 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/7/2003 11:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | Morality Continues to Decay
Barna Research Online
November 3, 2003
Of the ten moral behaviors evaluated, a majority of Americans believed that each of three activities were “morally acceptable.” Those included gambling (61%), co-habitation (60%), and sexual fantasies (59%). Nearly half of the adult population felt that two other behaviors were morally acceptable: having an abortion (45%) and having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse (42%). About one-third of the population gave the stamp of approval to pornography (38%), profanity (36%), drunkenness (35%) and homosexual sex (30%). The activity that garnered the least support was using non-prescription drugs (17%).
Faith Commitment Impacts Views
Morality perspectives vary tremendously according to people’s faith commitments.
Of the seven faith groups studied, evangelicals were the least likely to accept each of the ten behaviors as moral. Less than one out of every ten evangelical Christians maintained that adultery, gay sex, pornography, profanity, drunkenness and abortion are morally acceptable. In contrast, every one of those ten behaviors was deemed “morally acceptable” by more than one out of ten people from each of the other six faith groups studied. (The other faith segments included non-evangelical born again Christian, notional Christians, adherents of non-Christian faiths, atheists/agnostics, Protestants and Catholics.)
On average, born again Christians who are not evangelical were more than three times as likely as evangelicals to describe any given behavior tested as morally acceptable. In fact, the data showed that non-evangelical born again Christians were more similar in their moral perspectives to “notional” Christians than to evangelicals. (Notional Christians are those who describe themselves as Christian but are not born again – that is, they do not believe that after they die on earth they will go to Heaven solely because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.)
Among people aligned with faiths other than Christianity, half or more described each of seven behaviors as “morally acceptable” - gambling, co-habitation, sexual fantasies, having an abortion, having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse, pornography and profanity. Atheists and agnostics were the people most likely to describe any of these behaviors as morally acceptable. In total, atheists and agnostics defined nine of the ten behaviors as morally legitimate, dismissing only the use of non-prescription drugs.
Protestants and Catholics differed to some extent on nine of the ten behaviors, with Protestants less likely to describe any of those behaviors as morally acceptable. (The only moral behavior for which both groups held the same view was regarding the use of non-prescription drugs.) The biggest gaps between Protestants and Catholics were found in relation to cohabitation (deemed morally acceptable by 50% of Protestants and 66% of Catholics), sexual fantasies (51% and 63%, respectively), and gambling (52% and 70%, respectively).
Generation Gap Evident
There were also huge differences in moral viewpoints based upon a person’s generation. In nearly every case there was a pattern of Mosaics (the oldest members of the youngest generation, currently 18 or 19 years old) and Busters (those 20 to 38 years of age) being most likely to deem the behavior morally acceptable. Baby Boomers (ages 39 through 57) were less likely to buy into each behavior, and Elders (a combination of the two oldest generations, comprised of people 58 or older) emerged as the people least likely to embrace the behavior.
Whereas at least half of the Mosaics and Busters considered eight of the ten behaviors morally acceptable, a majority of Boomers endorsed only four of the behaviors, and a majority of Elders identified just one behavior (gambling) as morally legitimate.
Also noteworthy was the fact that men were more likely than women to deem nine of the ten behaviors to be morally acceptable. (The exception was sexual relations between people of the same gender, which women were slightly more likely to condone.) The most sizeable gaps were related to pornography (men were twice as likely to deem pornography acceptable) and drunkenness.
The data trends indicate that the moral perspectives of Americans are likely to continue to deteriorate,” predicted researcher George Barna. “Compared to surveys we conducted just two years ago, significantly more adults are depicting such behaviors as morally acceptable. For instance, there have been increases in the percentages that condone sexual activity with someone of the opposite gender other than a spouse, abortion (up by 25%), and a 20% jump in people’s acceptance of ‘gay sex.’
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 11/10/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I wonder why some Christian's sense of right and wrong is getting so eroded. I suppose it could be because of constantly seeing all the rampant sin going on around us, that we get totally desensitized to it - and I'm not talking about the media, either. We see it in our neighbors, co-workers, fellow students, etc.
I knew a guy who used to complain constantly about the gay people in his neighborhood, and I finally got so irritated, I was like, "Well, I don't exactly like the fact that my hetero neighbors are living together outside of marriage, either!" My point being that hetero cohabitation is just as sinful to God. Yet, he still regarded homosexual sin as somehow worse than cohabitation and premarital sex. This is dangerous ground. All sins should be regarded with equal disdain.
