 |
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/26/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | Rom. 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
In the above verse, the phrase, "inventors of evil" is consistently translated as "inventors of evil" in virtually every translation available on the 'net. I checked the basic meaning of the word in Strong's Dictionary, and, of course, the word means "inventors." One translation renders the word as "contrivers," and a couple paraphrase it something like, "make up new ways of sinning." However, all seem to clearly imply (at least to me) that these are NEW forms of evil, and that they find their origination in the evil choices of moral agents, and were previously not known as possibilities, even to God (or else they didn't truly invent them).
This seems to me to present a big problem for the "God knows all possibilities ad infinitum" argument posed by Doc, Alan, and Tom. What say ye, oh mighty ones? 
Sincerely,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/26/2004 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Rom. 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
In the above verse, the phrase, "inventors of evil" is consistently translated as "inventors of evil" in virtually every translation available on the 'net. I checked the basic meaning of the word in Strong's Dictionary, and, of course, the word means "inventors." On translation renders the word as "contrivers," and a couple paraphrase it something like, "make up new ways of sinning." However, all seem to clearly imply (at least to me) that these are NEW forms of evil, and that they find their origination in the evil choices of moral agents.
This seems to me to present a big problem for the "God knows all possibilities ad infinitum" argument posed by Doc, Alan, and Tom. What say ye, oh mighty ones?
Sincerely,
John
Based upon my own experience, I can vouch for the translation. It seems to me that I can always invent a new way to sin if given the opportunity and appetite. Perhaps this "given the opportunity" is what is meant by "lead us not into temptation."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kublai Khan
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 10/27/2004 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Rom. 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
In the above verse, the phrase, "inventors of evil" is consistently translated as "inventors of evil" in virtually every translation available on the 'net. I checked the basic meaning of the word in Strong's Dictionary, and, of course, the word means "inventors."
James agrees with this:
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
Note the order, "own lust" ---> "births sin". Sin is not created until we create it with our "own lust".
James places the ownership, the authorship, the responsibility for creation of sin on us and our own lust.
We create sin, we invent evil, not God.
"Arrest the usual suspects." | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/27/2004 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Can't we say that Edison "invented" the light bulb and still say that God knew the possibility of the light bulb?
Ross
In so doing, we would have invented a new definition for "invent" :
in·vent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vnt)
tr.v. in·vent·ed, in·vent·ing, in·vents
To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin invenre, invent-, to find : in-, on, upon; see in-2 + venre, to come; see gw- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in·venti·ble adj.
in·ventor n.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
inventor
\In*vent"or\, n. [L.: cf. F. inventeur.] One who invents or finds out something new; a contriver; especially, one who invents mechanical devices.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
inventor
n : someone who is the first to think of or make something [syn: discoverer, artificer]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inventor
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 10/29/2004 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok John...knock it off!
I just had God all figured out, and you've gone and blown it! 
Actually, I came away from the conference with something settled in my heart, or two things actually: God orchestrates things in our lives, and He knows each and every possibility, and knows it as though it were the only possibility. In other words, nothing takes Him by surprise. That makes him all knowing in my books. What He doesn't do is predetermine (in everything) what is going to happen. We have a realm of choices, among a sea of givens.
We may think that a sin is "new" but God knew it already as a possibility. The brain is an incredible creation, with the potential for as much evil as good (sadly),but then we would be like a computer program if it only had potential for good.
Did I answer your question? Anyway...that's my story,and I'm stickin to it!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/29/2004 3:28 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/31/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
Scott doesn't post here very often at all; however, he and I keep up somewhat regular email correspondence in my email discussion group. In fact, Scott's excellent arguments are a big reason why I have chosen to bring this up now.
I'd be curious as to how Scott argues against Doc's view, in particular. Doc's argument against Bill Craig in the foreknowledge book seems to be problematic for his own view (to me, at least). Doc said the following about Craig's view:
quote:
Second, classical molinism is philosophically problematic. In this view, every possible decision any possible free agent might ever make in any possible world is an eternal fact. Every future free decision and every possible future free decision is exhaustively settled in eternity before it takes place. How do we account for this eternal settledness? Craig concedes that it cannot exist because God wills it to exist, for that would constitute determinism. But neither can this eternal settledness exist because agents other than God will it to exist, for created agents are not eternal, and Craig rightly denies retroactive causation. Moreover, agents never will the counterfactuals that are supposedly true about them. They are what the agents would have willed had they been created in a different possible world.
