Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 4:49 PM
26 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, vimesey, xongsmith (7 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,801 Year: 11,837/19,786 Month: 1,618/2,641 Week: 127/708 Day: 61/66 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Man raised back to life in Jesus' name
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 76 of 300 (274427)
12-31-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
12-31-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Health
There's another place Jesus said that:

Jhn 5:12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up your bed, and walk? Jhn 5:13 And he that was healed knew not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in [that] place. Jhn 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, you are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.

Also, the Book of Proverbs is full of admonitions of sickness as a result of sin, and improved health is promised for obedience.

This message has been edited by Faith, 12-31-2005 03:18 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 12-31-2005 03:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 12-31-2005 11:42 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 6:05 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 78 of 300 (274489)
12-31-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Trixie
12-31-2005 6:05 PM


Re: Health
You have trouble reconciling what the Bible says with the God of Love, about whom we would know zip except for the Bible, which is the only source of the idea that God is Love. Interesting.

This message has been edited by Faith, 12-31-2005 07:11 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 6:05 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 7:48 PM Faith has responded
 Message 152 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-07-2006 12:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 300 (274500)
12-31-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trixie
12-31-2005 7:48 PM


Re: Health
No, I said I had trouble with the reasoning you put forward and the view you expressed.

You were responding to a post in which I did nothing but quote the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 7:48 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 8:26 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 82 of 300 (274515)
12-31-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Trixie
12-31-2005 8:26 PM


Re: Health
Proverbs 3:8, 7:23.

If I'm up to it I may answer further later.

This message has been edited by Faith, 12-31-2005 09:34 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 8:26 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-01-2006 1:07 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2006 2:29 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 300 (274564)
01-01-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
01-01-2006 2:29 AM


Re: Health
Of course not metaphors. In that case the suffering was a test. Job was certainly a righteous man, but like everyone else he'd inherited the sin nature -- or no suffering could have touched him (the only perfectly righteous man was Jesus, who had to choose to suffer and die bearing the sins of others, because in Himself he couldn't die).

Happy New Year Arach.

I disagree with just about everything you write, but I hope it doesn't get personal.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 02:40 AM

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 09:59 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2006 2:29 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 1:37 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 300 (274625)
01-01-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trixie
12-31-2005 7:48 PM


Re: Health
The message of Jesus was that of a loving Father, that doesn't gel with what you're saying.

Again, I wasn't "saying" anything. I quoted the Bible. Referred to the Bible in the case of Proverbs. Didn't give my own view of anything. In fact I have to guess what you are talking about. You are imputing all kinds of ideas to me without quoting me, and most of them I don't recognize as my own.

However, assuming this is what you are talking about: The view of Jesus as a loving Father comes from the Bible. So does the view of God as a righteous judge.

I thought the whole point of the life and teachings and sacrifice of Jesus was that there was a new covenant with God.

Yes, there is, for those who believe in Him. But the same writings that announce the New Covenant also explain that the need for the New Covenat is that all human beings are by nature under God's wrath.

How loving is a Father who holds his children responsible for the sins of others a long time ago? How loving is a Father who makes these children pay for the sins of others by illness and suffering and death?

I don't impose my opinions on God as you are doing. I don't question His lovingness based on my own feelings. I try to understand how it all works together as the Bible presents it, not as it appeals or doesn't appeal to me. This is of course because I am certain that it is the Word of God. If I didn't have this conviction, then I might feel free to judge it. And I've done my best to explain what I understand of it at times here at EvC too. I'm doing my best to stick to what I understand to be traditional theology and not indulge in my own private interpretation.

This paints a very different picture of God to the one that Jesus painted.

Only according to your own personal way of reading it, not according to, say, the Westminster Catechism which I've posted, or most evangelical believers.

So, who should I, as a Christian, believe? Shall I believe Jesus who I believe IS the Son of God and Saviour, or should I believe Faith on the internet?

Do you still beat your dog? Sorry, that's the way your either/or hits me.

My task is made easier for me in that I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Yes, much easier. Leaves it open for picking and choosing whatever one pleases.

I believe that certain writers may have been inspired by God, but I don't believe that every word is God-inspired. To believe that every word is God-inspired leads only to the conclusion that God knew very little about how His people interacted with the planet around them. We have to believe that He knew nothing about bacteria and viruses that cause disease. We have to ascribe to Him the same primitive level of knowledge that the people had at that time. If God's knowledge only increases as man finds things out, does that mean that God only learns things from our endeavours?

Funny, I don't have any of those problems.

Or we can consider that the messages in the Bible were put in such a way as to explain things to His people in ways that they could cope with, in ways that were relevant to their way of life.

Sounds reasonable to me. But not if you think that means they aren't relevant to us too.

