Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 256 of 479 (562688)
05-31-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


Hi Peepul!
I'm a newbie here. (1st reply). I'm by no means a Bible scholar - just a casual reader and admirer of the book. I've read through all the replies to this post (*phew*) and while I can't argue the picayune details of its many possible interpretations, I think you presented your case very well, and appreciated the amplifications by hERICtic and gragbarder.
When I asked some Christian friends about it, they shrugged their shoulders and didn't know what I was talking about. When I showed them the passage, they interpreted it as you (and I) did - in a straight-forward way - but insisted that we must be misunderstanding it.
What confuses me is this: Why would the authors, translators, and re-translators of the Bible keep the passage that you cited? As was argued well, it describes a failed prophecy of Jesus, and makes him appear sort of like an ancient doomsday cult leader - with an imminent doom. Why do you suppose this error was never corrected in the verbal and/or written versions of this tale? There were plenty of opportunities to fix it. Do some versions of the Bible tell it differently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 1:29 PM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jaywill, posted 05-31-2010 11:19 PM glowby has replied
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 6:58 AM glowby has replied
 Message 273 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 11:48 AM glowby has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 257 of 479 (562703)
05-31-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by glowby
05-31-2010 9:32 PM


What confuses me is this: Why would the authors, translators, and re-translators of the Bible keep the passage that you cited?
They wanted to be faithful to what Jesus really said. False propogandists would have concealed or excluded difficult sayings or potentially embaressing sayings.
They candidly included sayings of Jesus which could be problematic because the truth mattered to them rather than spin.
They also recorded that some of Jesus' relatives did not believe His claims. They also recorded that He had been accused of being crazy by His own family. They also recorded that He was thought to be demon possessed or a drunkard.
They also included potentially encremenating information that they all forsook Him. They wrote that even their leader Peter denied Him three times. They also recorded that He scolded His own close disciple Peter and called him "Satan".
They recorded that women were the first to see Him in resurrection and not men. They recorded that none of them had the courage to give Him a decent burial. A stranger had to do it.
All this and many more pieces of information are problematic to anyone trying to start a major religion. The inclusion of difficult teachings of Jesus, and potentially embaressing information to their cause, testifies to the candidness of the report.
Where they could have slanted the story to put themselves and Jesus in the best light, they did not. This convinces many of us that the account is truthful.
As was argued well, it describes a failed prophecy of Jesus, and makes him appear sort of like an ancient doomsday cult leader - with an imminent doom.
Whether one sees the second coming of Christ as doomsday or a glorious new beginning depends on where one stands.
Whereas some unbelieving and unrepentent sinner sees only imminent doom in Christ's coming, a repentent believer sees the glorious arrival of the kingdom of God - peace, justice, love, the doing away of scarcity, and the wonderful reign of the Son of God over the globe.
Do you see His coming as the "doom" of the end the world or as a glorious new day when wickedness is abolished ?
How you view His coming depends upon through what perspective you view the reign of God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 9:32 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by marc9000, posted 06-01-2010 8:23 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 259 by glowby, posted 06-01-2010 9:31 PM jaywill has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 258 of 479 (562797)
06-01-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by jaywill
05-31-2010 11:19 PM


Where they could have slanted the story to put themselves and Jesus in the best light, they did not. This convinces many of us that the account is truthful.
Thank you, this is very important, and IMO is seldom stressed enough. What writer does not seek to put himself in a good light? What other examples are there, other than Biblical, where writers actually disregard/put themselves down in their writings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by jaywill, posted 05-31-2010 11:19 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Huntard, posted 06-02-2010 7:32 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 7:52 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 259 of 479 (562805)
06-01-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by jaywill
05-31-2010 11:19 PM


