 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Solomon
12/12/00 1:03 PM
Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have begun to believe that a lot of the confusion we encounter in discussing the OV may be due to the fact that we insist on using terminology that is unbiblical.
Many seem to take for granted that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, not to mention timeless. These terms are simply not found in scripture, but I know that in my experience the words are often tenets of peoples God-view.
The OV does a good job redefining some of these terms, but is it not better to ditch them altogether, in view of more biblical descriptions, (and more personal ones), such as mighty, wise, everlasting, eternal?
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
12/12/00 1:19 PM
RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon,
I'm glad to meet you! You are truly wise. Yes,I believe that you are correct that it would be best for open theism to dismiss using terms such as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. This is especially so if OT defines them differently from their traditional meaning.
Thanks, wise one!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/12/00 1:27 PM
Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...OF COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good points Solomon!
"is it not better to ditch them altogether, in view of more biblical descriptions, (and more personal ones), such as mighty, wise, everlasting, eternal?"
One thing before I answer your questions; the OV wouldn't want to use the word eternal. That would prove God is not finite
Is God omniscient? Of course! He declares the end from the beginning, He knows our thoughts FROM AFAR. Is God omnipotent? Definitely! Only God does what He pleases in heaven, earth, and the deeps. Is God omnipresent! Do you need to ask?!? There is no place you could flee where God wouldn't be!
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/12/00 2:41 PM
RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon,
Welcome and thanks for the great question. You correctly note that the terms you mentioned do not occur in scripture. Neither does the word "trinity" but it is central to our understanding of God, and discarding the term would have significant ramifications for how we talk about God as father, son, and holy spirit. Likewise, these theological abstractions--omniscience, omnipotentence, and omnipresence--have been used to talk about God for centuries, and should not be dismissed lightly.
On the other hand, it is not unprecidented for long-standing termonology about God to fade from use, or be re-appropriated over time, for example: God's impassibility (God does not experience emotions), immutability (God never changes), and simplicity (God is one eternally present thing--not sure I have this one down quite right...). People who still use these terms to describe God usually qualify them significantly from their original (pre-christian) meaning.
While I don't think the words omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience belong in this category, I agree with you that we should give precidence to the language scripture uses to describe God. Just as theologians continue to contemplate and explore the mystery of the trinity, these terms should also continue to be explored and evaluated in light of scripture.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/12/00 2:42 PM
RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb:
Omniscience = God knows everything there is to know. This is my (open theist) understanding of God's omniscience. How is this different than the traditional meaning? Is it so different that I should dismiss the word altogether?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/12/00 5:30 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect that you realize that the ordinary meaning of omniscient has never simply meant God knows everything there is to know. The definition open theists offer is not what Christians have meant throughout the centuries. We all know that. Don't we?
Word definitions, as I'm sure you realize [since you love literature], fundamentally derive from usage, not from etymology. Thus, as Christians have used the word omniscient, they have always meant to include God's knowledge of all things past, present, and future. The word's meaning does not derive from the fact that its etymology is from Latin omni- for all and scientia for knowing. But I'm confident you knew this.
Also, since you love literature, I have to believe you recognize that when literary critics speak of the omniscient narrator of a story, they mean that the narrator of the story has exhaustive--forward and backward--knowledge of the entire story. It would be utterly meaningless to speak of an omniscient narrator with the definition of omniscient open theism ascribes to God. God is the omniscient narrator of his own drama that unfolds in his story, as disclosed in the Bible. That's what the Lord means when he says, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come" (Isa 46:10).
So, yes, if you do not believe that omniscient means that God knows exhaustively the past, the present, and the future, I believe you should cease using the term to describe your belief. May I suggest that it's not honest?
