 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2010 5:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Serious question time. I'm thinking through my belief about Baptism. Specifically, about whether or not infant baptism is legitimate. WHC holds to "believer's baptism", basically presupposing a level of cognitive ability conducive for consciously-held faith and growth in discipleship. But I thought about something. If the main thing is about how "saving grace and church membership are gifts from God by the recipient's faith alone and cannot be imparted or transferred from one person to another (such as from parent to child) by sacraments such as baptism" ...then this would mean that it would be illegitimate to baptize any mentally-disabled and/or mentally-retarded person based upon the faith of their family and caretakers. But this is weird because I specifically remember one year that WHC had their annual baptism...and a mentally-challenged young man was baptized by our pastors when there was NO REAL EVIDENCE that I could see that he understood the significance of what was happening with him. It was the family around him that actually made the profession of faith and helped him go under the water and everything. I never did ask Greg about this...but I always thought about that.
At any rate, I can see how holding a perspective that allows for infant baptism CAN allow for the baptism of a MR person...but I DON'T see how the believer's baptism perspective allows for it...at all. Especially if the sine-qua-non of the whole thing is a certain level of cognitive abilities and intellectual/emotional maturity of each individual. If baptismal grace extends to the mentally-retarded and/or disabled who is part of a Christian "household", then I don't see any reason whatsoever to deny infant baptism upon supposedly the same grounds. And that's not even considering the long standing church tradition of infant baptism...
Soooooo...speak up, y'all. From your understanding (especially if you hold to believer's baptism), should mentally disabled and/or retarded persons who are in a "household" of Christian faith be baptized into God's covenant people?
Post Edited (One Love) : 1/20/2010 4:51:50 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2010 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | Along the same lines, I suppose, would be this question: Should any seriously mentally-disabled and/or retarded person be able to take Communion, given a Zwinglian/memorialist stance...which is CENTERED ON the cognitive ability to "remember the Lord's death" in the Eucharist as a STRICTLY memorial act, being no possible "means of grace."
I know that WHC offers Communion to the mentally-disabled/retarded...
Post Edited (One Love) : 1/20/2010 5:03:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/20/2010 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Baptism is grounded in "THE FAITH OF CHRIST" and out honest neediness and receptivity. Only he is faithful -- we sure aren't.
One Love said...Serious question time. I'm thinking through my belief about Baptism. Specifically, about whether or not infant baptism is legitimate. WHC holds to " believer's baptism", basically presupposing a level of cognitive ability conducive for consciously-held faith and growth in discipleship. But I thought about something. If the main thing is about how "saving grace and church membership are gifts from God by the recipient's faith alone and cannot be imparted or transferred from one person to another (such as from parent to child) by sacraments such as baptism" ...then this would mean that it would be illegitimate to baptize any mentally-disabled and/or mentally-retarded person based upon the faith of their family and caretakers. But this is weird because I specifically remember one year that WHC had their annual baptism...and a mentally-challenged young man was baptized by our pastors when there was NO REAL EVIDENCE that I could see that he understood the significance of what was happening with him. It was the family around him that actually made the profession of faith and helped him go under the water and everything. I never did ask Greg about this...but I always thought about that.
At any rate, I can see how holding a perspective that allows for infant baptism CAN allow for the baptism of a MR person...but I DON'T see how the believer's baptism perspective allows for it...at all. Especially if the sine-qua-non of the whole thing is a certain level of cognitive abilities and intellectual/emotional maturity of each individual. If baptismal grace extends to the mentally-retarded and/or disabled who is part of a Christian "household", then I don't see any reason whatsoever to deny infant baptism upon supposedly the same grounds. And that's not even considering the long standing church tradition of infant baptism...
Soooooo...speak up, y'all. From your understanding (especially if you hold to believer's baptism), should mentally disabled and/or retarded persons who are in a "household" of Christian faith be baptized into God's covenant people?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2010 1:03 AM (GMT -6) | | D: One standard theological argument leveled against believer's baptism is that it makes the efficacy of the sacrament dependent upon the understanding of the baptism...
T: Not on an understanding "of baptism," but on belief in Christ and the experience of regeneration. It's "believer's" baptism, not "theologian's" baptism.
D: ...that is, it depends upon what the baptised knows.
