Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > free will - what is it

Forum Quick Jump

92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

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

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/31/2003 8:06 AM (GMT -6)

I'm just trying to grasp what you've written. i'm trying to think it through.

"Our knowing good and evil ourselves was never the plan. Our having this knowledge fools us into thinking we can be like God and judge good from evil. This was never our perogative"

So by saying "never the plan" you mean that you agree with me that there is (was) a divine plan, right?

I agree, God is the ultimate judge. But I do believe God created us with minds and the ability to reason and i do believe humans can and do know the difference between right and wrong in a general sense.
I would think that a libertarian would argue that you need information in order to make choices.

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/31/2003 8:22 AM (GMT -6)

Hebrews 5
13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

What is pride and arrogance, what is evil behavior and perverse speech- if we have no capacity for figuring that out?

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 1/31/2003 8:46 AM (GMT -6)

Okay, one step at a time. After all, we are not in a hurry, right?
You posted:

quote:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
later:
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

If there was not already evil, how could there be a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?
Why would there even be a concept, idea of evil in the garden before people had sinned? Obviously there was or else why would there be some fruit that would give them the power to distinguish?
Why did the snake tempt Eve by saying- you will know the diff. between good and evil. You will be like God.
Shouldn't her reply have been - "What is evil? " B/c it did not yet exist, did it?
Anyway, so the single state of being naked before the fall was fine, since they didn't know it. Apparently after the fall, now they are ashamed. This is based on knowledge, right? I mean, God never commanded them to wear clothes and they failed to. What's the shame based on?

Apparently there was evil aready. The snake was in the garden after all. right? God did know good and evil. That is not the lie that the serpent told, the lie was more subtle. The lie was that God could not be trusted and that perhaps God was holding out on Adam and Eve by prohibiting them from sharing in the knowledge of good and evil.

God wanted Adam and Eve to know God. God wanted them to know each other, themselves and God. Had they obeyed, that would be what they would have known. Right? Now that the fall has transpired and we are redeemed, things are back to this intention: God wants us to know ourselves in Christ, love each other as ourselves, and first and foremost, love and obey God.

You are right, the meaning of the command from God would have been very opaque to Adam and Eve. They would not know the definitions of good and evil. They would only understand the prohibition. But that is quite enough.

After the fall, they now possess a knowledge that they were not intended to have nad straightaway they begin abusing it. They judge their nakedness to be shameful. They begin hiding from God and each other. This is opposite of the initial intent. Loving themselves, each other and God in complete transparancy in all directions.

Why did the snake tempt them? That I don't really know. Moving on to the next set of questions....

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 1/31/2003 8:54 AM (GMT -6)

RD posted:

quote:

I'm just trying to grasp what you've written. i'm trying to think it through.

"Our knowing good and evil ourselves was never the plan. Our having this knowledge fools us into thinking we can be like God and judge good from evil. This was never our perogative"

So by saying "never the plan" you mean that you agree with me that there is (was) a divine plan, right?

I agree, God is the ultimate judge. But I do believe God created us with minds and the ability to reason and i do believe humans can and do know the difference between right and wrong in a general sense.
I would think that a libertarian would argue that you need information in order to make choices.

Yes, there certainly was and is a divine plan.
Yes, God is clearly the ultimate judge and the only one who can rightly use the knowledge of good and evil. This is clear because God is the only one who is omniscient, the only one who's mind is infinite, and the only one with the perfect character required to judge perfectly.

We can never have these requirements which are needed to have confidence in sound judgment. But yes, we are still called to be perfect as God is perfect, but that command is predicated on God's empowering us by the Spirit. I think it is important to recognize that the existence of libertarian freedom in some areas (responding to God's grace, for instance) in no way insures it everywhere and under all circumstances.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 1/31/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6)

RD posted:

quote:

Hebrews 5
13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

What is pride and arrogance, what is evil behavior and perverse speech- if we have no capacity for figuring that out?