Another question that this raises for me is, if disease is the payment for sin, are Christians then going against God's will in praying for healing? Surely if God has decided that the punishment is appropriate, who are we to question this?

It is not exactly a punishment. It is the natural consequence of sin. And certainly who ARE we to question this? If, that is, you accept that the Bible is God's word. If you don't, all kinds of questions come up.

And wouldn't we be committing terrible sins by treating these sin-induced infections with antibiotics etc?

You can't have read much of what I have written here to be saying such things. Are you sure you meant to address this post to me?

If these diseases are the punishment of a righteous God on sinners, surely we are no better than helpers of Satan when we treat and care for these sinners and mitigate or ven cure the punishment that God has sent?

Oh nonsense.

Obviously I can't agree with any of that. Compassion, sympathy, empathy, charity are at the core of the Christian message, the message of Jesus Christ. Why would Jesus advocate this if it nullifies God's punishments? As Jar is so fond of saying, the Bible is the map, not the territory. I don't have faith in the Bible because it is not God, I don't worship the Bible because it is not God, I have no other God but the God that I know through Jesus and through my relationship with him. I can't have a spiritual relationship with ink on paper.

Straw man. I've never said anything to justify such a notion. The problem is that there is no other source of information about the nature of God. If you don't rely on the Bible's information you are subject to making up your own God and worshiping an idol of your own invention.

As an aside, what if a new edition of the Bible appears with a typo? Is the typo God-inspired and if not, why not?

I don't subscribe to that view of inerrancy.

Happy New Year to you as well.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 11:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2005 7:48 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Admin, posted 01-01-2006 12:39 PM Faith has responded
 Message 92 by Trixie, posted 01-01-2006 3:31 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 95 of 300 (274823)
01-01-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Admin
01-01-2006 12:39 PM


Re: Health
Again, I wasn't "saying" anything. I quoted the Bible. Referred to the Bible in the case of Proverbs. Didn't give my own view of anything.

quote:
Faith, I have to confess as much confusion as Trixie. Any reasonable person would assume you provided the Bible quotes because they were congruent or supportive of your arguments. If they were for some other purpose, perhaps providing relevant background, then you need to make that clear.

I don't understand your confusion, or hers. Perhaps you can make it clearer. If she had quoted anything I'd said other than that one post she was answering, which is nothing but Bible references, it would have helped, as most of what she said that supposedly characterizes my beliefs, couldn't be less recognizable to me.

As for that one post, of course those references support my arguments, or more accurately, they are the source of my arguments. But I didn't make any arguments on this thread. I believe the Bible quotes speak for themselves, don't they? Not ambiguous that I can see.

I didn't enter this thread until Message 76 in answer to Crashfrog's Message 74. CF was answering Buzsaw's saying that Jesus' saying "Go and sin no more" to someone He had just healed implies a connection between sin and disease. Crash objected that he thought Jesus only said that to the woman caught in adultery, but I pointed out that He said it to a man he had just healed, and gave the reference in the gospel of John. I added that the Book of Proverbs also has many warnings that health will be adversely affected by sin and improved by obedience. Referring to this Biblical reference is simply saying that's what it says, and it does. It says that. I can go through the book and list the verses where this is said, if that is needed. There is no ambiguity in them.

Hypothetical conversation:

Person 1: Well, I think Max was being stupid.
Person 2: "Judge not that ye be not judged."
Person 1: Don't you think I should have an opinion about his behavior?
Person 2: I never said you shouldn't.
Person 1: Yes you did. You said I shouldn't judge him unless I wanted to risk judgment myself.
Person 2: No I didn't. I just quoted the Bible.
Person 1: Okay, fine, whatever. See ya.

I have NO idea how this hypothetical conversation represents anything I have said. The topic is the Bible's connection between sin and death and disease. It's there. It's not an opinion. It's there.

Trixie's first retort to my post was a complaint about "my reasoning" when all I had done was quote the Bible.

Sorry, but if YOU are confused, I am all the more so.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 11:10 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Admin, posted 01-01-2006 12:39 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2006 12:38 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 9:01 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 98 of 300 (274925)
01-02-2006 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Trixie
01-01-2006 3:31 PM


Re: Health
Hi Faith, thanks for the reply.
Firstly can I say that when I said
If these diseases are the punishment of a righteous God on sinners, surely we are no better than helpers of Satan when we treat and care for these sinners and mitigate or ven cure the punishment that God has sent?

I was only following on the logic which you had presented.

Well what I presented is the unambiguous words of the Bible so your argument is with the Bible, not with me. You perfectly well know that the Bible is full of God's will to cure the sick, so what kind of game are you playing anyway?

You have presented biblical quotes to support the idea that disease is caused by sin. That then leads to the question "Does God approve of us trying to mitigate His punishment?" Can you explain why this is nonsense?

