 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > God hates fags? Genesis 19 | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | POW, you didn't answer my questions or interact with the Scripture so I don't know that this conversation is true dialogue...perhaps I ought to drop it?
You say:quote:
If you are to go all liberal and claim that 'good feelings' are the ultimate, and that better feelings are a God-replacement... then I can only say that I think that somewhere you know better.
Now that is a strawman of the worst kind. I never once said that "good feelings are the ultimate." I gave my understanding of St. Paul's words from Holy Writ.
I have also studied prayerfully the passages on homosexuality and believe that none of them refer to monogomous homosexual marriage but to the problem of homosexual gang rape, lust, promiscuity, pediphilia, and temple prostitution...all of which are condemned (as well as for heterosexuals!). Asking what the Bible says about monogomous homosexual unions in America is like asking what the Bible says about television...it doesn't address it because it didn't exist in the culture! The accomodation St. Paul himself makes for those who "cannot maintain celibacy" is no different for persons of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.
POW said: quote:
First, there is NO "life long gift of celibacy." )I won't even look at any proof-texting on it. Its not the issue.) That is the problem, too, with the RCC's presumption that all can be celebate. Celebacy should not be the focus; chastity should.
Please explain the difference between a life of chastity and a life of celibacy [bold]for a single person who is not allowed to marry[/bold]. How are they, practically speaking, any different? Does the chaste person get to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage? If not, they are identical.
POW said: quote:
PAUL DID NOT SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD "MARRY."
St. Paul said that whoever cannot "maintain" a lifestyle of chastity in singlehood because they did not have that gift "should marry." I see no reason why that applies any less to a person of homosexual orientation than of heterosexual orientation. The proper confines of sexual expression are between two adults who love one another and have vowed before God to be faithful to one another.
POW said: quote:
One gender by itself coes not constitute humanity.
I would have to disagree with you that the fullness of humanity cannot be located in one gender since if that were the case...than Jesus was NOT fully human...seeing as he was a male. And if Jesus, being a male, was not fully human and did not encompass ALL that it means to be human because he wasn't also female...then women could not be saved.
POW said: quote:
As someone who's view is condemned by the majority of the world-wide Anglican communion, you aught to take their reproof seriously.
I took vows of obedience to my Bishop. My Bishop believes what the Church has done is prophetic godliness. If the truth were always located in the "majority." than the majority would always be right....but the majority of religious leaders at the time of Jesus believed he was a heretic, not the Son of God...therefore I am quite hesitant to rest my faith in any majority simply because they outnumber us.
Peace,
~e
| | Back to Top | | |
|
adiaphora
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 123
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | I forgot to add plurals to the bad word filter. My sincere apologies to all for neglecting to forbid this word on our board.
adiaphora | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Empiress
POW, you didn't answer my questions or interact with the Scripture so I don't know that this conversation is true dialogue...perhaps I ought to drop it?
You say:quote:
If you are to go all liberal and claim that 'good feelings' are the ultimate, and that better feelings are a God-replacement... then I can only say that I think that somewhere you know better.
Now that is a strawman of the worst kind. I never once said that "good feelings are the ultimate." I gave my understanding of St. Paul's words from Holy Writ.
I have also studied prayerfully the passages on homosexuality and believe that none of them refer to monogomous homosexual marriage but to the problem of homosexual gang rape, lust, promiscuity, pediphilia, and temple prostitution...all of which are condemned (as well as for heterosexuals!). Asking what the Bible says about monogomous homosexual unions in America is like asking what the Bible says about television...it doesn't address it because it didn't exist in the culture! The accomodation St. Paul himself makes for those who "cannot maintain celibacy" is no different for persons of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.
POW said: quote:
First, there is NO "life long gift of celibacy." )I won't even look at any proof-texting on it. Its not the issue.) That is the problem, too, with the RCC's presumption that all can be celebate. Celebacy should not be the focus; chastity should.
Please explain the difference between a life of chastity and a life of celibacy [bold]for a single person who is not allowed to marry[/bold]. How are they, practically speaking, any different? Does the chaste person get to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage? If not, they are identical.
POW said: quote:
PAUL DID NOT SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD "MARRY."
St. Paul said that whoever cannot "maintain" a lifestyle of chastity in singlehood because they did not have that gift "should marry." I see no reason why that applies any less to a person of homosexual orientation than of heterosexual orientation. The proper confines of sexual expression are between two adults who love one another and have vowed before God to be faithful to one another.
POW said: quote:
One gender by itself coes not constitute humanity.
I would have to disagree with you that the fullness of humanity cannot be located in one gender since if that were the case...than Jesus was NOT fully human...seeing as he was a male. And if Jesus, being a male, was not fully human and did not encompass ALL that it means to be human because he wasn't also female...then women could not be saved.