Agian, this is something that we cannot do in our own right. But with God, all things are possible. Even sinners can become righteous. Romans 8 and the walking in the Spirit language make these sorts of instruction possible. As we abide in Christ, he abides in us. By this we become a new creation. But that is not all. This new creation relates to God in the same why Christ did. By obedience to the Father's will and empowered by the Holy Spirit. All of this is language about our being reconciled with God. In that case, we are still in the world, but not of the world. Meaning, we still have this knowledge of good and evil, but now God can help us to use it. It is still not perfect because we can still greive the Holy Spirit. We can still fail to abide in Christ. We are never able to use it (the knowledge of good and evil) with any confidence on our own. Eventually, this knowledge will be of no use to us anyway since God will be all and in all (I Cor. 15:20-28). This was how it was "supposed" to be in the garden. Adam and Eve knew only God, themselves, each other (and creation) in that relationship to God. and they knew these things as they were meant to be known. Of course, now things are quite different.

BTW: I should credit Dr. Boyd for many of the ideas I am employing here. He has been preaching on this stuff for months.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/31/2003 9:39 AM (GMT -6)

In the course of a day this thread seems to have changed. But here is what I was working on today and on the drive home.
==========================================================

A lot of ink is dedicated to the contest between "Free Will and Determinism." I sometimes think in different terms. Some other people do too.

My wife was talking about that last night. And today while I drove her to work she refered to something that our Dutch Calvinist (Reformed) pastor said a few years ago. He said that though a lot of people talk as though God's Sovereignty and our Free Will are somehow necessarily at odds... they are not, and that supposed conflict just isn't so. He continued saying that, as with a great and tall arch (It might help to imagine the St. Louis' "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial" Gateway Arch.), we only see the two legs. But from the top (above the clouds) God sees the whole picture.

I was reminded of that again, later in the day by one of the senior teachers at my special education school -- one of the precious Sisters. Speaking as a Roman Catholic she remarked on how in her youngest of classes, D., who has seizures a lot -- many times a day -- and is very frail, "has been there to bring our the care and compassion of the faculty and staff" as they then have served as effective models to the other special ed. kids, whose behavior and attitudes are becoming conformed to that spirit of caring and service.

The Sister, Sister M. had a vision of God, a vision, "Theology" from the top of what the picture really looks like. A picture where Free Will and God's Sovereigny has nothing to do with cold "determinism."

I'll listen to those two women: my wife and Sister M.

Ya!

Al

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/31/2003 2:43:42 PM

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/31/2003 9:58 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Al-

"God's Sovereignty and our Free Will are somehow necessarily at odds... they are not, and that supposed conflict just isn't so"

I read a great sermon of Charles Spurgeon that said exactly this- that the scriptures teach both, that they are not enemies, and he has no need to try to reconcile them. BTW, he was not an Arminian, and of course not an OV'er...:)

He taught exhaustive foreknowledge and compatibilism. (not hard determinism)

I think your post is great b/c it has to be the final analysis- i am going crazy trying to figure this stuff out. Saying- I can't resolve the conflict and letting it go, may be the most profitable thing.

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/31/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

Al wrote:

quote:
My wife was talking about that last night. And today while I drove her to work she refered to something that our Dutch Calvinist (Reformed) pastor said a few years ago. He said that though a lot of people talk as though God's Sovereignty and our Free Will are somehow necessarily at odds... they are not, and that supposed conflict just isn't so. He continued saying that, as with a great and tall arch (It might help to imagine the St. Louis' "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial" Gateway Arch.), we only see the two legs. But from the top (above the clouds) God sees the whole picture.

RD responded:

quote:
I read a great sermon of Charles Spurgeon that said exactly this- that the scriptures teach both, that they are not enemies, and he has no need to try to reconcile them. BTW, he was not an Arminian, and of course not an OV'er...:)

He taught exhaustive foreknowledge and compatibilism. (not hard determinism)

I think your post is great b/c it has to be the final analysis- i am going crazy trying to figure this stuff out. Saying- I can't resolve the conflict and letting it go, may be the most profitable thing.

