 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Icons and Imagination | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/26/2004 9:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | Sahid, it seems that what you wrote is something that we all know. Perhaps your intent -- I hope -- is to post something that we can both agree too. I hope so. I'll gloss over my first impression that you were trying to find something, anything, to disagree with.
I've tried in this whole thread to be "inclusive" of what other people's observations were -- including with you at the beginning.
Your "disagreement" in this last point, again, is something that I'd of course agree with. And which contradicts nothing of the balanced observations that I began to develop in my post.
So, we're done. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
And the community of the Church leads. We are not to go off alone by ourselves. We should not expect to receive from the Spirit something totally other than what the Spirit has given all along.
quote:
For thousands of years the Spirit has been talking to people who "go off alone by themselves".
I'm not into contentiousness, or keeping score.
Of course you know the verses in II Peter 1:20-21. Any action of "going off" must be conditioned by the admonition of these verses. Consider it a fence, as at the Grand Canyon.
This is not something controversial, to you, is it?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/27/2004 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | You got me. There it is: "No prophecy was ever made by an act or human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit led by the community of the Church spoke from God."
Of course we are to be led by scripture and the Holy Spirit. I'm just saying that adding the Church or the Fathers or Tradition to that list is superfluous. I honestly would like to know what support you have for "the community of the Church lead[ing]". But remeber that there is plently of evidence to say that the church (or what everyone thinks is the church) is quite often a bad leader: much of the German church when the Nazis came to power, the crusades, the Jewish Christians before Paul confronted them, Southern Baptists and slavery, the Corinthian church...
I'm sorry if the discussion is not getting to the place you want it to. But I think some of the groundwork is faulty. Back in the day Paul had to remind people to emphasize unity. I think it's still good advice. In practice most Christians (I would hazard to guess) don't do a very good job with this. But as far as developing theology and preaching (from my limited perpective in the Mid-West, in a few classes including contemporary theology, and online) individuality is almost forgotten. Many of my close friends have been very screwed up by this kind of thinking. They sacrifice for the community to the point that they hate themselves. The message has been pushed so far to one side that it has become a lie. They are not to hate themselves. Jesus loved them so much that He died for them. But that isn't emphasized nearly as much as Jesus dying for the church or mankind or us all. Jesus dying for everyone is great. He is worthy of praise, but there are very serious psychological consequences for emphasizng community over individuality. People stop thinking that Jesus loves them. They think (often subconsciously while outwardly saying otherwise) that they are loved only as part of the church or part of mankind.
Sorry to rant, but when community is stressed over individuality I don't see it as balanced, and all kinds of alarms go off. I know what happens when that kind of thinking takes root, and it's not good.
I guess I only got one in a row. Oh well. I'll get over it.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | The ISSUE there seems to be the nature of the Church.
Feel free to rant. I read it. But I'm not interested in moving backwards to the place that I am unsure of the Spirit's presence and activity IN the Church, and constituting the Church. You will join me in not falling for the authoritarianism of organizational excesses--historically well known. We know our inquisitions and our papal infalabilities. So, go out and get yourself a copy of "Being as Communion" and find out from Met. John Zizioulas (scholar of the highest calibre) that "eccelsiology" is best understood and sketched out as "pneumatologically conditioned christology." That is, there are TWO extremes to be avoided. Avoid the individualism (Which ends up protecting and empowering the individual, when you are sure nothing can go too far wrong!) that comes with a purely-charismatic theory of the church, totally "Spirit" driven, where literally everyone is their own drummer. And avoid the and monolithic authoritarianism of a Papacy (Which independant Bible Church Pastors sometimes claim for themselves anyways--sometimes.) where everything is earthbound and timebound and hereditary.
In Practice, the Orthodox priest CANNOT celebrate communion by himself. (The RCC should not either.) This is because the congregation is ONLY constituted by both the priest (the historical and christological/apostolic element) and the congregation (the Spirit led element, that says "Amen" after all the parts led by the priest, like scripture reading, proclaimations, blessings, prayers, etc. -- and this survives even into Bible Churches: "Let me hear an 'AMEN!'")
