 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/28/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hello, all. I'm not really new to the board, but it has been a LONG time since I posted anything (due to major life difficulties), so I thought I'd briefly introduce myself again. I'm Sean (duh), and I'm a 2nd year college student at Trinity International University. Anyway, I had a few ideas that I'd like to bounce off of all of you about inclusivism and salvation, mainly because I hold an inclusivist standpoint, but I really haven't seen the argument I present developed in any detail anywhere, so I'm thinking I am probably very misguided, and if I am, please show me the error of my ways  .
Anywho, I'll start out with this proposition:
1) Salvation is only available through those who know Christ.
This proposition seems fairly acceptable to any exclusivist, and many would ask me what is so inclusivistic about it. Well, I'm going to keep this brief, and elaborate later as needed. The main problem is the question: what does it mean to know someone? Indeed, this is a tough question, because a lot of salvation doctrine hinges on what I consider a misguided answer to the question. Let me elaborate.
The typical evangelical, when asked, "What does it mean to know Christ?" will start to give a list of qualities, some of which may include
a) Christ is the son of God
b) Christ is the savior of the world
c) Christ died for your sins
d) If you believe in Christ, he will save you
I think these four encompass what I shall call the "Core Beliefs" (CB) about Christ. Many Christians take it that you must believe these things about Christ in order to be saved, because without knowing these things, you do not know Christ. So, it might seem simple enough to conclude with the principle:
2) Knowing Christ is knowing the CB about him.
However, this is problematic, as it is difficult to define what the CB are exactly, and so to be saved, one has to know 100% of the CB. That does not seem realistic, as it would make Christianity the quest for perfect knowledge. So, let's replace this principle with the following principle.
3) Knowing Christ is knowing a majority of the CB about him
which can in turn imply the truth of
4) Knowing anybody is knowing a majority of certain truth statements which are true when referring to that person.
However, there are serious problems with #4. First of all, let's take a real life example of knowing someone. Now, this is just getting to know someone from the beginning. The first thing we'd notice is that we do not start off with a great percentage of truth statements that we know about them. Indeed, we only know what they look like, and what they say to us. This does not seem to be a great majority at all. Furthermore, there is a more serious difficulty. Let's take Gabby, who is the most skilled gossiper in the world, and she tells us all about Mary. Now, let's assume for the sake of the exercise that Gabby only tells true statements. After a while, we will have a significant percentage of true beliefs about Mary. Does this entail that we know her? To say that seems silly, because then it seems to entail that we know someone through gossip.
So, it seems to stand to reason that it is not the case that knowing someone is knowing a certain amount of fact statements about them. Why wouldn't this be true of God? Surely, one could argue that God would cause people who come to saving knowledge in Christ to have the appropriate number of truth statements correct, but as we said, knowing truth statements is not necessarily knowing the person. Also, and this is an important point, it seems to be the case that in any relationship, knowing true statements come about as a result of knowing the person in question. Therefore, knowing the person is the cause, not the result, of true knowledge. Thus, to say that knowing Christ is to know true things about him would seem to imply that one can only be saved after he has saving knowledge, which is absurd.
Now that we've rejected that theory of knowing Christ, what other alternative is left to us? Let's take a proposition that seems to hold true in human relationships, and see where this takes us.
5) To know Christ is to have had a true encounter with him, in which one has a salvific experience.
The question that preoccupies us at the moment is the following: is it possible to have a salvific experience of Christ in the context of another world religion? I would answer that question with a resounding yes. However, I can anticipate at least three objections to this claim, to each I will answer in turn:
1) Other world religions lead to incorrect knowledge of God, and therefore Christ cannot appear through them, because it would lead them to have incorrect knowledge of Christ
2) The Bible says that there is no other name by which men may be saved (Acts 4:12, among other references)
3) Such a proposition, if true, leads to agnosticism about who is saved, because knowing Christ is a highly subjective matter then.
Claim 1) This claim seems to assume that Christ uses the religion as a vehicle of salvation in a direct sense. However, that is not the thesis I am defending. All I am defending is the thesis that one can come to know Christ in the context of another world religion. Therefore, let's set out a model for how people come to know Christ personally.
