Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
25 online now:
dwise1, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,646 Year: 16,682/19,786 Month: 807/2,598 Week: 53/251 Day: 6/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Counter-Apologetics
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 76 of 101 (846510)
01-07-2019 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Thugpreacha
01-07-2019 7:02 PM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
You may claim that dogmatic propoganda is harmful, but I would claim the same for its atheistic counterpart.

Oh, right, truth and reality. Yah, that can really hurt if you're not expecting it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-07-2019 7:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2019 12:31 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12789
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 77 of 101 (846511)
01-08-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by AZPaul3
01-07-2019 9:38 PM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
So you are essentially saying that secular humanist perspectives are all truth and reality while all beliefs throughout time have been wrong. Correct?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AZPaul3, posted 01-07-2019 9:38 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-08-2019 7:34 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 78 of 101 (846512)
01-08-2019 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Thugpreacha
01-07-2019 7:02 PM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
Phat writes:

It means you would have had a good reason to think or believe otherwise.

I didn't have a good reason, my belief in the thing just evaporated and wasn't as a result of any other experience. It was just like how my belief in Santa disappeared - pretty much exactly like it.

Examples of this would include subjective corroborations, answered prayers of a major life-changing degree, experiences such as I had regarding unexplained voices coming out of someone 3 feet in front of me, coupled at that same moment with my armhair literally standing on end and an electrical feeling in the air.
In other words, once someone has adequate subjective "evidence" or experience that rules out fiction, they won't stop believing.

These things obviously feel real to you so there's not much more to be said about them other than there are clear and obvious other explanations for them. Why anyone else should feel they have any relevance to how Paul went about creating a religion is not terribly clear to me.

Finally, I think too many people read too many reports from critics who persuade them to logically stop believing.

It's the reverse, far too few people ask questions of their beliefs. I learned several years after I gave up my beliefs that many of the things I was told by priests were not true and they knew it. They were peddling lies to the masses. If your beliefs can't stand up to objective scrutiny and critical challenge they're pretty poor beliefs.

You may claim that dogmatic propoganda is harmful, but I would claim the same for its atheistic counterpart.

If those that believed stopped indoctrinating children there wouldn't be any counterpart (such that it is). Religions don't have a special pass in society, they're not beyond criticism. If you want to see what happens when closed systems think they have their own rules that can't be challenged by outsiders look no further than the child abuse in the Catholic church.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-07-2019 7:02 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 79 of 101 (846514)
01-08-2019 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Thugpreacha
01-08-2019 12:31 AM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
So you are essentially saying that secular humanist perspectives are all truth and reality while all beliefs throughout time have been wrong.

No. What I am saying is that the light of reality destroys religious dogma at every turn.

BTW, secular humanist perspectives vary by the person espousing them and must also be dispassionately examined in the light of reality.

Reality sucks. It just refuses to let bullshit dogmas continue to deceive unchallenged. It is mean and hurtful that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2019 12:31 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2019 8:36 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12789
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 101 (846516)
01-08-2019 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by AZPaul3
01-08-2019 7:34 AM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
I had to look up some dictionary meanings in order to get my head around what is being said here.

google dictionary, and others writes:

Dogma means the doctrine of belief in a religion or a political system. The literal meaning of dogma in ancient Greek was something that seems true. These days, in English, dogma is more absolute. (...)What is the difference between doctrine and dogma?---In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed. ... The antonyms controvertible and incontrovertible are both derivatives of the verb controvert (meaning "to dispute or oppose by reasoning"), which is itself a spin-off of controversy. And what is the source of all of these controversial terms? The Latin adjective controversus, which literally means "turned against."...(Websters comments: Religious dogma and scientific dogma are sometimes at odds, as in arguments between those who believe in the biblical story of creation and those who believe in evolution. Since all dogma resists change, arguments of any kind are harder to resolve when both sides are dogmatic in their beliefs. Dogma and dogmatic are generally used disapprovingly; it's always other people who believe unquestioningly in dogma and who take a dogmatic approach to important issues.

Thus my question to you,(So you are essentially saying that secular humanist perspectives are all truth and reality while all beliefs throughout time have been wrong?) You reply "No"...yet go on to state:

AZPaul3 writes:

What I am saying is that the light of reality destroys religious dogma at every turn.

GDR argues that some doctrine is historically based, whereas Percy argues as you do that it is all belief and hence all dogmatic.

Churches were never formed based on evidence-based science or logic, however. And if so, it was based on a common subjective experience which led to the common dogma experienced and accepted.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-08-2019 7:34 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tangle, posted 01-08-2019 9:42 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 83 by AZPaul3, posted 01-08-2019 9:46 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12789
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 101 (846517)
01-08-2019 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ringo
01-05-2019 4:26 PM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
ringo writes:

If you're going to defend apologists, defend their positions on Christian doctrine.

So first we have to establish what is and is not Christian Doctrine. Additionally, we have the question of what is doctrine vs what is dogma. Or if the two can be seperate.