The church is "pneumatologically conditioned christology." Individuality does not rule, because the congregation and leadership are empowered. Neither is authoritarianism a rule unto itself. Nor "communalism" a tyrant, as we all come to Christ one by one.
"Rant" all you want. But what it sounds that you need is a correct understanding of the Church, and not just one that will suit you for a while.
Find out what Christ and the Spirit say and want the Church to be. Don't settle for less. And then buy into it.
You won't rest until then.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | There is a reason that the Creed is said "I believe..." at baptism, and "We beleive..." after that.
Get a grasp and a hold of why, and hang on. | | Back to Top | | |
|
sewerbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 7/27/2004 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Of course we are to be led by scripture and the Holy Spirit. I'm just saying that adding the Church or the Fathers or Tradition to that list is superfluous.
Sahid, I think you will find it difficult to logically be "led by scripture" WITHOUT being led by "the Church, the Fathers, or Tradition"
What makes you beleive in the authority of scripture? Why is scripture true? Is it not just man's words? What about all the other letters written to churches by very early believers, are they not divinely inspired, do they carry the same authority as cannonized "scripture"?
To beleive that scripture is divinely inspired is to believe in the men at the ecumenical councils that cannonized them as such. If you believe what these church fathers clearly defined as accurate written tradition, then you are saying you believe the men at those councils to have been somehow inspired by God to choose what written tradtions were authoritative and completely pure and what writings were not....if you in fact beleive this, which you must in order to attempt to refute anything WITH these scriptures, then you must also acknowledge the ORAL TRADITION laid forth by those same men. These men did not only cannonize the written word, but the laid forth clearly which traditions were pure and which were false as well. It is directly from the very meetings where we get our scripture that the Orthodox church gets there tradition, inl;cuding the belief that the Church and the Scripture hold an equl position of authority.
If you believe that the letters of St. Paul for instance are in fact truthful, and unadulterated, and therefore beleive men who gave them the test, and trascribed them, and who tell you these letters are true, then why not also believe the claims they made about which non-written traditions are true....the Orthodox traditions can be clearly traced all the way back to these meetings. This does not mean the traditions have not been abused and misinterpreted throughout history, but so has the written word.
Orthodoxy is something that I myself am still considering....I am not Orthodox, but I have realized that I can not be "protestant" any longer due to the many flaws I see with many of its tennants...I am still searching.....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2004 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Though I'm definitely not a big fan of Luther's antinomianism (I think he "overcorrected" his former Catholic view of works), I cannot do otherwise than agree with his famous statement at the Diet of Worms.
quote:
"Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for the have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right not safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen."
Tradition and church history is profitable to study in many ways. Perhaps the most important thing we can learn from church tradition is that it has never been infallible. I think Wesley had a good approach, in affirming the tradition of the early church prior to the fifth century, when syncretistic doctrines and practices clearly began to spread, like yeast in a batch of dough, throughout the unified church/state monstrosity.
Is true decided by vote (majority concensus, as in Orthodoxy and Catholicism), or is it truth by its very nature?
By the way, I studied Eastern Orthodoxy for several years (I'm a church history and especially patristics buff), and seriously considered converting at one time. Basically, if one accepts their doctrine of apostolic succession and the authoritativeness of "holy tradition," the rest of the syncretistic system is swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
"Think not to yourselves, we are the children of Abraham, for I tell you of a truth, God is able to raise up from these stones children unto Abraham." John the Baptist.
"If God were your father, then would you believe in me, for I proceeded and came forth from Him." Jesus Christ.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/27/2004 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Rant" all you want. But what it sounds that you need is a correct understanding of the Church, and not just one that will suit you for a while.
Find out what Christ and the Spirit say and want the Church to be. Don't settle for less. And then buy into it.
You won't rest until then.
Rest from what? Posting on the forum? I think you need a correct understanding of the church. But that doesn't matter if I don't have a reason. Neither does it matter how many great scholars I quote. What matters is the content of what they say.