We are left then with the unappealing alternative of denying that anything grounds the eternal settledness of future free acts and of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. From all eternity the fact of what free agents would do was simply there - without any sufficient reason to account for it. It is simply a metaphysical surd. This position, I submit, is at best strongly counterintuitive. It could also be charged with being dualistic, for the settledness of the world, and of every possible world, is depicted as an uncreated reality that eternally coexists alongside God. Like an attribute of God, it has no explanation outside of itself.
Now Doc's argument seems to be quite strong. But Doc's view, too, posits an eternal omniscience about future contingencies. These contingencies include all possible thoughts of God, himself. Thus, God can never originate a truly novel thought. These contingencies also include ka-zillions of evils that never in fact occur. This knowledge exists eternally as an attribute of God just like Craig's view of God's foreknowledge. If the divine attribute that Doc posits for God is not counter-intuitive (as he claims is true for Craig's), it is a least NOT intuitive. Nor do I see how it can be proved.
Now Doc, as Tom, seems to think this solves problems concerning providence. But why would God have to know ka-zillions of evils (some of which would never occur in contingent worlds that never actualized) from ETERNITY. If God is capable of originating novel thoughts/purposes, such knowledge/purposes could occur in time, alleviating the problem of positing an attribute to God which is neither intuitive or demonstrable.
Could you possibly persuade Scott Taylor to weigh in on this question?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/31/2004 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Dude and Dudettes-
I’m sitting in a Starbucks in Beirut, on the balcony, overlooking the Mediterranean, and connected to a wireless network. The sun just set over the sea and Ramadan has everybody outside walking along the boardwalk. Beautiful. In a situation like this, I’m finding it really difficult to see the point in doing ANY speculative thinking about how an omniscient God who knows all future possibilities can or can’t have genuinely “novel” thoughts and act providentially in the world without either being eternally bored out of his mind or eternally grossed out. It’s just too nice outside.
But I’ll try to pull myself away from the sites to lead you in the straight path  , if Allah wills!
First, to JEE’s opening comments:
quote:
Rom. 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
In the above verse, the phrase, "inventors of evil" is consistently translated as "inventors of evil" in virtually every translation available on the 'net. I checked the basic meaning of the word in Strong's Dictionary, and, of course, the word means "inventors." One translation renders the word as "contrivers," and a couple paraphrase it something like, "make up new ways of sinning." However, all seem to clearly imply (at least to me) that these are NEW forms of evil, and that they find their origination in the evil choices of moral agents, and were previously not known as possibilities, even to God (or else they didn't truly invent them).
I don’t think there’s a real problem here at all JEE. All that’s needed to make sense of inventions as inventions is that the evils in question are new to those committing them. It doesn’t have to be the case that God did not foreknow as possible such evils. Humans invented the wheel, the light bulb, the Cotton Gin, the zipper, and the tooth-brush. Lots of stuff! Is there no way these can be said to be “inventions” if it’s also the case that God foreknew them as possible events?
First, we can rule out the idea that God shouldn’t be thought of as foreknowing possible evils on the basis that such knowledge would be inappropriate for God, or that God would be morbid (Jeff’s unfailing concern ) for foreknowing possible evils long before they occur (or not). We dismissed this argument some time ago. There is simply no bite to the argument that God would be eternally grossed out or morbid for knowing such things.
But it seems that JEE’s question has to do with the very notion of an “invention” and whether it makes sense to call something WE invent an invention if it’s not as novel for God as it is for us, which it’s not if God foreknew it even as a possibility. There doesn’t seem to me to be a problem here, but that’s just my view. God foreknows possible inventions. Big deal. It’s just the case that what we invent is novel for us, not entirely novel for God. That makes perfect sense of the language.
And there’s good reason to believe God does foreknow such things. It’s certainly true of everything that’s invented (of everything that happens in fact) that it was possible before it was invented that it might be invented. If such possibilities are real (which we all seem to agree on), then there are true propositions describing these possibilities (which we all seem to agree on). And if God is omniscient, he knows these truth values (which we all seem to agree on). So one of these has to be denied if we are to argue God does not foreknow possible inventions. Jeff denies omniscience. I deny none of them and argue that “invention” is an appropriate term to describe Edison’s light bulb even though God foreknew long before that such a thing might happen. Edison invented the light bulb for himself and others, not for God. Come on guys.
quote:
Kublai Khan: Like Alan had said in an earlier thread, knowing the formula for an infinite series allows you to produce dynamically whichever iteration you need, when you need it, without having to hold each iteration of the infinite series in memory, statically.