My own pulpit
jaywill writes:
Whether one sees the second coming of Christ as doomsday or a glorious new beginning depends on where one stands....
...Do you see His coming as the "doom" of the end the world or as a glorious new day when wickedness is abolished ?
I happily stand on the sidelines, more or less prepared to meet doom, natural or supernatural. I'm certainly not going to base my morality (degree of wickedness?) on threats of non-compliance with an ancient book so convoluted that life-long scholars can't agree on its interpretation. History, and this forum demonstrate beautifully how its meaning can bent to a wide variety of purposes. I prefer to stand by a moral code of my own, not one that varies from pulpit to pulpit or preacher to preacher.
I take or leave parts of the Bible as I please, as I would any other book of philosophy, mythology, history or fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by jaywill, posted 05-31-2010 11:19 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 6:44 AM glowby has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 260 of 479 (562843)
06-02-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by jaywill
05-31-2010 3:18 PM


Re: Sure not the Transfiguration
Jay writes:
Now tell me, ROUGHLY, no specific number, no specific YEAR ... ABOUT when was the end of that generation ?
Comtemporaries of Jesus. All those alive during the life of Jesus until their death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by jaywill, posted 05-31-2010 3:18 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 6:31 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 261 of 479 (562847)
06-02-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by hERICtic
06-02-2010 5:21 AM


Re: Sure not the Transfiguration
Comtemporaries of Jesus. All those alive during the life of Jesus until their death.
Then you admit that Jesus was using Himself as the paramater.
He did not remain dead but rose from the dead and lives forever.
Jesus rose from the dead after three days of being crucified. So those still alive when He resurrected would be of His generation. So those born on the day of His resurrection would be of His generation. And those born from any time after that throughout the last 2000 some years would also be contemporary to the living and resurrected Jesus.
Christ is resurrected and living today. So people of today would also be of His generation. If Jesus used generation in that sense as long as He lives they live during His years.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by hERICtic, posted 06-02-2010 5:21 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 262 of 479 (562848)
06-02-2010 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by glowby
06-01-2010 9:31 PM


Re: My own pulpit
I'm certainly not going to base my morality (degree of wickedness?) on threats of non-compliance with an ancient book so convoluted that life-long scholars can't agree on its interpretation. History, and this forum demonstrate beautifully how its meaning can bent to a wide variety of purposes. I prefer to stand by a moral code of my own, not one that varies from pulpit to pulpit or preacher to preacher.
I take or leave parts of the Bible as I please, as I would any other book of philosophy, mythology, history or fiction.
What is preventing you from living up to your own moral code ?
I would like to ask you if you indeed do live up to your own moral code ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by glowby, posted 06-01-2010 9:31 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by glowby, posted 06-03-2010 11:21 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 263 of 479 (562849)
06-02-2010 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by glowby
05-31-2010 9:32 PM


quote:
What confuses me is this: Why would the authors, translators, and re-translators of the Bible keep the passage that you cited?
By the time that the Gospels were written - by mainstream dates - the prophecy had not OBVIOUSLY failed. Mark may even have been written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Gospel of Luke does, however, significantly change some of the surrounding text, apparently to make the prophecy a better fit to events. The author of Matthew largely copied the text of Mark (or - less likely - it was the other way around). That covers the authors.
Re-translation is not much of an issue with NT books. For the translators we simply need them to honestly do their job, instead of acting like apologists. The only likely timeframe for changes, then is around the 2nd Century AD, and I suspect that between them, the three synoptic Gospels had sufficient circulation by then that it would take a concerted effort to change the text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 9:32 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 8:40 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 284 by glowby, posted 06-03-2010 11:39 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 264 of 479 (562852)
06-02-2010 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by marc9000
06-01-2010 8:23 PM


marc9000 writes:
Thank you, this is very important, and IMO is seldom stressed enough. What writer does not seek to put himself in a good light? What other examples are there, other than Biblical, where writers actually disregard/put themselves down in their writings?
This story is Written by Huntard, a good for nothing lazy bum, who likes drinking and having sex outside of marriage. I am not worthy of living so close to my neighbour, who is the shining light of virtue, and a far better person than I am. This man told me there is no god.
There you go, obviously what my neighbour said is true, since I put myself in a bad light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by marc9000, posted 06-01-2010 8:23 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 8:24 AM Huntard has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 265 of 479 (562855)
06-02-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by marc9000
06-01-2010 8:23 PM