This is not to say that we must persecute people for any of these sins, so don't misunderstand me. I don't condone that. I just think Christians need to remember how God sees the insidiousness of sin and regard it the same way. This would help us to want to free people from these sins by their accepting Christ's salvation from them. The more we condone people's sin, the less relevant Christ's saving sacrifice seems to be for their lives. Christ came to set the captives (of sin) free. But, no one will want Him to do that if they don't recognize the sin for what it is.
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 | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/10/2003 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | Perhaps it is because CHristians are more concerned with "grace," than sin... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/10/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | Christianity today is all emotion and no truth. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 11/11/2003 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I was listening to some of my coworkers in our lunchroom today, talking about how they don't like how liberal churches are getting. They also think that the services are a big joke, with a "rock band" and a bunch of teenagers jumping around the huge sanctuary. They don't like how churches are catering to the wishes of society in order to get people to come. They regard it as hypocritical.
Now, these coworkers of mine are guys who I don't believe are Christians, in that I believe that some of them are "churched" but don't really know Jesus, as is evidenced by the way they talk and act, etc. Others of them were not even churched at all, I think. Yet, these non-Christians are complaining about how phony, liberal and hypocritical many churches are becoming. They would rather see churches that are morally absolute about what Christians throughout history have always held to be true, than churches that bow to the whims of its culture. They have more respect for a church that's like the former.
Where are the churches nowadays that resemble the early Church, when The Holy Spirit was so powerful and evident among the gathered believers that the non-believers were too afraid to even enter the doors? That's the kind of church that I believe the lost are hungering for. They'd know it was God if they experienced that!
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 | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/11/2003 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | You know, on a tangent here, I've got to confess that Barna irritates me. For those who don't know: George Barna (http://www.barna.org) is a pollster whose professional emphasis is on measuring Americans' religious and moral views. As such he is by far the pre-eminent (if not only) pollster working exclusively in this area, and his work has a lot of exposure within the American Christian community. Barna himself is an evangelical Christian, pastoral/motivational Christian writer, and lately sort of an icon in the back-to-orthodoxy movement.
Anyway, as a pollster, Barna can't see into peoples' hearts - he can only measure their response to propositions. And so it seems to me he ends up identifying one's Christian maturity and correctness with one's assent to doctrinal propositions - and the more, the better.
For example, "evangelical" Christians are not those who self-affirm as such, in Barna's view; instead, they are those who answer 'yes' to all of the following:
- Two (2) personal statements in their entirety ("I have a personal commitment to Jesus which is important to me today" and "I believe that when I die I will go to heaven because I have confessed my sins and accepted Jesus as my savior" - there's a lot of doctrine there, actually)
and
- Count 'em, seven (7) doctrinal statements. Some of those 7 doctrinal statements aren't even in any ecumenical creed: like "Satan exists", and "The Bible is totally accurate...", and "God is all-knowing..." (sorry, some of you open theists).
In fact, from what I can tell, chances are most of us here probably would "fail" on one part or another of those 9 statements (most of which further contain multiple propositions in themselves - I count at least 15 or 16 total propositions in Barna's criteria, when you count not just the statements but the conjoined phrases within most of them). Thus ironically most of us here would probably not qualify for Barna's "evangelical" crown.
And make no mistake - he considers it a crown. If you read across all his research, skipping to the analysis/opinion he usually presents with it, it is the group identified with the multi-multi-doctrinal "evangelical" label which is held up by his firm as the most correct and legitimate. Everyone else, like "born again" Christians (his term for those who affirm the 2 personal statements, but not all of the 7 doctrinal ones), doesn't make the cut. Even his term "notional Christian" (Barna's name for those who self-identify as Christians but who have problems with one part or another of the 2 personal statements)... if that isn't a pejorative reflection of a doctrinally-legalistic bent, I don't know what is.
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now - there, I feel better already :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 11/11/2003 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
You know, on a tangent here, I've got to confess that Barna irritates me. For those who don't know: George Barna (http://www.barna.org) is a pollster whose professional emphasis is on measuring Americans' religious and moral views. As such he is by far the pre-eminent (if not only) pollster working exclusively in this area, and his work has a lot of exposure within the American Christian community. Barna himself is an evangelical Christian, pastoral/motivational Christian writer, and lately sort of an icon in the back-to-orthodoxy movement.
Anyway, as a pollster, Barna can't see into peoples' hearts - he can only measure their response to propositions. And so it seems to me he ends up identifying one's Christian maturity and correctness with one's assent to doctrinal propositions - and the more, the better.