So we go back to what you say is the only real source we have...the 66 books themselves.(give or take a few added here and there) But you throw yet another wrench at us:

ringo writes:

The fact is that the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament are equally bloodthirsty - according to the ONLY source of information you have. Your "loving" God is made up.

Now to be precise, we have 66 books rather than one book, thus 66 sources. Thus when people claim that its not valid to use the Bible to corroborate the Bible, they are speaking as if it is one book. It is arguably kosher to use one of the 66 books to defend another of the 66 books, however. jar always argued that there were different god characters in different books. Your argument now seems to be that there is one God who is the same in the OT and the NT. Further, you argue that such a God is mean and unfair...to goats and enemies of Israel at least. These days people avoid religion because they claim that the God of religion is mean to Illegals, gays, women who had abortions, and atheists. Yet you conclude by saying that the specific message has value. Thus, in order to satisfy this argument, the "loving God" has to be imagined and lived by us and through us. Is that about right?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 01-05-2019 4:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 01-08-2019 11:03 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 82 of 101 (846520)
01-08-2019 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Thugpreacha
01-08-2019 8:36 AM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
Phat writes:

So you are essentially saying that secular humanist perspectives are all truth and reality while all beliefs throughout time have been wrong?

This 'truth' concept is a purely religious one, it really has no meaning when you're referring to secular matters. Secular stuff is about dealing with the messiness of real life where there's rarely if ever anything absolute and choices are temporal and conditional.

All religious beliefs throughout time have obviously been wrong. If you can step outside your own head for a moment - I know you find this impossible, but if you can't, take it from people that can - you agree that all other religions apart from Christianity are wrong. You even agree that other Christians are also wrong eg Faith. So your insistence that yours is 'the Truth' is simply absurd. Of course it isn't.

Putting aside the choice of no god, simple probability tells us that your variant is unlikely to be 'the Truth'. A better argument would be that because most peoples over all time have believed in gods of various sorts, then the god is universal, not unique to a particular cult.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2019 8:36 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 83 of 101 (846521)
01-08-2019 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Thugpreacha
01-08-2019 8:36 AM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
Churches were never formed based on evidence-based science or logic, however. And if so, it was based on a common subjective experience which led to the common dogma experienced and accepted.

Sorry, can't help you here, Phat. Reality trumps dogma six ways to Sunday no matter if the dogma was achieved by common experience or, as is known in most cases, was force-fed to a gullible subjugated populus by the priests.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2019 8:36 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 84 of 101 (846526)
01-08-2019 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Thugpreacha
01-07-2019 3:59 PM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Phat writes:

You first went off the rails when you logically deduced that science determines reality.


You're showing your true anti-science colors.

Phat writes:

You cannot claim that you are forced to go where the evidence leads you, for you have rejected belief.


The evidence leads me to reject belief.

Phat writes:

You have even said that belief should be a last resort.


OF COURSE it should be a last resort. How can you even suggest otherwise and still claim to have the slightest respect for science?

Phat writes:

After reading your last final insistence that your argument is sound, however, i am feeling as if you will never change it no matter how much I send back at you.


But you're not sending anything back.

When my brother was about five years old, we tried to explain to him that the earth is not flat. His response was, "But I think it is." We'd explain the evidence and he'd return, "But I think it is." No matter what we said, his answer would be, "But I think it is."

Your behaviour is exactly the same. You use, "I believe," as an excuse to park your brain at the door and throw the evidence out the window. You even have the gall to suggest that rejecting belief is a bad thing. That's frustrating enough in a five-year-old but there's no excuse for such behaviour in an adult.

Phat writes:

It seems odd for someone to preach a message that God was literary fiction, Jesus was embellished, both were bloodthirsty according to the books, and that we are expected to do it ourselves!


Why?

Phat writes:

One cannot assume that everything is simply fiction just because they have never had reason to think otherwise.


Yes, that's EXACTLY what we should all do. Truth is not a default.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-07-2019 3:59 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 2:30 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 85 of 101 (846528)
01-08-2019 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Thugpreacha
01-07-2019 7:02 PM


Re: What Rules Out Fiction?
Phat writes:

I think too many people read too many reports from critics who persuade them to logically stop believing.


I heave never read anything like that.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-07-2019 7:02 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 86 of 101 (846529)
01-08-2019 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Thugpreacha
01-08-2019 9:14 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Phat writes:

Additionally, we have the question of what is doctrine vs what is dogma.


There's no real distinction.

Phat writes:

Now to be precise, we have 66 books rather than one book, thus 66 sources.


To be even more precise, we have a canon of approved sources which were chosen because they fit the desired dogmas. If science worked the same way, it would accept only the evidence that fits the existing theories. We'd have no quantum mechanics, no relativity, no evolution, etc. We'd still have phlogiston and a flat earth at the center of the universe.

Phat writes:

Your argument now seems to be that there is one God who is the same in the OT and the NT.


My argument is that the genocide God is in both the Old and New Testaments, so the "progressive revelation" ploy with a "loving God" has no basis.

