Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

182 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/3/2009 12:08 PM (GMT -6)

D, a book you have to get:

Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (St .Vladimir's, 2004).

Excellent book. I'm not done yet. The chapter on Nestorius may be worth the whole book. But now that I'm into the chapter on Cyril's Christology the book is paying dividends. I can't help but see our whole 2 year debate in its pages. You'll see WHY I felt (feel?) you were Nestorian as well as WHY you thought (think?) I was Apollinarist (Cyril was constantly accused of being Apollinarist). And McGuckin's summary of Apollinarius is sensitive and thorough. I don't know that I'm Apollinarist (let's see what rabbits Cyril pulls out of his hat in this next chapter; I'm still reading), BUT I certainly appreciate Apollinarius in his context and given the challenges he faced and his own careful definitions and terminology, would not consider him heretical at all (by today's standards).

Great quote. To those who constantly accused him of being Apollinarist, Cyril said, "Not everything a heretic says is necessarily heretical!"

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/3/2009 12:16:12 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/3/2009 12:51 PM (GMT -6)

Oh yeah, minus his view of the elements.

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/3/2009 12:54 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Tom. I'm reading...but I'll make sure to get it.

Stuff's looking good so far...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/3/2009 1:16 PM (GMT -6)

Last paragraph of p. 181 and first line and a half of p. 182. IF...only IF...Apollinarius is right about the actuated created Nous constituting a created subject, then he's got a point. You can't avoid a two-subject Christology if the Son assumes THAT. He may not be right. And as it turns out, what Apollinarius feels this entails (second paragraph on p. 180; the loss of emotion and suffering) is a defeater (for me). Of course, I don't struggle with the union the way these guys all did since they assume divine impassability. But anyhow.

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/3/2009 9:04 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
IF...only IF...Apollinarius is right about the actuated created Nous constituting a created subject, then he's got a point. You can't avoid a two-subject Christology if the Son assumes THAT.

Hmmm...let's see if we agree on some things for a sec.

Do you agree, Tom, that...

1) The human being Jesus has a emergent relationship of his human mind/human brain relational unity from his human hypostasis...and this relationship can relate itself to itself...and also to its divine ground, the Creator Spiritus.

2) The emergent relationship from whence Jesus' human sense of choice, meaning, and belief came is of human nature. In other words, the "chooser" of Jesus' mind/brain relational unity is itself human, thus created.

Would you agree with these two things? If not, why not?

This is going somewhere...trust me.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/3/2009 10:50:36 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/3/2009 11:48 PM (GMT -6)

Here we go again.

Just read the book. You'll appreciate our history more.

My point about Apollinarius was just this: we ought to affirm (with Cyril) a single-subject Christology. That much is rock-bottom orthodoxy. And no one can knowingly affirm a single (divine) subjectivity while also attributing to Christ whatever human attributes/realities she believes constitutes a human subject alongside the divine subject. All I'm saying is that Apollinarius wasn't a bad guy, possessed of demons, out to sabotage the Christian faith. He was perfectly consistent given his conviction that an activated human Nous constituted a human, non-divine SUBJECT alongside the divine SUBJECT of the Word.

I'll try to get back to you Q's later tonight. I'm out the door right now. BUT, real quickly, on...

D: 2) ...In other words, the "chooser" of Jesus' mind/brain relational unity is itself human...

Tom: If by "chooser" you mean the faculty (the 'hardware' or 'parts') of choice, i.e., 'volition', that makes disposing of the human possible, then yeah, I think I can say that (I'm not a confirmed monothelite). But if by "chooser" you mean "subject," then absolutely not. There's one subject for all the incarnate actions, thoughts, choices...the eternal Word. No other 'subject' to speak of.

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/3/2009 11:58 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
My point about Apollinarius was just this: we ought to affirm (with Cyril) a single-subject Christology. That much is rock-bottom orthodoxy. And no one can knowingly affirm a single (divine) subjectivity while also attributing to Christ whatever human attributes/realities she believes constitutes a human subject alongside the divine subject. All I'm saying is that Apollinarius wasn't a bad guy, possessed of demons, out to sabotage the Christian faith. He was perfectly consistent given his conviction that an activated human Nous constituted a human, non-divine SUBJECT alongside the divine SUBJECT of the Word.