1) Christ appears to the person
This step is obvious. Now, when an ordinary person appears to us, we immediately have presuppositions about certain types of people. For example, we might have the supposition that all Middle Easterners are terrorists. We also have suppositions about divine beings, which will affect how we interpret the salvific experience of Christ. Therefore, as soon as Christ appears, we have the following
2) Our knowledge of Christ is filtered through our presuppositions, of which Christianity is the best set, for they are the true set
Only when we have had our first grasp of the person of Christ can we hear anything he "says", so immediately following this comes
3) Christ makes his salvific offer to the person
Which the person will interpret in the context of their religion. In the context of their religion, therefore, the person may accept or reject the salvific offer which Christ proffers. Now, in the Christian context, it is far easier to make the correct decision, because they have true suppositions about Christianity and salvation. However, Jews might not have such a hard time with being saved either, for they hold the concept of sin and the need for salvation, and also have a sense of the messianic. However, the point of all this is that I believe that the force of objection one has been met. The religion is a barrier, for sure, but Christ works through it to give the person salvific knowledge.
On a corrilary, though, someone might object "but the religion will lead to many false beliefs, and therefore they cannot truly believe in Christ." However, if this is the attitude, then one must take it to its logical conclusion and say that some Christians who know Christ are not saved, because they hold false beliefs. Indeed, the question may become, "how many false beliefs are permissible?" To this question, any answer is arbitrary, and therefore the number of false beliefs cannot be the signpost for salvation. However, true beliefs about God must be held in order for us to claim we know him, for as I said earlier, from knowing a person comes true beliefs about that person. But, It seems that other religions can give a wealth of true statements about God. Especially Judaism, for we use their bible for about 75% of our own! With this, I believe that this corrilary has also been averted.
Claim 2) To answer this claim, I would say that it is preferable to interpret these passages to say that Christ is the only savior, which is completely compatible with what we have just said. To say that his name is the only saving name, however, leads to absurdities. For if this were the case, then very few Christians in America are saved, because we don't use the greek name for Christ, because that was the name Peter used. Perhaps the objector will say that we must use a name that is a direct referrent to Jesus Christ; a "rigid designator" philosophically speaking. This claim seems to be false, because the name Christ itself is not really a rigid designator; it is not a proper name. It is a description, which means "annointed one". The only thing that keeps this name from not changing is that the referrent is necessary in every possible world, and therefore the reference is the same. But the reference is not fixed by the descriptor; if it were referring to an ordinary human being, it is completely possible that this person be someone different than the one that is being referred to. So, one of our designators for God is not rigid, and yet it's the one Peter uses! How come one mere description can refer to Christ, while another, like Allah (which is not a proper name, but simply means God), does not? Furthermore, Jews use God's proper name when speaking about him, YHWH; does that name not refer either? If we were to say no, we'd be going against the very Bible! Therefore, an objection based on an exact name being a rigid designator seems to be spurious at best.
Claim 3) This objection is really not all that forceful of one, because it really is not objecting to the idea, but rather to a consequence of it. However, let me assuage the doubt here about salvation, and let me say that this view of salvation leads to no less assurance of salvation than the current doctrine already does. For an example of this, let me turn to scripture, and quote it:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in Heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers." (Matthew 7:21-23)
I take this to mean that there are people who claim to be Christians who really do not know Christ. What are the litmus markers for knowing Christ? The litmus markers in scripture do not seem to be what you know, but what you do! The saints of God are set free by God to do wonderful deeds. Why do we denounce people as not really knowing Christ because they don't use the same name for him that we do? This goes on in evangelical Christianity far too often, even within Christian circles. Conservatives bash Charismatics for being too "wild". Conservatives nail anyone who says women can be pastors without even looking at the evidence. They treat Open Theists the same way (am I hitting a nerve yet?). I think we need to get the thinking out of our head that Christianity is about what we know and get it in our head that it's about who we know and that he has saved us. I would gladly affirm that knowing Christ through Christianity is the only assured way to salvation, but I cannot affirm that people of other religions are a priori condemned if they have come to know Christ, even though they might not affirm him in the Christian sense.
I hope this was a good introduction to my thoughts on the issue. I invite as much feedback as you can give. Constructive criticism is the best, because I'm preparing to defend this view publicly in my church at some point in the future. Not a fight to get it accepted, but once it's found that I have this view, it will simply be a fight for me to not get kicked out. So, if you agree with me, please give me comments on how I can make this better, and if you don't, I'd appreciate some dialogue with you. I hope I contribute something unique to your little community.