BTW, I prefer to use biblical language to describe God, too.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/12/00 6:21 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it is a narrative possibility, third-person omniscient narrators are generally not conceived of as having exhaustive knowledge of the story from beginning to end, but rather a perspective that moves from character to character, place to place, and episode to episode, with access to any character's thought and feelings. T. S. Eliot describes the third-person narrative thus: "he is saying, not what he would say in his own person, but only what he can say within the limits of one imaginary character addressing another imaginary character."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/12/00 7:11 PM
RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...OF COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig, are you implying that Open theists are finite godists? You should know better. As a matter of fact, there is nothing you said in your response that Open Theists disagree with you on. God is eternal and everlasting.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/12/00 7:36 PM
RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...OF COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes-
Of course open theists would disagree with everything I said. I am a Classical Theist! I have discussed with open theists who deny the Eternality of God. They say He is infinite, but He is in time, not outside of it. Does open theism make God look finite? If God looks like me, thinks like me, feels like me, plans like me, messes up like me; gee, I just don't know. But then again, God probably doesn't either
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/12/00 8:09 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...OF COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparantly you are either unwilling or reluctant or perhaps unable to address Open Theism in its strongest suit. If God looked/thought/planned/messed up like you, Open Theists wouldn't worship him either.
That coupled with the idea that open theists will disagree with everything you say makes me wonder what you expect to contribute or recieve in this dialogue? Try a little harder please...
Do you believe what the creed of Nicea affirm? Do you trust Jesus as Lord and Savior? Do understand God as creator of all? Can you honestly pray the Lord's prayer? Let us not pretend that there is more of significance between us than in common, or is that what you mean? If so, I'd expect you to be witnessing to us, for we are clearly lost in your view...
Let's raise the bar.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/12/00 8:16 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I thought you would realize that I was talking about a third person narrator who is not a character in the story. Take for example, the Gospel of Mark. The writer is such a third person narrator. He is omniscient. He is not bound by space or time. He is an implied but invisible presence in every scene of the story. Thus, he is able to be everywhere in the story to recount the action. The narrator is also completely omniscient with reference to the story, for he has access to the thoughts, the feelings, and perceptions of the story's characters. The narrator of the Gospel of Mark knows what happens everywhere throughout the whole story. So, he can portray accurately what occurs in a private house or in a boat in the middle of the sea. He can portray not only what Jesus does when with a crowd or with his disciples, but also when he is alone.
That's the kind of third person omniscient narrator I'm talking about. I hope this explains my point.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
12/12/00 9:32 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...OF COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God knows everything there is to know. I am not a card carrying member of Open View Theism, however, on this I must agree. Stop bickering about if He can know and/or if He can't know. GDG, I agree with you on this. Others, do you fear a God Who allows CHOICE?
Do you have an issue with God if He truly ALLOWS you to be a free agent? Is responsibility for your actions REALLY your problem?
I hate to ask like this...but really....HOW could God be the one who predestines only 'golden children' for Heaven??? If you have a biblical issue....that HAS to be it.
prov23
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/12/00 10:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...OF COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prov 23_23 says,
Stop bickering about if He can know and/or if He can't know.
I guess that ends the whole discussion forum, then, for that is precisely the issue at stake.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
12/13/00 8:51 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent...O F COURSE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
Ok, perhaps "stop bickering" was a poor choice of words, but my intent was to ask the other questions. Why is it that God CAN'T
CHOOSE not to know some things in order to give the gift of freedom to His Creation? Why is it that the definition of 'knowing all' can't mean All there is to know? To me, this is a viable definition and gives understanding to human choice. I can accept this from the OV much easier than accepting the 'golden children' of God that were predestined in all that they do. Help me here lion, How is it that you take issue with the Potter choosing to allow freedom to the clay? He can remain the awesome Maker of things great and small. He can be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and not plan every detail (micromanage) the lives of all He created. Can He not? After all if He DID choose to micro manage....how fair (just) is that? Doesn't that go against His Character trait of being 'Just'?? If you can answer me here I would appreciate it. Again, sorry for using the word 'bickering' it is good to 'reason' together
Prov.23
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Ken15
12/13/00 10:02 AM
RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pro23, do you fear disposing of the presupposition that CHOICE does not HAVE to mean, a priori, libertarian freedom?
I don’t have an issue with God at all. I have an issue with free will theists understanding of the nature of God and His relationship to creation.
The question is, what type of freedom did God allow for? And we cannot presume it to be libertarian, and then dismiss any other definition as “not being what free will means”, thus defining one’s opponent out of existence. Responsibility is our responsibility, no soft determinist denies this. Why do you draw such caricatures and erect straw men?