Please excuse me if I say that I can't think of this question as anything but absurd, disingenuous, dishonest, manipulative. If you know the Bible at all, you know perfectly well that it teaches BOTH. You perfectly well know that healing is a great part of the Biblical teaching, so why are you asking me if God "approves of us trying to mitigate his punishment?" You're playing games. If you didn't know that it teaches that disease is caused by sin I'm surprised, but by now evidence enough has been given to demonstrate that to you.

In response to me stating
quote:
Obviously I can't agree with any of that. Compassion, sympathy, empathy, charity are at the core of the Christian message, the message of Jesus Christ. Why would Jesus advocate this if it nullifies God's punishments? As Jar is so fond of saying, the Bible is the map, not the territory. I don't have faith in the Bible because it is not God, I don't worship the Bible because it is not God, I have no other God but the God that I know through Jesus and through my relationship with him. I can't have a spiritual relationship with ink on paper.

you said


Straw man. I've never said anything to justify such a notion. The problem is that there is no other source of information about the nature of God. If you don't rely on the Bible's information you are subject to making up your own God and worshiping an idol of your own invention.

I wasn't suggesting that you had said any of this - I was trying to exlain where I was coming from,

BS. You didn't need to SAY it. You were implying what jar always says, that I "worship ink on paper" and that I disregard the Bible's message of compassion. And "where you are coming from" seems to be this absurd idea that I personally somehow disregard the message of compassion in the Bible simply because I gave some evidence for the other topic of how the Bible says that disease is related to sin.

...but what you said has raised another question. If the Bible is to be relied on for information on God and it provides two diametrically opposed pictures of Him, how do we decide what picture is correct? The God of the OT and the God of the NT appear like two different entities, or one entity with a split personality, unless you consider what the purpose of Jesus was. Jesus explained to us what this purpose was, the new covenant. So the relationship between God and man was started anew.

Between God and BELIEVERS, not God and man as such, although God takes care of all humanity, "sends rain on the just and the unjust" in compassion, and through His believers blessings have spilled over to the rest of humanity as well. He is a God of mercy to his disobedient human creation, who saved us "even when we were yet sinners."

The two pictures are not diametrically opposed, for starters. God's hating and punishing sin doesn't mean he hasn't mercy on the sinner. As you yourself are saying, mercy and compassion are the great theme of Jesus' ministry.

The reason we need salvation and healing is that we are under God's wrath because of sin. He has in mercy provided the salvation, the healing of the diseases that are the consequence of the sin, the whole works. There is no salvation, no mercy, no compassion without wrath. It makes no sense without wrath. I've explained this many many times before here, though maybe you've missed it.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 04:29 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Trixie, posted 01-01-2006 3:31 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 105 of 300 (274986)
01-02-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Admin
01-02-2006 9:01 AM


Re: Health
My hypothetical conversation was intended to illustrate the frustration inherent in dealing with contradictory behavior. "Don't judge," says Person 2. "Why shouldn't I judge?" says Person 1. "I didn't say you shouldn't," says Person 2.

Isn't that contradictory expression by Person 2 of the same nature as your conversation with Trixie?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

If I could paraphrase, "Follow God for better health," you said. "That's not consistent with a loving Father," replies Trixie. "I never expressed an opinion," you answer.

I did NOT say "Follow God for better health" Percy, I quoted JESUS telling a man He healed to "Go and sin no more" and I referenced Proverbs where people are admonished to avoid sin and practice righteousness and ill or good health is often the consequence.

Yes this is my opinion ALSO, but the FIRST thing that has to be noticed is that I WAS JUST PROVIDING A CITATION, WHICH CRASHFROG EVEN NOTED, why can't you? This is what the Bible says. So that if someone is going to start arguing with me about what the Bible says they are arguing with the Bible and not with me.

And second, Trixie's accusation that because I quote the Bible on one topic means I am therefore ignoring another Biblical theme is incredibly absurd and annoying. How on earth could anyone read the Bible and not notice the abundance of teachings on healing? Why is she accusing me of this irrelevant side issue of this whole other Biblical theme when the topic is the relation of disease to sin and all I've done is provide a citation to this topic?

Sounds frustratingly contradictory to me, and that's why I commented in admin mode.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you find my answer contradictory but her insinuating irrelevant post admirable.

It turns out that you and Trixie are doing an admirable job keeping the discussion civil and constructive, so in retrospect there was probably no need for me to say anything, but I wanted to be proactive just in case the discussion was about to spiral out of control.

Right, by targeting me rather than her.

Have a Happy New Year.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 10:40 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 9:01 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 11:52 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 113 of 300 (275034)
01-02-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Admin
01-02-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Health
Oh good grief.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 03:17 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 11:52 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 300 (275044)
01-02-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Trixie
01-02-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Admin, please read
Oh good grief and a half.