Your Brother, in Christ,
Sean McNabb | | Back to Top | | |
 |
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 8/28/2002 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | hey sean,
i like your line of thinking and i think you are definitely on to something. i as well hold to more inclusivist views of salvation. i made a few larger post on "Is God Fair to save only those who have heard?" for the sake of not being redundant or over exhaustive about the issue, which can happen, i won't add to much here. but i do suggest for a thorough research on the topic to check out if you haven;t already john sanders - "NO OTHER NAME - an investigation into the destiny of the unevagelized," clark pinnocks' "THE WIDENESS IN GOD"S MERCY," as well as Dr. Boyd's "Across the Spectrum" and "letters from a skeptic" which talk about this topic some. C.S Lewis also discusses it in "The Problem of Pain" and gives an anology of inclusivism in the "chronicles of narnia." IF you would like i could add imput, but if you have anything you would like imput on jsut let me know, cause for the most part(maybe entirely) i agree with you. well i hope it goes well with your church if you do bring this up. i guess i don't know the church and their beliefs, but that's sad if they would kick you out for something like this(are you a leader?). i don't even believe it's that controversial or left winged or what have. a good many scholars and even lay people a like hold this view. don't many already believe that those who die in infancy, those with mental dissabilities and even those in the OT are worhty of God's grace and mercy without any "knowledge" of Christ?" and if you are only accpeted cause your ideas with them, as dr, boyd says in across the spectrum, they are really only loving "the assumed rightness of their own ideas." well, i hope all goes well and let me know if you would like to dialogue on certain issue of inclusivism.
peace,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/29/2002 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | David,
Thank you for the encouragement. I have checked out your post on the thread you mentioned. Though I am an inclusivist, I don't think natural revelation is salvific. Though I don't want to go into too detailed of a critique of the view, I do want to make a point. It seems that Natural Revelation (NR) would be a different salvific agent than Christ himself, and the bible seems to deny that there can be any other salvific agent than Christ (Acts 4 is an example). I haven't read Sanders' book in its entirety (not enough time, I'm afraid), so he probably has an answer for these objections. I am also familiar with Lewis and Pinnock, and I feel that they both fall into various other difficulties (if you would like, I could share them), which is why I developed the mini-essay you see here. I'm not so familiar with Dr. Boyd's inclusivism, I'm afraid; I'll have to look into that more. But, thank you for your response, and blessings to you.
Sean
Yours, in Christ,
Sean McNabb | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/29/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | I just did a search on the word "inclusivism" and a bunch of interesting stuff came up. It is by no means necessary to read that before continuing dialogue here, but if you are interested in the history of this discussion on this board you may want to check it out.
"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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 8/29/2002 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Seems to me that we can't get hung up on a word...like "know".
I like to keep things as simple as possible, but no simpler than is sufficient.
I like to think of it as faith in Christ, where faith=conviction plus corresponding action.
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/29/2002 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Kerygma:
quote:
I like to think of it as faith in Christ, where faith=conviction plus corresponding action.
Scott, a very good point, but it does seem to suffer from a flaw. The first question I must ask you about faith is: conviction about what? What corresponding action? If you say conviction about a set of statements, then I refer you to my argument above, which argues (I think forcefully) that knowing a set of propositions about God is not knowledge of God as a person, but simply knowledge about God, but knowledge about God is not saving. I'll argue that point this way. Muslims may know several facts about God, but those facts are not necssarily saving. Also, I challenge your definition of faith in this manner. If that is faith, and one is saved by faith, then one is saved by knowing the right stuff and acting the right way. Again, I refer you to my argument. I hope you see the relevance of the complexity I went to in order to set forth this argument. Thanks for your responses, they're all great 
Modes: I'll have to check it out when I have time.
Thanks again, all.
Sean
Yours, in Christ,
Sean McNabb | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 8/29/2002 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | hey Sean,
yeah, i've never claimed that natural revelation or general revelation in and of it's self can bring salvation. obviously that falls outside of the two axioms i laid out in the other thread:
1.The Finality and Particularity of Christ (salvation only through Christ)
2.God's Universal Salvic Will (God desires all to be saved)
However, does this mean that Christ can not use natural revelation as a vehicle for salvation so he may have a relationship with more than those who have been blessed with the "right" theological information? Much like the same way that humans can be a vehicle for salvation, yet in and of themselves they are not the salvation. I believe that "all truth is God's truth" and so what is apart of the truth is apart of God and therefore apart of Christ. No we may never have a complete understanding of the "truth," but if this was necessary than none of us would inherit eternal life. There must be something more to what God is looking for in faith. yes, the better you know the truth the better you can relate to it and understand it, however as i've said before i believe that God is more concerned with the position of your heart(open or closed?(romans 2:6-8, 12-16)). so again "NR" is not salvic, but the One who uses it to convey truths about Himself is. I am not entirely sure what you are aiming at, maybe you could explain. You've done well to explain why the traditional thoughts in exclusivism seem to encounter many problems, but what is your solution then? No evangelical christian theologian would claim that natural revalation in itslef is salvic, however do you believe that it can be used as a vehicle for salvation or only for damnation? I guess we might have to define what we call natural revalation, but to me it is the truths that God makes known about himself in creation that reveal his character, such as love, mercy, forgiveness, humility, generousity, and so on. and i beleive that God is concerned with the direction of a heart in relation to these things, not if we know all the details, and that he will judge justly because he genuinely "desires that none should perish." Is our heart directed to things of God, or against the things of God(In "Letters From a Skeptic" Boyd's gives a great analogy of this, where a man loved his alcohol more than his family and so he chose his own "hell" against what was the most rational and "morally right" choice, because his heart was closed to himslef)? Yes, i don't believe we can ever be perfect in this matter, but that's why Christ is necessary and he is more concerned with your faith and inclination to the "truth."