For example, "evangelical" Christians are not those who self-affirm as such, in Barna's view; instead, they are those who answer 'yes' to all of the following:
- Two (2) personal statements in their entirety ("I have a personal commitment to Jesus which is important to me today" and "I believe that when I die I will go to heaven because I have confessed my sins and accepted Jesus as my savior" - there's a lot of doctrine there, actually)
and
- Count 'em, seven (7) doctrinal statements. Some of those 7 doctrinal statements aren't even in any ecumenical creed: like "Satan exists", and "The Bible is totally accurate...", and "God is all-knowing..." (sorry, some of you open theists).
In fact, from what I can tell, chances are most of us here probably would "fail" on one part or another of those 9 statements (most of which further contain multiple propositions in themselves - I count at least 15 or 16 total propositions in Barna's criteria, when you count not just the statements but the conjoined phrases within most of them). Thus ironically most of us here would probably not qualify for Barna's "evangelical" crown.
And make no mistake - he considers it a crown. If you read across all his research, skipping to the analysis/opinion he usually presents with it, it is the group identified with the multi-multi-doctrinal "evangelical" label which is held up by his firm as the most correct and legitimate. Everyone else, like "born again" Christians (his term for those who affirm the 2 personal statements, but not all of the 7 doctrinal ones), doesn't make the cut. Even his term "notional Christian" (Barna's name for those who self-identify as Christians but who have problems with one part or another of the 2 personal statements)... if that isn't a pejorative reflection of a doctrinally-legalistic bent, I don't know what is.
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now - there, I feel better already :-)
Scott
Well, I was restating what my non-Christian coworkers said - not about anything Barna said.
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 | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/11/2003 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Well, I was restating what my non-Christian coworkers said - not about anything Barna said.
Hi Tigress,
Sorry if it seemed that my comments were directed to your previous response. They weren't. My comments were just a tangent, unrelated to anyone's remarks on this thread, actually (and in fact I tend to agree with all the sentiments expressed here). I just couldn't help taking the opportunity to unload some of my irritation with Barna and his (what I consider) borderline doctrinal legalism :-)
"We now return you to your previously-scheduled programming..."
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/11/2003 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Revival of the Fittest
Are evangelicals really dumbing down American religion?
By Amy Sullivan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was a Jesus geek before being a Jesus geek was cool. In the Midwestern Baptist church where I grew up, we had quite a personal conception of the Lord and Savior. On Christmas, in addition to celebrating with more traditional desserts and carols, we baked a birthday cake and sang a rollicking tune called "Happy Birthday, Baby Jesus." Mrs. Crain, my Sunday School teacher, talked about getting "Jesus bumps" instead of goose bumps. And during the "praise and petitions" part of the worship service that preceded prayers, it was not unusual for someone to offer thanks to Jesus for the recovery of a purse left in a dressing room at J.C. Penney's. Catholics may have a saint for lost causes, but we had a deity for lost pocketbooks.
The Transformation of American Religion
by Alan Wolfe
Free Press, $26.00
In the days before VeggieTales, we read Christian versions of Archie comic books, in which Betty, Veronica, and the whole gang traveled the world proselytizing. We sang praise songs displayed on overhead projectors, flocked to Amy Grant concerts, and (Lord help us) performed rap songs with puppets, using the baptistery as a stage in order to recruit kids for youth groups. We listened to countless sermons that boiled down to essentially the same point: We were doomed unless we asked Jesus to save us. In his latest book on the nature of American faith, The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith, sociologist Alan Wolfe calls this kind of evangelicalism "tacky." He also says it's the future of American religion, a "religion [that] has been so transformed that we have reached the end of religion as we know it."
The cause of this transformation, according to Wolfe, is the competitive need to appeal to "switchers," those who change religious traditions and whom he compares to free-agent athletes looking for the best deal the market can offer. As Wolfe undoubtedly knows, but does not point out, competition among churches is not new. Protestant churches have angled for ways to attract parishioners ever since towns offered more than one denominational option--Max Weber described this American phenomenon at the turn of the 20th century. In addition, the rise of church potlucks in the 1950s was partly an attempt to woo potential suburban congregants by offering the best tater-tot casserole or ambrosia salad or themed "Luau Night" in town. While this trend is not new, Wolfe hones in on the fact that it has been accelerating in recent decades.