POW said: quote:
As someone who's view is condemned by the majority of the world-wide Anglican communion, you aught to take their reproof seriously.
I took vows of obedience to my Bishop. My Bishop believes what the Church has done is prophetic godliness. If the truth were always located in the "majority." than the majority would always be right....but the majority of religious leaders at the time of Jesus believed he was a heretic, not the Son of God...therefore I am quite hesitant to rest my faith in any majority simply because they outnumber us.
Peace,
~e
Empiress,
The scriptures are clear on homosexuality as a sin in ALL it's forms and forbid any and all practicing of it. Paul was ONLY speaking of heterosexuals getting married. Two people of the same sex coming together sexually or in "marriage" is not in God's order for humanity. If that were the case He wouldn't have made Eve for Adam. He would have simply made another man for Adam to cohabitate with.
Good intentions are never enough. The sin of practicing homosexuality will only wreck the relationship between the gay and lesbian person/people and God as all active and undealt-with sins in our lives prevent us from having the full and rich love life with Jesus that we're meant to have. That's the deeper issue here. Do you really want to go around preaching that it's okay for two gays or two lesbians to just go ahead and get "married" to each other when by doing that, they're hindering their walk with God? My beloved sister in Christ, be careful about what you preach. You don't want to be a tool of the devil to lead people further astray from their walks with God.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Empiress,
The scriptures are clear on homosexuality as a sin in ALL it's forms and forbid any and all practicing of it. Paul was ONLY speaking of heterosexuals getting married. Two people of the same sex coming together sexually or in "marriage" is not in God's order for humanity. If that were the case He wouldn't have made Eve for Adam. He would have simply made another man for Adam to cohabitate with.
Tigress, you were a BTS major. In Dr. Holme's classes he taught us the exegetical principle that the Bible cannot mean something that it was not meant to mean for its original intended audience.
Homosexuality was not part of the world-view of those that wrote the Bible, as such they did not directly write about it.
You do not show why scriptures are clear on this issue. Rome was a very permissive society. One could do almost anything so long as one had power. And, much of our sexuality is not endocrinologically determined but a function of codes/taboos that we have had culturally inculcated into us.
It is wrong to reject so much of the ethics as many of the gay-rights activists do, but we need to take into account that there are constitutional homosexuals who are highly unlikely to be able to overcome their sexual orientation.
So the question is how do we encourage them to avoid lives of profligacy? That is why we consider allowing for homosexual marriages.
quote:
Good intentions are never enough. The sin of practicing homosexuality will only wreck the relationship between the gay and lesbian person/people and God as all active and undealt-with sins in our lives prevent us from having the full and rich love life with Jesus that we're meant to have. That's the deeper issue here. Do you really want to go around preaching that it's okay for two gays or two lesbians to just go ahead and get "married" to each other when by doing that, they're hindering their walk with God? My beloved sister in Christ, be careful about what you preach. You don't want to be a tool of the devil to lead people further astray from their walks with God.
Listen, don't personalize this too much, stay strong in your own commitment, but realize that there are those who only are attracted to people of the same sex and who may not have the gift of celibacy.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Empiress,
The scriptures are clear on homosexuality as a sin in ALL it's forms and forbid any and all practicing of it. Paul was ONLY speaking of heterosexuals getting married. Two people of the same sex coming together sexually or in "marriage" is not in God's order for humanity. If that were the case He wouldn't have made Eve for Adam. He would have simply made another man for Adam to cohabitate with.
Tigress, you were a BTS major. In Dr. Holme's classes he taught us the exegetical principle that the Bible cannot mean something that it was not meant to mean for its original intended audience.
Homosexuality was not part of the world-view of those that wrote the Bible, as such they did not directly write about it.
You do not show why scriptures are clear on this issue. Rome was a very permissive society. One could do almost anything so long as one had power. And, much of our sexuality is not endocrinologically determined but a function of codes/taboos that we have had culturally inculcated into us.
It is wrong to reject so much of the ethics as many of the gay-rights activists do, but we need to take into account that there are constitutional homosexuals who are highly unlikely to be able to overcome their sexual orientation.
So the question is how do we encourage them to avoid lives of profligacy? That is why we consider allowing for homosexual marriages.
quote:
Good intentions are never enough. The sin of practicing homosexuality will only wreck the relationship between the gay and lesbian person/people and God as all active and undealt-with sins in our lives prevent us from having the full and rich love life with Jesus that we're meant to have. That's the deeper issue here. Do you really want to go around preaching that it's okay for two gays or two lesbians to just go ahead and get "married" to each other when by doing that, they're hindering their walk with God? My beloved sister in Christ, be careful about what you preach. You don't want to be a tool of the devil to lead people further astray from their walks with God.