Do you have a problem with God IF he were to predestinate His elect for Heaven? Who are you to say to God, “why have you formed me this way, a vessel for honor, or for common use?” Who is limiting God now? In fact, your potter and clay example is just the kind of analogy drawn to show that God does what HE WANTS with His creation, its not an example of human free will in action. The pot does not form itself, does it?
If God DID choose to micormanage, then who are you to say to God what is and what is not fair? If He were to micromanage, it would not implicate His just nature at all. Everyone gets justice, but some get mercy.
I do not believe that classical theists say that God CAN’T CHOOSE not to know some things. We simply say that He has chosen TO KNOW all things.
Libertarian freedom may be the only sense of freedom that makes sense to you, but then, that seems to be very flimsy evidence for me to adopt that position, or for you to believe it, wouldn’t you say? Pinnock says that libertarian freedom is innate intuition, but is that a reason for me to accept it as a verity? Hardly. Our sin nature combined with our very finite perspective makes me very suspicious of innate intuition. For a long time, it was “obvious” that the sun revolved around the earth. To the man without God, it is “obvious” to eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow he dies. It is not at all always obvious what is obvious and what is not.
In Christ, Ken
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/13/00 10:52 AM
RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken says,
"I do not believe that classical theists say that God CAN’T CHOOSE not to know some things. We simply say that He has chosen TO KNOW all things."
Oh, is that all you are saying? Who has known the mind of the Lord? Apparently Ken has. If you say that God has choosen to know all things, then surely God can't choose to not know some things. You cannot have it both ways, sorry.
Ken also says,
"Pinnock says that libertarian freedom is innate intuition, but is that a reason for me to accept it as a verity? Hardly. Our sin nature combined with our very finite perspective makes me very suspicious of innate intuition."
Actually, if Pinnock is correct, and libertarian freedom is innate intuition, then surely that counts for something. Tell me Ken, how do you know that you are saved? How do you know you know God? Can you claim more than some sort of innate intuition? Even Calvin seems to acknowledge the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" as the assurance of faith, does this not sound equally subjective to you? I believe that it can be demonstrated that all of the things you hold MOST dearly to you you will hold because your experience requires it of you.
Regarding the pot analogy Ken mentions, please read Jer. 18, the whole chapter, for a very clear illustration of the sort of relationship between the potter and the clay, which Classical theists so often misinterpret. This is the source text for Romans 9, by the way. Notice God is confronting people who are deterministic in their thinking, vs 12 "But they will say, 'It is no use! We will follow with our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of our evil will.'" But God is directly challenging this sort of thinking in this chapter!!! See verses 5-11. God promises to be a responsive God, changing God's mind in response to our actions. Ken, do you have a problem with this God or not? What do you make of this chapter?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/13/00 11:28 AM
RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes-
I have no problem praying the prayer Jesus taught His disciples. Can you pray "Thy will be done"?
Also, I don't consider this thread as having discussed things thoroughly at all. You have read some of my opinions on other threads, such as Abraham. Am I going to go in depth on this one? Not too deep, no. Are you willing to look at the weaknesses of Open Theism? It is apparent you are not. No one was able to answer how it was that it took God so long to learn Abraham would be faithful to God with his son Isaac. If God knows everything present, and our thoughts from afar off, why did He wait so long to tell Abraham He finally figured out he would be faithful to God? You say GOd can know the future, and that he is trustworthy; yet God didn't think He could come up with a trustworthy idea of what His own creature in covenant with Him would do? Makes sense to me! How can I go to any depth if a heretical group is unwilling to consider their presuppositions are wrong?
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Ken
12/13/00 4:22 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes says Oh, is that all you are saying? Who has known the mind of the Lord? Apparently Ken has. If you say that God has choosen to know all things, then surely God can't choose to not know some things. You cannot have it both ways, sorry."
Apparently you claim to know the mind of the Lord as well, or are you agnostic on this issue? If so, why comment? If not, you fall prey to your own criticism. I am not trying to have it both ways, I am saying that God knows all things, because I believe that is how the Bible portrays Him. Modes says Actually, if Pinnock is correct, and libertarian freedom is innate intuition, then surely that counts for something. Tell me Ken, how do you know that you are saved? How do you know you know God? Can you claim more than some sort of innate intuition? Even Calvin seems to acknowledge the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" as the assurance of faith, does this not sound equally subjective to you? I believe that it can be demonstrated that all of the things you hold MOST dearly to you you will hold because your experience requires it of you."
