 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
If you read my really really long first post about 2 pages back I also said everybody was wrong and that even I am a 99.99% atheist because there is a chance, remote as it is, that I might end up seeing jesus or allah when I die.
So, just when something is missing there must be a reason for its existence? Hmm... so there must be sea monsters and dragons somewhere out there right?
Also, why must a "spritual" dimension not be science-based? Just because we many not be able to explain other dimensions which our current knowledge of science doesn not mean the unknown followes a divine constitution. There is only one constitution which governes the entire universe, it is science, and we haven't even begun to understand the first article.
|
Science is an understanding of the universe based on the presupposition that all things have a natural cause. Quantum mechanics have shifted the definition of "natural" a little, but certain spiritual things are impossible to reconcile with natural cause. The very word "spiritual" implies the supernatural, i.e. spirits. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but you do realize that what you're suggesting involves a revolution in scientific methods far exceeding anything that has happened before, right?
Anyway, here's some spiritual stuff. Explain away:
The church of St. Theodora in Greece is a small building about the size of an old schoolhouse, containing a single chapel, all covered by a slate roof. That slate roof has seventeen trees growing out of it, which have been there for centuries. The trees, all together, weigh several tons, and are supported entirely by the church itself, i.e. all the roots go through the slates. Every engineer or physicist who has visited the church so far has declared it physically impossible, that such a small building hold up seventeen live trees, trees so large they barely fit on the roof(they actually mushroom out), for any period of time. I have photos of the church floating around my house somewhere. I could probably scan them and upload 'em if you want.
Also in Greece, the dead body of St. Spyridon has been resting completely intact in a glass coffin for several years. He died sometime in the late middle ages, I believe. The coffin is NOT airtight; for some inexplicable reason, the sandals wear out and have to be replaced regularly, meaning the coffin is opened about twice a year. The body is paraded through a nearby town for a festival every year, under the mediterranean sun, so I don't think it's a waxwork. It has not been mummified in any way. Several other saints have remained similarly "incorrupt," or nearly so, though few are as impressive as St. Spyridon. St. Raphael, the most recently canonized Orthodox saint, has been dead for about a century. Not only is he mostly intact, he smells like roses. Again, unmummified. He is buried at the Antiochian Village Camp in Ligonier, PA, though I don't think they'll dig him up to prove it to you.
Lastly, St. John Maximovich, who died in 1966, was observed levitating and glowing(as in, too bright to look at; photos show him as a blur) during Divine Liturgy several times. The photograph I saw of him showed a white streak floating about two feet away from several other people, which pretty much rules out pyrotechnics and fishing line unless the churchgoers all happened to be wearing asbestos suits that day. I realize it's possible to fake photographs, but bear in mind that this event was viewed by several thousand people all told, in several different churches around the country, in broad daylight in a large, open room. That's a lot of people to be all in on one conspiratory prank.
I believe for other reasons, but they're interesting to know all the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
try this elok. before we knew wut held the moon in orbit say we assumed it was magic and divinely done by god.
therefore outside the realm of science.
then we figured it out, and all of a sudden OUR KNOWLEDGE CHANGED THE NATURE OF ITS EXISTANCE.
or how about another explanation, it was always that way and we just hadn't figured it out yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Okay, but then how does belief in God improve the Christian's morals over those of the person who doesn't believe in God? Unless somebody needs to believe in God in order to desire peace in their life (and I frankly don't see any connection between belief or disbelief in God and desire or lack of desire for peace), then the Christian (or the Muslim or the Hindu or whoever) is in the same moral boat as the atheist, all things being equal. If you never intended to claim or imply that the Christian is morally better off than the atheist, then why bring up morals at all if they're not germane to the debate? |
Actually, I believe I brought this up mostly because others were implying that Christianity is all about fear of punishment, not as an argument in and of itself. Setting that aside, your argument works based on the assumption that human beings are capable of a continuous, clear understanding of right and wrong without divine aid, and that's exactly the part I question. Our behavior seems almost engineered to make us unhappy at times, and I want to know why. As for being all in the same boat, maybe god answers the prayers of non-Christians too; that's his privilege and none of my business. I just go with what I feel and hope for the best, which is about all I can do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
ry this elok. before we knew wut held the moon in orbit say we assumed it was magic and divinely done by god.
therefore outside the realm of science.
then we figured it out, and all of a sudden OUR KNOWLEDGE CHANGED THE NATURE OF ITS EXISTANCE.
