 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > A Quote on determinism got me thinking | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 6:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 >>
writerdad
02/06/01 3:46 PM
A quote on determinism got me thinking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taylor states in "Encyclopedia Of Philosophy:"Determinism is the general philosophical thesis which states that for everything that ever happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen."
This has cause me to think about things in terms of biblical revelation and how such determinisn effects us, that is, if it were true and we were determined by God.
It would seem to me that if we are determined, God is the condition in the above definition. And, as such, if God determines us, one must ask why. Since he is our creator, most believe to bring him glory. In fact, that is what the Bible declares much of the time. So God determines us to declare his glory. Granted. So this brings me to why God would determine certain individuals for damnation, or, at the very least, know they won't make the pearly gates. Why would God do that? Well, to bring him glory, several of those who believe in determinism have told me. Damning sinners who are in rebellion against God shows how just God is and this brings him glory. Granted. But this brings me to the problem I have upon reflection: if some are damned and determined and bring God glory through their sins (in the sense of showing how just God is): why should I stop that? Why should I tell them its wrong to sin? Isn't it right for them to do as God would have them do?Are they not determined to do that, for God's glory? Are they not "called" in the true sense to fulfill their destiny, so to speak in sinning?
It would seem that determinism undermines the proclamation of the gospel, for, in the end result, the only true wrong for those of us who are determined by God is to NOT act as we have been determined. Therefore, in a very true sense, NONE of us is outside the will of God. And if God, in his great wisdom, deemed that some SHOULD sin that his justice might be shown, why would we be so presumptous as to tell those who sin to stop because its wrong? The only true wrong would be not doing what God has preordained. For does not all that God wills, ultimately bring him glory? Whether sin or righteousness? Does not all that God will get done...therefore should we not simply preach the gospel of everyone do what they think God has determined them to do? It would seem to me that if a person truly does not believe that God has called them, who are we to tell them different? If they are called to sin for God, we should praise them and let them go on their way, for they are fulfilling their calling in God. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/06/01 5:26 PM
Quick answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm..I might regret this but...
(NOTE: I'm going to keep this very short and to the point. Moreover, I will only deal with ONE issue, so as to make it easier to reply)
This is the essential question I see being asked:
"If all things happen according to God's plan, then literally ALL things that happen are good, including people sinning. Won't we be going against God's will if we try to stop people from sinning?"
Mephi:
Ok. This illustrates the importance of understanding 1) the implications of determinism and 2)what agency is. IF all actions that we do are according to God's will, then even in helping people get away from sin, we are doing
God's will, according to what you are saying. I'll say that again. Even doing GOOD acts in encompassed in God's overarching will. So, what does this imply:
Things that fall into God's overarching, determining will:
1)Sinning [Doing evil]
2) NOT Sinning [Doing good AGAINST evil]
Now let's look at Scripture. It seems that the God represented in Scripture is FOR the good and against evil. So, if we were to postulate something called a PRESCRIPTIVE WILL, what would this imply:
Things that fall into God's PRESCRIPTIVE will for human beings:
1) Turn away from evil and sin
2) Do good [Don't sin]
Two things. As you notice sin doesn't fall into the prescriptive will. Also, notice that no one can EVER note follow the overarching will because to do that would fall into the "misguided fatalist" analogy. The only thing that humans can be directly aware of, and operate by, is the prescriptive will. Thus according to the prescriptive will, we should do good.
Second thing. If we look at both the overarching will and prescriptive will of God, which choice is present in BOTH? Yep, you guessed it. Doing good and not sinning. On these basis, I say that we should do good, prevent evil, and consciously glorify God in doing that.
MAIN POINT: According to your existential feeling of freedom, do good, not evil.
I hope that got my point across. Wow, this was brief.
In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
02/06/01 5:29 PM
RE: Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WriterDad,
I'm sorry to break it to you this way, but if you thought you were describing what Calvinists would call biblical foreordination, your portrayal is only a gross caricature. No responsible Christian (Calvinist or other) who believes that God has foreordained all things would at the same time believe that God's foreordination establishes what is righteous or morally right, as if the fact that God appointed Judas to betray Jesus Christ constitutes the act of his betrayal something we should praise and commend. Formally, you are correct when you say, Therefore, in a very true sense, NONE of us is outside the will of God. That hardly means that simply by being and doing people are thereby doing what is righteous, to quote you, Whether sin or righteousness.