I remember the discussion we had on iteration was in response to temporal infinitude. Does God possess complete knowledge of, say, all even numbers? We thought not, if such knowledge constituted an actual infinite. Iteration was a way to solve this. But foreknowing possible sins, or inventions, is unlike this. The possible sins which temporally finite creatures with limited abilities and imaginations commit aren’t actually infinite (I don’t imagine). God can simply foreknow the particular evils (possible or certain, whatever the case may be) people commit. And since Jeff’s argument from morbidity no longer exists, the only question left is JEE’s. Must a human invention be as new, as much an invention, for God as it is for us? Why think that?
quote:
Jeff: Why would even the loosest translation render the phrase, "who make up NEW kinds of evil?", if this were not really the case…
But it is the case. But for whom? And in what sense? All that needs to be true for it to be the case that the evils in question were new or invented is that they are new for those who think of and commit them.
It’s good to argue from the integrity of the divine-human relationship that contingency, for example, is as real for God as it is for us. I’ve used this line of reasoning too. But while the integrity of the divine-human relationship is jeopardized if what God describes as a “maybe” for him is not in fact a “maybe” for him, it doesn’t follow that the integrity of the divine-human relationship in the case of human “inventions” is jeopardized if the invention isn’t as new for God as it is for us. If this reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion, we’d have to argue that the divine-human relationship only has integrity if God is as ignorant as we are when we are. But we don’t even apply this to all our human relations.
quote:
Jeff: …and the supposedly perfectly holy God had been contemplating each and every kind of evil that could ever possibly happen for all eternity?
You keep tripping over this non-issue, Jeff. But the argument’s got no teeth to it. God can foreknow X without consciously focusing upon and contemplating X. There’s no reason to think that God’s foreknowing possible evil X means God “contemplates” or “dwells upon” X in the conscious (and morbid) way you keep insisting upon. Besides, God’s mental health is not as precarious as ours is. I say, let’s give God a break. He’ll make it through to the eschaton without losing his mind.
quote:
Jeff: It seems to me that the definition of omniscience as stated by Doc has slanderous implications on the CHARACTER of God. Why would God be eternally contemplating the possible molestation and murder of millions upon millions of children, for instance?
Slanderous? That’s pretty strong. What about the implications of believing God to be ignorant of a great many truths? I don’t know Jeff. Deny God knowledge of all truths if you really feel it threatens your sense of God’s holiness. But if we can know something without consciously contemplating it, then you need to find some reason for your belief other than that it undermines God’s holiness.
quote:
Jeff: The Bible reveals God as surprised at the fact that Adam & Eve sinned. Are we willing to say God is disingenuous in portraying Himself in this way?
I don’t think so. But my question is are we willing to say God had absolutely no idea that Adam and Eve would do what he specifically told them NOT to do? A simple command. The only command God gives them, and God is simply ignorant that they’re disobeying the command is even possible. This is not just compromised omniscience, it just portrays God as stupid.
But why think “surprise” (which isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text) requires ignorance? Now you’re arguing more than that God didn’t foreknow some evil millions of years prior to the event. You’re arguing that God never foreknew a possible evil at all. He only learned that their sin was ever even possible when they sinned. And this is based upon God’s being surprised that they sinned? This just doesn’t follow. Surprise CAN be accounted for on probabilistic grounds without having to argue that to be surprised at something is to not foreknow it in any sense of the word. We can be surprised at S if there was only a very slight probability that S occur. The Yankees were surprised to lose the pennant to Boston because being ahead 3 to 0, the likelihood that the Yankees would loose was so slim. But they foreknew the possibility, and they were surprised. So it just isn’t the case that we have to be ignorant of S’s possibility to be surprised at S when it happens.
quote:
Jeff: Now Doc's argument seems to be quite strong. But Doc's view, too, posits an eternal omniscience about future contingencies. These contingencies include all possible thoughts of God, himself. Thus, God can never originate a truly novel thought. These contingencies also include ka-zillions of evils that never in fact occur. This knowledge exists eternally as an attribute of God just like Craig's view of God's foreknowledge. If the divine attribute that Doc posits for God is not counter-intuitive (as he claims is true for Craig's), it is a least NOT intuitive…
A thought that is neither intuitive nor counter-intuitive? Hmm. What’s that even mean? Well, anyway, several things present themselves as quite meaningful to believe (that there are truths; that there are genuine possibilities; that possibilities, if real, ground the truths of propositions that describe them; that propositions are knowable; that an omniscient God would know all truths). That this is all the case has very much going for it. That it is all true except for the fact that the God, if he exists at all, is in fact ignorant of much, does not have much going for it—certainly not the argument that God’s holiness is compromised by foreknowing possible evils.
