible.
If what you say is true one would expect to find a certain consistency within the Christian religious faith.
If there is a single reliable timeless entity that facilitates the understanding of the incoherent collection of writings we call the bible, you would see a coherence in religious views.
This is demonstratively not true!!!!
Christianity is fractious as any other ancient religion with branches and trigs and yet smaller trigs. Interestingly this variety of religious creeds and beliefs are reminiscent of animal taxonomy.
Your empirical method is highly flawed. There is no possible way to conduct a controlled experiment on the Holy Spirit. At best it will only be subjective.
How we interpret the Holy Spirit is up to us, and who we are, were we are at with God. All of us are babies in the Lord, and as God brings us up levels, more things are reveled to us, so we can see our mistakes. Being Spirit filled does not make you perfect.
I have seen several times were a room full of people will all feel the same thing from the Holy Spirit. I have had this conversation out with schrafinator, and she refuses to believe this is impossible.
The Spirit may be telling us all the same thing, but how we interpret it can be entirely different. The only way you can prove it to yourself, is when the Spirit decides to be with you, then you'll know in an instant.
Even after experiencing the Spirit, we still struggle with our own sinful bodies. Paul explains this in great detail in the bible. All of what was written about it, was made very clear to me, the seconds after experiencing the Spirit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by iceage, posted 01-31-2007 9:42 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by iceage, posted 02-02-2007 8:27 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 160 of 174 (381652)
02-01-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ringo
01-31-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Possible but not Probable
One more time, I have not said anything about "what can not be God's choice".
You wrote:
If God is good, then things that we perceive as bad can not be His choice.
I guess I am not getting your point, kindly express it differently.
You are either changing your position (moving goalpoats) or you are misrepresenting my position (strawman).
I have done neither, we are just discussing the topic, and examining all the possibilities. I don't expect there to be a clear answer.
And you still didn't answer my other question: Tell me, since you think it is possible that God did choose David, would it then be God's fault for all the calmity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 01-31-2007 4:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 02-01-2007 2:53 PM riVeRraT has replied

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


Message 161 of 174 (381662)
02-01-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by riVeRraT
02-01-2007 2:02 PM


Re: Possible but not Probable
riVeRraT writes:
You wrote:
If God is good, then things that we perceive as bad can not be His choice.
I guess I am not getting your point, kindly express it differently.
Okay, I could have worded that better:
If God is good, then we can not logically conclude that things we perceive as bad are His choice.
"Good" and "bad" are strictly a matter of our perception. We have no way of knowing what God perceives as "good" or "bad". So, when we perceive something as "bad" - e.g. David's adultery and murder - we can only conclude that it would have been "bad" to choose him as king. What God's intentions "might have been" are irrelevant.
If we are assuming that God is "good" (and remember that that can only be by our perception, not His), we can only conclude that He didn't make a "bad" choice - i.e. David was not His choice.
And you still didn't answer my other question: Tell me, since you think it is possible that God did choose David, would it then be God's fault for all the calmity?
I have answered that question. Yes, if God chooses somebody who does "bad" things, then God is responsible for those "bad" things. (Remember once again, that "bad" can only be defined by our perception, not God's.)
I gave the example of Goober W. Bush. If the American voters choose a president who starts a war, then yes, they are responsible for the war. If it was a "bad" choice, they are responsible for fixing the damage.
On the other hand, the Iraqi people are less responsible because they didn't choose Saddam Hussein.
By the way, do you think God chose Saddam and Dubya too? Isn't that a bit like choosing to put a fire out with gasoline?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2007 2:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 02-02-2007 9:42 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 162 of 174 (381849)
02-02-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by ringo
02-01-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Possible but not Probable
"Good" and "bad" are strictly a matter of our perception. We have no way of knowing what God perceives as "good" or "bad". So, when we perceive something as "bad" - e.g. David's adultery and murder - we can only conclude that it would have been "bad" to choose him as king. What God's intentions "might have been" are irrelevant.
But this is what I've been trying to express to you all along, that line of thinking is wrong. If God created everything, including "bad" and God is good, then bad is good to God.
There are many stories in the bible where God does to us, what we perceive as bad, but the bible still tells us that God is a good God.
So it is plain to see that things that we see as bad, are good to God.
So you can't use the good-bad idea as a reason to think that God didn't choose David.
If we are assuming that God is "good" (and remember that that can only be by our perception, not His), we can only conclude that He didn't make a "bad" choice - i.e. David was not His choice.
We assume God is good, because the bible tells us so. If there was no bible, I would be hard pressed to even think that God was all good.
By the way, do you think God chose Saddam and Dubya too? Isn't that a bit like choosing to put a fire out with gasoline?
He didn't choose them, but He allowed them to be there, and knew before time began that they would be there. So just like all positions in the world, they are there by God's doing. Is God still responsible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 02-01-2007 2:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 11:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