or how about another explanation, it was always that way and we just hadn't figured it out yet. |
Well, it's pretty odd that all the major violations of our current worldview occur at religious sites. Will a scientific revolution one day tell us that holy ground exudes unusual amounts of Jesus Rays or something? Do dead bodies of ascetics contain natural preservatives because of their state of mind in life? There have been scientific revolutions, but every generation since Newton has believed that a certain amount of energy is required to maintain a system, energy which things like the Church of St. Theodora lack. You can say that there's a scientific explanation for this, but bear in mind that you are essentially suggesting a perpetual-motion machine gathered around a group of Hellenic provincials with little or no scientific background, which has been functioning for over a milennium. So, by remarkable coincidence, a spike of immense but undetectable energy just happens to be holding a stone roof up in the air, while at the same time having no effect on the surrounding environment. But that's much more reasonable than a deity, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
You mention a few supposedly divine miracles, yet never look at the million of science-based miracles that we see every day. Your proof of the divine rests on a few ocurrances when your life revolves around nature every second of your life. It's unimaginable to me that being a witness to so many miracles each instant you chose to ignore that life revolves around science and instead cling on just a little evidence of divine existence. As I said before, use the same standards to discredit other theories to discredit your own. You'll find it much easier, and it won't be the truth you want to hear. |
It is the very nature of miracles that they are rare, bud. They break the mold of what we expect to see. Were my scant evidence more common, we would marvel to see a body that didn't last for centuries. And it's still evidence, little or no. Whatever you mean by "science-based miracles," I don't see how they work to disprove the existence of god. If you're referring to the day-to-day mechanics of reality, like chloroplasts soaking up light, hydrogen fusing in a star's core, or whatever, you're essentially arguing that our means of perceiving the universe disproves the unknown. That is what science is-a method of describing reality in terms of natural cause and effect. And, pseudo-mystical hyperbole aside, you haven't answered the bloody question I asked you before. Answer, and I will try to rejoice each time your eternal miracle produces a new and more efficient way for our spiritually depraved people to hurt each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Setting that aside, your argument works based on the assumption... |
Granted that humans are imperfect, but I've always figured that even after assuming that God is perfect and even after assuming that God grants aid when requested, it is still impossible for humans to behave perfectly (even after enlisting God's assistance) since God's divine aid is bound to be misread or misinterpreted (or whatever have you) by the fallible human. Attempting to enlist God's assistance strikes me as being more of a matter of intent than anything else -- when somebody inevitably ****s up even after enlisting God's aid, then God would recognize that the person had benevolent intentions even if they failed to effect said intentions, which puts the person in a much different boat than the fella with malevolent intentions. But, assuming again that God is perfect, it's safe to assume that God would recognize somebody's intentions regardless of whether or not they had actively prayed to God, which (unless one assumes that humans can infallibly read/interpret/etc. divine wisdom) puts the theist back in the same boat as the atheist, all things being equal.
All of which is meant to be directed, I suppose, towards the people on this thread who have said that they'd rather be around moral people (by whom they mean theists, or perhaps just Christians, or perhaps just Christians belonging to their particular denomination) than immoral people (by whom they mean everybody not in their club). Since you're not in this group, then I've no beef with you. I'm curious what you meant about our behavior seeming to be engineered to make us unhappy -- certainly some of my behaviors make me unhappy from time to time (e.g. if I desire to win a racquetball game but am not physically adept enough to defeat my opponent then I am disappointed in my performance (I am "unhappy")), but I can't think of any behaviors that do nothing but make me unhappy...
As for miracles, I won't categorically deny the possibility that they denote some sort of divine presence, but I do question our capacity to accurately label or interpret (or whatever) any kind of divine presence. For example, perhaps some bizarre scientific phenomenon is responsible for maintaining the Church of St. Theodora, perhaps the Christian Deity is responsible for maintaining the church, perhaps a group of leprechauns is responsible for maintaining the church, or perhaps any of an infinite number of different deities, demons, sprites, spirits, or miscellaneous supernatural presences is responsible for its maintenance. Regardless, I'll certainly agree that quite a few miracles are bloody interesting, at the very least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
If neither are reasonable then we categorize it into the "unknown" category until we CAN figure it out. Why put it into the "deity" category when we are still unsure of how the world works? |
Because you have to be pretty wilfully dense to see a variety of currently inexplicable, isolated incidents from diverse parts of the world, know that the only common thread is a shared religion, and just decide there's no connection so you can spite said religion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and holds up seventeen trees since the time of the Byzantine Empire like a duck, it's reasonable to say it's a duck, unless you have decided beforehand that ducks do not exist, in which case you argue that it's an unusual, scattered breed of flat-billed, swimming chicken, huh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Anyway, here's some spiritual stuff. Explain away:
The church of St. Theodora in Greece is a small building about the size of an old schoolhouse, containing a single chapel, all covered by a slate roof. That slate roof has seventeen trees growing out of it, which have been there for centuries. The trees, all together, weigh several tons, and are supported entirely by the church itself, i.e. all the roots go through the slates. Every engineer or physicist who has visited the church so far has declared it physically impossible, that such a small building hold up seventeen live trees, trees so large they barely fit on the roof(they actually mushroom out), for any period of time. I have photos of the church floating around my house somewhere. I could probably scan them and upload 'em if you want.