The self-identified church is not the present incarnation of Christ. You can tell the tree by it's fruit. The present incarnation of Christ stuff sounds great and I'm sure lots of people with great reputations believe it, but that's not enough. It has to make sense. There can be thousands of years of tradition supporting it, but that a statement is true does not follow from it's acceptance in tradition. Your humblest, most esteemed, Greek-speaking saint has no more claim to truth than any sincere believer today. quote:
Sahid, I think you will find it difficult to logically be "led by scripture" WITHOUT being led by "the Church, the Fathers, or Tradition"
What makes you beleive in the authority of scripture?
All scripture is God-breathed and useful. That doesn't mean that nothing else is. Tradition, the church, and the fathers are not why I believe the Bible. I believe it, because the Spirit pushes me to it (in the same way that He pushes me to other things), and because it has proven true. If you believe merely because someone told you to (be it the church or tradition or the fathers), your missing out on something better. The reasoning goes something like this (if it doesn't let me know; I'm sure someone will disagree): I believe the Bible, because church/tradition/fathers tell me to. I believe church/tradition/fathers, because church/tradition/fathers tell me to.
Abandon the circular reasoning. Throw it away! I used to hold on to it, but one day I saw what I was doing and couldn't bear to do anything but throw it away. The great thing is that there are actual good reasons for believing in God, Jesus, the Spirit, and even the truthfulness of the Bible. If you hold to the circular reasoning, you do grow from the truth of the Bible, but it is invigorating to look at things honestly, go through a few frightening days of not knowing what to think, and then breathe a sign of relief as Jesus catches you. quote:
Tradition and church history is profitable to study in many ways. Perhaps the most important thing we can learn from church tradition is that it has never been infallible.... Is true decided by vote (majority concensus, as in Orthodoxy and Catholicism), or is it truth by its very nature?
This I like. Profitable is the right word. Infallible or authoritative are wrong. Present incarnation ecclesiology is very convenient for large organizations like the catholic and othodox churches, because it puts the authority of God in their laps. But no matter how far we take deification, God is still tops. No matter how much we like the body of Christ metaphor, Christ is still the head, not the church. Truth is truth with or without the church agreeing to it.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
sewerbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 7/28/2004 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | _______________________________________________________________
All scripture is God-breathed and useful. That doesn't mean that nothing else is. Tradition, the church, and the fathers are not why I believe the Bible. I believe it, because the Spirit pushes me to it (in the same way that He pushes me to other things), and because it has proven true. If you believe merely because someone told you to (be it the church or tradition or the fathers), your missing out on something better. The reasoning goes something like this (if it doesn't let me know; I'm sure someone will disagree): I believe the Bible, because church/tradition/fathers tell me to. I believe church/tradition/fathers, because church/tradition/fathers tell me to
____________________________________________________________________
I understand what you are saying here. First of all, "all scripture is God breathed..." is not a good defense of scriptures authority, since the verse comes from scripture itself. It is circular to appeal to the authority of the subject whose authority you are debating. Likewise, the church fathers and their tradition are not right just because they say they are right. I agree with you here.
When you said that you can see that scripture is true from a sort of feeling within (i.e. Holy Spirit)I would agree, in the end what else can we go on? Even if we attempt to prove things objectively with logic, in the end, what makes us believe that logical things are preferable to illogical things....a gut feeling more or less. We must go with our "conscience" or gut if you will, as Luther said, we can "do no other".
However, if we beleive that scripture is historically accurate, and that the authors of the new testament actually wrote the books that they are said to have, and that somewhere down the line, before the earliest documents available of these letters, they were not changed, or forged, etc....we are trusting what the ecumenical councils saidf to be original and true, since they knew many of these apostles personally, they vouched for thier letters, and which ones were acurate. These people who knew the apostles, also laid out what oral traditions were acurate, and passed them down.