T: ...to some extent, yes, but not just on 'knows' as in propositional content about baptism. It's about having chosen Christ.
D: This runs counter to the Calvinistic belief that God saves whomever he wills, regardless of any worthiness or knowledge on the part of the saved.
T: Well, not quite, right? Calvinism doesn't make salvation not depend upon what a person knows. Look at Piper and babies in the afterlife. Persons HAVE to know, understand, and exercise their wills. Calvin just thought that God determines all this.
T
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 1/21/2010 12:11:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2010 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | | D: At any rate, I can see how holding a perspective that allows for infant baptism CAN allow for the baptism of a MR person...but I DON'T see how the believer's baptism perspective allows for it...at all.
T: Good point. More on this below.
D: Along the same lines, I suppose, would be this question: Should any seriously mentally-disabled and/or retarded person be able to take Communion…
T: Perhaps not. Well, certainly not IF leadership hasn't thought through it theologically so that they are in fact ACTING theologically.
D: …given a Zwinglian/memorialist stance...which is CENTERED ON the cognitive ability to "remember the Lord's death" in the Eucharist as a STRICTLY memorial act, being no possible "means of grace."
T: OK, couple things:
1) A lot of those who believe in believer’s baptism also believe that infants and the mentally handicapped are embraced as is by the redeeming work of Christ. If babies die, they go to heaven. If one believes that, then could baptize infants as a sign OF THIS, i.e., as an expression of their faith that babies are embraced by the saving work of Christ as is. The infants’ baptism would be the community’s way of declaring Christ’s acceptance of babies and their membership in the Body of Christ. But this same community would have to continue to insist upon believer’s baptism, because they know that when that baby grows up and becomes a selfish person in fallen misrelation they’re no longer automatically included by Christ’s redeeming work. They’re willfully misrelated. Now they have to exercise their will.
It’s consistent at least. My problem is that it really has two different theologies of baptism and what it signifies. But whatever. However, the one thing I like about it is that it does give a community some way of declaring to the world God’s loving acceptance of babies and ‘some’ handicapped persons (not sure what I’d feel about Hitler had he slipped during the Allied invasion, hit his head, and survived but became mentally handicapped because of his injury. I don’t imagine he gets a ‘free pass’ card for all the crap he spewed. So being ‘mentally incapacitated’ per se dudn’t earn you anything…per se). I any time we can dump on the ridiculous belief that babies go to hell because they’re not ‘born again’, I think we ought to do so. But I would never want to say that babies who are NOT so baptized do NOT so benefit from the grace of Christ. Such infant baptism would JUST be a community's way of declaring its faith about some reality NOT brought about by the baptism itself.
2) Secondly, you continue to describe the “memorialist” position on baptism and the elements as “not being a means of grace.” This is just not true Bro. It’s certainly not my view, nor need any memorialist deny that participating in baptism and communion 'by faith' is a means of grace. Why of course it’s a means of grace (i.e. of experiencing God as grace). Memorialism, by faith, IS a means of grace. You still don’t appreciate this I guess. ;o)
T
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 1/21/2010 12:38:45 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2010 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
A lot of those who believe in believer’s baptism also believe that infants and the mentally handicapped are embraced as is by the redeeming work of Christ. If babies die, they go to heaven. If one believes that, then could baptize infants as a sign OF THIS, i.e., as an expression of their faith that babies are embraced by the saving work of Christ as is. The infants’ baptism would be the community’s way of declaring Christ’s acceptance of babies and their membership in the Body of Christ. But this same community would have to continue to insist upon believer’s baptism, because they know that when that baby grows up and becomes a selfish person in fallen misrelation they’re no longer automatically included by Christ’s redeeming work. They’re willfully misrelated. Now they have to exercise their will.
It’s consistent at least. My problem is that it really has two different theologies of baptism and what it signifies. But whatever. However, the one thing I like about it is that it does give a community some way of declaring to the world God’s loving acceptance of babies and ‘some’ handicapped persons. I any time we can dump on the ridiculous belief that babies go to hell because they’re not ‘born again’, I think we ought to do so.
Greg don't buy this...and I suppose he's trying to stay consistent. From "Across the Spectrum" on the section about "The Destiny of the Evangelized", he is giving a supporting argument for post-mortem evangelism...