Can I absolutely prove this? Well, like William James said. Adopt an epistemic optimism about what’s required to justify a belief. You keep demanding “proofs” and don’t seem to want to believe what can’t be absolutely proved. James suggested that such an approach to truth really isn’t livable. Why not go for all the truth we have good evidence for and reserve disbelief for that which we can rightly prove is not the case? “I’ll not believe it until it’s proved” is one approach to truth. “I’ll believe it unless it’s disproved” is another. I think you and I take different approaches to truth.
quote:
Jeff: Now Doc, as Tom, seems to think this solves problems concerning providence.
That it does.
quote:
Jeff: But why would God have to know ka-zillions of evils (some of which would never occur in contingent worlds that never actualized) from ETERNITY.
See the approach to truth? “Why would God HAVE to know what is true…?” Well, why NOT know what’s true? Why not begin by asking, “Why would God NOT know what is true?” One demands prove to belief. Another demands it to disbelieve. Interesting.
But you say, “some of which ‘would not’ occur in contingent worlds that never actualized”? I don’t follow ya here. If S is possible in some future contingent world, how can it be true to say S “would not” happen? That’s not the language of indeterminacy. So long as S is possible, that’s what there is for God to know. If S “would not” happen, then God knows S is not contingent. Not sure where you’re going. But surely the decision to create this world brought to an end a ka-zillion possibilities linked to other possible worlds not created.
OK, I’d suggest that there is something important for providence here. Assuming God could have created any number of different worlds, how does God (here’s the providence) determine WHICH possible world is the best to create, which best suits his purposes, if God is ignorant of some or many of the truths the describe each world? On your view, Jeff, the more possibly evil a particular world is, the LESS God knows about it. Our world may have been the worst possible world to create for achieving God’s purposes. How could God determine which world was best to create without sizing up each possible world accurate, without counting the cost? The only way I see to account for our belief in the providential wisdom behind God’s choice to create, that is, the belief that God’s choice to create this sort of world was the BEST choice given God’s purposes, is to argue that God accurately, infallibly, counted the cost, ALL the costs, involved, and weighed the risks, all the risks, involved, and so chose. But on your view such accuracy, such maximally informed decisions, were not possible for God prior to creation. Not all risks were taken into consideration. Whole swaths of information relevant to determining whether or not our world or any other possible world was an appropriate place to pursue his purposes were entirely left out of the equation and never considered? Why? Because a holy God wouldn’t foreknow all the crap and evil that was possible until the evils in question were nearly actualized. THEN God responds on the spot with novelty.
Still, also, you’ve never offered a convincing explanation of how God moves from ignorance to knowledge of truths about contingent events. Who tells him? What tells him? God’s ignorant of these truths. He can’t tell himself what they are. That would contradict the ignorance you insist God is in. Like I said—a providential nightmare. I know, you said it makes sense to you. Does it make sense to anybody else out there?
My impression from Scripture is that God is the sort of God who, at the very least, makes maximally informed decisions. And I’d argue that the most important decision God made regarding our world (or if not the most important then right up there at the top), the decision that demanded the most in terms of accuracy in knowledge and providence, was the decision about WHICH world, of all the possible worlds God could have created, best suited his purposes. So, Jeff, your agreement that God knows possibilities when they become providentially necessary could be used in arguing that the most providentially advantageous moment for God to know all the possibilities that our world holds (for good and for evil) is BEFORE the decision to create our world.
quote:
Jeff: Thus, God can never originate a truly novel thought.
This is an interesting claim. Where did God get his thoughts when there was nothing but God? If one assumes that all possibilities and truths ultimately come from God, then ALL is novel. But I’m not a philosopher, so I don’t wanna go that direction.
Seems to me that Jeff is placing a value on novelty. To think truly new thoughts, thoughts you didn’t think before or even knew were possible, is “better” than foreknowing all the possible thoughts you might think. The former makes God’s life fresh and exciting. The latter makes God’s thought life like yesterday’s left-overs; boring and monotonous.