Today's religious communities face competition not only from other denominations, but also from other religious faiths and from the siren call of secular society. While a 1955 Gallup Poll found that only 4 percent of Americans had switched from the religion of their childhood, by the mid-1980s, that number had risen to over 30 percent. Even that figure does not reflect those who, while not switching religious traditions, fall away from the faith in which they were raised. It is efforts to attract these "unchurched" --or, more accurately, the religio-phobic--that have been behind the broad transformation of American religion Wolfe describes.
Americans are savvy consumers, and they behave no different when it comes to religion. Since its founding, America has always offered more religious choices to its citizens than most other countries. But the general pattern of consumerism in this society has led to an exponential growth in those choices. Americans are shoppers, they want to make their own decisions, they are increasingly comfortable with other people making different choices without passing judgment, they are more demanding that institutions cater to their needs, and they want lots of options. They don't want one kind of blue jeans; they want boot-cut, low-rise, reverse-fit, classic-cut, stretch-fit, flare, slim, cuffed, cropped, sandblasted, rinsed, or faded. Or maybe they want corduroys instead. So it's not surprising that Americans have demanded more variety in the area of religion, and that they are more comfortable switching between traditions with different offerings.
The market leader in this appeal to religious consumers has been the evangelical community. Wolfe identifies two social developments--preference for personalized faith (which has led to the Protestantization of most religions) and distrust of leadership and institutions--that have driven most of the changes in modern American religion. Evangelical churches, many of which combine Jesus-as-a-buddy theology with daycare, food courts, and concert seating, have responded most directly to those trends. Other religious traditions, in turn, have had to steadily conform to the evangelical model in order to compete for members.
Wolfe outlines the growing challenge to religious communities this way: "Attempting to attract or to keep congregations whose members have been so strongly influenced by a common American culture, all of America's religions face the same imperative: Personalize or die." Put that way, it sounds rather dire. But he's right. Many Americans are looking for user-friendly faith, a cuddly God, and comfort-fit worship options. A Presbyterian church in Memphis uses PowerPoint presentations to highlight the main points of each sermon, just in case congregants doze off for a moment in the extra-cushy pews that are all the rage now, or are otherwise distracted from closely following the message. A reform synagogue in the Bay Area offers a "synaplex" experience--"different Friday night services for different tastes, just as the nearby movie theaters offer many smaller screens instead of one large one." My old evangelist Archie comic books have been replaced by David and Jonathan adventure comics and Bobblehead versions of Moses, Samson, and Noah.
The anti-institutional bent of many Americans that is reflected by declining trust in business and political institutions has also influenced the structure of religious communities, new and old. When a Jewish havurah (the equivalent of home-fellowship worship) needed to find a new rabbi, members insisted that the ad emphasize they were seeking a "teacher and resource person," not a religious leader. Some megachurches don't display religious symbols like a cross for fear of driving away those who dislike signs of religious authority. And a small but growing trend can be found in the home-churching movement, similar to home-schooling in that both attract conservative Christians who feel alienated from public life and distrust public institutions. Unlike the Puritans in England who gathered for worship in their homes because they feared persecution if they worshipped publicly, today's home churchers choose to limit their fellowship circle to their family because they disapprove of the corruption they believe is inherent in church communities. In assessing the impact of these transformations in religious communities, Wolfe fears that we are witnessing a watering-down of religion that provides feel-good answers without requiring sacrifices of adherents. He quotes religious historian Randall Balmer, who asks, "Jesus will save your soul and your marriage, make you happy, heal your body, and even make you rich. Who wouldn't look twice at that offer?" By bending over backwards to cater to the needs of religious "consumers," Wolfe argues that religion has become no different from any other part of society. "Television, publishing, political campaigning, education, self-help advice--all increasingly tell Americans what they already want to hear," he notes. "Religion, it would seem, should now be added to that list." Well. For anyone who cares about the future of American religion, that is a fairly depressing judgment.
Wolfe correctly describes an important phenomenon that is taking place primarily in evangelical circles. To some extent, it also holds true for some Catholic and Jewish communities, although he has to stretch a bit to fit those examples--such as Catholics who make waves by meeting in small groups for Bible study--into the larger description of the "new" American religion. And if Wolfe characterized it this way, as a phenomenon strongest in evangelical circles that becomes less distinct in traditions further removed, his analysis would be precise.