SO those are just a few thoughts, but i'd be interested to hear what your solution is to the obvious problem you've shown with exclusivism. I am not sure if i have misunderstood, but how do you believe God works to accomplish his universal salvic will through Christ? i am open to it and i enjoy the dialogue.
Peace,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/29/2002 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi David,
I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying about NR; the only excuse I can give is that the doctors put me on some new drugs  . Anywho, I thought I laid out my answer to the problem with exclusivistic views above, but perhaps I wasn't too explicit on what I thought the sollution was. To sum it up, here is the answer I give. Christ reveals himself to every single human being at some point in their life (except for perhaps the special cases of infant death or retarded, but this requires further questioning). That seems consistent with God's universal salvific will. However, sinful people have a hard time interpreting this experience of Christ correctly, and so may fail to respond, or may respond to him affirmatively, but within a different context. This also leaves an importance to missionaries, because they still have the charge of carrying the truth of the gospel to the people, if for no other reason than they may relate to Christ in a more correct manner. I would call this theory Direct Experience (DE, since we both seem infatuated with abbreviations ) of salvation. I find this theory superior because it removes the need for any vehicle of salvation; Christ is his own vehicle, and any wrong knowledge is not the fault of Christ, who uses the imperfect vehicle in some views, but rather the fault of the person, who interprets his experience of Christ incorrectly within his framework. Again, I'm sorry I was not more explicit about this, I seriously thought I was sufficiently explicit. I will try to be more explicit in the future. I do enjoy this dialogue, and I hope I will not wear your patience out with me with my vagueness. Blessings.
Sean
Yours, in Christ,
Sean McNabb | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 8/30/2002 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Scott, a very good point, but it does seem to suffer from a flaw. The first question I must ask you about faith is: conviction about what? What corresponding action? If you say conviction about a set of statements, then I refer you to my argument above, which argues (I think forcefully) that knowing a set of propositions about God is not knowledge of God as a person, but simply knowledge about God, but knowledge about God is not saving. I'll argue that point this way. Muslims may know several facts about God, but those facts are not necssarily saving. Also, I challenge your definition of faith in this manner. If that is faith, and one is saved by faith, then one is saved by knowing the right stuff and acting the right way. Again, I refer you to my argument. I hope you see the relevance of the complexity I went to in order to set forth this argument. Thanks for your responses, they're all great
Sean,
Well, obviously a lot was left unsaid by me, too much, because I assumed certain givens that you obviously haven't.  So much for trying to be economical!
In His peace,
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/30/2002 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Well, obviously a lot was left unsaid by me, too much, because I assumed certain givens that you obviously haven't. So much for trying to be economical!
Has anyone tried to warn you that being economical with people who study philosophy is futile? Perhaps Dr. Boyd is gifted in the sense that he can just read other people's minds and know all their assumptions ahead of time, but I myself don't like to put too many words in other people's mouths
On a more serious note, I need a little bit of help in the Bible department (not my area of expertise, I confess). I think that God saves people because he loves them, but I'm arguing with people who says that he saves people for his glory. I replied that it is God's glory to love people. Can anyone give me some Biblical support for my position, or any for the position in general that God saves people because he loves them? And how does one respond when someone says that most of Paul's talk about God is not about a loving God, but a God to be served? I normally wouldn't ask for exclusively for evidence, but this board seems mostly on my side, so forgive me if you disagree with me. Thanks, and god bless. I appreciate the help.