Also in Greece, the dead body of St. Spyridon has been resting completely intact in a glass coffin for several years. He died sometime in the late middle ages, I believe. The coffin is NOT airtight; for some inexplicable reason, the sandals wear out and have to be replaced regularly, meaning the coffin is opened about twice a year. The body is paraded through a nearby town for a festival every year, under the mediterranean sun, so I don't think it's a waxwork. It has not been mummified in any way. Several other saints have remained similarly "incorrupt," or nearly so, though few are as impressive as St. Spyridon. St. Raphael, the most recently canonized Orthodox saint, has been dead for about a century. Not only is he mostly intact, he smells like roses. Again, unmummified. He is buried at the Antiochian Village Camp in Ligonier, PA, though I don't think they'll dig him up to prove it to you.
Lastly, St. John Maximovich, who died in 1966, was observed levitating and glowing(as in, too bright to look at; photos show him as a blur) during Divine Liturgy several times. The photograph I saw of him showed a white streak floating about two feet away from several other people, which pretty much rules out pyrotechnics and fishing line unless the churchgoers all happened to be wearing asbestos suits that day. I realize it's possible to fake photographs, but bear in mind that this event was viewed by several thousand people all told, in several different churches around the country, in broad daylight in a large, open room. That's a lot of people to be all in on one conspiratory prank.
I believe for other reasons, but they're interesting to know all the same. |
Here's the problem I have with this stuff (not attacking anyone's beliefs, just saying what I thought):
Yahweh is an omnipotent and omniscient being, yet he seems to yearn, most of all, to be loved, respected, and, most importantly, praised. All that 'you cannot get into heaven by good acts alone, you must accept Jesus as your saviour' business. Why? Why is it so important for God to be accepted by that which he created? It smacks of the behaviour of, well, a human.
He gives us free will, and he stays out of our lives, for the most part. Some kid's got cancer? Too bad, them's the breaks, God will not interefere, just make sure the kid's a believer, and everything'll be alright in the afterlife. But when it comes to making trees grow out of a friggin' rooftop, ol' Yahweh has no problem sticking his nose in earthly affairs? What a strange double standard...
Lastly, a silly little question that I think results from a simple semantics mess-up:
quote:
St. Raphael, the most recently canonized Orthodox saint, has been dead for about a century. Not only is he mostly intact, he smells like roses. Again, unmummified. He is buried at the Antiochian Village Camp in Ligonier, PA, though I don't think they'll dig him up to prove it to you. |
If he's buried, how do they know he's perfectly intact and smells like roses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I'm curious what you meant about our behavior seeming to be engineered to make us unhappy -- certainly some of my behaviors make me unhappy from time to time (e.g. if I desire to win a racquetball game but am not physically adept enough to defeat my opponent then I am disappointed in my performance (I am "unhappy")), but I can't think of any behaviors that do nothing but make me unhappy... |
My favorite example is smoking. Tobacco is physically and psychologically addictive. It has been essentially proven to cause numerous diseases. It yellows teeth, lowers your athletic ability, and stinks like all get out. It costs a pretty big chunk of change nowadays. In return, you get a very mild stimulant, and you may fit in with a bunch of people who approve of you because you have fallen for the same trap they did. Hundreds of teenagers decide this makes sense every day. Granted, it's an extreme example. A more basic example is our elevating definition of happiness; no matter how much we have, we are always upset that we don't have more. In essence, such a desire is the belief that the universe should continuously expand for our amusement, which is unreasonable, but we all do it to some extent. Use your imagination-there are all sorts of things that come to us naturally and wind up screwing us over. Trolling, which deliberately irritates others to no benefit whatsoever. 1337, a mode of communication apparently designed for the express purpose of hindering communication. The love of gambling among those who are already rich, essentially risking something of value for nothing of value. Panicky fear of terrorist attacks that are much less likely to hit you personally than three bolts of lightning in a row. You get the idea. We're all kinds of stupid.