He misses an important part of the picture, however, when he makes sweeping statements about the impact and scope of the trend, such as: "Religious believers increasingly live in suburbs, send their children to four-year liberal-arts colleges, work in professional capacities, enjoy contemporary music, shop in malls, raise confused and uncertain children, and relate primarily to other people with whom they share common interests." As written, this sentence is absurd--the vast majority of Americans have always been "religious believers" and did not just recently move out to the suburbs or begin listening to contemporary music. If by "religious believers," however, Wolfe means "conservative evangelicals," then he is correct. The flaw in his analysis is that he takes on-target observations about evangelicals and expands them into universal assertions about all religious Americans.
Moreover, although the American religious scene has indeed become a marketplace, user-friendly religion is not the only option on the shelves. Wolfe skips over a smaller, though crucial, countertrend--a movement toward orthodoxy that has paralleled, and is in some cases a backlash to, the rise of the religion-lite communities chronicled in the book. Most churchgoers are familiar with this phenomenon. Indeed, among my close friends are half a dozen former Baptists who became Episcopalians, a number of friends whose less-observant families are perplexed by their adherence to Orthodox Judaism, and several Catholics who seek out high-church services, often even attending Latin masses. Much has been written about this trend, including the 2002 book The New Faithful: Why Young Adults are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy, by journalist Colleen Carroll. And I can personally attest to the small but significant migration of evangelical Christians to orthodox Christianity.
Because although I grew up in a Baptist church where there was no need to worry about questions (I was shushed when I asked the pastor where all of the people came from if Adam and Eve only had sons) and where worship came in a fun, easy-to-swallow package, I left that tradition to make my home in that mustiest, most endangered of denominations, the Episcopal church. If flashy, PowerPoint-enabled, blue-jean religious services are all the rage, why would anyone join a liturgical tradition characterized by rituals, sacraments, and vestments? Wolfe would probably proclaim that my friends and I are outliers. But I think there is another reason he doesn't mention this countertrend. Wolfe is too honest to omit an example just because it doesn't fit his pattern. More likely, it's that he suffers from an ailment common to sociologists of religion since Emile Durkheim turned his anthropological eye on tribes and rituals--a heavy reliance on functionalist theories. In other words, researchers attempt to identify what function religion plays in people's lives. Are parishioners looking to create a sense of community to replace the family structure? Does religion provide an ethical mooring in these morally uncertain times? Are Bible studies and youth groups serving essentially the same purpose as bowling leagues and the Girl Scouts? These types of questions drive much of the study of religious communities, particularly for those scholars who come from non-religious backgrounds, as Wolfe notes in his book that he does.
That is unfortunate, because religious folks can be decidedly illogical. After all, they believe in things like reincarnation and the transubstantiation of body and blood into bread and wine (or Welch's grape juice, if you're Baptist). I left the Baptist church not because the music and food weren't up to snuff or because it failed to provide a sense of community. In fact, I have yet to find a church that meets those criteria as well as the church of my childhood. I left because I ultimately found the tradition theologically unsatisfying. Evangelicals place such unswerving emphasis on converting the "unsaved" that life, once I was saved, was pretty anticlimactic. The one-note "come to Jesus" sermons that brought me to the altar failed to provide any guidance for how to live as a Christian in a morally and ethically complex world. Most Sundays, I sat in the pews with an "I gave my soul to Jesus and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" feeling.
Orthodox traditions offer more applicable lessons for the religious life--the peerless sermons of Harvard Memorial Church's Rev. Peter Gomes are my standard for practical religious instruction--but they often require sacrifices that are at odds with self-interest. Being a religious individual in this modern world is a more complicated and challenging task than perhaps ever before. And it is exactly this kind of behavior that can't be understood by relying on traditional sociological explanations.
Years before George W. Bush gave a shout-out to Jesus in a presidential debate and officially brought evangelicalism into the mainstream, I was on the cutting-edge of American faith. Although I didn't realize it at the time, my Baptist church offered what the people are looking for: a personal God, informal worship, practical prayers, and pop-culture tie-ins. Those characteristics have shaped much of modern American religion, and Wolfe's observations about this wide-ranging development are spot-on. But it is going too far to claim that, "In every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture--and American culture has triumphed." American faith has more varieties than Baskin Robbins has flavors; some have met the onslaught of culture by co-opting certain aspects, others have capitulated, and still more have firmly retained their sacred separateness. And the American faithful defy generalizations as well. I may look for all the world like an Episcopalian now, but I can still perform a puppet version of the Parable of the Prodigal Son that would knock your socks off.
Amy Sullivan is a doctoral student in sociology at Princeton University and the author of Political Aims, www.politicalaims.com.
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 | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:11 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 |
|
|