I've never disagreed with the single-subject Christology (There is only one person in Jesus' human hypostasis, the divine Son of God)...and I'm definitely not about demonizing Apollinarius personally. Bottom line is that Apollinarius went too far to try to fix what he saw as the problems. Even you see that...about how Apollinarius couldn't attribute any human suffering genuinely to God the Son proper with his view. What's also interesting is this: if Apollinarius' view held, then it couldn't be said that Jesus had any HUMAN exercise of faith. Faith is a spirit-to-Spirit connection with God. If God the Logos just took the place of the human soul, then Jesus could not be our High Priest because human faith would be impossible for him. He could not have fulfilled the human calling of FAITHFULNESS.

He can't heal what he didn't assume.

***********************************************

Tom:
D: 2) ...In other words, the "chooser" of Jesus' mind/brain relational unity is itself human...

Tom: If by "chooser" you mean the faculty (the 'hardware' or 'parts') of choice, i.e., 'volition', that makes disposing of the human possible, then yeah, I think I can say that (I'm not a confirmed monothelite). But if by "chooser" you mean "subject," then absolutely not. There's one subject for all the incarnate actions, thoughts, choices...the eternal Word. No other 'subject' to speak of.

I just want to confirm that you believe that a CREATED human "chooser", emergent from Jesus' human mind/brain relational unity, can relate to itself self-referentially...and...that this human "chooser" (the self-transcendent, self-relational agency of the mind/brain relational unity) is NOT the Uncreated Divine Mind of God the Son, which is inseparable the Uncreated Holy Spirit. This would mean that you would have two self-relational unities in the one person of Christ naturally: one human "spirit" and the Holy Spirit

If you confirm these things, then we're on the road to the "two-minds" approach where the one divine person of God the Son possesses two ontologically distinct "unities of consciousness" as the Incarnate Word. For example, the Uncreated Divine Mind of God the Son was creating Creation continually...while, at the same time, God the Son was experiencing human existence as a developing fetus in Mary's womb, when no "self" had even begun to emerge from Jesus. I refuse to believe that God the Son's human fetal brain was the direct cause of Creation Continua during that time.

Now the question is "Can a person have two 'minds' and NOT be two 'subjects' ?" Personally, I don't see HOW anyone could get away from the two-minds thing without being a monothelite who believes that God the Son CEASES being Creator for the Incarnation and RESUMES such after his Ascension. And I know you don't believe that, right, Tom?

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 12:28:01 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 12:11 AM (GMT -6)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 12:15 AM (GMT -6)

The ancients would a single-subject means a single-hypostasis.

The biological hypostasis of Zizzy is his own little creation he made up to help to clarify things. It's not an ancient category (as far as I know). It wouldn't hurt to be wrong 'cause he qualifies it anyhow. But just to be clear: one person means one hypostasis means one SUBJECT. Right?

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 12:18 AM (GMT -6)

D: I've never disagreed with the single-subject Christology (There is only one person in Jesus' human hypostasis, the divine Son of God)...

Tom: Well, you've just named TWO persons/hypostases: The divine Son who is IN Jesus' human hypostasis. Or are you using hypostasis there to mean something other than 'personal subject'?

I was using "human hypostasis" to talk about the human intelligible/sensible relational unity that forms human being. Nesteruk used the term in the same way. Not meaning created human subject.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 12:19 AM (GMT -6)

D: I just want to confirm that you believe that a human "chooser", emergent from Jesus' human mind/brain relational unity, can relate to itself self-referentially. AND that this human "chooser" is NOT the Divine Mind (ala the Holy Spirit)

T: I can't answer without knowing what you MEAN by "chooser" (i.e., FACULTY or SUBJECT).