Listen, don't personalize this too much, stay strong in your own commitment, but realize that there are those who only are attracted to people of the same sex and who may not have the gift of celibacy.
dlw
That's a cop-out. There are plenty of references to homosexuality in the OT (Leviticus, Deutoronomy, Numbers) as well as the new. Since I'm at work, I really can't be searching for it all. But, I'll try to find a few.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, Tigris, the Bible was not written in English originally. As such when the word homosexuality is in our Bibles, it is because a translator chose to translate another word as such. However, words' meanings change over time and that is why retranslating the Bible for each generation is so important. Just as with the NT, in the OT, they didn't have the concept of homosexuality. They did not us biological deterministic rationalizations for their behavior and there is nothing preventing non-constitutional homosexuals from engaging in homosexual acts, or acts with animals, for that matter.
So I would highly recommend that you confer with an expert on the interpretation of the Bible, like your old professor Dr. Holmes regarding the legitimacy of the hermeneutical difficulties that I've brought up.
We all should read the Bible, but that doesn't mean we all understand it equally well.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, here we go...I did a search on any reference to homosexuality and these verses came up:
Lev. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; Their blood [shall be] upon them.
Rom. 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom. 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1 Cor. 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicatros, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
Okay, Tigris, the Bible was not written in English originally. As such when the word homosexuality is in our Bibles, it is because a translator chose to translate another word as such. However, words' meanings change over time and that is why retranslating the Bible for each generation is so important. Just as with the NT, in the OT, they didn't have the concept of homosexuality. They did not us biological deterministic rationalizations for their behavior and there is nothing preventing non-constitutional homosexuals from engaging in homosexual acts, or acts with animals, for that matter.
So I would highly recommend that you confer with an expert on the interpretation of the Bible, like your old professor Dr. Holmes regarding the legitimacy of the hermeneutical difficulties that I've brought up.
We all should read the Bible, but that doesn't mean we all understand it equally well.
dlw
DLW,
Homosexuality has been around since the Fall. It doesn't take any special knowledge to recognize that a man having sex with a man is against God's order. I'm saying that just because people are unable to help themselves, is not a good enough reason to just let them get "married." I know plenty of heterosexual people who would get married if someone would marry them, but as it stands they don't have a choice because no one has asked them or accepted their proposal. Is it alright for them to just go out and fornicate or hire prostitutes because they burn with desire? I think you know that the answer is a resounding "NO!" (At least I hope you do.) Whether or not some people would be better off married isn't the issue here. The issue is having self-control in whatever circumstance one is in. I know a guy who's 39, and he wants to get married more than anything else in the world. But no woman wants him. According to your thinking, he shouldn't have to learn to control his sexual urges. That is an incorrect stance to take.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/19/2003 7:16 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 7:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/19/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/19/2003 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
DLW,
Homosexuality has been around since the Fall. It doesn't take any special knowledge to recognize that a man having sex with a man is against God's order. I'm saying that just because people are unable to help themselves, is not a good enough reason to just let them get "married."
While homosexuality may have a long genealogy, our understanding of it has changed considerably in recent days, just as our understanding of the laws of physics and the structure of our universe have changed considerably in more recent times.
How about the fact they are very unlikely to be able to change their sexual orientation and are not gifted with the gift of celibacy may make marriages that strive to emulate the Christian Ideal in all other respects and that acknowledge the fallenness of their sexuality by avoiding anal intercourse acceptable?
I know plenty of heterosexual people who would get married if someone would marry them, but as it stands they don't have a choice because no one has asked them or accepted their proposal. Is it
alright for them to just go out and fornicate or hire prostitutes because they burn with desire? I think you know that the answer is a resounding "NO!" (At least I hope you do.)
No, but they could spend more of their time trying to get to know other single people interested in marriage and sharing the same ideals as they do. You are not allowing that same hope for constitutional homosexuals.
quote:
Whether or not some people would be better off married isn't the issue here. The issue is having self-control in whatever circumstance one is in. I know a guy who's 39, and he wants to get married more than anything else in the world. But no woman wants him. According to your thinking, he shouldn't have to learn to control his sexual urges. That is an incorrect stance to take.
Well, dating is never fun and yes we still need to practice self-discipline over our sexuality before and after we marry.
I imagine things could be rough for older singles, who may not make as much or whatever... . There are things one can do to try and improve the odds of getting married and ending one's celibacy(writing endless deadpan postings on discussion boards is not one of them).
As such, I don't think it is right to view such individuals as unmarriable or in the same boat as constitutional homosexuals.
Part of the problem of order is deciding what must be taken as given and what can be subject to change. My answer differs from Pow because I take the conjunction of constitutional homosexuality and people not having the gift of celibacy as given and believe that accepting marriages would make the best of a bad situation.