I confess I just don’t see much in this argument. There’s joy in novelty. But why should this joy require first being ignorant? Isn’t it the case that at least some of our most joyous discoveries and experiences DON’T preclude foreknowing the possibility of experiencing that which we later experience? Your first kiss, your High School or college graduation, getting married, having your first child, getting a raise, having sex! (got the order wrong, sorry), and on and on, are all experiences that we know of, know about, and accurately describe in propositional terms before we experience them, but enjoy no less for having foreknown them as possible (or even as certain). And in cases where the novelty actually involves moving from a state of ignorance to a state of knowing something, I dare say that in most if not all cases we regret the ignorance and wish we had always known the truth.
Plus there are some novelties we cannot attribute to God, like the novelty of getting saved, physically healed, learning the alphabet, finding out you didn’t fail the final exam, etc.
One reason to question the “ignorance-first-then-novelty-is-best” approach is not knowing where or how to stop. If it’s better for God to think novel thoughts (i.e., ‘never before considered at all’ thoughts), or better that God think some novel thoughts, who decides in God’s case which truths are best not known until the ‘experiential’ peak provides God a maximally novel and joyous experience? But since knowledge of all truths regarding future continent events don’t have to be consciously contemplated, and since foreknowledge of many if not most of life’s experiences doesn’t rob us of the novelty and joy of ACTUAL experience, I can’t think of any advantage to be had in denying omniscience. Nothing’s gained. Much is lost.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/31/2004 1:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Much that you attributed to me in your post was not really my quotes. Now I know it's hard to concentrate when you're wireless at a Mediterranean Starbucks, but for the sake of those of us who are living pretty mundane lives, at least get your quotes right!! 
quote:
Assuming God could have created any number of different worlds, how does God (here’s the providence) determine which possible world is the best to create, which best suits his purposes, if God is ignorant of some or many of the truths (regarding determinate and indeterminate events, good and evil, relative to each world)? God may have created the worst possible world for achieving his purposes. How could he have known? The only way I see to account for our belief in the providential wisdom behind God’s choice to create, and the belief that God’s choice to create this sort of world was the BEST choice given his purposes, is to assume that God accurately counted the cost (just was we assume of ourselves when he deliberate between options), which is precisely impossible for a partially ignorant God. To say God knew what he was doing, knew what he was up to, is pretty empty if in fact God didn’t know all that might possibly follow from the choice to create our world.
The "BEST choice given His purposes" would seem to have to do with initial conditions - not future contingencies. God did NOT originally purpose most of what transpired after the Fall. His post Fall purposes are distinct from His original purposes. So does God have a balancing act with His purposes, supposing His original purposes have only a certain probability of obtaining? I don't know anything that would imply that.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: Now Doc's argument seems to be quite strong. But Doc's view, too, posits an eternal omniscience about future contingencies. These contingencies include all possible thoughts of God, himself. Thus, God can never originate a truly novel thought. These contingencies also include ka-zillions of evils that never in fact occur. This knowledge exists eternally as an attribute of God just like Craig's view of God's foreknowledge. If the divine attribute that Doc posits for God is not counter-intuitive (as he claims is true for Craig's), it is a least NOT intuitive…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s that mean? A thought that is neither intuitive nor counter-intuitive? Hmm. Well, anyway, several things present themselves as quite meaningful to believe (that there are truths; that there are genuine possibilities; that possibilities, if real, ground constitute the grounds of propositions that describe them; that so long as something is possible it is knowable; that an omniscient God would know such truths).
You got that quote right! But you didn't finish it. I said positing an ETERNAL omniscience is neither intuitive "OR DEMONSTRABLE." Moreover, there are some who would find positing such knowledge to God eternally a bit hard to swallow, even if not counter-intuitive. And, as I've argued before, in the absence of self-evidence of demonstration, such gut difficulties can't help but influence which way one goes on this matter. So until a demonstration can be given, such an attribute of God as you and Doc are positing is simply what seems to best fit your own gut.
And that point is logically related to my wondering whether God can think truly novel thought/purposes. It has nothing to do with how boring it might be for God otherwise, though it may have implications about how dynamic God's relationship with Christ would be. Rather, I'm just saying that denying God the CAPACITY for truly novel thoughts seems to be unjustified without self-evidence or demonstration to the contrary. In other words, unless we can prove that God's providential requirements are not satisfied by thinking done just prior to the creation of a world, how can we be so sure He does not have the CAPACITY for novel thought? To me it's an open question. So I'm proceeding parsimoniously as usual.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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 |
|
|