Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 76 of 531 (514566)
07-08-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by onifre
07-08-2009 10:20 PM


Re: origin
Thanks for the exchange onifre ...
Hope things are well with you ...
It's possible that a form of these types of commandments were normal in all cultures. If that's so, then I'm with Stile when he writes:
"The only reason for demanding obedience to an authority figure "just 'cause you should" is for abusive-manipulative purposes.
If it's for any sort of morally good reasons, then making it a "commandment" isn't necessary and actually undermines any deserved respect."
I would have to agree. If the laws of a culture do not offer providence within even the community that they have been established in, such a tradition seems useless indeed. In another thread, around here somewhere, I attempted to mention something of that nature to jaywill in a round about way ...
quote:
... there is the sense that this is accomplished by one shifting the focus of their religious attention from the community as the primary beneficiary of the Father's justice in this life, who may be rewarded with shalom, peace and prosperity, to the individual, who will receive his or her just reward in an afterlife.
When there is too much worried about tomorrow, it seems today will always wind up neglected.
Laws and customs do well when applied to the needs of the community.
Not so much when applied to a fairytale or a Monarchy.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 07-08-2009 10:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 07-09-2009 12:26 AM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 77 of 531 (514567)
07-08-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 10:45 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Thanks for the time Phage.
Hope all is well ...
Assuming what they taught isn't true (and I do), their teacher was either intentionally deceptive or ignorant of the truth.
lol - I really don't like to disappoint at all, but I'm with you on that one !!
However, the same could be stated regarding most of what's learned.
Scientific facts are overturned as often as theological doctrines are.
It seems nobody may know their ass from a hole in the ground.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 10:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 11:26 PM Bailey has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 531 (514569)
07-08-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Bailey
07-08-2009 11:16 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Bailey writes:
Scientific facts are overturned as often as theological doctrines are.
They are overturned much, much more often. That is science's benefit, the search for the truth rather than the continuation of false doctrine. Ignorance is something to work to reduce not perpetuate. (elimination isn't practical) As a result of overturning and replacing scientific ignorance and errors it has become a much more accurate representation of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 11:16 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 11:41 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 79 of 531 (514573)
07-08-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 11:26 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Thanks for the time Phage ...
Hope things are good for you.
[Scientific facts] are overturned much, much more often [than theological doctrine].
I agree, which brings us back to what I said in Message 77 ...
quote:
It seems nobody may know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Any time you hear somebody say, 'And that's a fact, jack!', you may have found a con - lol
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 11:26 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 531 (514577)
07-09-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bailey
07-08-2009 11:03 PM


Re: origin
Hope things are well with you ...
Fuckkkkk...we were just asked to exit the plane after waiting for an hour to board and 45 minutes on the tarmac! Ughhhhhh
Sorry, i had to vent. But you did ask.
I would have to agree. If the laws of a culture do not offer providence within even the community that they have been established in, such a tradition seems useless indeed.
Could you elaborate more on that?
What do you mean by "don't offer providence," in what way?
I thought it did, it just ends up being abusive and manipulative.
... there is the sense that this is accomplished by one shifting the focus of their religious attention from the community as the primary beneficiary of the Father's justice in this life, who may be rewarded with shalom, peace and prosperity, to the individual, who will receive his or her just reward in an afterlife.
Well this shift requires an apriori belief in the afterlife. When judging the commandment with a critical eye, that of an atheist's, to the specific religion, it's clear, at least to me, that the benefitiaries are both the individual and the community in this life -(But I don't mean the individual in an afterlife, I reject that concept).
In fact, I would say it's a collection of the individual's opinions that make up the majority opinion of the community, so both affect the laws and how they are interpreted. Since their interpretated version is what gets accepted by the followers as fact.
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bailey, posted 07-08-2009 11:03 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Bailey, posted 07-09-2009 7:59 PM onifre has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 81 of 531 (514598)
07-09-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by onifre
07-08-2009 10:20 PM


Re: origin
It's possible that a form of these types of commandments were normal in all cultures.
Indeed they were, and they had the utility of keeping the various tribes ongoing vital entities.
Now I'm hearing that over the millennia lots of professed believers are abusing these commandments for their own personal satisfaction far in excess of their originally intended purpose.
My response: What does one expect from a 3+ millennia old entrenched power structure?
To me the whole edifice of institutionalized religious superstition has outlived its usefulness. But way back then it did perform a vital function.
I agree with both you and Stile. Just a little historical perspective on the original intent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 07-08-2009 10:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 07-09-2009 4:20 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 82 of 531 (514611)
07-09-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rahvin
07-08-2009 3:08 PM