2. The freewill defense. Among evangelicals, the most common explanation for the problem of evil is the freewill defense. In essence, this argument states that evil exists in the world because creatures must have the freedom to choose evil if they are to have the freedom to choose love. If this view is accepted, then it follows that no one can enter into God's love without choosing for it, and no one can be excluded from God's love without choosing against it. If even one person could automatically go to heaven without choosing for it, the entire freewill defense falls to the ground. Yet many people obviously die without having made a resolved choice for or against God. The postmortem evangelism position is the most natural way of reconciling the need for choice with the fact that in this life choice is often unavailable to people.
Check out that bolded part. I'm assuming that would include babies OR people with infant-like mental states. In other words, Greg HIMSELF would have babies AND MR persons going to a form of purgatory-esque place to "grow up" to be able to make a choice for or against God, postmortem. So, it seems that Greg is trying to take his anabaptist "believer's baptism" to what he feels is it's logical conclusion...in alliance with the free will defense.
Thus, Greg would NOT say that when babies died, they go to heaven to "grow up" with God. He'd have to posit some purgatory where dead babies can "grow up" and (theoretically) STILL reject God. Hell, even JOHN PIPER doesn't say that about babies who've died!! 
So, WTF kind of God is Greg's God? 
IF...on the other hand...one WERE to take stance (the EASTERN ORTHODOX STANCE, btw) that God can "have mercy upon whom he will have mercy", then YES, one COULD baptize infants and some MR persons under the fact of Christ's redeeming work. Basically this would be thinking eschatologically, with an eye towards God building and sustaining a people. One could even do this, while primarily putting forward the importance of personal faith in baptism in all things...but do you see how a person could NOT do this while having a STRICTLY believer's baptism belief like Greg does.
Moreover, do you see how INCONSISTENT it would be for Greg to allow a MR person with an infantlike mental state to be baptized in his church?
Lemme just say for the record that I go with your belief on this one much more than Greg's.
Post Edited (One Love) : 1/21/2010 3:01:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2010 4:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Secondly, you continue to describe the “memorialist” position on baptism and the elements as “not being a means of grace.” This is just not true Bro. It’s certainly not my view, nor need any memorialist deny that participating in baptism and communion 'by faith' is a means of grace. Why of course it’s a means of grace (i.e. of experiencing God as grace). Memorialism, by faith, IS a means of grace. You still don’t appreciate this I guess.
1) Zwingli did NOT believe in the EO view of grace, just like most evangelicals who hold a memorialist position. This includes Greg, who defines Grace simply as "undeserved favor."
2) From wiki...
Baptists do not hold Communion, nor the elements thereof, as sacramental; rather, it is considered to be an act of remembrance of Christ's atonement, and a time of renewal of personal commitment.
In other words, they do NOT agree with even JOHN WESLEY on this point, that Communion actually IS sacramental for receiving divine grace. They (including GREG) would hold that there IS no "more" or "distinct" presence of Jesus in the act of the Eucharist than at any other time. From "Across the Spectrum" again on "The Memorial View"...
The Lord's Supper is an ordinance that Christ established to provide the church with a reminder of the love and grace [OL's Note: which Greg defines MERELY as "undeserved favor" in the book!] he expressed on the cross at Calvary. Communion symbolizes and commemorates Christ's death and functions as a sign of the new covenant believers have with Christ. As such, it is an external reminder of Christ's act of redemption. Christ is of course present whenever believers celebrate the Lord's Supper but not in any sense different from the way he is present whenever believers are gathered in Jesus' name (Matt. 18:20). According to the memorial view, both the Catholic understanding that the communion elements become the body and blood of Christ and the mainline Protestant view that Christ is spiritually present in a unique way [OL's Note: Including Reformed and Methodism] in the communion elements are unnecessary and unbiblical.
I know for a FACT that THIS is Greg's belief on the subject.
Check out what John Wesley (and the Methodist) mean by Communion being a "means of grace"
Greg wholesale DENIES this as "unnecessary" and "unbiblical." But as you can see, this would necessarily EXCLUDE all adults with infant-like minds from Communion. Why have a MR person take a purely memorial event that they cannot fully understand or participate in?
Yeah...
Post Edited (One Love) : 1/21/2010 3:34:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2010 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me ask you this, Tom.
Let's say that you and I are together talking about God in a coffee shop. We're just remarking about God's presence in the place and both verbally thank Jesus for that.