Unfortunately, it seems that when determinists are unable to reconcile the inherent contradictions of their belief system, they just appeal to the "mystery." That's why it is often impossible to have any sort of meaningful dialogue on the subject. I hope, Gina, that you are truly open-minded on this issue (as you claimed earlier), and that you won't give up on the process of thinking about it.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 01/31/2003 4:57:41 PM

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/31/2003 11:03 AM (GMT -6)

Well Brett open mindedness works both ways- I hope you are thinking about it as well.
I hope you see that there is some mystery whatever you believe- I don't think any of us has all the answers.

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/31/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

Of course, that's not what I'm suggesting in any way. There are plenty of unknowns out there for all of us, and none of us can claim access to all of the answers. You would agree, though, I assume, that it is practically impossible to debate an issue with someone who, when confronted with a logical inconsistency in their position, refuses to acknowledge or address the inconsistency, and instead just appeals to the "mystery." All the while, of course, they expect you to adequately address the inconsistencies they see in YOUR position.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/31/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6)

Sure I agree with that, Brett- problem is that what an atheist says- when Christians are confronted with a logical inconsistency in their position, they refuse to acknowledge or address the inconsistency, and instead just appeal to the "mystery."
All rational arguments for the existence of God can be picked apart by atheists. I've heard many Christians just appeal to the Spirit's influence on their lives, their personal experiences, etc., as evidence for God's existence. This, to an atheist, holds no weight.
I just think that sometimes you do have to believe against what you may think is logical regarding God. I guess that is called faith- there is no way that any human is going to be able to solve this problem- there's always going to be the mystery of God element.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/31/2003 12:13 PM (GMT -6)

I think you may be confusing logical inconsistency with the unknown. There are certainly plenty of unknowns regarding God (which as you point out is what requires a degree of faith), but that does not mean that a belief in God is logically inconsistent. In fact, that's what apologetics is all about, right? Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, etc., are all attempting to demonstrate that faith in God is actually MORE logical than atheism.

My problem with determinism is not that it doesn't have all the answers. As I said before, no position has all the answers. Rather, my problem with determinism is that it uses the information that we DO have in a logically inconsistent manner, and just deals with it by naming it compatibilism.

Appreciate the dialogue. Hope this isn't coming across as a personal attack in any way. I'm truly interested in your thought process here.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/31/2003 12:33 PM (GMT -6)

No problem, I didnt' think of it as a personal attack at all.
There are logical arguments for God's existence- definitely. But there's also the atheist arguments- like the argument from evil, that postulate that given evil, it can't be possible that God exists- a logic problem.
"my problem with determinism is that it uses the information that we DO have in a logically inconsistent manner, and just deals with it by naming it compatibilism."

See, I don't see this. That's what's is very funny about this stuff- people can look at the same evidence and come up with utterly different conclusions. I wish it was as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.

I never really thought much about this stuff before or during college - and not even too much in law school. Once I did, things changed. I found it harder and harder to believe in God- not for anything at all personal- but purely intellectually. The more I study, the less satisfied I become, but I am still believing in God, mostly from a Pascal's wager basis however (as a grounds I mean).

When I study determinism and free will, I just honestly believe that the evidence points to determinism, like it or not. A good portion of that evidence is scientific. Some of it is Biblical, or postulating from a Biblical worldview. I won't repeat my arguments, I've gone on ad nauseum. But I certainly cannot change my belief just b/c I want to- or b/c I think it makes me feel better. I can only believe what I believe- what the evidence presents to me.

From this i try to work it into the picture of God as creator, and also try to deal with the problem of evil. I have not gotten that down completely, obviously. But also as I said, I do not believe the libertarianism position deals adequately with the problem of evil either. So both are not good that way. And, putting that aside there seems to be more evidence for antilibertarianism.

I had an interesting discussion w/ my brother who goes to Trinity Divinity School about this stuff - I told him, in the final analysis, you can't believe what you can't believe. If someone is trying to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5, I can never believe it. I can't force myself to. Even if I want to, even if someone is threatening me.

