Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Jesus
| Re: Jesus [message #215743 is a reply to message #215717] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 09:20   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 |
Ugh.. as I said... they ALL believe that God exists. I mean, how many different types of lightbulbs are their? How many different types of electrical current? How many different types of computer processors? IF you're going to argue the particulars of a subject, then NOTHING is consistent. I mean, radio waves have a near infinite type of amplitude and frequency.
|
No, they don't all believe God exists. I don't. The buddhaist belief doesn't believe. Some religions belive in many Gods, which the Christian faith does not. Some religions believe in one god which is a God different from the Christian God.
All lightbulbs function the same way. All computer processors compute the same information. All radio waves have the same, consitant shape.
There is nothing about religion that's consistant.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 |
I'm not comparing ancient beliefs of rain and current beliefs of radio, I'm comparing the source of the belief as to how they are. BOTH deal with someone telling someone else how they work, and that recieving person simply believing it at face value.
|
I'd think that radio's inventor (Whoever he/she may be) or constructor (again, whoever he/she may be) will be more of an authority on how the radio works than an ancient holy man is an authority on how rain works.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 |
And that proves his lack of existance... how?
|
It doesn't, but it makes proving his existance quite a bit harder. And if you can't prove his existance, what do you have to begin with? You, Warranto, can't disprove the existance of the invisible purple flying unicorn, but that doesn't mean that the invisible purple flying unicorn exists.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 |
Once again, you're measuring the particularities of a human, not humanity itself.
|
How else do you measure something? You measure how big, how wide, how many, what color, it's mass, etc.
I say again, God has no particlarities to measure. None of those things I just meantioned apply.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 |
The bible is also considered to be the most accurately and carefully translated text. No other historical text can boast that either.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
(Link speaks to how accuracy was a focal point)
If you can't trust the accruacy of the bible, you can't trust the accuracy of ANY translated historical text.
|
Perhaps it was a bad idea to bring up how well the bible has been translated, since I don't know much about it. In any case, you're probably right here.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 |
Not quite. The Christian interpretation of God would not exist. The lack of an interpretation does not disprove the existance of anything.
|
That's my point. God has never moved beyond an idea, a theory. This, partly, accounts for God's lack of measureablity. How do you measure an idea?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215763 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
No, they don't all believe God exists. I don't. The buddhaist belief doesn't believe. Some religions belive in many Gods, which the Christian faith does not. Some religions believe in one god which is a God different from the Christian God.
All lightbulbs function the same way. All computer processors compute the same information. All radio waves have the same, consitant shape.
|
My mistake, I should included that one. ONE exception out of them all.
But if you want to talk about "exceptions".. not all light bulbs function the same way.
Continuing without that exception, the number of Gods doesn't matter. The idea God exists is still the same.
| Quote: |
I'd think that radio's inventor (Whoever he/she may be) or constructor (again, whoever he/she may be) will be more of an authority on how the radio works than an ancient holy man is an authority on how rain works.
|
IF the inventor knows, what makes you think he'd actually tell you the truth regarding it? You have no choice but to believe him regarding that aspect.
| Quote: |
It doesn't, but it makes proving his existance quite a bit harder.
|
That's nice... it was established many threads ago that you can not prove the existance of him. However, you can not disprove his existance either.
| Quote: |
How else do you measure something? You measure how big, how wide, how many, what color, it's mass, etc.
|
So, humanity is "simply" the sum of its parts? Well, so much for the consciousness (yet to be measured).. I guess that the thought process is ONLY a chemical reaction.
| Quote: |
That's my point. God has never moved beyond an idea, a theory. This, partly, accounts for God's lack of measureablity. How do you measure an idea?
|
Kind of like the THEORY of evolution, no?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215769 is a reply to message #215588] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 10:37 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| runewood wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 14:48 |
But thier reasoning cant be proven wrong and nor can yours.
|
It certainly can be proven incorrect and fallacious when the whole premise of the arguments is based on logical fallacies.