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 12:21 AM (GMT -6)

Jesus' human hypostasis only exists in the Incarnation of the single divine person of God the Son. Like you say...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 12:24 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
D: I just want to confirm that you believe that a human "chooser", emergent from Jesus' human mind/brain relational unity, can relate to itself self-referentially. AND that this human "chooser" is NOT the Divine Mind (ala the Holy Spirit)

T: I can't answer without knowing what you MEAN by "chooser" (i.e., FACULTY or SUBJECT).

I mean the emergent, self-relational, self-transcendent AGENCY that provides meaning, choice, and belief for Jesus' human activity. This created AGENCY is self-referential (meaning it can produce the created "I" effect cited by Loder). Would you consider that AGENCY a "subject"? Better yet, can a "faculty" exhibit creaturely self-relationality and self-transcendent relationality to the Uncreated Holy Spirit?

If so, then cool. If not, then... confused

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 12:30:18 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 1:13 AM (GMT -6)

D: Jesus' human hypostasis only exists in the Incarnation of the single divine person of God the Son. Like you say...

Tom: I wasn't saying that. There's one hypostasis in the case of Christ. You keep describing two (a divine and a human hypostasis).

D: I mean the emergent, self-relational, self-transcendent AGENCY that provides meaning, choice, and belief for Jesus' human activity. This created AGENCY is self-referential (meaning it can produce the created "I" effect cited by Loder). Would you consider that AGENCY a "subject"? Better yet, can a "faculty" exhibit creaturely self-relationality and self-transcendent relationality to the Uncreated Holy Spirit?

Tom: Well, that's the whole question. I hear you saying there's a non-divine hypostasis, a "self-relational, self-transcendent agency that provides meaning" for Jesus' human activity. Gosh, dude, as you read McGuckin's book you'll see this was exactly how Nestorius talked. I'm no expert, bro. Just being honest with how you're coming across. It sure sounds like you've got two hypostatically distinct entities, each a self-relational, self-transcendent agency.

You obviously think that "self-relational, self-transcendent meaning-making agency" does NOT an "agent" (i.e., a "subject" ) make. So help me out. WHAT MORE WOULD BE NEEDED to warrant calling this "human self-relational, self-transcendent meaning-making agency" a "human subject" then? If that's NOT a "subject" (which would give us a two-subject Christology), what would we need to ADD to get that objectionable "subject"?

Or put it this way (as McGuckin does in describing Cyril's view): One subjectivity. That comes up a lot in the book. So...could you say there is ONE SUBJECTIVITY definitive of both the divine and the human in the hypostatic union? Cyril is saying there's one, not two.

For me, D, when the human being Jesus "self-references and self-transcends," the SON is self-referencing and self-transcending. He is the subject behind those actions, as he is the subject of ALL the incarnational actions. Cyril just keeps insisting on this very point against Nestorius.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/4/2009 1:24:18 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 5:00 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Or put it this way (as McGuckin does in describing Cyril's view): One subjectivity. That comes up a lot in the book. So...could you say there is ONE SUBJECTIVITY definitive of both the divine and the human in the hypostatic union? Cyril is saying there's one, not two.

For me, D, when the human being Jesus "self-references and self-transcends," the SON is self-referencing and self-transcending. He is the subject behind those actions, as he is the subject of ALL the incarnational actions. Cyril just keeps insisting on this very point against Nestorius.

Ok. Going slow...

From what I understand, we both agree that Jesus had an authentic human "chooser" emergent from an authentic human mind/brain relational unity. We also both agree that this emergent NON-DIVINE "chooser" has the innate power of self-relationship; in other words, it can relate itself to itself, and also to the Ground of its being. I believe I can say that we also both agree that this non-divine "chooser" self-relational energy created from the human mind/brain of Jesus is NOT the Uncreated Holy Spirit.

Let's further say that we agree on the following: God the Son immutably has the Uncreated Holy Spirit "resting" within Him "at all points" of His being. Wherever the Person of God the Son is, the Uncreated Holy Spirit must be there "at all points."