Now, let's say at a different time that you, me, and others are taking Communion with each other, partaking in Christ's Broken Body and Blood.
Would YOU say that Christ's presence in our participation in the Eucharist "not in any sense different" than his presence in our thanking him for his omnipresence in the coffee shop.
Interestingly enough, certain things make sense now. I remember one time at WHC, we had a staff meeting where we took Communion. The person who lead flipped things around such that basically we each individually made "toasts" to Jesus as we each recalled some personal faith experience of Jesus in our lives. Like one person would talk about how Jesus saved them or something and then raise his or her "glass" and make a type of toast to Jesus in remembrance. After everyone made their "toast", then we ate the bread and grape juice together. We only did that once, and it would be an understatement to say that some people on staff didn't appreciate that way of doing things, but...given the beliefs about the Lord's Supper coming from the top down, I can see now why something like that was even ALLOWED at all.
Hmmm...from the WHC Theology page...
Baptism and Communion – Baptism and communion are two ordinances the Lord has given the Church. The only form of baptism we practice is believer’s baptism by immersion. (Baptism: Acts 2:38-41; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 8:26-40; 10:47; 18:8; Romans 6:3-4. Communion: Acts 2:42-46; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
Ordinances, NOT "sacraments". The language there is quite intentional, as you may have already suspected.
Post Edited (One Love) : 1/21/2010 4:54:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2010 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | "Holy Communion is remembrance, commemoration, and memorial, but this remembrance is much more than simply intellectual recalling. "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) is anamnesis (the biblical Greek word). This dynamic action becomes re-presentation of past gracious acts of God in the present, so powerfully as to make them truly present now. Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past."
From "This Holy Mystery"
I think you'd get down with this view...right? I know that I would because it takes the EPICLETIC REALITY seriously...whereas "memorialism" does not.
---------------------------------------------------
Non-negotiable terms (for me, at least):
theosis (Union with Christ, Christification, Image and Likeness, etc)
hesychia (Jesus Prayer, etc)
epiklesis (Eucharist, etc)
synapheia (between Christ and human believing "heart" )
mimicry (identification and free expressionn of acquired personal values, concepts and behaviors from interpersonal relationship)
re-presentation (multiple contextualized expressions of singular content)
epektasis (eternal "resting movement" from "glory to glory" )
You once said..."I'm totally down the mimicry and re-presentation", Tom. Does that still stand?
Post Edited (One Love) : 1/21/2010 5:11:34 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2010 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Greg don't buy this.
T: Right. He wouldn’t. I was just talking in general. SOME who practice only believer’s baptism also believe babies who die get a free ticket. I happen to agree with Greg on the metaphysics of love/freedom. No ‘free’ rides for babies, or anybody (where ‘free’ = ‘not having the choose their way into right relationship with God’).
D: Greg HIMSELF would have babies AND MR persons going to a form of purgatory-esque place to "grow up" to be able to make a choice for or against God, postmortem. So, it seems that Greg is trying to take his anabaptist "believer's baptism" to what he feels is it's logical conclusion...in alliance with the free will defense.
T: Yeah. As I understand Greg now, NOBODY by-passes purgatory. Nobody is so right-on holy that they don’t need to have purgatory burn away a bit of dross. Everybody’s got to have some unfinished business to take care of in purgatory.
D: So, WTF kind of God is Greg's God?
T: Ha! Well, a God who can’t by-pass the metaphysical requirements of loving relations his own being establishes is infinitely better than one who admits into heaven an infant who dies just after being baptized but who does not admit into heaven one who died on the way to being baptized. What sort of metaphysics grounds the latter? Where’s it gotten? I haven’t the slightest.
D: IF...on the other hand...one WERE to take stance (the EASTERN ORTHODOX STANCE, btw) that God can "have mercy upon whom he will have mercy", then YES, one COULD baptize infants and some MR persons under the fact of Christ's redeeming work. Basically this would be thinking eschatologically…
T: Then let’s go around throwing holy water on people left and right. I mean, if eschatology grounds who gets baptized and when they get baptized, then by all means, let’s baptize EVERYBODY regardless of what they believe. They don’t even have to know. Just a drop or two of water on folks while passing them in the street would do. Heck, we could go to city water storage facilities and bless the water so that every time somebody showers they’re baptized.