Anyhow, that's enough about me. I am getting a headache too!

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 1/31/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6)

Deu 3:24 O Lord GOD, thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God [is there] in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might?

Galen Strawson said,

‘Free will’ is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. It is a topic in metaphysics and ethics as much as in the philosophy of mind. Its central questions are ‘What is it to act (or choose) freely?’ and ‘What is it to be morally responsible for one’s actions (or choices)?’ These two questions are closely connected, for it seems clear that freedom of action is a necessary condition of moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient.

Philosophers give very different answers to these questions. Consequently they give very different answers to two more specific questions, which are questions about ourselves: (1) Are we free agents? And (2) Can we be morally responsible for what we do? Answers to (1) and (2) range from ‘Yes, Yes’, to ‘No, No’—via ‘Yes, No’ and various degrees of ‘Perhaps’, ‘Possibly’, and ‘In a sense’. (The fourth pair of outright answers, ‘No, Yes’, is rare, but it has a kind of existentialist panache, and appears to be embraced by Wintergreen in Joseph Heller’s novel Closing Time, as well as by some Protestants).

Prominent among the ‘Yes, Yes’ sayers are the compatibilists. They have this name because they hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Briefly, determinism is the view that the history of the universe is fixed: everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before, in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does. According to compatibilists, freedom is compatible with determinism because freedom is essentially just a matter of not being constrained or hindered in certain ways when one acts or chooses. Suppose one is a normal adult human being in normal circumstances. Then one is able to act and choose freely. No one is holding a gun to one’s head. One is not being threatened or manhandled. One is not drugged, or in chains, or subject to a psychological compulsion like kleptomania, or a post-hypnotic command. One is therefore wholly free to choose and act even if one’s whole physical and psychological makeup is entirely determined by things for which one is in no way ultimately responsible—starting with one’s genetic inheritance and early upbringing.

Compatibilism has many sophisticated variants, but this is its core, and to state it is to see what motivates its opponents, the incompatibilists. The incompatibilists hold that freedom is not compatible with determinism. They point out that if determinism is true, then every one of one’s actions was determined to happen as it did before one was born. They hold that one can’t be held to be truly free and finally morally responsible for one’s actions in this case. Compatibilism is a ‘wretched subterfuge..., a petty word-jugglery’, as Kant put it. It entirely fails to satisfy our natural convictions about the nature of moral responsibility.

The incompatibilists have a good point, and may be divided into two groups. First, there are the libertarians, who wish to answer ‘Yes, Yes’ to questions (1) and (2). Libertarians hold that we are indeed free and fully morally responsible agents, and that determinism must therefore be false. Their great difficulty is to explain why the falsity of determinism is any better than determinism, when it comes to establishing our free agency and moral responsibility. For suppose that not every event is determined, and that some events occur randomly, or as a matter of chance. How can this help with free will? How can our claim to moral responsibility be improved by the supposition that it is partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are? This is a very difficult question for libertarians.

The second group of incompatibilists are less sanguine. They answer ‘No, No’ to questions (1) and (2). They agree with the libertarians that determinism rules out genuine moral responsibility, but argue that the falsity of determinism can’t help. Accordingly, they conclude that we are not genuinely free agents or genuinely morally responsible, whether determinism is true or false. One of their arguments can be summarized as follows. When one acts, one acts in the way that one does because of the way one is. So to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui—nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible.

Suitably developed, this argument against moral responsibility seems very strong. (Some objections will be considered in the main article.) But in many human societies belief in ultimate moral responsibility continues unabated. In many human beings, the experience of choice gives rise to a conviction of absolute responsibility that is untouched by philosophical arguments that put it in question. This conviction is the deep and inexhaustible source of the free will problem: there are powerful arguments that seem to show that we cannot be morally responsible in the ultimate way that we suppose. But these arguments keep coming up against equally powerful psychological and cultural reasons why we continue to believe that we are ultimately morally responsible.