Thank you, this is very important, and IMO is seldom stressed enough. What writer does not seek to put himself in a good light? What other examples are there, other than Biblical, where writers actually disregard/put themselves down in their writings?
Most of the biographical things I read are in the realm of music. I am not a formal theologian.
Think of the contemporary political campaign and endorsements. Not having a paper trail of embaressing life details is very important.
I think the instances of people admitting to or exaggerating their own bad behavior occurs in biographical books which are exalting such negative behavior in the first place. The biographer of an outlaw or criminal by one of his contemporary appreciators might want to similarly bad.
The Gospel writers are trying to portray a man the believed was the Son of God. Yet they included instances:
1.) A town prostitute caressed His feet with her hair (Luke 7:36-39)
You would expect that the recording of that incident was more out of the playbook of the political enemies of Bill Clinton.
2.) John comments that the Word was God (John 1:1). Yet John does not fail to record that Jesus Himself said "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
The potential for John to sabatoge his own theological thesis is tremendous. Yet he wrote it faithfully.
3.) The Gospel writers want to portray Jesus as the blessed Messiah of the Jews. But they record Him being hung on a cross. They probably well knew that anyone hanging on a tree was cursed according to Deuteronmy 21:23.
Were they severly in need of lessons on starting a new Jewish sect ?
4.) Mark records that Jesus seemed unable to perform miracles in His own hometown (Mark 6:5).
That could be scandelous, that even at home He did not demonstrate convincing proof of His divinity. Why would Mark admit such a thing ?
5.) Matthew records that Jesus cursed a fig tree (Matt. 21:18). That surely could be used by detractors as proof of the selfish wildness of Jesus.
6.) Matthew records that Jesus said the Father knew something that He did not know (Matt. 24:36). That could be a scandal to a new religion portraying that the Father was completely pleased with the Son.
7.) The Gospel writers included sayings which are practically impossible to perform:
"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mattt. 5:28)
This is a very difficult saying of Jesus. Which one of the disciples could claim to be a successful disciples of Jesus in this realm ?
The gospels include so much fodder for a prosecuting attorney to persuade a jury that the disciples were wrong that it is amazing that they wrote it down voluntarily.
Prosecutor:
"Peter, is it true that you were the leader of the disciples?"
Peter:
"Yes, somewhat"
Prosecutor:
"Yet Jesus Himself once called you Satan. Am I right?"
Peter:
"Yes sir."
Prosecutor:
" Yet you want us to believe that Jesus trusted you to preach His message?"
Peter:
"He trusted me to and told me to feed His sheep."
Prosecutor:
"Yet is it not also true that you denied that you even KNEW Jesus? If I recall rightly even with cursing."
Peter:
"Yes sir. I did deny that I knew Him. But He forgave me."
Prosecutor:
"When did you believe that this Jesus had risen from the grave?"
Peter:
"Well, after some of the women followers excitedly reported to us that the tomb was empty, I went to see for myself."
Presecutor:
"Women? You know that today the testimony of women is not admissible in contemporary courts. Do you mean to tell me you only have the word of women that Jesus' body was not in the tomb?"
Peter:
"Yes. But latter I went there with John and we discovered the same thing. Then we saw Jesus in the evening."
Prosecutor:
"Where?"
Peter:
"We were all together that evening, except Thomas, in a locked room. And Jesus came and appeared to us."
Prosecutor:
" Did He have a key to the room?"
Peter:
"No sir"
(Jury chuckles.)
Prosecutor:
"How did Jesus get into the room without a key? Did He break the door down? Did He climb through a window ?"
Peter:
"No sir. He just .... He just ... appeared. "
Prosecutor:
"I see. Yet Jesus Himself had called you Satan and told you once to get behind Him. Am I right ??"
Peter:
" Yes sir. He once did."
Prosecutor:
"No further questions."
The point here is that in the end we have to decide which is more convincing - the power and person of God or the smarts of human beings to concoct a convincing sounding story.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by marc9000, posted 06-01-2010 8:23 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 266 of 479 (562858)
06-02-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Huntard
06-02-2010 7:32 AM