All we're doing is pointing out the logical fallacies in them and asking you all to defend your positions without contradicting yourselves and without negating your entire arguments.
| Dover |
There is nothing about religion that's consistant.
|
"Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal - these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace." -Boondock Saints
How can you say that when so many religions have so much in common? Many of them believe in a higher power, whether it's one power or many powers; many of them have moral codes to which its followers should adhere--it goes against just about every religion to steal from your neighbor, lie to your neighbor, and kill your neighbor (except Islam; they're allowed to kill infidels (I wonder how many atheists are ready to jump up and defend Islam now that I said that...)). So many religions have certain rituals they practice during which they try to grow closer to their deity: Christians pray and have baptisms and confirmations; Muslims pray five times a day, worship in mosques, etc.; Buddhists meditate to remove their thoughts from reality in an effort to reach Nirvana; Hindus worship whatever god they choose and perform rituals specific to that god.
Again, I ask, how can you say that religion is inconsistent?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 11:15] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215779 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 11:23 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"? You tell us this crazy story of an immaculate conception and a big imaginary friend who grants us our wishes if we ask but only if he wants to because he has a plan for you from the moment you're born until the day you die, but oh yeah, you have free will even though "God" has a plan for you.
You tell us this crazy story about this imaginary dude and challenge US to disprove his existence? Sounds like a huge COP OUT to me, theists! The burden of proof is on YOU, not ME. I don't have to disprove "God"'s existence to affirm my decision to not believe in this "God" character. If you want me to believe and participate in your rituals, you need to convince me that he exists. And in the nearly 27 years I've been here, everyone has failed.
The funniest part is that you all come down to the argument that basically says "You can't explain how we got here, therefore God exists." What the fuck kind of retarded garbage is that?
"God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Be good or you'll get coal in your stocking/go to hell!
I'm the bawss.
[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 11:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215794 is a reply to message #215779] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 12:13 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 12:23 |
The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"? You tell us this crazy story of an immaculate conception and a big imaginary friend who grants us our wishes if we ask but only if he wants to because he has a plan for you from the moment you're born until the day you die, but oh yeah, you have free will even though "God" has a plan for you.
You tell us this crazy story about this imaginary dude and challenge US to disprove his existence? Sounds like a huge COP OUT to me, theists! The burden of proof is on YOU, not ME. I don't have to disprove "God"'s existence to affirm my decision to not believe in this "God" character. If you want me to believe and participate in your rituals, you need to convince me that he exists. And in the nearly 27 years I've been here, everyone has failed.
The funniest part is that you all come down to the argument that basically says "You can't explain how we got here, therefore God exists." What the fuck kind of retarded garbage is that?
"God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Be good or you'll get coal in your stocking/go to hell!
|
We're not (or, rather, I'm not) trying to place any burden on you to disprove it. That is, unless you're going to come and say "I KNOW he does not exist". If you know it, then you will be able to prove it. The same goes with people who claim to KNOW that God exists.
And, to point it out again, God /= religion. Claiming that God does not exist on the basis of one religion "getting it wrong", as you claim, has no bering on the overall existance or nonexistance of God.
I could care less whether or not you choose to believe in God, or to follow a particular religion. Just don't go claiming you "KNOW" the answer, because I will challenge you to prove your knowledge every time.
"You can't explain how we got here, therefore God exists."? I have never once claimed that. Anything remotely resembling that was when I stated that the idea of the universe coming into existance is just as likely to be explained as attributable to God, as the only other alternatives, spontaneous creation or non-creation (has simply always existed).
| Quote: |
"God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse.
|
Only one problem with your arguement. Santa Clause does, or rather did, exist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215798 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 12:35 |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
|
If you're pointing to us, nobody here is trying to convince another. The topic starter hasn't replied at all.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215799 is a reply to message #215795] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 12:37 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| gbull wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 13:26 |
Monothiests, the light bulbs in Warrano's arguement if you will, will always believe there is a sole God. No one will ever convince them otherwise, it's pointless to try.
|
Sorry, couldn't help it...
See, when you believe in God, the lights come on!
ok, bad joke. Don't use this as an arguement for anything...
Edit:
| Quote: |
The topic starter hasn't replied at all.
|
Meh, probably just someone who joined for the sole purpose of amusing him/herself while we get riled up over the topic.
[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 12:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215806 is a reply to message #215794] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 13:09 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 12:13 |
| Quote: |
"God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse.
|
Only one problem with your arguement. Santa Clause does, or rather did, exist!
|
You know damned well that I am referring to the modern day version of "Santa Claus", the fat jolly guy who can deliver presents around the world in one night and flies in a sleigh, and will fill your stocking with coal if you misbehave during the year. That story is no more or less ridiculous than the story of a god who sends you to an imaginary hell or heaven when you die.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215817 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 13:37 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
You are the one with this strange story about a mystical conscious being who created the world for us. Why do I have to prove that's false? I'm not the one making up a story!