Now, if Jesus IS the Divine Person, God the Son (which we both believe, Tom), what would we have to say? Wouldn't we have to say that God the Son has a divine self-relational aspect of Himself without which the Mind of God cannot be accessed, the Holy Spirit...AS WELL AS...non-divine self-relational aspect of Himself without which human loving, faithful choice for God (the fullest expression of creaturely choice, meaning, and belief) is impossible, the human spirit? Without faith, it's impossible to please God. Jesus, as human mediator and microcosm, pleased God. He got the human vocation right where the Adamic couple got it wrong!

All this gets into why the "Not my will (God the Son's will), but Your Will (God the Father's will) be done" thing has been so important to me.

The ONE DIVINE PERSONAL SUBJECT, GOD THE SON as Incarnate Word (Jesus) is saying this to the Father (with whom He has direct access as Son) from his human "chooser" which experienced "sorrowful unto death" in Gethsemane. The will that the Son surrendered was involving his human "chooser" (inextricably linked with the struggles of the human mind/brain world compositions, including natural desire for self-preservation) before the Divine Will that he perceived by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, we realize that, as Eternal Son of God, the Son's will is the ONE WILL of the Trinity. (The Eternal Son unceasingly shares the Eternal Father's Will!) This is why the Church affirms that Christ has...

Two NATURES (divine, human)
Two WILLS (divine, human)*
One PERSON (divine only)

---------------------------------------------------------

What I want to say is this:

The human will (of the "chooser" ) of God the Son was NEVER involved in His creatio continua activity as Omnipresent Creator Logos, while at the same time, the Divine Will of God the Son was ALWAYS involved in all of His localized human activity as Israel's Messiah via the Holy Spirit. In Loderian terms, there is a bi-polar assymetrical relational unity between the divine will (Holy Spirit) and the human will (human "chooser" connected with the ego periphery of the human mind/brain relational unity) within the Incarnate God, Jesus.

*"The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened by the emperor Constantine Pogonatos (668-685) at Constantinople in the year 681 to combat the Monothelite heresy. At it 171 holy Fathers were present, who affirmed the doctrine of two wills in Jesus Christ, the divine and the human."

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 5:54:44 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 5:30 AM (GMT -6)

One uncreated personal subject, two unities of consciousness (created and uncreated) from whence will is expressed. That's God the Son.

And I would use the "lucid dreamer" context as an analogy for how it could be conceived. One subject, two levels of consciousness (Level 2: Dream's Creator/Sustainer from "Without" ; Level 1: Dreamworld's Experiencer from "Within" ) We talked about this on another thread.

It works fine to me.

UPDATED REPOST...

---------------------------------------

Thought.

When we dream...and we (as thought object in our dreams) interact with other "people' and object in the dream (also thought objects). What if there was a state of active consciousness WITHIN that dream world? This is actually called lucid dreaming. Basically, your "waking self consciousness" exists in a "residual digital self/avatar" type form to exist within a dream brought into being by your unconscious and conscious mental activity...AND...you would be intereacting with "persons" in the dream...whom you would KNOW to also be created and sustained by the your (Jeff's) mind/brain interaction. In other words, Jeff, if you were to have a lucid dream, and you were to speak to a "woman in a red dress" on the street in your dream, who would you really be talking to, responding to, and interacting with...even though you would genuinely experience this "woman" as "other" than your self? Yourself, right? The one person's (Jeff's) mind as context for all the other "personae". Like talking to yourself...in a distinct way. Moreover, your dream, dreaming interaction (via your "avatar") would be as inseparable from your grounding self as any active thought can be separated from the thinker of the thought who uses mental energy in sustaining the thought.

Now this kind of dreaming is being researched and it is known to occur.

Now, what if God did something like this? This is how I could see it being...

Shared Consciousness/Ground: The Holy Spirit of God the Son

Lucid Dreamer: God the Son as Creator Logos (Level 2)

Lucid Dream: Creation

Lucid Dream Experiencer: God the Son as Incarnate Word, Jesus (Level 1)

Lucid Dream Context: Omnipresent Divine Mind of God the Son as Creator Logos

Toldja it was weird...but doesn't it make some odd kind of sense though?