At some point, we are putting some trust in these councils to have preserved the words of Christ, etc, and kept them accurate, otherwise one could not claim that we are quoting his words when we quote what the gospels tell us he said...we trust that the words we read, though the earliest froms we have of them are from several years after his death, and probably not the originals written by the apostles, have been preserved. The men who "preserved" them, were the same men who "preserved" the Holy Tradition.
I agree, I FEEL the truth and beauty in scripture, and I don't really feel comfortable at this point with many of the traditions.....but from a logical standpoint they have to be examined. There have been many things in my life that my feelings, and even what the Holy Spirit has put in me, have changed. What may be wrong for me at one time, and whatb would lead me astray, may, once I can handle it, be the truth I need.
Just soem thoughts.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/28/2004 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
"Salam!"
Hears a question. Do you think the church does exist? Just wonderng. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2004 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | JUMPSTARTING....
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
This is a SHORT portion of a much larger article:
(I chose this portion because clarity of meaning is important for fine distinctions be remain clear.)
quote:
www.arimathea.co.uk/icons.htm
Icons and Imagination
Orthodox tradition is deeply suspicious of any attempt to give the imagination an important role in the spiritual life. This can seem very odd and even unreasonably restrictive to Christians familiar with the Roman Catholic techniques of mental prayer and discursive meditation, which make detailed and systematic use of the imagination -e.g. to imagine specific events in the life of Christ, which then provides the object-matter for meditation. Orthodox spirituality avoids any such practise. We are expected to read the Gospel accounts of the events in the life of Christ, to study the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospel texts, to think about them .... but not to attempt to imagine them in prayer. Using the imagination in prayer can lead to error of the gravest kind, when our own imaginative creations replace the reality, and we can even end up praying to our own mental fantasies.
The central reason for avoiding exercise of the imagination in prayer is theological. God is present everywhere. Christ is present by His Holy Spirit in the depth of the being of every Christian living the reality of Baptism into the death of Christ. If we live our Baptism, sealed with the Seal of the Spirit, then the Risen Christ lives in us, by His Holy Spirit, and we live the Risen life in the Spirit. We do not need to imagine Christ as present: He is present: we need to remind ourselves of His presence.
Icons can be effective in recalling us to the presence of Christ - the icon can serve as a reminder that He truly is here. Each specific icon type carries its own message about Him. The Pantocrator reminds us that the Christ who is present here is the Almighty, the Creator and Sustained of the Universe, the Upholder of All. The icon of Christ the Teacher reminds us that it is He who teaches, through the Gospels, the Church's proclamation of the Good News, through prayer, if our spiritual senses are awake to hear Him, through the people we meet, the situations we face. The icon of the Panteleimon, the All-Merciful, reminds us that nothing we have done is beyond His forgiveness; the Christ Who is present to us offers forgiveness and transformation, if we will accept it. The icon of the Crucified reminds us of the unlimited love of the Son of God who assumes our human nature in order to let us share His divine nature. He has entered into our humanity in its fullness, into our joys and sufferings, even into degradation and death; there is no part of our life where Christ is not. The Anastasis reminds us that Christ has descended into death to free the whole of humanity from the entrapping power of death, from the fear of death and from the compulsion to sin.
The iconographer has a grave responsibility to ensure his or her icons are not simply works of imagination. The iconographer exercises an ecclesiastical ministry in making icons. The icon must emerge from the mind and spirit of the Church, and must ensure that new icons truly represent the reality the Church knows, not some individual fantasy. Prayer, scriptural study, study of the Church's iconographical tradition and of the doctrine and canons on icons are as important in preparing oneself to make icons as technical study of the artistic processes involved.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2004 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | My Mennonite motherinlaw tells me that she picked out very carefully the pictures of Jesus that she used in her Sunday School.
We Evangelicals have pictures to, and use them in education.
But we also have a rich, rich, rich tradition of HYMNS that are used in worship and devotions.
