 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/15/2004 1:55 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi everyone,
quote:
Finney: And if it were possible, it would still be true that in just so far as God should coerce the human will, He would cease to govern morally.
Parents override the will of their children, though, they don't let children have their way, if they want to run into the street! But that's governing them morally. I don't think this is Scriptural, either!
1KI 8:58 May he turn our hearts to him...
quote:
Finney: I speak now of each instance in which God does not in fact interpose to prevent sin. In any of these cases, if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent sin, He would prevent a man from sinning at the expense of sinning himself.
Certainly God doesn't act unwisely, and you can say that the reason God doesn't act is that he is limited, in that he cannot override free-will. Or you can say that God is in control, and has a plan for good. Both views fit the situation. So we must refer to Scripture, to tell us which view is true...
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.
quote:
... we can always know that in the case of any specific evil God did what God could do—given the sort of world he created in the first place, and his character, love, and goodness, as well as the freedom of others all interfacing—to prevent and/or minimize evil. In my view that’s something and it’s more than the determinism or simple foreknowledge advocates can say.
I think more can be said! That God has a good purpose for everything that happens. I think that's better than saying "God did the best he could, even if events didn't turn out the way he hoped they would."
quote:
Tom: ... God doesn’t miscalculate the probabilities.
I don't know, Tom. Once you've opened the door to God making estimates, I don't think you have that assurance. You can say this, but I don't think you have a basis anywhere for this statement. It's certainly not in Scripture!
quote:
Tom: “I wouldn’t have thought that of Sally” seems to me to be an admission of a less than complete knowledge of Sally’s character. Sure. But this is not the ONLY sort of unfulfilled expectations we humans know, nor is it how God’s unfulfilled expectations are to be interpreted.
I think it means we thought we knew what Sally would do, as in "I was wrong about Fred." We admit a mistake! We don't say "just a bit of bad luck," i.e. I rolled the dice with Sally and came up snake-eyes. And if we think we can know a person that well, surely God should be said to know people even better.
quote:
Laika: Jesus is telling a parable and He's predicting the outcome of the parable???
No, predicting the outcome in the parable, he's saying some will be like the unprofitable servant. I think he knows who, as well.
quote:
Laika: But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days
That was withstanding Gabriel, not God!
LK 11:20 But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.
All God has to do to knock the demons against the wall is flick his finger...
JAS 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
quote:
Phil: Any way you want to read it, God is upset over something he did [in Gen. 6:6]. In fact, he seems to have insulted himself or injured himself emotionally. It's just not something you usually would picture God doing.
I don't think you have to take those senses of the words, though. As you mentioned, other senses are possible, here, and I think those are appropriate.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/15/2004 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
quote:
Finney: And if it were possible, it would still be true that in just so far as God should coerce the human will, He would cease to govern morally.
Parents override the will of their children, though, they don't let children have their way, if they want to run into the street! But that's governing them morally. I don't think this is Scriptural, either!
Yes, but parents don't override their children's will in each and every instance of their lives, nor for the rest of their lives.
quote:
1KI 8:58 May he turn our hearts to him...
God turns our hearts to him through prevenient grace. Finney says this as well, "grace is beforehand with free will." God turns us in the sense of leading us and guiding us, but the turning is our own choice. We have been persuaded to choose the way God is taking us.
quote:
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.
This verse does not overrule any of the other verses which demonstrate that man's choices are his own, and he is therefore responsible.
"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 | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 6/16/2004 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I'll get your posts soon enough. I am a slow thinker, so it might be a while.
Tom: It all depends on your cosmology. Do you believe everything that happens follows determinately from previous circumstances? Or do you believe that identical circumstances may yield more than one possible outcome? If the former, then there’s only one possible course or story-line our world can follow, given the initial state of the world, from start to finish. If the latter, then there are a number of possible courses our world can follow from start to finish.
All events have a probability between 0 and 1 of occurring. In an exhaustively settled, or determined, world, all events that occur have a probability of 1 (=100%) of occurring before they occur and all other (logically) possible events have a probability of 0 that they will occur. So if the former cosmology is correct, then all God’s expectations would be fulfilled, for God would know all that happens occurs with a probability of 1. But if the future is partly open, then there are possible futures that have a probability of greater than 0 but less than 1 that they will occur, and an omniscient God would know this and would “expect” an event with a probability of, say, .87 to occur and would not “expect” an event with a probability of .05 to occur. If an event with a probability of .87 of occurring does not occur, it cannot be said to be a mistake to have “expected” it to occur. If this was Sanders’ view when he wrote his book, he was wrong. I think he’s developed his argument since then.
What seems impossible to account for, assuming the former cosmology is correct and God is omniscient, is God saying he expected/hoped or thought something would occur which does not occur. But this is only a dilemma if you adopt a deterministic view of creation.
Ochuk: I've been thinking about this cosmology argument that postulates creation as being indeterminate and therefore, known in terms of probability. Here's how I see it: God sees the probability of Israel loving/returning to him as .8. God, however, knows that there is the possibility of the Israel continuing deeper into sin. The probabity of this is .2. The fact that God knew as a possibility that they might sin does not change the fact that he genuinely believed they would. Is this not a false belief? What comes to pass is not what he would predict. God thought wrongly about what would come to pass. It seems like open theism visualizes God as having both true and false beliefs.
This has massive implications. In the other thread about the conception of people, God doesn't just simply not know who will be in heaven, but he most likely believes that people will be there one day that won't be.
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/16/2004 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Finney: And if it were possible, it would still be true that in just so far as God should coerce the human will, He would cease to govern morally.
Lee: Parents override the will of their children, though, they don't let children have their way, if they want to run into the street! But that's governing them morally.
John: Yes, but parents don't override their children's will in each and every instance of their lives, nor for the rest of their lives.
But Finney was saying God could never do this.
quote:
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.
John: This verse does not overrule any of the other verses which demonstrate that man's choices are his own, and he is therefore responsible.
I think this does say God overrules, when man's plan conflicts with God's plan. Thus we have to let this verse qualify the places where people are exhorted to decide.
LA 3:37 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?
quote:
Lee: ... he's saying some will be like the unprofitable servant.
Laika: God, the master in the parable, trusts His servants. Trust involves HOPE.
No, Jesus is describing the situation, the way it will actually be:
MT 25:1 At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins...
MT 25:14 Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them.
God is not hoping about the virgins being wise or foolish, nor is he hoping about the servants...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/16/2004 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But Finney was saying God could never do this.
John replies: In Finney's reasoning, to say someone morally can't do something is always distinct from saying someone physically can't do something. When Finney says, "God cannot wisely prevent sin," he is referring to a MORAL impossibility, not a physical one. He is not limiting God's omnipotence, but is instead simply stating WHY God can't do certain things--because to do so would go against His character.
Just like when Scripture says "God cannot lie." It's not that uttering an untruth would be physically impossible for Him, it's that it would be MORALLY impossible for Him, based on His CHARACTER. In other words, "He cannot because He WILL not."
quote:
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.
John: This verse does not overrule any of the other verses which demonstrate that man's choices are his own, and he is therefore responsible.
Lee said: I think this does say God overrules, when man's plan conflicts with God's plan. Thus we have to let this verse qualify the places where people are exhorted to decide.
John replies:
Please read my comment again, Lee. I said "This VERSE does not overrule any of the other verses..."
And what good reason do we have for making some Scriptures trump others? Further, HOW can we know which verses REALLY express the truth, and which don't?
quote:
LA 3:37 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?
John replies:
So if a person utters blasphemies, God caused it? By this logic, the Quran is every bit as much the Word of God as the Bible, and no distinction can be made between right and wrong, truth and lies, or even up and down.