A twisted version: Vanilla Sky.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 5:50:18 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 5:55 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
"...when the human being Jesus 'self-references and self-transcends,' the SON is self-referencing and self-transcending. He (God the Son) is the subject behind those actions, as he is the subject of ALL the incarnational actions. "

Do you see me disagreeing with this, Tom? yeah

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 5:59:33 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 6:25 AM (GMT -6)

D: From what I understand, we both agree that Jesus had an authentic human "chooser" emergent from an authentic human mind/brain relational unity.

Tom: If you’re speaking in terms of ‘faculty’, then yes. If in terms of ‘agent’, then no.

D: We also both agree that this emergent NON-DIVINE "chooser" has the innate power of self-relationship; in other words, it can relate itself to itself, and also to the Ground of its being.

Tom: This looks like a non-divine ‘subject’ to me.

But read pages 112-116 of McGuckin’s book, especially pages 114-116.

D: One uncreated personal subject, two unities of consciousness (created and uncreated) from whence will is expressed. That's God the Son.

Tom: By “unity of consciousness” you mean “subjectivity”? See why this concerns me?

-----------------------------

Tom: "...when the human being Jesus 'self-references and self-transcends,' the SON is self-referencing and self-transcending. He (God the Son) is the subject behind those actions, as he is the subject of ALL the incarnational actions. "

D: Do you see me disagreeing with this, Tom?

Tom: Implicitly, yes. You describe the non-divine field of experience in Christ in VERY hypostatic ‘subject’ (= subjectivity) terms. For example, you have Jesus relating freely to God as the ground of his being. Very strange talk if Jesus IS the Logos. That’s the whole point, Jesus IS the ground of all being made flesh. When you say the ‘human’ relates to this ground freely, etc., I see Nestorius. Only 'subjects' to that sort of free relating. Unless you want to say the Logos is relating to the Logos as the ground of its own being, which is a truism hardly worth repeating. You’ve got a ‘non-divine subjectivity’ freely determining itself in relation to the ground of its being. I don’t see that happening.

Read McGuckin 114-116 and you might be able to feel me more.

T

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 6:25 AM (GMT -6)

That would be pages 212 to 216, not 112 to 116.

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 7:51 AM (GMT -6)

1) The online book doesn't have 212-215. Can you synopsize?

2) God the Son's human (creaturely) noetic ability gives him the capacity to relate to God the Father in and through human faith, empowered by God the Spirit. This human faith is NOT accomplished by the Uncreated Holy Spirit directly, but through God the Son's human chooser/spirit being empowered by the Holy Spirit to freely choose God's Will. All this takes place from the relational unity between Holy Spirit and human chooser, both natural aspects of the singular person of Jesus. Basically, I want to say that God the Son, as human, freely and "transparently" related to God the Father as His Ground of being via God the Holy Spirit through the exercise of the Son's human chooser.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 8:03:25 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/4/2009 8:04 AM (GMT -6)

That's better. Closer.

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 8:08 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Tom: By “unity of consciousness” you mean “subjectivity”? See why this concerns me?

I'm just trying to hold to the idea that the experience of the human spirit should not be conflated with the Holy Spirit. (Torrence) So, it seems to make sense to me that God the Son as Incarnate Word has two dimensions of conscious experience, respective to the two natures and two wills in him.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 8:09 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
That's better. Closer.

Well, praise the Lord. Sheesh!

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/4/2009 8:20 AM (GMT -6)

Something else.

I think that Nestorius came up with a killer image for theosis rather than the Incarnation.

Synapheia between the believing Christian "chooser" and Christ's Spiritual Presence, with Christ as the Head and the Christian as the Body. (Pages 161-163)

I dig that.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/4/2009 8:26:41 AM (GMT-5)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/4/2009 8:39 AM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
D, a book you have to get:

Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (St .Vladimir's, 2004).

Excellent book. ...

Well it must have been my personality, or my behavior... BECAUSE...this is

T H E B O O K

that I was quoting "suFFered impassibly," from a few summers back

(o)

182 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:28 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual