Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
24 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,078 Year: 22,114/19,786 Month: 677/1,834 Week: 177/500 Day: 5/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sin
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 31 of 185 (515090)
07-15-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Perdition
07-15-2009 11:31 AM


Re: What is sin?
Straggler writes:

Would this not require that whoever or whatever created the universe also created morality and the concept of sin as part of that universe? In which case are we not back to the arbitrary nature of sin as designed by some sort of universe creating god entity? I have no idea what mormonsim teaches about the origin of the universe (and thus sin) but if there is a creator involved I think we are necessarily back to arbitrary god-given laws again.

A potential loop-hole is if you assume God is not omnipotent. If he had to make compromises in order to make a stable, life-supporting universe, perhaps the existence of sin is a necessary trade-off. I know this is an unsatisfactory answer for people on both sides of the debate, but it is still a possibility.

Fair point. Exactly as gravity would not be an arbitrary god construct but instead a necessary feature of a stable universe as constructed by a limited and non-omnipotent being so, in this context, would sin be such a necessary and thus unchosen feature.

I don't know what the Mormon position is with regard to any of this this stuff. Whilst I could look it up I'll probably wait to let Bluejay explain in his own words as I usually find his posts clear, honest and well thought out whether I agree with him or not.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Perdition, posted 07-15-2009 11:31 AM Perdition has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 32 of 185 (515106)
07-15-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-13-2009 12:08 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi jay,

Bluejay writes:

So, am I right? What is sin?

Sin is an offence.

Disobedience to God's command was the offence that separated all mankind from fellowship with God.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Man was designed to have eternal fellowship with God and anything that keeps man from that fellowship is sin.(an offence to God)

They don't have to be bad things, they can be good things like trying to be good enough on your own to get into heaven.

Man can only be restored to fellowship with God through the new birth of being born again, born into God's family.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 07-13-2009 12:08 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 12:18 AM ICANT has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1038 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 33 of 185 (515129)
07-15-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
07-15-2009 9:24 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi Straggler.

Straggler writes:

Hi Bleujay

Look, I'm French!

-----

Straggler writes:

Bluejay writes:

To me, the only way to rationalize the concept of sin is to prove that it is actually a part of the function of the universe

Would this not require that whoever or whatever created the universe also created morality and the concept of sin as part of that universe? In which case are we not back to the arbitrary nature of sin as designed by some sort of universe creating god entity?

You know that I don't believe that God is omnipotent in the strictest sense. But, most other Mormons (who also do not believe in an omnipotent God, although most of them don’t actually realize this) view Creation as an orderly process that follows a system of preset guidelines. The obvious implication of permitting humans to achieve godhood is that there are many Gods, all of whom are Creating worlds and people. But, we only worship one God, and normal Mormons* wouldn’t even dare speculate about who or what preset the guidelines for Divine Creation in the first place.

Maybe it all began with a Big Bang, and, at T=1.0E-43 sec, the guidelines "just were," with no prior causation. If you ask a normal Mormon*, they will probably say, "We don't have the capacity to understand such things, and we apparently weren’t meant to spend our time and energy on it.”

*a "normal Mormon" = a not-Bluejay Mormon

-----

Straggler writes:

Well are the effects [of sin] empirically detectable in themselves?

Depends on who you ask. Some people think you can see a "glow" in the countenance of righteous people, and that there is a dark, dirty appearance to sinners, but, as for me, I only see a "load of crap" in the countenance of such mystically-minded people.

My personal experience suggests that guilt is the only thing that accompanies sin, and that is not always detectable even by trained psychologists.

The effects of sin are generally thought to be internal and subjective. Along the same lines as Perdition’s comments, if there were external, blatant consequences for sin, it might be too easy to pass the test.

Or, maybe we’re the control group in an experiment to test whether external, blatant consequences make it too easy to pass the test.

-----

Straggler writes:

I am not convinced that those who do believe in god would, or even should, feel the need to consider god wholly superfluous purely on the basis of it being shown that sin was a function of the natural universe.

I agree with you.

I tend to think of God as a recruiter (any other Mormons who read this will probably be squirming right about now). He’s looking to hire people to work in “Godhood Enterprises, Inc.,” and religion is His way of advertising the position for interested applicants. That’s why He doesn’t tell us all the details about heaven, about how the universe actually works (trade secrets, you know), and about the other things that might be going on in the next life for those who aren’t interested (plugging for a competitor is bad for business).

Maybe that’s a little lighthearted of me, but the analogy kind of fits, in my opinion. If my bishop ever finds out that I’m saying this kind of stuff, though, I might get asked in for a special interview.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 9:24 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 4:39 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 185 (515132)
07-15-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
07-15-2009 3:54 PM


Re: What is sin?
Straggler writes:

Hi Bleujay

Look, I'm French!

That made me chuckle. Well I have spent some time in Paris recently so maybe I have unconsciously gone all Gallic.

I must admit that I quite like this idea of an absolute morality that is an inherent and natural property of the universe. I don't really see how this could be the case and don't subscribe to the idea personally but I do quite like the notion.

If we assume that sin is a product of the natural universe how do we determine what the universe "deems" to be sinful and what is not? How do Mormons claim to know what is sinful?

Also how do we account for the fact that individual morality and notions of "sinfulness" seem to be very dependent on the prevailing culture in the time and place that one exists? As would be asked of any claim that an absolute morality of any sort exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 07-15-2009 3:54 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Michamus, posted 07-15-2009 11:17 PM Straggler has responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3694 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 35 of 185 (515151)
07-15-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Blue Jay
07-14-2009 2:32 PM


Re: What is sin?
Bluejay writes:

Hi, Hill Billy.


Right back atcha.
This brings back memories: I was but a forum infant when you were last here (remember the "Evolutionary Superiority" thread: what a blast!

I have a couple things in mind that may be even more fun.

It's good to see (read?) you back.

Yer likely the only one that feels this way..

You say:

I take it you see sin more as I do: as an impediment to progress, rather than systematic infractions to rigid guidelines?

Nope, In another post you wrote:

(a) things that are wrong because God says they are and (b) things that are wrong because they prevent you from achieving your goals

Thing is, you left out a third option
(c) things that are wrong cause they are wrong.
Them things are sins.


The years tell what the days never knew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Blue Jay, posted 07-14-2009 2:32 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 07-16-2009 12:11 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 07-16-2009 11:41 PM Hill Billy has responded

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3498 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 36 of 185 (515157)
07-15-2009 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 6:49 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi Phage,

Phage0070 writes:


So suffering in Hell for 1000 years because one refuses to accept Jesus as their Savior is purely metaphorical?

I was expecting someone ignorant of LDS Doctrine to include D&C 76 in the discussion.

"Why?", might you ask.

That is exactly what happens when you google search "mormon hell" in most search engines. So, most individuals immediately see the D & C passage and say: AH HAH!

They don't usually take the time to read this tidbit:

quote:

D&C 76:81
And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament

This passage obviously is referring to the place that verse 84 is also referring to.

What's silly is that most individuals see this statement of Hell, and immediately think of the horrifying place that most Christians speak of when mentioning the word Hell.

According to LDS Doctrine though, the Telestial kingdom is not such a bad place to be. In fact the following verse describes "the glory" of the telestial kingdom.

quote:

D&C 76:89
And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding

Doesn't quite fit the mold of what the mainstream version of hell is, now does it?

In fact, to be completely honest, nowhere in LDS Doctrine does such a place commonly described as hell (fire, brimstone, devastation) exist for those who have not knowingly volunteered for it. These individuals are known as Sons of Perdition.

They have been revealed a Knowledge of God's existence, and still knowingly rebel. Their suffering exists though in the knowledge that they are separated from God's presence by their own doing. They have no one else to blame.

-------------------------------

Phage0070 writes:


Slide that scale, slide it! God does not punish you, he just... withholds blessings.

You may think that you know what you are talking about, but you apparently don't.

The LDS faith is of the sentiment that Sin is really just the things that keep us from becoming the best we possibly can be. Sin is not something that God created, because sin predates God.

In LDS doctrine, God can even sin, but he doesn't, because he has reached the epitome of human achievement. He is exalted. Need I quote, "As man is, God once was"?

To put it even further, God is not even known to be all powerful in a complete sense of the word. We just know he is the controller of our universe, and we don't even know much about that other than the fact that even He has to follow rules. We can learn more about Him though if we continually strive for it.

This is why so many "Mormons" have a deep respect for knowledge. We believe God is really the greatest intelligence there is, and we want to be like that too, someday.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 6:49 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Phage0070, posted 07-15-2009 11:30 PM Michamus has responded
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 07-15-2009 11:55 PM Michamus has responded

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3498 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 37 of 185 (515160)
07-15-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
07-15-2009 4:39 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi Straggler,

I know you were writing to Bluejay in your post, but I kind of felt like replying as well.

Straggler writes:


If we assume that sin is a product of the natural universe how do we determine what the universe "deems" to be sinful and what is not? How do Mormons claim to know what is sinful?

I put these two questions together because they are pretty much the same.

The way sin can really be determined (or so we "Mormons" like to think) is by how the action affects our:
a) personal progression
b) development of community with others
b) ability to maintain control over ourselves
c) impact on the progression of others toward similar goals

Obviously if something is a detriment to these things, we usually view them as being a universally accepted "sin".