I have already commented on what I feel about innate intuition. I do not think it counts for much of anything actually, especially as considered in presalfific scenerios. All men are natural born Pelagians.
How do I know I am saved? Because the gospel is outside of me. I do not naval gaze, I look to the cross. The fact that I have looked to the cross is an indicator that I am saved, for the natural man hates God, and will to have Him in their thinking. (1 Cor. 2:14) Objective precedes subjective. Regeneration precedes faith.
How do I know I know God? The Bible tells me about God, and the Bible makes it clear that ALL people know God, though they attempt to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Ro. 1:18-23, Ps. 19:1) Without special revelation I would have no saving knowledge of God.
As far as Calvin's Divinitatis sensum, I agree that he felt that humans had an innate knowledge of God. However, the difference between this and Pinnock's innante intution regarding libertarian freedom is that God's knowledge of Himself is placed there in the mind BY God. This versus what the fallen intellect takes to be verity, as brute facts. Calvin said "There are two principal parts of the light which still remains in corrupt nature: first, the seed of religion is planted in all men; next, the distinction between good and evil is engraved on their consciences." So no, it does not sound **equally** subjective to me, clearly it is not.
If you believe that you can demonstrate that all the things dear to me are so because of my experience, then by all means, demonstrate.
Modes says:"Regarding the pot analogy.... Ken, do you have a problem with this God or not? What do you make of this chapter?"
Well this is certainly a novel way to interpret the passage in Jer. 18/Ro. 9. I would say that the passage speaks of God confronting stubborn hearts, not deterministic thinking!! "These two chapters (Jer. 18-19) describe two sign acts. Both involve clay pots. In the first a marred pot is a prelude to a call to repentance-a call that is defiantly rejected. In the second sign act, a pot is smashed as a visual message about the coming catastrophe upon the city of Jerusalem. God's sovereignty is evident throughout.
If one includes chapter 20 one can see two symmetrical halves, the second half more elaborate and precise than the first:
1. Pottery making/smashing 18:1-10; 19:1-13
2. God shapes disaster 18:11-17; 19:14-15
3. Attack on the prophet 18:18; 20:1-16
4. A response of lament 18:19-23; 20:17-18
The sign act or symbolic action is in the traditional form: (1) an instruction; (2) report of compliance; and (3) an interpretation. Elwell, Walter A. ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company) 1989.
I really wish you would stop accusing me of having a problem with God, instead of acknowledging that what I have a problem with is your theology, unless, that is, you think your theology and God's understanding to be so closely associated that for me to disagree with you is the same as disagreeing with God?? Anyway, that's what I make of these chapters. Romans 9 is an even stronger indicator of God's sovereignty over the pot, by the way. The point is, libertarian free will is not taught in these passages. Rather, the sovereignty of God in all things is affirmed. In Christ, Ken
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Ken15
12/15/00 9:07 AM
RE: RE: RE: Is God really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
delete accidental double post
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/13/00 5:34 PM
God knows ALL -- including "maybes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The logic that leads to the suggestion that Open Theists shouldn't use the word "omniscient" -- despite our insistance that we believe that God knows all things -- would also lead people who believe God possesses middle knowledge (what WOULD happen in other circumstances) to deny that people who believe in simple foreknowledge, or Calvinists who deny middle knowledge, shouldn't use the word "omniscient" either. Actually, it would mean that the Dominicans should judge the Franciscans and Jesuits as denying God's omniscience, the Thomist should judge the Occamists, etc... for all these folk disagreed about THE CONTENT of what God knows. (Fortunately, people in the church tradition had an easier time granting each other good faith and seeing the distinction between the affirmation of omniscience and the understanding of the content of that omniscience than some do today).
This same logic could also lead Open Theists to deny that traditionalists "really" believe in God's omniscience. Why? Because traditionalists deny that God possesses knowledge of a portion of reality: the reality of subjunctive conditionals... what MIGHT happen in different circumstances. But subjunctive conditional statements are either true or false, so if God is omniscient he must know them. Besides, God speaks about the future in conditionals... perhaps, maybe, etc. You deny God knows subjunctives? HERETIC! If you were honest, you wouldn't even use the word "omniscient." So your own logic would go.