On the same token, there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Now you must provide evidence that there isn't one. Why should I have to prove that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage? You're the one calling me a liar, now you have to prove it!
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215820 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 13:46 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"?
|
As Warranto said, you place the burden of proof on yourself when you claim "I ABSOLUTELY KNOW GOD DOES NOT EXIST."
Besides, we've already given our logical reasoning behind our belief in the existence of god (none of this could have suddenly created itself out of nothing; some initial cause had to make it all happen), yet all you have been able to do so far is attack our logic rather than come up with alternatives of your own (of course, I don't mean you specifically, Crimson).
You all base your arguments on fallacious, circular reasoning ("How can you believe in a book, written 2000 years ago, meant to persuade and control the masses? I'm going to believe in another book written 500 years ago meant to persuade and control masses TO BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS! MY ARGUMENT SO MUCH BETTER!!!"), while you have yet to punch holes in any of our arguments. Simply saying "YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!!" won't do much to discredit any of our arguments (which, so far, have been pretty much based on agnosticism as opposed to Christianity).
We've already given our logical evidence for our belief in a higher power; now it's your turn to give us your logical evidence of HOW YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW there is no such higher power instead of simply attacking us with the same fallacious arguments.
| Quote: |
Why do I have to prove that's false? I'm not the one making up a story!
|
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Right there.
"I DON'T HAVE TO DISCREDIT YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG ANYWAY BECAUSE I SAY SO"
There's got to be a name for that kind of logical fallacy, isn't there
If we're so wrong, then give us an alternative and explain your reasoning for it, and we'll see if it can hold up when put to the logic test.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 13:50] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215825 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 14:08 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I still don't get it, I guess. I don't believe there's a "God". I don't know why I have to prove he doesn't exist. If you want me to believe in "God", I need proof.
If someone tells me that that I can turn this radio on an adjust an antenna and I'll receive music from waves in the air, I can turn on the radio and get music and believe them.
If someone tells me that if I turn on a light bulb, then light waves will come from the bulb and bounce off nearby objects and hit receptors in my eyeball, and I turn on a light and can see things around me, I believe in the existence of light waves.
But, if someone tells me that there's a holy being in the sky (or wherever you say he is) that I can see NO trace of evidence for, then I'm just not going to believe that "he" exists.
I won't say that I know for a fact that there is no "God", but it ranks low on the probability charts. Really, really low.
The problem is that I'm stuck with two sets of people:
1) Those of you who believe in "God" AND one of the religions that worships "him".
2) Those of you who believe no religion has it right and all forms of worship are bullshit, but you believe in a conscious being who created us.
When I argue against one, the other one attacks me. And you guys can't even see it, or maybe you thrive on it to continue to look like you're getting somewhere.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215826 is a reply to message #215806] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 14:15 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 14:09 |
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 12:13 |
| Quote: |
"God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse.
|
Only one problem with your arguement. Santa Clause does, or rather did, exist!
|
You know damned well that I am referring to the modern day version of "Santa Claus", the fat jolly guy who can deliver presents around the world in one night and flies in a sleigh, and will fill your stocking with coal if you misbehave during the year. That story is no more or less ridiculous than the story of a god who sends you to an imaginary hell or heaven when you die.
|
And the modern day version is a perversion of the "real" Santa Clause. But, I'll take your exclusion of the story (as I was permitted one of my own when dealing with Buddism).
The difference here is that there is real evidence to prove that a person, magical or not, named Santa Clause does not exist. All you have to do, is look at everyone who went without presents this year. However, as has been stated by both sides repeatedly, there is no proof as to the existance of God. We possess the ability to "Know" that Santa Clause, in his current inagination, is not real. We do not have that luxury with the idea of God.
| Quote: |
You are the one with this strange story about a mystical conscious being who created the world for us. Why do I have to prove that's false? I'm not the one making up a story!
|
True, but you are the one claiming you "know" it's false.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215828 is a reply to message #215825] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 14:19 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 15:08 |
If someone tells me that that I can turn this radio on an adjust an antenna and I'll receive music from waves in the air, I can turn on the radio and get music and believe them.