Didn't you say that you were once a Calvinist? How is it that you have forgotten how to describe Calvinism with accuracy and fairness? You haven't even come close. You have described fatalism not Calvinism. Calvinists are most assuredly not fatalists, even though you don't understand how they are not fatalists.
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/06/01 5:37 PM
Mephi Concurs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
Of course, you are correct. Just to aid this, Writerdad, check this out...
Lion said this:
"No responsible Christian (Calvinist or other) who believes that God has foreordained all things would at the same time believe that God's foreordination establishes what is righteous or morally right, as if the fact that God appointed Judas to betray Jesus Christ constitutes the act of his betrayal something we should praise and commend."
Mephi:
Please try to understand what he (AND I) are saying. Morality is set by the PRESCRIPTIVE WILL that I spoke of above. Not the overarching will. This is the mixup. And that's how one gets into fatalism. Remember how I've kept saying that predestination doesn't equal fatalism? This is what I meant.
Trying to be short, but understood,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
02/06/01 11:55 PM
RE: Mephi Concurs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a simpleton, but I want to throw in my own 2 cents here. You said this Writerdad:
"Why should I tell them its wrong to sin? Isn't it right for them to do as God would have them do?Are they not determined to do that, for God's glory? Are they not "called" in the true sense to fulfill their destiny, so to speak in sinning?"
Why should you tell them its wrong, or why is it wrong if it is allowed in God's encompassing will? Simple. Your post made a sneaky (though I doubt purposeful) transition. You said that all things are to God's glory, and that God is glorified in the Damnation of Sinners (to borrow a sermon title from Jonathan Edwards) You made a distinction and then backpeddled: You said God was glorified in His JUSTICE, then went and said God shouldn't punish evil men for glorifying Him by their evil acts.....Do you see the transition? You said God was glorified in His justice, then switched and said it was through the evil He was glorified. So why does God punish evil? He is glorified in His justice (like you said earlier), not in the evil acts.
You are also wrong in saying that reprobates are "called" to be evil. All are called to believe, that is all are commanded to believe(though not all receive the "inner call"): "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand". We are commanded to repent because God is good and love, and isn't glorified by us being sinners. They are not called to be sinners, that is their OWN personal calling as they are born in sins, not God's call. It can be rightly called "their" will, and not God's will (remember Mephi's distinction)
You also say:
"It would seem that determinism undermines the proclamation of the gospel"
This is a really old argument, and is easily taken care of. Since classical Christianity, not just Reformed Theology, says that God is changless; for some reason the OV thinks any activity on our part is fruitless. Its as if the logic goes like this, "God is changless, therefore creation is too". That is just faulty reasoning. The world is changeable, and we know its God's will to preach the Gospel...I just don't see the problem.
The rest of your post seems wholly puffed up with caracitures. God has preordained MEANS of Grace...yet you ignore this. Your assumptions rest on the word "determinism". I just don't like that word. It retains a naturalistic idea, and your post attacks those naturalistic notions and attribute it to the theology of those who believe God has ordained all that there is. Now that I have said I don't like that word, I would like to show you still how even IF I were to use that word, it would still work against you.
You equated "determinism" with "fatalism". Just let things be, they will be what they will be, because you can't change it.
What does a coach say to his player who is struggling with his offense skills in basketball? Does he say: "Hey gipper! You need to be more fatalistic!" No. He would most likely say: "You need more determination!"
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/07/01 12:22 AM
RE: Quick answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: you can call it whatever you wish (prescriptive will, secondary causes...) but if you are not willing to face up to the fact that God determines all things (and all things means ALL THINGS), then there is nothing really to discuss...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/07/01 12:24 AM
RE: Quick answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: I do fully understand now what GDG was saying in the previous post about guidelines...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/07/01 12:36 AM
RE: RE: Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LL: Considering that I never mentioned one, reformed, or two, calvinistcalvinismlutherwestministerconfessionetcetcetc, I would suggest you leave your calvinist presecution at home. Apparently, to you, everyone who has a disagreement with or criticism of reformed theology grossly distorts it. If you cannot take discussion of your own theology without whining about how people are misrepresenting it, where do you get off questioning open theism?
The simple fact is many people do believe reformed theology is fatalism and while you may disagree with that critique, it has a certain amount of validity (I assume your list of responsible Christians only include those who agree with your view of reformed theology). You don't like it. Too bad! Life doesn't shield from those who have honest views about what a system of theology amounts to. Instead of whining about how everyone misrepresents Calvinism, why don't you try taking a deep look at your own theology and figure out why people take that view. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/07/01 12:39 AM
RE: RE: Mephi Concurs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God preordains someone to act a certain way, you can call it whatever you want. I do not have a problem with fatalism. You guys do. I can understand why they call it soft determinism. It's determinism with an alibi. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/07/01 7:05 AM
Should've Went With My First Mind...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew I'd regret it... Ante up, man. Do you have beef with me? You seem to go negative on me constantly. Check it out. If you don't like me or don't want to engage my stuff, just say so. I'll make sure that you never hear from me again...and you can keep it the same. All the negativity is passe. So what's it gonna be? YOU decide.
LOL,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
02/07/01 7:58 AM
RE: RE: RE: Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WriterDad,
You must have stayed up too late. You were getting cranky and mean and hypersensitive.
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/07/01 8:30 AM
Quick question
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Mephi, if I am understanding you correctly, it seems like you are making a distinction between God's overarching, determining will (which includes both sinning and not sinning) and God's prescriptive will (which mandates turning from sin and doing good). (The reason it is important to postulate the prescriptive will of God is that Scripture represents God as being for good and against evil.) So since both wills of God overlap on doing good and not sinning, if we stop people from sinning we will always be doing God's will. Correct?
But from what you've said, it seems like the sinful person is also acting according to God's overarching will, although not God's prescriptive will. Which makes me wonder, how can God willfully determine something contrary to what he has willfully prescribed? And if God is good, how can God will sin in any sense at all? In your understanding of God's will, it seems like God is able to sin against himself. I'm sure you have a clever way of working this out. Do tell. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/07/01 11:04 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ll: I would suggest that if you want to take a look at someone who is hypersensitive, you take a walk over to the mirror.
A friend of mine once, in responding to my remark about a friend whose criticism of me was harsh, suggested I look at what they are trying to say to me, that perhaps I could find something in the remarks to help me grow. I would suggest you do the same.
You know, Calvinism, as with most theological systems, is not cut and dry. I, for instance, know of reformed believers who believe God is the author of sin and that, though they don't understand how God can be both sinless and author sin, they believe it is a mystery and they trust God inspite of the apparent contradiction. And, of course, there are those within the reformed camp who believe in infant baptism and those who do not. And, of course, the second coming holds wide, differing view. So I would suggest, that you take the time to look beyond your narrow view of what you think reformed theology is and try and grasp the fact that it is a belief system, like most, with a wide range of beliefs. Just because you disagree with a person on how reformed theology is viewed doesn't mean you are right. There are many people who disagree with me on the nature of much in open theism, but I do not assume that my views ARE open theism. I would suggest you try to do the same. Finally, since I've gone down this road with you before and made no dent, I will try and learn from my mistakes. So, if nothing else, you will not hear from me again on this subject. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/07/01 11:26 AM
RE: Should've Went With My First Mind...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: Let me see if I can straight this out. I do not have a beef with you. I simply do not believe you are taking your views to their honest and logical conclusions.
First, I totally understand your view, I simply do not buy it. You are not refuting my view (sorry, Craig, but it isn't "easily refuted," in fact, all each of you did was simply redefine terms in order to make the determinism more palatable, easier to swallow, for us simpletons), you simply changed the terms is all. But it seems to me that what you do is illogical and do not take the steps to a consistant conclusion.
First, God is the cause of all things. That is granted. God is the cause of everything single thing that anyone ever did will do ever will happen can ever happen, etc, amen and evermore. And they all happen as he wishes them to happen. No one else has any imput, he plans, makes it happen, etc, etc, again. To say somehow that God has two wills
a prescritive will particularly, implies that he allows something to happen for his glory. In other words, that somehow something escapes his will and he allows it because he somehow can use it to his glory. But when one plans something, one does not allow something in. God does not allow things to happen for his glory. He either completely plans everything and everything is according to his will, or he allows certain things to happen but he doesn't completely agree with it and yet allows it for his glory. But it originated in another being.
To have a prescriptive will, as such, one has to admit that God does not, in the final analysis, plan all things, but rather he allows things that he uses, which is what open theists believe. It should also be noted that God, in a deterministic viewpoint cannot
grant allow use permit
because all these suggest that God somehow is not the final planner. I would agree that your view has merit if you admited that God is the planner, but his planners are based on the actions he sees we are doing and, as such, we are detemined in that way. But the belief that God somehow plans all things and, at the same time, he has this prescriptive, permissive will that somehow removes God's responsibility for the things he plans I find illogical.
Finally, it is worth noting that you, LL (well, actually LL was more preoccupied with my mischaracterization of something I wasn't even dealing with than the present discussion), and Craig never refute my view. You simply give an alternative reading by defining the situation different. I would however, simply state that my view is more logical and takes your view to its logical conclusion. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
02/07/01 3:27 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WriterDad,
I'm going to try this once more. If I fail, I fail.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not you misrepresent me, what I say, my views, etc. That is hardly the issue. The issue is really quite basic. We are having a discussion about ideas and beliefs. When we discuss ideas and beliefs, it is morally incumbent upon us to be able to understand any and every viewpoint we oppose so that we can fairly and accurately represent them. For, if we do not understand the viewpoint we oppose, and then fail to represent it fairly and accurately, when we argue against that viewpoint as we have caricatured it, we are hardly arguing against the actual viewpoint we claim to be opposing.
This is all I have said from the beginning. This is precisely the point I made to you earlier in this thread. In fact, to make it clear to you that this has been my concern to try to get you to represent Calvinism accurately and fairly, I'm going to quote my own note addressed to you.
I'm sorry to break it to you this way, but if you thought you were describing what Calvinists would call biblical foreordination, your portrayal is only a gross caricature. No responsible Christian (Calvinist or other) who believes that God has foreordained all things would at the same time believe that God's foreordination establishes what is righteous or morally right, as if the fact that God appointed Judas to betray Jesus Christ constitutes the act of his betrayal something we should praise and commend. Formally, you are correct when you say, Therefore, in a very true sense, NONE of us is outside the will of God. That hardly means that simply by being and doing people are thereby doing what is righteous, to quote you, Whether sin or righteousness.
Didn't you say that you were once a Calvinist? How is it that you have forgotten how to describe Calvinism with accuracy and fairness? You haven't even come close. You have described fatalism not Calvinism. Calvinists are most assuredly not fatalists, even though you don't understand how they are not fatalists.
So, my friend, your notes about looking in the mirror don't even address the issue under discussion. If you do not recognize my wholly (and holy) legitimate concern to advance the conversation concerning the issues, then count me out of any discussion with you.
Ponder what Mephi has done. Mephi so well summarized open theist beliefs and principles, as an open theist would, that he even fooled some to think that he had switched his own belief system. Until you can do the same with Calvinism, you have not understood Calvinism. Until you can do the same with Calvinism, your criticisms of Calvinism will continue to be off target.
Again, anyone who knows me recognizes that I'm not in the least hypersensitive or insecure about my beliefs. Thus, I don't take personally your inability to characterize Calvinism. My whole point has been, always has been, and will always be that any criticism of any theological viewpoint is seriously diminished to the degree that it comes from a caricaturizing of the viewpoint one opposes. Get your characterization of Calvinism right. Then your criticisms of Calvinism will actually have some value and weight. At present, your criticisms are far off-target because you don't accurately describe the beliefs real Calvinists hold.
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/07/01 3:32 PM
Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG,(not a response to your statement) but if my predictions are correct, I think Meph is going to postulate “soft determinism” or “human agency theory” in his answer, for he already has when he stated:
"Ok. This illustrates the importance of understanding 1) the implications ofdeterminism and 2)what agency is. IF all actions that we do are according toGod's will, then even in helping people get away from sin, we are doing God's will, according to what you are saying. I'll say that again. Even doing GOOD acts in *encompassed in God's overarching will.*"
Human agency *theory* is the driving philosophical point behind his theology. Not the other way around. This is why he can say,
“Now let's look at Scripture. It **seems** that the God represented in
Scripture is FOR the good and against evil.”
In his reality (perception), God really is not for the good and against the evil. He is ultimately responsible for the evil. People will sin (evil), not holding God responsible, because for Meph, they have in a certain sense, not libertarian freewill as we understand it, but are in some sort of way free in their ontological being. What way is this? It means that they can initiate causation (in this case, sin on their own) simply because without the agent, the agent would not have been able to sin. What does that say? Circular or what? The agent is really just a conduit for old lines of causation, which ultimately end up finding their place in God. But in my understanding, this still holds God hostage to being responsible for sin, because God, presumably and ultimately, set the parameters this way. That, I find abhorent.