quote:
As for miracles, I won't categorically deny the possibility that they denote some sort of divine presence, but I do question our capacity to accurately label or interpret (or whatever) any kind of divine presence. For example, perhaps some bizarre scientific phenomenon is responsible for maintaining the Church of St. Theodora, perhaps the Christian Deity is responsible for maintaining the church, perhaps a group of leprechauns is responsible for maintaining the church, or perhaps any of an infinite number of different deities, demons, sprites, spirits, or miscellaneous supernatural presences is responsible for its maintenance. Regardless, I'll certainly agree that quite a few miracles are bloody interesting, at the very least. |
That's about all I honestly expected from anybody. I can respect that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Here's the problem I have with this stuff (not attacking anyone's beliefs, just saying what I thought):
Yahweh is an omnipotent and omniscient being, yet he seems to yearn, most of all, to be loved, respected, and, most importantly, praised. All that 'you cannot get into heaven by good acts alone, you must accept Jesus as your saviour' business. Why? Why is it so important for God to be accepted by that which he created? It smacks of the behaviour of, well, a human.
He gives us free will, and he stays out of our lives, for the most part. Some kid's got cancer? Too bad, them's the breaks, God will not interefere, just make sure the kid's a believer, and everything'll be alright in the afterlife. But when it comes to making trees grow out of a friggin' rooftop, ol' Yahweh has no problem sticking his nose in earthly affairs? What a strange double standard...
Lastly, a silly little question that I think results from a simple semantics mess-up:
If he's buried, how do they know he's perfectly intact and smells like roses? |
Well, to go from last to first, they were transferring his coffin to the Village(before he was regarded as a saint and canonized), noticed a rosy smell, smashed the old coffin open to investigate(incorrupt bodies are frequent signs of sainthood) and found a body where there should have been dirt and bones.
The theological explanation for suffering is that pain is a manifestation of the fall, that sorrow comes in spiritual and physical forms. I have no answer for how on earth that worked. In a sense, sin is the perversion of the natural order of things, because the devil isn't big on creativity, but all of history has been a tug-of-war, with God steadily turning bad to good even as Satan turns good to bad. Easter is biggest victory for good, insofar as it converted the decay of all life, death, into our entrance to paradise. But it's still a tough question. I don't know.
As for His desire to be worshipped, well, he may be sinless but it's no sin to be upset when your kids are a bunch of frigging ingrates. I don't believe we have the right to dictate who God will or will not send to Hell-that's his decision-but if you were Him, would you like it if all your people thought you were a big golden cow or something?
But then, again, I'm not God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
that should be gods, plural. There's no reason to leave out the others whom you, for whatever reason, choose not to believe in. While you're at it, you can include faeries, leprechauns and the whole gamut of supernatural beings.
AFAIK, no science or scientist has every claimed sole possession of all truth. Religions otoh... |
In other words, you didn't bother to check out the link. You simply spew out the programmed response that you have been taught in school. Read the book and get back to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
from Master Zen
So, just when something is missing there must be a reason for its existence? Hmm... so there must be sea monsters and dragons somewhere out there right?
Also, why must a "spritual" dimension not be science-based? Just because we many not be able to explain other dimensions which our current knowledge of science doesn not mean the unknown followes a divine constitution. There is only one constitution which governes the entire universe, it is science, and we haven't even begun to understand the first article.
|
A spiritual dimension would be science based if science could accept it. Science is about proof, testing, predicting and duplicating results. The spiritual phenomenon seem to not fit into any of those categories. I don't know squat about the spiritual dimension beyond the claims made by others. I think there is a good chance it exists but am certainly willing to admit to being wrong in the face of evidence to the contrary or if we can otherwise explain the anecdotal proofs.
I'm not sure what you mean about science being a constitution. Science is a method of discovery. If something governs the universe, its not science, but science will help us find it. I can think of three options for what governs the universe. They are God, chance, or natural order, maybe there are some others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Because you have to be pretty wilfully dense to see a variety of currently inexplicable, isolated incidents from diverse parts of the world, know that the only common thread is a shared religion, and just decide there's no connection so you can spite said religion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and holds up seventeen trees since the time of the Byzantine Empire like a duck, it's reasonable to say it's a duck, unless you have decided beforehand that ducks do not exist, in which case you argue that it's an unusual, scattered breed of flat-billed, swimming chicken, huh? |
Of course, the implication of this statement is that there are no "miracles" or scientifically unexplainable phenomena occurring anywhere but in Christian areas. That's a pretty bold assertion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
It is the very nature of miracles that they are rare, bud. They break the mold of what we expect to see. Were my scant evidence more common, we would marvel to see a body that didn't last for centuries. And it's still evidence, little or no. Whatever you mean by "science-based miracles," I don't see how they work to disprove the existence of god. If you're referring to the day-to-day mechanics of reality, like chloroplasts soaking up light, hydrogen fusing in a star's core, or whatever, you're essentially arguing that our means of perceiving the universe disproves the unknown.