In my own personal experience I have found that individuals who do not maintain control over themselves (as best they can) usually cause the most problems in society.

This list isn't really all inclusive, as I am limited ATM, so please forgive any shortcomings on my part in the provision of details.

Straggler writes:


Also how do we account for the fact that individual morality and notions of "sinfulness" seem to be very dependent on the prevailing culture in the time and place that one exists?


I don't think you are really going to find a "Mormon" who actually knows what this objective morality is, as know one here really knows what it is. We believe we understand parts and pieces, but we don't really KNOW.

This is an interesting statement though, and must be taken into account if an objective morality exists.

The fact of the matter is though, that we humans are still bound by our subjectivity. Objective morality can exist, whilst people still exercise subjective reasoning.

To put it another way, the "Objective Morality" of the Universe is essentially what the most effective means of achieving healthy human growth and satisfaction is. The trick is working together as a team to achieve that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 4:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 07-16-2009 5:48 AM Michamus has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 185 (515161)
07-15-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Michamus
07-15-2009 10:56 PM


Re: What is sin?
Michamus writes:

This passage obviously is referring to the place that verse 84 is also referring to.

In fact, to be completely honest, nowhere in LDS Doctrine does such a place commonly described as hell (fire, brimstone, devastation) exist for those who have not knowingly volunteered for it.


I was under the impression that the general consensus was that verse referred to somewhere other than the Telestial Kingdom. This is because:

quote:
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work

Hey, it has fire! Brimstone and devastation are not specifically mentioned, so you got me there. If you are correct, then apparently those in the Telestial Kingdom burn for eternity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Michamus, posted 07-15-2009 10:56 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 07-16-2009 12:11 AM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 67 by Michamus, posted 07-17-2009 4:11 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1038 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 39 of 185 (515163)
07-15-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Michamus
07-15-2009 10:56 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Michamus.

So, I'm addressing this post to you, but it's really for all readers, so don't take it as if I'm giving you a personal Sunday school lesson.

Michamus writes:

That is exactly what happens when you google search "mormon hell" in most search engines.

You'd have to have done this yourself in order to know this.

It is by the same means that I know exactly what will come up when you Google "Mormon pickle" (you could probably guess it right yourself, though).

-----

Michamus writes:

Phage0700 writes:

So suffering in Hell for 1000 years because one refuses to accept Jesus as their Savior is purely metaphorical?

This passage obviously is referring to the place that verse 84 is also referring to.

You know, that reference didn't even click in my mind when I read Phage's post. I saw "1000 years of torment" and thought he was talking about... something else.

What's difficult about D&C 76 is that a lot of complicated things are being discussed in a not-too-terribly-clear manner. Verses 105-106 (which Phage also quoted) do not refer to the Telestial Kingdom, but to the spirit world, which (for those who don't know) is the place where the dead must wait until Judgment.

The suffering described for these people is separation from God, and the inability to work or progress while they wait. This is the effect of sin (or, of those things that hold us back from achieving our highest goal), when it has not been properly dealt with.

-----

Michamus writes:

This is why so many "Mormons" have a deep respect for knowledge.

And why they memorize search engine results.

Edited by Bluejay, : Smiley.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Michamus, posted 07-15-2009 10:56 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Michamus, posted 07-17-2009 4:20 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1038 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 40 of 185 (515166)
07-16-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phage0070
07-15-2009 11:30 PM


Telestial Kingdom
Hi, Phage.

Phage writes:

I was under the impression that the general consensus was that verse referred to somewhere other than the Telestial Kingdom.

I didn't see this post before I posted message #39, so I'll recap here: verse 84 refers to the Telestial Kingdom, as Michamus said.

Verses 105 and 106 do not: they refer to the spirit world (specifically, to the bad half of the spirit world), which predates the Resurrection and Judgment.

-----

Phage writes:

If you are correct, then apparently those in the Telestial Kingdom burn for eternity.

D&C 76:106 writes:

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work

The suffering described in this verse will not last for eternity, but only until the "fulness of times," which happens at the end of Christ's Millennial reign on earth (that's where the 1000 years comes from), and just prior to Judgment. However, souls are not consigned to a degree of glory until after Judgment. So, this suffering is supposed to end before the Telestial Kingdom even begins.

So, clearly, this does not refer to the Telestial Kingdom.

Edited by Bluejay, : Minor edits


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phage0070, posted 07-15-2009 11:30 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 6:33 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 185 (515185)
07-16-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Michamus
07-15-2009 11:17 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi Michamus

I know you were writing to Bluejay in your post, but I kind of felt like replying as well.

No problem at all. Happy to get you take on the subject at hand.

Straggler writes:

If we assume that sin is a product of the natural universe how do we determine what the universe "deems" to be sinful and what is not? How do Mormons claim to know what is sinful?