Irrational hope
Rahvin writes:
What can possibly be done about such a dilemma? What law could society set up to prevent it, and truly protect the right to believe as one's conscience dictates when social/familial banishment and childhood indoctrination prevent such an honest choice?
Yes, I am at a loss.
My purpose wasn't to provide an answer, only to point out that "banning religion" doesn't help. It will only shift the corruption/manipulation into some other arena. The only way to battle mental-anguish-causing corruption/manipulation is to deal with it head-on, not sideways (which is what "banning religion because it can invlove such things" does).
But, there is some small hope.
Have you been to a public grade-school lately? Particularly one that has a "no-bullying" policy in effect?
Personally, when I first heard of such a thing, I found the idea laughable, impossible to implement/control and all-around pretty useless. But I've had a glimpse of some of the early results. School is not the same as how I remember it. Kids (any and all) are seriously punished (even suspensions) for "bullying." Kids are learning that social pressures are "bad."
Maybe it really won't change anything, maybe it'll be a small step in the right direction. But I for one am very interested in seeing the resulting society from a group of young'uns who know (through learning and empathy or enforced negative feedback if it came to that... either way still gets the job done) that corersion through social pressuring is a no-no.
So, my answer?
Concretely, I've got nothing.
Hopefully (perhaps even irrationally... ) I'm interested in seeing how future society turns out in another 15-20 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2009 3:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 83 of 531 (514628)
07-09-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by AZPaul3
07-09-2009 11:45 AM


Re: origin
Now I'm hearing that over the millennia lots of professed believers are abusing these commandments for their own personal satisfaction far in excess of their originally intended purpose.
That depends. I believe their "originally intended purpose" was for personal satisfation.
Who ever introduces a set of commandments is doing so for personal satisfaction. Whether that personal satisfaction is a good thing for people, or a bad thing for people, is another thing.
Anytime there is a ruling body, judging how laws or commandments are followed, there is always going to be abuse, IMO.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 07-09-2009 11:45 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 84 of 531 (514641)
07-09-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by onifre
07-09-2009 12:26 AM