I am not for legally having gay-marriages, just civil unions with some of the benefits/rights given to married heterosexuals so long as the civil unions are targeted for longterm relationships with restrictions on divorce and re-unioning.
My arguments above are geared at how Churches should cope with the reality of homosexuality, for bisexuals I would not accept same-sex marriages and I would advocate counseling to prevent sex-changes.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/20/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
DLW,
Homosexuality has been around since the Fall. It doesn't take any special knowledge to recognize that a man having sex with a man is against God's order. I'm saying that just because people are unable to help themselves, is not a good enough reason to just let them get "married."
While homosexuality may have a long genealogy, our understanding of it has changed considerably in recent days, just as our understanding of the laws of physics and the structure of our universe have changed considerably in more recent times.
How about the fact they are very unlikely to be able to change their sexual orientation and are not gifted with the gift of celibacy may make marriages that strive to emulate the Christian Ideal in all other respects and that acknowledge the fallenness of their sexuality by avoiding anal intercourse acceptable?
I know plenty of heterosexual people who would get married if someone would marry them, but as it stands they don't have a choice because no one has asked them or accepted their proposal. Is it
alright for them to just go out and fornicate or hire prostitutes because they burn with desire? I think you know that the answer is a resounding "NO!" (At least I hope you do.)
No, but they could spend more of their time trying to get to know other single people interested in marriage and sharing the same ideals as they do. You are not allowing that same hope for constitutional homosexuals.
quote:
Whether or not some people would be better off married isn't the issue here. The issue is having self-control in whatever circumstance one is in. I know a guy who's 39, and he wants to get married more than anything else in the world. But no woman wants him. According to your thinking, he shouldn't have to learn to control his sexual urges. That is an incorrect stance to take.
Well, dating is never fun and yes we still need to practice self-discipline over our sexuality before and after we marry.
I imagine things could be rough for older singles, who may not make as much or whatever... . There are things one can do to try and improve the odds of getting married and ending one's celibacy(writing endless deadpan postings on discussion boards is not one of them).
As such, I don't think it is right to view such individuals as unmarriable or in the same boat as constitutional homosexuals.
Part of the problem of order is deciding what must be taken as given and what can be subject to change. My answer differs from Pow because I take the conjunction of constitutional homosexuality and people not having the gift of celibacy as given and believe that accepting marriages would make the best of a bad situation.
I am not for legally having gay-marriages, just civil unions with some of the benefits/rights given to married heterosexuals so long as the civil unions are targeted for longterm relationships with restrictions on divorce and re-unioning.
My arguments above are geared at how Churches should cope with the reality of homosexuality, for bisexuals I would not accept same-sex marriages and I would advocate counseling to prevent sex-changes.
dlw
You know, I really don't appreciate the insinuations here. I'm not talking about myself when speaking about single Christians. I've repeatedly stated that I'm fully confident that I will definitely be getting married someday, as was prophesied to me. Stop making assumptions about me, as that's a sign of a lack of intelligence on your part.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/20/2003 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Empiress
The accomodation St. Paul himself makes for those who "cannot maintain celibacy" is no different for persons of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.
POW said: quote:
PAUL DID NOT SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD "MARRY."
St. Paul said that whoever cannot "maintain" a lifestyle of chastity in singlehood because they did not have that gift "should marry." I see no reason why that applies any less to a person of homosexual orientation than of heterosexual orientation.
Pauls says that they should marry? Well marriage is the joining of a man and woman. That might just be beinificial. But they would have to prayerfully decide if they want to take on the monasticism of marriage. The architype of man is John the Baptist--"I must decrease that he/she/they might increase. Such a monasitism in marriage with a woman might prove to aid in the spiritual growth of that "gay man." An elder in our church was. And the architype of woman is Mary--"Yes, be it unto me" and embracing and nurturing all. In both cases the narcisism of homosexuality would be broken down.
There are other forms of monasticism. But marriage is one form. The two "become one" and in that way neither is a god unto themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Empiress
POW said: quote:
As someone who's view is condemned by the majority of the world-wide Anglican communion, you aught to take their reproof seriously.
I took vows of obedience to my Bishop. My Bishop believes what the Church has done is prophetic godliness. If the truth were always located in the "majority." than the majority would always be right....but the majority of religious leaders at the time of Jesus believed he was a heretic, not the Son of God...therefore I am quite hesitant to rest my faith in any majority simply because they outnumber us.
Any ecclesiology that is so OVEREMPHASIZES the "Appostolic Succession" that is becomes a rule onto itself disreguards the presence of the Spirit throughtout the Church in all times. And any interpretation that OVEREMPHASIZES the individual interpretation of Scripture" ignores the warning in the book of Hebrews.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 105 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:19 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 |
|
|