But see, I and other Open Theists understand that you believe truly that God knows all things. You're just confused about "all things." You don't limit God. You just limit reality. You mistakenly think that subjunctive conditionals are not real. But we'll make you a deal. We'll recognize the sincerity of your confession that God knows all things -- though we think you're wrong on the content of what God knows -- if you will recognize the sincerity of our confession that God knows all things -- though you of course think us wrong on the content of what God knows.
If we can get over the unseemly debate about who owns the word "omniscient," lets talk content. Can someone refute this argument.
p1. Subjunctive statements are either true or false. (e.g. it is either true or false that agent x might do y in situation z.)
p2. God knows the true value statements.
Conclusion: God knows that agent x might do y in situation z [hence, he knows that agent x might NOT do y in situation z.
If one wants to deny that God knows subjunctives, you must either say a) God is not omniscient or b) subjunctive statements have no true value. Good luck.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Message Go To Page << 1
Craig
12/13/00 5:53 PM
RE: God knows ALL -- including "maybes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd-
One could not say that a Calvinist doesn't believe God is omniscient because he denies God's knowledge of the future consists of "middle knowledge". It seems to me that middle knowledge is really God's "imagination". If I could come up with a bunch of different scenarios, and you could only come up with one or two, would that prove I have more comprehensive knowledge than you? Certainly not. You would say, "that's quite an imagination you have".
Middle Knowledge doesn't say God knows more, just that God doesn't know conclusively (perhaps because of a LACK)what the future entails.
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/13/00 11:10 PM
RE: RE: God knows ALL -- including "maybes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the response Craig.
IN Molinism (advocates of "middle knowledge"), God's knowledge of counterfactuals is NOT imagination. It is KNOWLEDGE. God KNOWS what every possible agent would do in every possible world. On the basis of this KNOWLEDGE God chooses to actualize one possible world. From their perspective, if one denies that God has this knowledge this could be construed as a limitation of omniscience. BUT Molinist know -- what we all should know -- that the disagreement is over the content of the reality God infallibly knows, NOT the scope of God's knowledge itself.
The same thing could be done by me regard God's KNOWLEDGE of subjunctives. I am waiting (here and on another post) for cogent philosophical refutations of my contention that subjunctive propositions have truth values, and thus must be known by God. God knows "maybes."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
12/14/00 12:47 AM
RE: ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken,
Listen, I love you man. I go to work, come home, check up on addiction websites, and behold...
What a mess.
I love God, you love God....It's all good. I don't think anyone is trying to "limit God". I asked Lion some questions in order to clarify her position/opinion on certain aspects of God. NOT to brew up a barrage of questions from you. (After reading them, I wonder if you truly want my answers?) One thing's for sure, I won't be taking sides, labels seem limiting, I comment on what are MY conclusions. I believe "seek and you shall find" is a continuum...we are all in process.
FYI, I DO believe it IS OBVIOUS that a JUST God CAN'T (can choose NOT to) produce 'Golden Children' predestined for Heaven, and at the SAME time say "I don't want any to perish"...
????????
Prov23
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/14/00 1:50 AM
RE: God knows ALL -- including "maybes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Boyd:
You said:
Can someone refute this argument.
p1. Subjunctive statements are either true or false. (e.g. it is either true or false that agent x might do y in situation z.)
p2. God knows the true value statements.
Conclusion: God knows that agent x might do y in situation z [hence, he knows that agent x might NOT do y in situation z.
Then said:
"If one wants to deny that God knows subjunctives, you must either say a) God is not omniscient or b) subjunctive statements have no true value. Good luck."
Mephi:
Okie dokley! I will summarize what I said in the "Subjunctives" post you originated: P1 is false. Subjunctive statements are IMPLIED tautologies. They are ALWAYS true. Of course, God will know subjunctives as true, because they are ALWAYS true. And if you will go to the other post, you will see that having God know "maybes" doesn't entail all that you think it does...
Good luck to you, Doc.
Ever your Humble Servant,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|