If someone tells me that if I turn on a light bulb, then light waves will come from the bulb and bounce off nearby objects and hit receptors in my eyeball, and I turn on a light and can see things around me, I believe in the existence of light waves.
|
Those were never in question. What was in question, related to those examples is the why/how.
Sure, you turn it on and get music; that can be easily observed. Now, HOW do you get the music to the radio? We are told radio waves, but must rely on "the experts" who tell us that.
Sure, you can turn on a light bulb and get light. Now, HOW does it light up? We are told electricity, but must rely on "the experts" who tell us that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215830 is a reply to message #215826] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 14:23 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 14:15 |
True, but you are the one claiming you "know" it's false.
|
No I'm not.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215833 is a reply to message #215763] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 14:39 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
My mistake, I should included that one. ONE exception out of them all.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions
One exception? I think not.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
But if you want to talk about "exceptions".. not all light bulbs function the same way.
|
I've never met a light bulb who's function wasn't to create light.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
Continuing without that exception, the number of Gods doesn't matter. The idea God exists is still the same.
|
But the details matter. The gods of the Roman and Greek myths are remarkably similar to men, both in their bodies and in their actions. The Christian god has no physical form, "moves in mysterious ways", "Is the one true god", and is omnipotent/omniciant. Scientology doesn't have a God. Pagan Gods each have differant functions and limitations.
Who is right? A lot of these religions claim the exact opposite of each other.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
IF the inventor knows, what makes you think he'd actually tell you the truth regarding it? You have no choice but to believe him regarding that aspect.
|
Fine. I guess I'm forced to admit that there is a slight possibility that there's a worldwide conspiricy involving the true functionality of the radio. I don't believe it, but it's possible.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
That's nice... it was established many threads ago that you can not prove the existance of him. However, you can not disprove his existance either.
|
Excuse me, then. I'm relatively new to the Politics subforum. But as Crimson said in a reply above mine, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the atheists, like I hinted at in my Invisible Purple Flying Unicorn rant above.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
So, humanity is "simply" the sum of its parts? Well, so much for the consciousness (yet to be measured).. I guess that the thought process is ONLY a chemical reaction.
|
It's nice to romanticize humanity and glue glitter onto individual thought and personality, but yeah. It's a chemical reaction, and here's some proof to back it up. When people have thought processes, certain chemical reactions are present. When people don't have thought processes, certain chemical reactiosn are absent.
| warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 |
Kind of like the THEORY of evolution, no?
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution
Too bad that theory has soon measureable, touchable, feelable, tasteable, concrete proof behind it, eh?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215840 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 15:13 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
One exception? I think not.
|
I see nothing in that link that suggests other religions do not believe in God.
| Quote: |
I've never met a light bulb who's function wasn't to create light.
|
Ugh.. read what I write. the FUNCTION is not in question. the WHY/HOW it does what it does, is.
| Quote: |
Scientology doesn't have a God.
|
Oh, really?
| Quote: |
Does Scientology have a concept of God?
Most definitely. Scientology affirms the existence of a Supreme Being, although its dogma is unique and does not include the worship of one.
|
http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg015.html
| Quote: |
But the details matter.
|
Nope, the details don't. All the details do is dictate how one is different from the other. They all (I know, I know) believe in God.
| Quote: |
Fine. I guess I'm forced to admit that there is a slight possibility that there's a worldwide conspiricy involving the true functionality of the radio. I don't believe it, but it's possible.
|
But, if you have no proof, why believe?
| Quote: |
But as Crimson said in a reply above mine, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the atheists,
|
It does once the athiest states that he/she "knows" the answer.
| Quote: |
When people have thought processes, certain chemical reactions are present. When people don't have thought processes, certain chemical reactiosn are absent.
|
Is that ALL it is though? Science has yet to prove even that. True that chemicals are part of the equations, but is it all the equation?
| Quote: |
Too bad that theory has soon measureable, touchable, feelable, tasteable, concrete proof behind it, eh?
|
Too bad it's still a theory, huh? And one that is not as of yet "measureable, touchable, feelable, tasteable, concrete proof behind it,"
And remember, the idea that is may be provable sometime in the future has no bearing on it being real or not. It's whether or not it's provable "now", correct? After all, that's your arguement against the lack of proof of God, right? No measurable proof at this time?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #215869 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 28 August 2006 17:32 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I give up. Have your damn war and kill eachother so I can have peace.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
| Pages (9): [ 4 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 07 00:15:07 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01625 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