Phat writes:

Thus, in order to satisfy this argument, the "loving God" has to be imagined and lived by us and through us.


Apparently, you have to make up a "loving God" to be able to swallow Him.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2019 9:14 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12789
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 87 of 101 (847812)
01-27-2019 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
01-08-2019 10:45 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
ringo writes:

You use, "I believe," as an excuse to park your brain at the door and throw the evidence out the window. You even have the gall to suggest that rejecting belief is a bad thing.

You claim that the evidence led you to reject belief. I see no evidence that would lead me to reject my belief. Granted there is evidence that has me question the authenticity of what the apologists preach, but I see many people defend their belief and wonder why you so readily discarded yours? You cant have evidence in invisible Spirits either pro or con.

Belief is a simple choice. There is no reason to reject belief in an invisible power that permeates the universe simply because such a hypothetical power doesn't *do* everything that you think such a power *should* do.

Phat writes:

One cannot assume that everything is simply fiction just because they have never had reason to think otherwise.


ringo writes:

Yes, that's EXACTLY what we should all do. Truth is not a default.

And skepticism is?

We are back to the whole Leap Of Faith argument.

Hebrews 11:1 writes:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

In other words, faith is based on hope. Your problem is that all you have ever hoped for is significant evidence. And not evidence for God so much as evidence for why your doubts and questions had substance. You found it. End of your story.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 01-08-2019 10:45 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2019 3:37 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 01-28-2019 11:32 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 88 of 101 (847815)
01-27-2019 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 2:30 PM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Phat writes:

Belief is a simple choice.

Belief is not a choice.

Put yourself in the shoes of the child born of Muslim parents in a remote village in the Atlas mountains of Morocco. He will be a believer, I can absolutely guarantee it. Not of Christianity of course, it's impossible for him to believe in Christianity because unless you're taught about Jesus by a Christian you can't believe in him. Sad but true, so he's damned to hell for all eternity. As is right and proper.

That's the way it was for all of us not so long ago. Including you and me - we can only believe what we're taught which meant what we were born into. And we're equally damned if Islam is correct.

It's the opposite of a choice. You do not believe because you chose to, you believe - in Christianity - because that's what you know.

I didn't choose to believe when I believed and I didn't choose not to when I didn't. You didn't choose either did you?

There is no reason to reject belief in an invisible power that permeates the universe simply because such a hypothetical power doesn't *do* everything that you think such a power *should* do.

You're making the usual mistake of conflating deism with theism. I doubt whether most people here rule out an “invisible power that permeates the universe” - I'm an exception - because that's unknowable and irrelevant. We do object to yourassumption thar the God is the Christian god and that he intervenes with his creation though.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 2:30 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-28-2019 8:42 AM Tangle has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12789
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 89 of 101 (847839)
01-28-2019 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tangle
01-27-2019 3:37 PM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
I'm not talking so much of children. I am talking of adult over the age of 21 who have been exposed to the internet, missionaries, and aware of the choices offered globally. True you may have a point that most of them will accept the local product if at all. But this presupposes that all of the products are equally palatable. If there actually is something to my brand---in that the solution of accepting a living Christ is an actual possibility and if something actually happens through accepting Jesus the character vs simply dogma chanted by the local shaman...Christianity will have a statistical advantage.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2019 3:37 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2019 10:44 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 90 of 101 (847845)
01-28-2019 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Thugpreacha
01-28-2019 8:42 AM


Re: Why Apologise for Apologetics?
Phat writes:

I'm not talking so much of children. I am talking of adult over the age of 21 who have been exposed to the internet, missionaries, and aware of the choices offered globally.

But people don't reach the age of 21 without being taught the religion of their parents or society. Even atheistic parents can't keep Jesus out of the heads of their kids in a Christian culture. You know this is true because you know that religious belief is not equally distributed in your town between all the world religions. People do not choose their religion. A very few change their religion and a few drop it, but the numbers are totally immaterial.

True you may have a point that most of them will accept the local product if at all.

You know that practically all of them wil - if at all.

But this presupposes that all of the products are equally palatable.

No it doesn't. It doesn't matter a damn what the local religion is, you'll adopt it if you're born into it. You *know* this.

If there actually is something to my brand---in that the solution of accepting a living Christ is an actual possibility and if something actually happens through accepting Jesus the character vs simply dogma chanted by the local shaman...Christianity will have a statistical advantage.

You can not be a Christian if you've never heard of Jesus. If instead, you've grown up a Muslim, you're going to believe what you believe just as strongly as any Christian that Islam is One and you'll have the same religious feeling experiences.

Get you're head into this Phat - your experiences are not unique. People of all religions have the same feelings about their faith and equivalent 'revelations'. You would not be a Christian if you'd been born in the Atlas mountains to Muslim parents. You'd believe something different and you'd be just a fervent. You didn't choose your religion - hardly anybody does.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-28-2019 8:42 AM Thugpreacha has not yet 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