NEVER MIND. For heaven's sake. I'm sorry I ever answered you, I really didn't want to as it was so irrelevant to my post, but you DID demand that I do so.

Why can't you see what you are doing here? Why can't Admin?

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 04:01 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Trixie, posted 01-02-2006 3:55 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 4:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 117 of 300 (275057)
01-02-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
01-02-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Admin, please read
Here, let me apologize for everything. Everything is my fault. It always is. I completely misunderstood Trixie. I completely misunderstood Admin. I'm just overly sensitive. Everybody else is doing everything right, I'm just out of step. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

Happy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 3:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 118 of 300 (275073)
01-02-2006 5:01 PM


deleted

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 10:00 PM


  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 157 of 300 (276735)
01-07-2006 5:17 PM


For the Private Admin Forum about this thread
I hope you are reviewing this thread.

This is
my very first post on this thread
, in which I am answering Crashfrog's questioning of Buzsaw:

There's another place Jesus said that:Jhn 5:12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up your bed, and walk? Jhn 5:13 And he that was healed knew not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in [that] place. Jhn 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, you are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.

Also, the Book of Proverbs is full of admonitions of sickness as a result of sin, and improved health is promised for obedience.

Trixie then answers in Message 77 in a way I think is already very confused and confusing since all I did was reference scripture. Now of course it IS my view but the way she treats it as contradicting the God of Love becomes very problematic as THAT is of course my view TOO, also based on scripture:

That reasoning would suggest that newborn babies are up shit creak without a paddle. I have trouble reconciling that view with the God of Love.

The problem between Trixie and me on this thread began right here. I quoted and referred to scripture only, and discussed none of it. She responds that those scriptures are hard to reconcile with "the God of Love" but she is calling this "reasoning" as if she hasn't grasped that I'm quoting scripture. This has already begun to sound like an accusation that I somehow reject "the God of Love" if I agree with the scriptures I quoted and referenced.

I respond as follows, which I think should have made her aware of her confusion:

You have trouble reconciling what the Bible says with the God of Love, about whom we would know zip except for the Bible, which is the only source of the idea that God is Love. Interesting.

But it didn't make her aware of anything. She
now goes on to insist
that she was responding to a view I had expressed, reasoning I had put forward, implicitly denying that all I had done was reference scripture, and further implying that if I agree with this scripture I must disagree with the God of love and healing:

No, I said I had trouble with the reasoning you put forward and the view you expressed.

But I did NOT put forward any reasoning whatever. I did NOT express a "view." I quoted & referenced scripture, period. In that post she just goes on and on arguing with what she seems to be denying comes from the Bible:

The message of Jesus was that of a loving Father, that doesn't gel with what you're saying. I thought the whole point of the life and teachings and sacrifice of Jesus was that there was a new covenant with God. How loving is a Father who holds his children responsible for the sins of others a long time ago? How loving is a Father who makes these children pay for the sins of others by illness and suffering and death?

This paints a very different picture of God to the one that Jesus painted. So, who should I, as a Christian, believe? Shall I believe Jesus who I believe IS the Son of God and Saviour, or should I believe Faith on the internet?

Believe "Faith?" Why believe Faith? This is a bogus either/or. I quoted SCRIPTURE. We are to believe ALL scripture, not pick and choose. Why is this so hard to grasp? This bizarre either/or here even implies that I somehow dispute Jesus Christ, dispute the God of Love, dispute the God of healing. This was becoming maddening to sort out.

All of Trixie's Message 79 is confused and confusing. She's arguing scripture against scripture but imputing the part she doesn't like to ME just because I quoted it. She keeps asking me questions like "are we not supposed to pray for healing?" which make absolutely no sense to me. She just seems to be accusing me of either thinking we aren't to pray for healing or contradicting myself if I think we are and it's all wrapped up in her never acknowledging that all I did was quote scripture.

Do I agree with it? Of course I do. I agree with ALL of scripture. She is the one who is splitting it up, assigning the parts she doesn't like to me personally, and upholding this other part that she called the "God of Love" as if it contradicted ME.

Trixie is very very confused at the very least and it is almost impossible to figure out how to set her straight, and with her implying that I disagree that God offers healing, disagree with the message of love in Jesus Christ, I found it VERY hard to deal with.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-07-2006 05:27 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-07-2006 05:34 PM


  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 287 of 300 (283186)
02-01-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by arachnophilia
02-01-2006 1:37 PM


Re: Health
also, i'm not sure that this jesus bit makes much sense either. how could suffering touch christ if he was born without original sin? and how could he die for our sins, if he couldn't die?

Because our sins are imputed to him, they are IN him or ON him or however that is to be said, they were taken into or upon himself as if they were his own, so he died for all those sins as his own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 1:37 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 2:21 PM Faith has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019