Sean
Yours, in Christ,
Sean McNabb | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 8/30/2002 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | hey sean,
don't worry about wearying my patience out, rather i hope i don't do so to you as i would like to inquire further about your direct experience theory. i'll try to be brief here.
i don't mean to be a pain, but your theory of direct experience still seems very vague and may be in a need of a definition for what a "direct experience" with Christ entails. Does he to us appear in physical form? Is it in a dream or a vision? Or is it an audible voice from heaven? What exactly is this vehicle that Christ presents himself in? Incluvist also believe that Christ present himself to everyone, but it is in the truths that are God's truth as much as he has revealed accordingly. To me, this(DE) seems to lean more towards a variation of the "God Will Send the Message" theory than inclusivism. Inclusivist salvation is often characterized as being ontologically neccesary but not epistomologically, meaning that one is saved through and by Christ but doesn't need to know that they are. In your view do they need to know that they are saved by Christ? Additional, whatever your definiton of "DE" is, what are your facts, previous evidences and biblical support for this theory(since it is a christian theo topic scripture is helpful)? furthermore:
quote:
I find this theory superior because it removes the need for any vehicle of salvation; Christ is his own vehicle, and any wrong knowledge is not the fault of Christ, who uses the imperfect vehicle in some views, but rather the fault of the person, who interprets his experience of Christ incorrectly within his framework.
does this view correlate with how God offers salvation in the bible? The great commision was God's way of using humans as vehicles to communicate his truths. also, how about paul? i believe that he as well was a vehicle that God used as well for this end, as well as many others. and again i need to know exactly what vehicle Christ is and how is this form or vehicle so perfect that honest misinterpretation of who Christ is may not creep up(are misinterpretations a problem in your theology?). I believe there would be many psychological factors, as well cultural preconceptions, etc., that may prohibit what some would deem an appropriate response to whatever a direct experience with God entails. [bold]What is it and what is the correct response?[/bold] i guess that's what i want to know so i can understand better where you are coming from. sorry for my annulness, but that is part of the dialogue and i enjoy it.
peace,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/31/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey David,
You are in no wise going to run out my patience soon. You haven't attacked my position with straw men nor have you simply made assumptions about my ignorance, like some responders on other boards have. This is useful and helpful, thank you.
Well, first off, I'd like to attempt to give a definition of DE, which would go as follows
DE) An experience with Christ in which one receives his offer for salvation.
As for what form this takes, it could take any number of forms, but the one that seems most applicable is the following scenario.
A certain Muslim was praying to Allah, and he felt a conviction of sin come over him, from the Lord Jesus. He assumed this was from Allah, and so he mistakenly calls out to Allah to save him from his sin. However, he is really referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, who then saves him from his sin.
I believe this is inclusivism in the sense that one is allowed to be mistaken about the factual content of their belief, but it is still capable of being salvific. I also think that Christ appears to everyone who has not been evangelized at least once in their life, if not more times. As for the support of my position in the Bible, I will refer mostly to the gospel of John.
"Those who love me will keep my word, and my father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the father who sent me." (John 14:23-24)
The question is thus: what is the word of Jesus? Indeed, the question that seems most important is this: what is the word of Jesus for those who haven't heard? Indeed, if they haven't heard from the apostles, then it seems necessary that they hear it from Jesus himself! Now, of course, the experience of Jesus might cause errors in their understanding of the word. That might seem problematic, until one considers that today we have a hard time agreeing on what Jesus meant by his words, so it doesn't seem to be too problematic.
As I have argued in my first essay, a misinterpretation is not a problem in this kind of theology, nor does it seem to be Biblical to have salvation hinge on a misinterpretation. After all, to have a correct interpretation seems to be works based, and is not at all gracious of God. Is salvation based on having a certain number of correct beliefs? If so, what is that number? Instead, I have argued that a "direct experience" with Christ is necessary for salvation, and that seems to be scriptural too. The indwelling of the holy spirit, the calling, and all those other things seem to be very direct ways of Christ communicating to people. So what is the role of evangelism? First of all, it is to present the good news of Christ to people. I have no problem with Christ using a medium, but it seems to be problematic when Christ makes use of mediums that contradict his character. Instead, I prefer to see it as him working in spite of these mediums. What a powerful God we have.
As for a few of your other questions, it is impossible to give a general rule for how Christ works in other cultures. I again refer to my example of the Muslim above. It seems to be this would be a fairly common scenario. So, for this scenario (let's call it CS), it could be put into this form.
CS) Believer X is praying to "Y", and felt conviction Z, which was brought about by Christ. He misattributes Z to "Y", but Christ accepts the prayer as to himself, and thus brings about a salvific experience for X.
Of course, this is not exhaustive, and probably needs work. But, my thining is haphazzard this morning; I am packing to go off to college. So, I hope to hear what you think. In the meantime, God bless.
Sean | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:06 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 |
|
|