1 Cor. 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/17/2004 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Ochuk: I've been thinking about this cosmology argument that postulates creation as being indeterminate and therefore, known in terms of probability. Here's how I see it: God sees the probability of Israel loving/returning to him as .8. God, however, knows that there is the possibility of the Israel continuing deeper into sin. The probabity of this is .2. The fact that God knew as a possibility that they might sin does not change the fact that he genuinely believed they would. Is this not a false belief?
Tom: No, I don’t think so. If God says, “I thought that Israel would return” and Israel doesn’t return, then you have two options to consider. Either God believed “Israel will return with probability 1” was true and God was wrong, or God believed “Israel might and might not return,” in which case God was not wrong if Israel doesn’t return. Expectations are tricky because we rightly expect an event that has a probability of 1 of occurring to happen. But we also rightly expect an event that has a probability of .8 of occurring to happen. Thus, instead of saying, “There’s an 80% chance Fred will come to the party and a 20% chance he won’t come, so I expect that he will come but know that he might not,” we just say “I expect Fred will come to the party.” But this is only a mistaken expectation if the probability of Fred’s coming was zero or less than .5. If the probability that Fred will come is less than 1 but greater than .5, we can correctly express this with “I expect Fred will come to the party” without being mistaken when Fred doesn’t show up. The only unfulfilled expectation that is by definition a mistake is that which expects Fred to come with a probability of 1 when Fred doesn’t show. That’s a mistake.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/17/2004 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: But Finney was saying God could never [override human wills].
John replies: In Finney's reasoning, to say someone morally can't do something is always distinct from saying someone physically can't do something.
Yes, Finney is saying God could never override human wills, it is morally impossible. But God does override human wills, just as a good parent will stop a child from running into the street, thus it's not morally impossible for God to do this.
quote:
PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.
John: This verse does not overrule any of the other verses which demonstrate that man's choices are his own, and he is therefore responsible.
Lee said: I think this does say God overrules, when man's plan conflicts with God's plan. Thus we have to let this verse qualify the places where people are exhorted to decide.
John replies:
Please read my comment again, Lee. I said "This VERSE does not overrule any of the other verses..."
And what good reason do we have for making some Scriptures trump others? Further, HOW can we know which verses REALLY express the truth, and which don't?
No, Scriptures don't trump each other. But they do explain each other, both these statements express truth. God overrules, not Scripture overrules, is what I am saying here. If men can decide and have his choices be independent of God's plan, then I think this is saying the opposite of Prov. 16:9. If God is in control, then we may say that men will indeed decide to obey God's commands, the exhortation becomes a means to produce obedience, and this interpretation keeps both verses, and not just one set. I think your interpretation requires holding one set, and snipping out the other.
quote:
LA 3:37 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?
John replies:
So if a person utters blasphemies, God caused it? By this logic, the Quran is every bit as much the Word of God as the Bible, and no distinction can be made between right and wrong, truth and lies, or even up and down.
1 Cor. 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Again, you can't snip verses out! To quote another verse is not to explain the difficult one.
To say "the Lord decreed it" is not to say "the Lord endorsed it." God sees the good result even for sinful actions, and includes them in his plan, and even brings them about, for that reason.
quote:
Jeff: [Lam. 3:37] could just be saying that no one can guarantee an outcome merely by SAYING something.
Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
Hotspur: "Why, so can I; or so can any man: But will they come, when you do call for them?"
I agree, people can't make things happen by saying them. I don't think this verse is just talking about magic spells and such, though. And James makes the same kind of point, as you note:
JAS 4:15 Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."
And this is not talking about magic, this is talking about business plans.
quote:
Lee: God is not hoping about the servants... <---unsupported assertion
Laika:
1. The parable is about the kingdom of heaven.
2. The master in the parable entrusts talents to His servants.
3. God is the master, we are the servants
4. Therefore, in the kingdom of heaven, God entrusts talents to us.
1 Cor. 13 Love hopes all things
Then the kingdom of heaven may not be like what Jesus says it will be like...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/18/2004 10:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Ochuk
quote:
Jeremiah 3
Unfaithful Israel
6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.