…What is it, they say, to define freedom in such a way that it is compatible with determinism? It is to define it in such a way that an agent can be a free agent even if all its actions throughout its life are determined to happen as they do by events that have taken place before it is born: so that there is a clear sense in which it could not at any point in its life have done otherwise than it did. This, they say, is certainly not free will. More importantly, it is not a sufficient basis for true moral responsibility. One cannot possibly be truly or ultimately morally responsible for what one does if everything one does is ultimately a deterministic outcome of events that took place before one was born; or (more generally) a deterministic outcome of events for whose occurrence one is in no way ultimately responsible.

These anti-compatibilists or incompatibilists divide into two groups: the libertarians and the no-freedom theorists or pessimists about free will and moral responsibility. The libertarians think that the compatibilist account of freedom can be improved on. They hold (1) that we do have free will, (2) that free will is not compatible with determinism, and (3) that determinism is therefore false. But they face an extremely difficult task: they have to show how indeterminism (the falsity of determinism) can help with free will and in particular with moral responsibility.

The pessimists or no-freedom theorists do not think that this can be shown. They agree with the libertarians that the compatibilist account of free will is inadequate, but they don’t think it can be improved on. They agree that free will is not compatible with determinism, but deny that indeterminism can help to make us (or anyone else) free. They believe that free will, of the sort that is necessary for genuine moral responsibility, is provably impossible.

The pessimists about free will begin by granting what everyone must. They grant that there is a clear and important compatibilist sense in which we can be free agents (we can be free, when unconstrained, to choose and to do what we want or think best, given how we are). But they go on to insist that this compatibilist sense of freedom isn’t enough: it doesn’t give us what we want, in the way of free will. Nor does it give us what we believe we have. And it is not as if the compatibilists have missed something. The truth is that nothing can give us what we (think we) want, or what we ordinarily think we have. All attempts to furnish a stronger notion of free will fail. We cannot be morally responsible, in the absolute, buck-stopping way in which we often unreflectively think we are. We cannot have ‘strong’ free will of the kind that we would need to have, in order to be morally responsible in this way.

It is the worry about moral responsibility that is the fundamental motor of the free will debate. If no one had this worry, it is doubtful whether the problem of free will would be a famous philosophical problem.

And Galen Strawson concludes by saying,

It seems that the only freedom that we can have is compatibilist freedom. If—since—that is not enough for ultimate responsibility, we cannot have ultimate responsibility. The only alternative to this conclusion is to appeal to God and mystery—this in order to back up the claim that something that appears to be provably impossible is not only possible but actual.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

I must then conclude; that I appear to be somewhat of a pessimist of sorts, explain later.

God is Love,

Tim

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/31/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

For interest, especially if you've never read it by John of Damascus (From his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chs. 25-30)

www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.htm

25. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will.
"The first enquiry involved in the consideration of free-will, that is, of what is in our own power..."

26. Concerning Events.
"Of events, some are in our hands, others are not. ..."

Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
"We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason, and that change and alteration are congenital to all that is produced. For all that is produced is also subject to change. ..."

Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.
"Of things that are not in our hands some have their beginning or cause in those that are in our power, that is to say, the recompenses of our actions both in the present and in the age to come, but all the rest are dependent on the divine will. For the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam’s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. But all other things must be referred to God. For our birth is to be referred to His creative power; and our continuance to His conservative power; and our government and safety to His providential power; and the eternal enjoyment of good things by those who preserve the laws of nature in which we are formed is to be ascribed to His goodness. ..."

Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.
"Providence, then, is the care that God takes over existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God through which all existing things receive their fitting issue. ..."

Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination.
"We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. ..."

HAPPY READING!

Al

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/31/2003 9:43 PM (GMT -6)

I am sure glad I posted when I did.

The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 2/1/2003 1:57 AM (GMT -6)

THE DETERMINISM AND FREEDOM PHILOSOPHY WEBSITE

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm

Thanks for your input again Al, always appreciated.

92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:41 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