THAT comes quickly to mind when I read the bit above about "The < H Y M N > must emerge from the mind and spirit of the Church, and must ensure that new icons truly represent the reality the Church knows, not some individual fantasy."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/29/2004 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are expected to read the Gospel accounts of the events in the life of Christ, to study the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospel texts, to think about them .... but not to attempt to imagine them in prayer. Using the imagination in prayer can lead to error of the gravest kind,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That in no way reduces the task and calling of imagination in our lives. It just says that prayer and God's word are things not solely within ourselves,
I'm looking, but I can't see it. If anyone else sees it, then show me. While I think I agree with what your saying here PoW, I don't thing it's what your quote is saying.
Not to drag things into the gutter, but I think the Orthodox church often times has a refressing perspective to westerners like me. When I first started looking at what they believe, I was excited, because lots of the things I didn't like about western beliefs they didn't like either. The long and short of it is this article doesn't say what you want it to say. I'll agree that a lot of it is great, but I think the Orthodox church is mistaken about some things. I'd say this about leaving imagination out of prayer is one, but the bigger one is not being able to know God, but just His work.
Slightly off the subject, but what is your reason for not joining the Orthodox church?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/29/2004 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
not being able to know God, but just His work.
I'm sorry that you got so confused there, Sahid. Looks like you got it all mixed up. O well.
Here's a good quote:
quote:
Here is how his views are described by an Eastern Orthodox writer, Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia), in his book, The Orthodox Church, pp. 77-78, published by Penguin Usa. Copyright 1963,1964 by Timothy Ware.
From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Energies%20of%20God
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/palamas_theology.shtml
http://www.missionstclare.com/english/people/nov14.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/29/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/29/2004 11:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
The rest you will have to do yourself.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/2/2004 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
so what exactly does the Orthodox church mean by essence?
Sahid, what I'd expect, I guess of anyone, is that if they are currious enough to ask a question, that it would bug them so much that they wouldn't rest, but get up and turn on the old computer and start searching around until they felt they had enough sources to judge which ones they think they can trust, and whether they have enough view-inputs to judge one against another -- a review of the literature, if you will. And then they being reading, and thinking and digesting and forming secondary questions. LIKE A PAINTER WHO DOES SKETCHES, UNDERPAINTINS, OVERPAINTINGS, AND FINALLY DETAILS. AND MAYBE NEVER GETS TO SLEEP.
Perhaps you are just the "younger generation," but at twenty-two I don't understand your lack of use of energy, or why you don't hunt and peck to find what you want. I don't get it???
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 2:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Ya, know, Zach. I went to bed thinking that I probably should not have posted the above thoughts last night. This morning I came to erase them. Sorry that you saw them before I could do that.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 3:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND A KEY TO THIS ISSUE. THAT PRAYERS AND WORSHIP MUST BE "REAL."
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by sometimesisquint
...I thought this thread was a bit more specifically centered than one constituting a vague reference to my personal experiences with "worship and prayer".
That's the senerio for icons: prayer and worship of God. And I think that its worthwhile to make this real, and not just a discussion of hypothticals.
Laubach, in the book I just mentioned, said that the world needed saving. Atomic Bomb, threat of WW3...he meant it in the most literal sense. And instead of counting how many Christians might be 'dedicated' enough to pray, he counted hundreds of thousands who NEEDED to pray: lost kids in war, lost limbs and livelyhood, families torn apart. They needed to pray 'cause that was all that was left. Those would be among his prayer warriers. Their prayers are real.
Prayer and worship have to be real.
I read today the wisdom passed on among Christians that our whole lives should be IN Christ. That we should live our lives, as much as we can... quote:
are called to be watchful of anything that might draw us away from new life in Christ and, ultimately to deny or refuse it. . . .care to discern and to fight against whatever and whoever may draw them away from Life.
. . .
All of our life, all that we do and say should not exist outside of our rest in Christ. For by incorporating all of life into Christ’s active rest we will become bearers of the Holy Spirit...
What's repeating in my head is the fact that if I'm concerned with all kinds of extra things in life my affections will be spread all over the place, and my prayers won't be as effective. Lots of passions, entertainments, ambitions dissipate affections and dedication. Seems right. So... what goes on before prayer would then naturally affect prayer.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 56 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|