Jeremiah 3
19 "I myself said,
" 'How gladly would I treat you like sons
and give you a desirable land,
the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.'
I thought you would call me 'Father'
and not turn away from following me.
20 But like a woman unfaithful to her husband,
so you have been unfaithful to me, O house of Israel,"
declares the LORD .
Here we have a passage that speaks of God stating he "thought" his people would love him/return to him. In reading Sanders' comments on this passage he said the bible attributes "some mistakes" to God. Doc, on the other hand, is persuaded that this does not imply God was mistaken because God foreknew this “unlikely” possibility. God knew that this possibility was not probable and therefore "believed" that his people would act in a more probable way, i.e. loving/returning to him. However, the question remains, did God hold a false belief in thinking that his people would love/return to him? This implies that God's omniscience of counterfactual knowledge is compromised by this interpretation.
The dilemma I see is either God holds false beliefs or the passages aren't probability statements that support the open view.
Isn't "I thought you would call me Father..." like saying, "I longed for you to call me Father..." "I hoped you would call me Father." And so forth. It is expressing the Father's desire, His longing, His incredible desire to commune with us. But it also expresses His great love in giving us that choice, and perhaps being disappointed. That possibility had to exist, that we could disappoint Him, or we would not ever experience a love relationship with Him. Love is not coerced. It is chosen.
I believe that what the open view says about omnicience is right. God knows each and every possibility as if it were the only possibility. He can respond perfectly to every choice that we make. He knows that we have free will and might choose other than what is best for us, and is prepared for that possibility. How can that be a mistake?
Imagine if He didn't have that risk. Love would mean nothing at all if we couldn't choose it. And what kind of Father would He be if He were not disappointed when we didn't choose Him?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/19/2004 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Jo-Anne: ... what kind of Father would He be if He were not disappointed when we didn't choose Him?
One we could trust! If God can be disappointed in people, then we can be disappointed when when trust in him.
ISA 49:23 "Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who hope in me will not be disappointed."
quote:
Laika: I'm going to take a different tack. From now on, I'm going to answer your unsupported assertions with my own. So
Lee: No, God is not hoping, nor is he believing...
Laika: Yes, God is hoping, God is believing...
My assertions are not so unsupported, I think. Here are the points I have tried to make in reply:
If you substitute "God" for "love" like this, then you will have "God comes from God" in 1 Jn. 4:7.
If "God believes all things," does this mean he has faith in God?
Or does it mean he believes in people? If so, and if he can be disappointed, then God can be mistaken. People here are unwilling to step up to that! That's understandable. But it's an implication, if God really believes something about people, which turns out to be false.
And if God "believes all things," I think that implies that he believes in himself, too, and thus can be mistaken about himself!
And finally, I would repeat(!) my point above, that if God is hoping all things, and can be disappointed, then we can be disappointed in God, when we trust in him.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/19/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: …if he can be disappointed, then God can be mistaken. People here are unwilling to step up to that! That's understandable. But it's an implication, if God really believes something about people, which turns out to be false.
Tom: You are amazing. You simply refuse to allow open theists to define open theism.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/19/2004 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
quote:
Jo-Anne: ... what kind of Father would He be if He were not disappointed when we didn't choose Him?
One we could trust! If God can be disappointed in people, then we can be disappointed when when trust in him.
ISA 49:23 "Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who hope in me will not be disappointed."
quote:
Laika: I'm going to take a different tack. From now on, I'm going to answer your unsupported assertions with my own. So
Lee: No, God is not hoping, nor is he believing...
Laika: Yes, God is hoping, God is believing...