D: Moreover, do you see how INCONSISTENT it would be for Greg to allow a MR person with an infantlike mental state to be baptized in his church?
T: I do see it. Yep.
-------------------
D: The EO family, I believe, would say that BOTH babies will experience the sanctifying grace of God postmortem...but that ONE of them had the experience of the believing "community’s way of declaring Christ’s acceptance of babies and their membership in the Body of Christ."
T: So infant baptism is for the community, not for the infant. I’m not saying it’s heretical or anything (I can’t hardly do that), but where’s the biblical basis for understanding baptism this way? There is none.
D: So...which perspective would you choose? I think I know.
T: If you know your Bible then you know my view. Hehe!
-----------------------
D: In other words, they do NOT agree with even JOHN WESLEY on this point, that Communion actually IS sacramental for receiving divine grace. They (including GREG) would hold that there IS no "more" or "distinct" presence of Jesus in the act of the Eucharist than at any other time.
T: Wesley, as I understand his view, was a combination of memorialism and real grace mediating in the EVENT of faith appropriating history (i.e., remembering Christ). Not sure about him, but this is pretty much my view—a kind of sacramental memorialism. When faith approaches the history of the Cross held out in community’s symbols of that event, grace is mediated. Nothing ‘happens’ to the bread or wine at any time. But WE declare ourselves to be the BODY of Christ upon earth when by faith the power and grace of the life and death of Jesus becomes the power by which we live and are the Church.
Is that power any different than the power that sustains the universe outside the elements of communion? No. Greg’s right to a point, but his point is beside the point. Though the ‘presence’ of God is one and same universally—whether sustaining the existence of Satan or the elements of communion—but God is doing something in one he’s not doing in the other, something special in/for the whole Body when that Body decides (via the table) to live NOW in the light and power of what happened THEN. That’s why how members were ‘treating’ one another matter to the table so much. So of course the participants’ own understanding and beliefs matter. So the elements are not, per Catholics, worthy of latria (worship), nor is there, per Catholics, a re-crucifying of the Son. God forbid.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2010 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | "Anamnesis" is used in Christianity in reference to the Eucharist. This has its origin in Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "Do this in memory of me" (Ancient Greek "τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν", (Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) and can refer either to the memorial character of the Eucharist itself or to the part of the service where the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus are remembered.
For example, in the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, the anamnesis begins with the words:
Remembering, therefore, this command of the Saviour [i.e., to eat and drink in remembrance of him] and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father and the second, glorious coming...
This phrase precedes the epiklesis, when the priest asks God to send the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, other services besides the Divine Liturgy will have an anamnesis, such as the Great Sanctification of Waters at Theophany.
In most western Christian traditions, on the other hand, the anamnesis comes after the epiklesis.
An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church says of the anamnesis: "This memorial prayer of remembrance recalls for the worshipping community past events in their tradition of faith that are formative for their identity and self-understanding" and makes particular mention of its place in "the various eucharistic prayers"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2010 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | From the Methodists:
Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus' name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only.
I love the analogy to the presence of Christ in the preaching of the Word. That’s cool. It does not good, mediates no grace, to anyone who does not likewise believe. But to those who receive the Word in faith, grace is given and works its work.
What I don’t like is “not a remembrance of the Last Supper and Crucifixion ONLY.” I don’t know ANYBODY who thinks that ALL it is, i.e., who thinks God cannot be experience through participating in communion. Who the hell thinks that? So, I don’t like “memory”-bashing.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2010 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | D: You are better off dropping the “memorialism” from your “sacramental memorialism,” advocating a type of Methodistic perspective (which denies any transubstantiation)...and call it a day.
T: Maybe so. But EO uses the words “to remember” while denying transubstantiation. I could not NOT use the words “in remembrance of me” or “to remember” while conducting a service. How would one even do that?
D: John of Chry: “Remembering, therefore, this command of the Saviour and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father and the second, glorious coming...”
T: Sounds good.
D: This phrase precedes the epiklesis, when the priest asks God to send the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
T: Gotta draw the line. See? There’s no NEED for the elements to “change” into something they’re not. The grace is mediated via the entire EVENT in which believers appropriate the grace and power of Christ by faith as the facts of history are remembered and celebrated. Easy.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2010 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|