The way sin can really be determined (or so we "Mormons" like to think) is by how the action affects our:
a) personal progression
b) development of community with others
b) ability to maintain control over ourselves
c) impact on the progression of others toward similar goals

Obviously if something is a detriment to these things, we usually view them as being a universally accepted "sin".

But who decides what is detrimental and what is not? Or is it just considered obvious?

If I consider something to be detrimental but you consider it to be beneficial is it actually sinful?

The fact of the matter is though, that we humans are still bound by our subjectivity. Objective morality can exist, whilst people still exercise subjective reasoning.

Indeed. But even if we assume that a natural and universal morality of some sort actually exists my question really relates to how we can ever know what this objective reality stipulates to be sinful?

To put it another way, the "Objective Morality" of the Universe is essentially what the most effective means of achieving healthy human growth and satisfaction is. The trick is working together as a team to achieve that.

Ah yes...But who decides what constitutes healthy human growth and satisfaction? An activity that one person finds satisfying and emotionally beneficial may well result in extreme anxiety, stress and physically destructive tendancies in another individual. Is that activity then to be deemed sinful? Or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Michamus, posted 07-15-2009 11:17 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Michamus, posted 07-17-2009 3:59 PM Straggler has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 185 (515188)
07-16-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
07-16-2009 12:11 AM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Bluejay writes:

So, this suffering is supposed to end before the Telestial Kingdom even begins.


Right, so lets recap: Even Mormons have God toasting people based on arbitrary rules, despite initial denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 07-16-2009 12:11 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Blue Jay, posted 07-16-2009 11:09 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 43 of 185 (515232)
07-16-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hill Billy
07-15-2009 9:52 PM


Re: What is sin?
Thing is, you left out a third option
(c) things that are wrong cause they are wrong.
Them things are sins.

This implies some sort of objective morality that exists regardless of a god. While this may be possible, it has yet to be shown how we can determine what this objective morality is, and if morality exists regardless of a god, that removes one more reason some theists give for needing a god.

ex. "Without a God, you could do anything you want because there would be no Hell for you to be worried about." This is a fallacious argument, but it is made with regularity, so I felt the need to mention it here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hill Billy, posted 07-15-2009 9:52 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 12:34 AM Perdition has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1038 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 44 of 185 (515278)
07-16-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phage0070
07-16-2009 6:33 AM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Hi, Phage.

Synthesis appears to not be your strong suit. It would certainly make debating easier if forgetting/ignoring everything that has been said previously in the discussion were a valid approach.

Having seen your posts elsewhere on this site, I find it hard to believe that you're actually that stupid, so I have to conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.

Please, cut the crap, okay?

-----

Phage writes:

Right, so lets recap: Even Mormons have God toasting people based on arbitrary rules, despite initial denial.

It has already been explained to you (by two independent sources) that the "toasting" is not done by God, and is not done for breaking an arbitrary rule.

It has already been explained to you that the consequences of sin are an innate part of the function of the universe, and were not installed as such by God.

It has already been explained to you that the “toasting” is the natural consequence of sin.

-----

Patronization works better if you don’t make a fool of yourself while doing it.

So, let’s recap again: Mormons have people being toasted as a deterministic consequence of the way the universe works.

You’re free to argue that my beliefs are not scientific, and you’re free to comment on how stupid you think they are, but please don’t claim the right to tell me what my argument is, and please improve your synthesis skills before your next post.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 6:33 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 11:22 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 185 (515280)
07-16-2009 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Blue Jay
07-16-2009 11:09 PM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Bluejay writes:

So, let’s recap again: Mormons have people being toasted as a deterministic consequence of the way the universe works.


So the deterministic way the universe works says that people will be toasted for exactly the same period that it takes Christ to finish his work, just by happenstance. Also, given that Christ is almighty there isn't any reason why this should take 1000 years, so the best we can conclude is that he does not care at all about the suffering and is just taking his time.

Also, we can conclude that as this suffering is the "wrath of Almighty God" that... well... he gets angry and toasts people as a result of the deterministic consequence of the way the universe works?

Look Bluejay, I appreciate the gymnastics you are going through, but I don't see how it can be much clearer.

1) It says they are burned with "eternal fire".
2) It says this burning is "vengeance", like punishment.
3) It says they are put in this "Hell" by Almighty God.
4) It says that they are put there specifically to "suffer the wrath... until the fulness of times"
5) This "fulness of times" is defined as "when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work" which is to say it is directly under the control of Christ.

What more does it have to say to get the point across? He is toasting them in a manner directly under his control, and as a consequence of his intentions!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Blue Jay, posted 07-16-2009 11:09 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 12:12 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019