My assertions are not so unsupported, I think. Here are the points I have tried to make in reply:
If you substitute "God" for "love" like this, then you will have "God comes from God" in 1 Jn. 4:7.
If "God believes all things," does this mean he has faith in God?
Or does it mean he believes in people? If so, and if he can be disappointed, then God can be mistaken. People here are unwilling to step up to that! That's understandable. But it's an implication, if God really believes something about people, which turns out to be false.
And if God "believes all things," I think that implies that he believes in himself, too, and thus can be mistaken about himself!
And finally, I would repeat(!) my point above, that if God is hoping all things, and can be disappointed, then we can be disappointed in God, when we trust in him.
Blessings,
Lee
Lee,
He is the "Most Moved Mover" as John Sanders would call Him. He is not a Christo Redentor made of stone, with stone eyes and heart.
Throughout scripture He grieves, is disappointed, hopes, strives, longs, delights, weeps, rejoices, sings over us... He is personal. The relationship we have with Him is personal. Can you imagine having
a close relationship without these things? I can't.
I know when I have disappointed the Father. I also know when I am a delight to Him.
The verse in Isaiah that you quoted is speaking of God's trustworthiness. He is totally trustworthy. We, on the other hand, are not.
Yes, Lee, the Father can be disappointed in us, because we have free will, and will sometimes (often) choose other than what He desires for us.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/19/2004 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: …if he can be disappointed, then God can be mistaken. People here are unwilling to step up to that! That's understandable. But it's an implication, if God really believes something about people, which turns out to be false.
Tom: You are amazing. You simply refuse to allow open theists to define open theism.
Well, I was trying to examine various implications that God "believes all things." If that's not Open Theism, that's fine. Or if there's some other interpretation, that's fine, too. Just let me know...
quote:
Jo-Anne: Throughout scripture He grieves, is disappointed, hopes, strives, longs, delights, weeps, rejoices, sings over us... He is personal. The relationship we have with Him is personal. Can you imagine having a close relationship without these things?
I subscribe to all but "disappointed, and hopes" here, though. I do think a personal relationship with God is possible without these, and I appreciate all the rest.
quote:
Jo-Anne: The verse in Isaiah that you quoted is speaking of God's trustworthiness. He is totally trustworthy. We, on the other hand, are not.
I think, though, that if God really hopes like we do, and can indeed be disappointed, then we can be disappointed too, if we hope in him.
PS 146:5-6 Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them-- the Lord, who remains faithful forever.
If God's promises about people are only probably true, then trustworthy becomes like a reliable car, which can break down, so you will need to keep your bus schedule handy, just in case...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/19/2004 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake
He trusts in us yet can be disappointed because we can fail.
He NEVER fails, thus we can NEVER be disappointed in Him.
Poetically put, SwanLake! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/20/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Swanlake,
quote:
Lee: I think, though, that if God really hopes like we do, and can indeed be disappointed, then we can be disappointed too, if we hope in him.
Swanlake:
He trusts in us yet can be disappointed because we can fail.
He NEVER fails, thus we can NEVER be disappointed in Him.
If God can be disappointed, as you say, then we can be disappointed, if "hoping in him" means we rely on his strength and wisdom, which can fail.
If we share any of God's hopes about people, we can be disappointed along with him, if he can be disappointed.
And people who are disappointed in God, may reasonably turn to other sources of strength and wisdom, perhaps these other sources can succeed where God failed...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/21/2004 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
Swanlake:
He trusts in us yet can be disappointed because we can fail.
He NEVER fails, thus we can NEVER be disappointed in Him.
If God can be disappointed, then we can be disappointed,
That does not logically follow.
If you can violate simple logic like that, then these all would be true as well:
If it's impossible for God to sin, then it's impossible for us to sin.
If God can speak worlds into existence, then we can speak worlds into existence.
If we can sin, then God can sin.
If we can die, then God can die.
See the fallacy of your illogic?
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
| 131 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:47 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 |
|
|