I don't find this in the Bible. I don't come to the Bible and say well first, reality is such that there is "soft determinism (it's still determinism, why do you think they call it determinism in the first place?)." This is a metaphysic thrown upon scripture. It was not only done with the anthropomorphic thread but it is done with libertarian freewill. When Greg told Meph that his theology was being driven by his philosophy, Meph responded by saying that although he was disputing the philosophical stuff (in that thread), that didn't mean that scripture was not important.
Meph, no one said that scripture wasn't important-to you or to anyone else. Greg didn't say that. What they said was that your philosophy was driving your theology or scripture and not the other way around. It's your main thrust. Try something. Scrap the "soft determinism" first. Don't let this color everything you see. Then, start with the Bible. Your philosophy can come after that, as a result of. Then, who knows, maybe you really will convert to open theism.
Brandon
By the way, I wasn't duped like Shiner. You think he (Meph) would give up that easily?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/07/01 3:46 PM
Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LL said:
"So, my friend, your notes about looking in the mirror don't even address the issue under discussion. If you do not recognize my wholly (and holy) legitimate concern to advance the conversation concerning the issues, then count me out of any discussion with you."
There you go again, LL! I hate when you do that! Are you critizing us as having a less than holy concern because we don't see it your way? We aren't less than serious about scripture or theology do you think? I hope not.
Brandon
Pulling his hair out. Riiiiiiipppp!!!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
02/07/01 5:28 PM
RE: Your attempt to describe determinism sinks . . . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon,
You asked, Are you critizing us as having a less than holy concern because we don't see it your way?
No!
How could you possibly have derived such a notion from my note? I absolutely never even gave the slightest hint of such a silly notion. Readers need to be sympathetic and seek true understanding. I give up!!!
Pulling my mane out,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/07/01 5:49 PM
Double Whammy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. I'm gonna try to do two in one shot here...
In response to G-D-G's quick question:
Counterquestion: What does it mean to say that God is good? What I mean is what is your chief supposition about what "goodness" entails and how does THAT relate to acts of evil?
*******************************************
To Brandon,
Ooooweeee! You say:
"I don't find this in the Bible. I don't come to the Bible and say well first, reality is such that there is "soft determinism (it's still determinism, why do you think they call it determinism in the first place?)." This is a metaphysic thrown upon scripture. It was not only done with the anthropomorphic thread but it is done with libertarian freewill. When Greg told Meph that his theology was being driven by his philosophy, Meph responded by saying that although he was disputing the philosophical stuff (in that thread), that didn't mean that scripture was not important.
Meph, no one said that scripture wasn't important-to you or to anyone else. Greg didn't say that. What they said was that your philosophy was driving your theology or scripture and not the other way around. It's your main thrust. Try something. Scrap the "soft determinism" first. Don't let this color everything you see. Then, start with the Bible. Your philosophy can come after that, as a result of. Then, who knows, maybe you really will convert to open theism."
Mephi:
Brandon, I have some questions for you. Answer them and then I'll continue.
1) What is the chief epistemological presupposition of the vast majority of the authors in the Bible? (Or do you not think that they had them...)
2) Can ANY reader read ANYTHING completely devoid of their suppositions?
[Food for Thought: Imagine trying to ask to a sentient fish who's always lived underwater and never seen or heard of anything resembling the word "dry" the following question: "What do you feel are the main distinctions between AQUATIC life and that of a land-roaming animal?]
**************************************
Oh, yes, my friends, it gets deep. I ask you these questions, my friends, because IN YOUR ANSWERS are the answers to your own questions in seed form. How deep can YOU go? hehe...
Sometimes Cryptic, but Always Thinking,
Mephi2K, the New Open Theist
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/07/01 8:04 PM
RE: Double Whammy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yo dude, its me, sucker boy.
i'm still ticked at Meph. but i love him nonetheless.
2 quickies.
1. tell me true, if God's overarching will can will things that God's prescriptive will is against, does God's prescriptive will WISH he didn't have this aspect of his overarching will? ("i hate sin and wish i didn't have to forordain it for my greater glory").
2. like, i'd want to know what Meph and Lamb-boy think the term "goodness" means when applied to God, cuz so far as this homie can see it doesn't mean a thing. if God in his supreme "goodness" can foreordain the dismemberment of a little girl -- every terrorized scream and hopeless cry just as planned -- what would it look like for God to do an evil thing? if "good" doesn't contrast with "evil," does it have any meaning?
in other words, bro, if God's "goodness" is to us what the word "dry" is to a fish, ain't you admitting you don't know what in skater's heaven you mean by "the goodness of God."?
check ya later,
Shine150
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:35 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 |
|
|