Re: origin
Thanks for the exchange oni ...
Didjoo board that plane yet??
oni writes:
weary writes:
Hope things are well with you ...
Fuckkkkk ... Sorry, i had to vent. But you did ask.
I'm there for ya ol' bud ... but I can't lend any money now and my pick up's in the shop, so don't ask.
lol - just kiddin' ... about the money, anyway.
oni writes:
weary writes:
I would have to agree. If the laws of a culture do not offer providence within even the community that they have been established in, such a tradition seems useless indeed.
Could you elaborate more on that?
What do you mean by "don't offer providence," in what way?
Good question.
Although the technical definition may allow for degrees of subjectivity, I would say that providence for cultural laws implies a certain foresight regarding the preparation of care, direction and guardianship of a communities vested interest within that specific culture. The vested interest, I may say, would be the overall well being of the community itself. An example of a lack of providence within the laws of a tradition may be the lack of foresight on behalf of various theologians, as I'll briefly mention below, who have perhaps carelessly directed the concerns of an individual before that of the community.
What we wind up with, it seems, is a tribe of chiefs protecting only each other, who can agree on very little and no injuns to give a shit either way ...
I thought they did, it just ends up being abused and manipulative.
Imho, if abuse and manipulation have found their way into laws or traditions, providence may yet to have truly entered into their initial equation.
A lil' grandiose ... probably.
oni writes:
weary writes:
... there is the sense that this is accomplished by one shifting the focus of their religious attention from the community as the primary beneficiary of the Father's justice in this life, who may be rewarded with shalom, peace and prosperity, to the individual, who will receive his or her just reward in the afterlife.
Well this shift requires an apriori belief in the afterlife.
I'm feel ya ... now, I'm not trying to split hairs with anyone in this instance and the issue I have applies more freely to religious types who do wield an 'afterlife' (whatever that is supposed to mean). I try not to quote mine too frequently, as statements can often become taken out of their original context.
It seems the whole conceptualization of 'after', within this context, is essentially unfounded by all technicality. This trend appears to be produced by nullifying vasts swaths of scripture texts and allowing for the formation of fairytales accordingly; something theologians, and others, actually appear fairly decent at. The Roman scripture text collection that I often draw from describes a 'continuous life', as opposed to a 'next' life that is after something else.
So we are on the level, I'm going to insert the quote I made earlier to jaywill, in its entirety, from Re: broods o' vipers & venomous serpents (Message 215 of thread If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible in forum Bible Study) ...
quote:
Uncle Paul's semi-narcissistic, while mildly apocalyptic, views may appear to salvage a Prophetic belief in the Father's power and justice, yet, there is the sense that this is accomplished by one shifting the focus of their religious attention from the community as the primary beneficiary of the Father's justice in this life, who may be rewarded with shalom, peace and prosperity, to the individual, who will receive his or her just reward in an afterlife. That does not seem to be a tradition that everyone can identify with and I, for one, am often unable to find practicality in Pauline dogmas and theology.
Another issue may be that any belief in an 'afterlife' must, first, require a priori belief in the final culmination of one's Life. Now, that doesn't seem like a problem for many traditions, yet the practitioners of 'christianity' are, by the standard of the tradition, supposed to be 're-born' or, as they say, 'born-again'. The thing is, supposing such faith becomes established, within many traditions, this 'death' is supposed to occur while the practitioner is still alive, and so, the definitions of death and dying should, by all rights, become heterodox to the secular understanding of the terms.
Subsequently, this 'after-whatever' should take on a fairly meaningless connotation altogether. Yet, in practice, many within the variant sects of christianity nullify the scriptural teaching of Continuous Life, opting for the more popular 'death', and then 'afterlife', which take root within a secular understanding or other various traditions, and so, they behave according to that mix. In the booklet named after Matisyahu, there is a depiction of Yeshua stating ...
'Pursue the Kingdom of the Father and righteousness above all else, and all [other] things will be given to you as well.'
The Kingdom of the Father is the one we are living in, scripturally speaking, and so, many traditions continue to nullify the Prophets' words by basing their decisions in this life in regards to a miniscule chance that they may wind up, far, far away from all of us filthy heathens, in some arbitrary ghost heaven where aesthetic stoic celibates must sit around and judge each other all day long, seeing as they have been cut off from the land of the living apparently.
lol - I'll stop here with that ... sorry bro (frustration rears it's phugly head).
My underlying point to jaywill was that the force of each individual's actions directly impact the community at large; and not always in a beneficial way.
When judging the commandment with a critical eye, that of an athiest's, to the specific religion, it's clear, at least to me, that the benefitiaries are both the individual and the community in this life ...
Certain traditions do not seem at all focused, much less concerned, with what laws they may uphold in order to benefit any communities within this life.
While both the individual and the community may, or may not, benefit from a certain standard, it seems, ultimately, that the responsibilities which each individual chooses to perform, or otherwise, will summate any benefit towards the community. Perhaps it is even the motivating impulse behind an individual's opinion that determine the actions they may perform, which will ultimately effect the community either positively or negatively.
This is why I feel that the motivating impulse behind each individual's individual decision[s] should be grounded in what is best for the community, as opposed to the individual themselves. Of course, many people could care less about their community, providing their individual needs are primarily addressed. This dynamic can obviously apply quite easily to those who do not practice traditional religious belief systems, as well.
(But I don't mean the individual in an afterlife, I reject that concept)
Although our understanding seems to differ, that makes two of us ...
Well, there are more than two of us, but that's a given - lol
In fact, I would say it's a collection of the individual's opinions that make up the majority opinion of the community, so both affect the laws and how they are interpreted. Since their interpretated version is what gets accepted by the followers as fact.
While I would quickly agree that the opinion of a community, as well as the individuals' opinions, play an interpretative role, there is the obvious sense that opinions place second to determinations. Imho, the laws and standards of a given community or culture may do well to address a certain providence, or foresight, before subsequent determinations are made from the various opinions associated with subjective interpretation.
Although some of the post is, perhaps, not completely on topic, thanks for the excange nonetheless. Your posts are often a breath of fresh air.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 07-09-2009 12:26 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 7:27 PM Bailey has not replied

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


Message 85 of 531 (514649)
07-10-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stile
07-08-2009 2:21 PM


Irrational Yet Hopeful
Phage0070 writes:
I am not proposing a banning of religion, merely suggesting that it is poor behavior to perpetuate it and those duped deserve to be enlightened.
What about the simple belief that God exists? Is this so wrong to say? (Nobody can prove He doesn't, anyway)
Lets take a hypothetical example of a Star Wars fanatic. They have seen every movie hundreds of times frame by frame. They have adopted the philosophy behind it all. They even have action figures of all the characters!! Harmless so far, right? But what if those close to this person commented that he actually believed in The Force. Although unprovable, beyond martial art demonstrations of Ki and/or Chi, The Force is the central reason why this person has optimism for the future. Is it wrong?
Same thing with the Holy Spirit. Nobody can prove that this Spirit exists, but then again, does it really matter?
Rahvin writes:
I honestly don't see an equitable way to allow people to believe as their conscience dictates while protecting children from brainwashing and indoctrination long before they're old enough to make their own decisions. The best I can offer is mandatory critical thinking skills education in public school, with strong encouragement to examine everything that one believes to be true (with no emphasis on religious beliefs vs anything else the children may believe to be true).
I agree that the key to global enlightenment begins with education. IF God exists, God exists despite any attempts to prove otherwise, and IF God does not exist He just plain does not exist period...regardless what people think or say.
People have an innate right to believe however they so choose as long as it does not harm others, and as for our children, they will pick up the beliefs of their parents. I believe that indoctrinating a child with atheism can be as potentially harmful as indoctrinating them with religion, but that's just me.
Stile writes:
Knowing that nobody knows what happens when we die, yet irrationally believing that Jesus Christ will be there and everyone will be happy and peaceful in the afterlife is an irrational hopefulness of religion.
As long as I agree that my belief is irrational, I see no damage in my logic. Hope is hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Brian, posted 07-10-2009 7:55 AM Phat has replied
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 10:51 AM Phat has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 86 of 531 (514654)
07-10-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Phat
07-10-2009 3:04 AM