This story is Written by Huntard, a good for nothing lazy bum, who likes drinking and having sex outside of marriage. I am not worthy of living so close to my neighbour, who is the shining light of virtue, and a far better person than I am. This man told me there is no god.
There you go, obviously what my neighbour said is true, since I put myself in a bad light.
Let me rephrase what I wrote which was originally:
Where they could have slanted the story to put themselves and Jesus in the best light, they did not. This convinces many of us that the account is truthful.
I do not intend to say that the Gospels are to be believed SOLELY because the writers sometimes put themselves in a bad light. The evidence of candidness may be derived from their willingness to do so. That is all.
And one other footnote. Jesus loves the sinner. And the conviction of God is never simply to make a person feel bad. It is the accusation of Satan meant to person to feel a nagging and vague sense of worthlessness.
God is not interested in people groveling on the floor crying about their sins. God is not interested in your begging for forgiveness.
He is interested in your agreeing with Him about sin and the Savior. For what it is worth to you, you can stand up like a man and simply confess that you are a sinner and cannot help yourself.
God is only interested in you believing and agreeing with His salvation in Christ. He doesn't take pleasure in our groveling of self pitying.
I believe into Christ. And God looks upon me as if I had never committed any sin at all. In fact, I have already been judged, on Calvary. Justice was imputed on my behalf in the death of Christ.
I know I am verbose. I know I am preachy. And I know this is off the subject matter. But your innuendo of self pity and morbid remorse does not reflect to me the proper spirit of believing the Gospel message.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Huntard, posted 06-02-2010 7:32 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Huntard, posted 06-02-2010 8:48 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 267 of 479 (562860)
06-02-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by PaulK
06-02-2010 6:58 AM


Re-translation is not much of an issue with NT books. For the translators we simply need them to honestly do their job, instead of acting like apologists. The only likely timeframe for changes, then is around the 2nd Century AD, and I suspect that between them, the three synoptic Gospels had sufficient circulation by then that it would take a concerted effort to change the text.
Please point out to me the passages in the synoptics which were the efforts to re-write the text:
I am especially interested in the ones which effect these beliefs:
1.) Jesus was the Son of God.
2.) Jesus lived a sinless life.
3.) Jesus died on the cross for the sinners.
4.) Jesus rose from the dead to be Lord and Savior.
Which are the passages re-written latter that invented these concepts? Five or six of your STRONGEST examples will suffice.
Don't save your strongest for latter. Tell me of them up front, first.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 6:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 8:59 AM jaywill has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 268 of 479 (562861)
06-02-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by jaywill
06-02-2010 8:24 AM


jaywill writes:
He is interested in your agreeing with Him about sin and the Savior.
Well, I can't see that happening in the forseeable future. There is no such thing as "sin" there are good things and bad things, that's about as far as I go. Also, I won't "love" someone doing bad things, and if the things are sufficiently bad, I might even "hate" them. Or at the very least think him a despiccable person.
For what it is worth to you, you can stand up like a man and simply confess that you are a sinner and cannot help yourself.
I'm not a sinner. I try to lead my live as well as possible, not trying to hurt others through my actions. If I might hurt someone through my actions, the consequences are mine to deal with in the here and now. Of course I can help myself. I've done it many times.
And I know this is off the subject matter. But your innuendo of self pity and morbid remorse does not reflect to me the proper spirit of believing the Gospel message.
I was trying to make a point. I do not view myself as " a good for nothing lazy bum, who likes drinking and having sex outside of marriage." Though that last part about drinking (though never so much that it becomes a problem) and having sexual intercourse, is true. I do not view these things as a bad thing though. Also, I don't think my neighbour is in any way better than me, as humans we are equals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 8:24 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 9:37 AM Huntard has replied