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


Message 163 of 174 (381893)
02-02-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by riVeRraT
02-02-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Possible but not Probable
riVeRraT writes:
If God created everything, including "bad" and God is good, then bad is good to God.
That doesn't follow. There can be good and bad cosequences to our choices and God allows us to make those choices. That doesn't mean that "bad is good" to Him. It just means He allows bad things to happen.
(Once again, it's the difference between God "allowing" things to happen and God "choosing" what happens.)
There are many stories in the bible where God does to us, what we perceive as bad, but the bible still tells us that God is a good God.
And that's why we shouldn't take those stories literally.
So it is plain to see that things that we see as bad, are good to God.
Not at all. It's plain to see that the stories written by man are not an accurate depiction of God.
If there was no bible, I would be hard pressed to even think that God was all good.
What if you read the Bible intelligently instead of literally? What if you told yourself, "God is good, so He wouldn't have chosen an a**hole like David. David probably just wanted the crown for himself like so many other human kings."
It's so much easier to conclude that God is good if you use good logic.
...do you think God chose Saddam and Dubya too?
He didn't choose them, but He allowed them to be there, and knew before time began that they would be there.
Then what's the difference with David?
So just like all positions in the world, they are there by God's doing.
Not by His "doing", by His "allowing".
It's the difference between actively electing an a**hole and passively allowing an a**hole to stay in power. The Iraqis passively allowed Saddam to remain in office because they decided it wasn't as bad as rising up in armed rebellion to actively remove him.
Similarly, a good God would be more likely to passively allow David to be king than to actively choose him to be king.
Is God still responsible?
Yes. Yes. Yes. As many times as you ask that question, I'll give you the same answer.
God is responsible for what He actively does. He is "less responsible" for what He passively allows us to do.
By reading the Bible too literally, you are putting more blame on God than He deserves and putting less blame on David than he deserves.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 02-02-2007 9:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by riVeRraT, posted 02-02-2007 7:49 PM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 164 of 174 (381996)
02-02-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by ringo
02-02-2007 11:20 AM


Re: Possible but not Probable
That doesn't follow. There can be good and bad cosequences to our choices and God allows us to make those choices. That doesn't mean that "bad is good" to Him. It just means He allows bad things to happen.
If I allowed someone to crash off a draw bridge, when I could have saved them, doesn't that make me partly responsible?
Plus, do you call flooding the earth and destroying everything good?
I'm not going to go dig up every instance of God appearing to what most would consider bad (i.e. letting his own son get slain), but it is safe to say after reading the bible, God's idea of good, and ours are very different.
And that's why we shouldn't take those stories literally.
To hell with the whole Jesus thing then.
He wasn't the son either.
Not at all. It's plain to see that the stories written by man are not an accurate depiction of God.
So basically the bible is useless, as is this conversation.
What if you read the Bible intelligently instead of literally?
What if you read it filled with Holy Spirit?
What if you told yourself, "God is good, so He wouldn't have chosen an a**hole like David. David probably just wanted the crown for himself like so many other human kings."
If I told myself that, then I would not be able to accept much of the bible then. I would find no power in the words within. They would just be all BS stories, and then maybe I would have to call myself Brian or something. (don't get upset Brian, it's a joke).
But still the possibility remains for me, but only because of Jesus. I know Jesus didn't come to change the law and only fulfill it (whatever that means to you) but to me, I can see how fed up Jesus was with peoples ways. It's almost as if He didn't want to tell them how screwd up they really were, because if He did, then they would have killed Him much sooner, and His work would not have been done. But thats only one theory.
It's so much easier to conclude that God is good if you use good logic.
Logic tells me that God created everything. I find life not that easy, generally speaking, even though I am very blessed, and way more difficult for many people in the world. How can such a good God create such a horrible place (at times) to live in? Surely I do not understand His goodness then. You don't understand ringo, I constantly search to understand God's goodness. Much of it was explained to me through the Holy Spirit, and mear words cannot express it to you. I would just reiterating what the whole New Testament tries to teach you. But I have come to a place in faith walk, that I can start to see things that we perceive as bad, being good things from God. But I still have much to learn.
Then what's the difference with David?
David clearly had a heart for God, even though he screwd up.
Even God's closest angel screwd up.
He is "less responsible" for what He passively allows us to do.
I guess so. But many in here will not agree with that.
There is two other ways of looking it. God is not responsible for anything we do, and we should always just be gracious to be living.
Or God is responsible for everything since it all came from Him.
By reading the Bible too literally, you are putting more blame on God than He deserves and putting less blame on David than he deserves.
I don't see it that way.
David deserves all the blame,
And God did something that I don't quite understand, but I can see how what took place became a lesson for millions after. There is always some good that comes out of the bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 11:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 02-03-2007 12:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 165 of 174 (382003)
02-02-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by riVeRraT
02-01-2007 1:57 PM


Re: model of morality?
riverrat writes:
Your empirical method is highly flawed. There is no possible way to conduct a controlled experiment on the Holy Spirit. At best it will only be subjective.
It it not subjective. Consider the large number of sects and denominations with widely different views of Christianity. Most or all will claim connectivity to the Holy Spirit but believe different things. There is no consistency.
I am not talking about slight difference but mutually exclusive doctrinal differences. For example:
The "God Hates Fags" church (Westboro Baptist Church) claim the Holy Spirit guides them in their despicable beliefs. The United Church of Christ feel they are in step with Holy Spirit with a opening and affirming view.
The Mormons feel they are in tune to the Holy Spirit as are the Jehovah witness's.
The Christian Identity sect state in their doctrinal statement:
quote:
WE BELIEVE in the personally revealed being of God the Holy Spirit, the Comforter...
and
WE BELIEVE the White, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and kindred people to be God's true, literal Children of Israel
So when you say...
RiverRat writes:
How we interpret the Holy Spirit is up to us, and who we are, were we are at with God.
You are not kidding.
RiverRat writes:
I have seen several times were a room full of people will all feel the same thing from the Holy Spirit.
And what is your conclusion when you everybody feels moved by the Spirit but disagree on the revelation?
BTW when like minded people get together often they will "feel the same thing". Not much to hang your hat on there.
Remember the point of this discussion was the the Holy Spirit is the reason to believe the bible with its inconsistent and conflicting message is really god breathed. You have not done that with your weak and subjective "proof"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2007 1:57 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 02-04-2007 7:58 AM iceage 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