illogical captain!
As long as I agree that my belief is irrational, I see no damage in my logic.
Wouldn't it be logical to reject something that is illogical?
Hope is hope.
What you hoping for Phat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 3:04 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:16 AM Brian has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 87 of 531 (514660)
07-10-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Phat
07-10-2009 3:04 AM


Re: Irrational Yet Hopeful
What about the simple belief that God exists? Is this so wrong to say? (Nobody can prove He doesn't, anyway)
But where did this belief come from? Someone told that person that it was true. That person, unless they went out of their way to admit they had no proof and just believed because it made them feel good (very few to none of the faithful I know were taught in this way), were either lying or had been duped by someone further back.
I agree that the key to global enlightenment begins with education.
This is true. I couldn't agree with you more. People should be educated about what science has shown, should be exposed to as many religions as is feasible, and at a suitable age, the chiuld should be allowed to make up his or her own mind as far as religion goes. It will never work that way though, and that's sad.
People have an innate right to believe however they so choose as long as it does not harm others, and as for our children, they will pick up the beliefs of their parents.
This is only true as long as the parent is indoctrinating their child. If the parent is up front and honest and says, this is what I believe, this is why, but here are opposing views, the child will have a much better time of it.
I believe that indoctrinating a child with atheism can be as potentially harmful as indoctrinating them with religion, but that's just me.
This is true. Indoctrination, no matter who it comes from is wrong. But, I would be interested in what you consider to be indoctrinating a child with atheism. Is teaching them that the earth is 4.5 billion years old indoctrinating atheism or just teaching science?
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
Edited by Perdition, : Wow, dB coding is hard...err something...yeah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 3:04 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 88 of 531 (514661)
07-10-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Brian
07-10-2009 7:55 AM


The Real McCoy Could Actualize
AZPaul3 writes:
To me the whole edifice of institutionalized religious superstition has outlived its usefulness. But way back then it did perform a vital function.
Websters writes:
superstition n 1 : beliefs or practices resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or trust in magic or chance 2 : an unreasoning fear of nature, the unknown, or God resulting from superstition superstitious adj
On one level, belief in God (yeah I know...whichGod? ) is illogical, but certainly not bordering on delusion. Fear of the unknown appears normal, but IF God existed,would anyone fear Him or would they steadfastly insist that God was an unwelcome figment of their imagination?
My point is that it is reasonable to fear God if one considers that He may exist, since by definition such a Deity would be beyond our ability to control, manipulate or define.
Brian writes:
Wouldn't it be logical to reject something that is illogical?
Good point. Normally, yes. It would stand to reason that the majority of believers want and/or need for God to exist while a majority of unbelievers, that is, those who even give it a second thought, probably would just as soon that God did not exist..and are comforted that logic and reason seem to support the idea of no God. But let me ask you a question, Brian. If you were some day confronted with some solid evidence that God existed, and by this I dont mean the God that humans mapped out in the Bible but the actual McCoy...what would you do? Pinch yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Brian, posted 07-10-2009 7:55 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:19 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 90 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 11:20 AM Phat has replied
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 07-10-2009 12:15 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 89 of 531 (514662)
07-10-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Phat
07-10-2009 11:16 AM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
quote:
if you were some day confronted with some solid evidence that God existed, and by this I dont mean the God that humans mapped out in the Bible but the actual McCoy...what would you do? Pinch yourself?
Perhaps you would hear him say "Damnit, Jim! I'm a Doctor..not a Deity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:16 AM Phat has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 90 of 531 (514663)
07-10-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Phat
07-10-2009 11:16 AM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
a majority of unbelievers, that is, those who even give it a second thought, probably would just as soon that God did not exist..and are comforted that logic and reason seem to support the idea of no God.
I can't speak for Brian, but I would love it if there were a God. Someone who was watching over us and who could give us an afterlife, a way for us not to just stop. Death scares the hell out of me.
All that being said, I'm not going to believe it because I want it. I want there to be elves and fairies and a million dollars in my bank account, too, but I won't believe in them until I see some sort of evidence for their existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:16 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:35 AM Perdition 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