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


Message 269 of 479 (562862)
06-02-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by jaywill
06-02-2010 8:40 AM


quote:
Please point out to me the passages in the synoptics which were the efforts to re-write the text:
The portion of my post that you quote gives my reasons explaining why the text in question was not rewritten. The question, therefore, is a complete non-sequitur. I will be happy to address any genuine questions about my post - but not to go off-topic addressing questions which do not even have a basis in what I have written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 8:40 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 10:43 AM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 270 of 479 (562870)
06-02-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Huntard
06-02-2010 8:48 AM


Well, I can't see that happening in the forseeable future.
That is better then saying it will never happen.
But the future is not totally in our hands.
The Bible uges us "Seek the Lord while He can be found. Call upon Him while He is near."
Let me put it this way. If I had life to live over again I would only ask that I turned to the Lord Jesus sooner. Then I would have more time to enjoy His love and His indwelling presence.
Saying "Not in the forseeable future, though, is better than saying, NEVER."
There is no such thing as "sin" there are good things and bad things, that's about as far as I go.
Aside from the things which are good and bad, there is a kind of force, a kind of nature compeling us to do what we hate, and restraining us from doing the good that we love.
Behind the "things" there is a power operating in us. So some say we are not sinners because we sinned. Rather we sin because we have this sin nature causing us to.
If you remove the weeds from the surface it seems that they grow back. Something also in man is "sprouting" up this sinful behavior. Getting to the root of the problem means a cure deeper than the symptoms.
I'm not a sinner. I try to lead my live as well as possible, not trying to hurt others through my actions. If I might hurt someone through my actions, the consequences are mine to deal with in the here and now. Of course I can help myself. I've done it many times.
That is very good. You are an upstanding and ethical person.
But are you glorious? Jesus was not only good. Jesus was gloriously good. He was good with a radiance and splendour which is glorious.
The Gospels says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
And if you should live absolutely perfectly from this day onward, what about the failures of the past ? What will erase the record before God of the past transgressions even if you should be gloriously righteous from today on ?
Imagine a shop of vases where an earthquake has occured. All of the vases are lying around broken in pieces.
Some are broken into a hundred pieces. Some are borken into fifty pieces. Some are broken into twenty pieces. Some into ten, seven, or even five pieces.
Let's say some vases are broken into only TWO large pieces. Now the ones broken into TWO large pieces may say "Well, at least I am not as bad as that one over there. He's broken into twelve shattered pieces. I am only broken into TWO pieces."
The one broken into fewer pieces may seem to be in better condition then the others. But the point is that they are ALL broken. None are whole. All have lost their function and ability to do what they were designed to do.
In the same way, there are sinners who can compare themselves to other sinners and say "Well, I am not as bad as this other sinner." But in the eyes of God "All have sinned". All have fallen short of the glory of God.
We need not to stand up next to each other. We need to stand up next to the Son of God. John chapter 3 tries to convey this.
Nicodemus was a very good citizen. His name means "Victor of the people". He was humble. He was very smart. He was a good man. Jesus told Nicodemus that he MUST be born from above. He told him that he must be born of God - born again. He needed a new nature born into his being. That is a nature that he was not naturally born with. He needed God to implant a new nature into his being causing him to be born from God, and born again.
Jesus said it "must" be so.
I was trying to make a point. I do not view myself as " a good for nothing lazy bum, who likes drinking and having sex outside of marriage." Though that last part about drinking (though never so much that it becomes a problem) and having sexual intercourse, is true. I do not view these things as a bad thing though. Also, I don't think my neighbour is in any way better than me, as humans we are equals.
I have been called away for a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Huntard, posted 06-02-2010 8:48 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Huntard, posted 06-02-2010 1:59 PM jaywill 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