|
You really do not pay attention to what I say. I say that we are unable to explain the unknown so it is foolish to categorize it by making it work of the divine. Are you so naive to just accept than unexplained phenomenons like miracles are works of god? Why not just accept that we don't know the answer to why they happen and get on with life? Not knowing something is not ignorance. Ignorace is giving the first lame excuse you can find to answer what you really don't know and that's what religions push down your throat.
quote:
That is what science is-a method of describing reality in terms of natural cause and effect. And, pseudo-mystical hyperbole aside, you haven't answered the bloody question I asked you before. Answer, and I will try to rejoice each time your eternal miracle produces a new and more efficient way for our spiritually depraved people to hurt each other. |
And I have not answered your question any more than you have answered it yourself. You say it is work of a deity. I'll say its the work of Jupiter's magnetic rays holding up a stone roof. Happy? Now I'm just as naive by inventing an answer to something I have no friggin clue about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
from Master Zen
The laws of science and the laws of math explain everything. From the composition of a leaf to the greatest feats of our mind. The scientific method is a tool, but science is a noun which refers to that complex machinery which is nature. I have never witnessed a miracle so I can truthfuly say that science has so far explained 100% of everything that has occurred in my life. |
Your use of the word science to mean what your describing is a bit confusing. I would suggest laws of nature vs laws of science. Science does not really refer to the complex machinery of nature. The entry for science in the dictionary is long, with several slight differences, but I didn't find any definition to fit that use.
I understand your position. I bounced around from being an atheist, agnostic and antitheist. Now I'm a theist, but i still question. \
quote:
from Master Zen
But why call another dimention "spiritual"? That's immediately categorizing something we don't know. Perhaps science will one day explain it, perhaps not. |
What else would you call a place where ghosts, demons, angels and God exist if not a spiritual dimension? Its my term for it. You might call it the realm of twisted superstition, but I like mine better. I question the existance of it, but there are people who testify to witnessing these phenomenon. People witness aliens too so you gotta be careful who you believe, but I can't rule them out for certain either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odd
|
|
São Paulo Brazil
Apr 2002
time: 02:27
|
|
I have been a die-hard atheist myself... until I realized that it was ilogical seeking to desconstruct religious beliefs, since my whole atheist position was based on the assumption that I did not had any knowledge about supernatural stuff. Because of that I did not had any motives to believe in god, but I also did not had any to believe in his non-existance.
In a nutshell: if you take out all the "NO"s of a militant atheist speech you´ll get a perfect christian preaching.
Later on reading some philosophy stuff I agreed that not only we cannot PROOF the existance of god, but we cannot be absolute sure of anything at all. The human being has an incredible ability to immerse itself in ilusions (hey I don´t live in an illusion!!! - as long as you believe in an illusion it´s not an illusion but reality for you, get it? You only perceive it as an illusion the moment you stop believing in it). All of us have some sort of faith, faith that you girlfriend or your mom loves you; faith that New Zealand actually exists and it´s not something invented by a government conspiracy, even if you had never been there; faith that all the things contained in your memory actually happened (these are very different things - "true reality" and what is in our memory)... I could go on and on...
So I think the most beautiful thing about science is that it does (or should) not have the arrogance of saying "I have the one truth", buy it says "so far this is the best explanation we could get about this phenomenon as we have perceived it". That way it can make a huge mistake (there have been many) and still be a valid answer, since it does not perceives itself as being infallible. Don´t take science as an alternative to religion, otherwise you´ll still have a religion - science. Science is NOT a replacement for religion, nor a substitute. There´s no absolute truth for science, no definitive answer. Be sure - many, many things stated by science that we believe in are wrong and are not real. But that´s not important as long as it´s useful for us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
from Urban Ranger
You are defining your god in such a way that it is unknowable, thus, it cannot be studied systematically, which is what science is.
However, it cuts both ways. Your god is unknowable, so anything you say about this god is just equally garbage.
|
God doesn't lend himself to scientific study, but that doesn't make Him unknowable. God reveals himself to people in many ways and many people will testify to the presence of God. You can say these people either make it up or delude themselves, but science is not the only way to gain knowledge. I think you are too quick to dismiss the power of revelation and direct experience.
Last edited by Frogman on 05-04-2003 at 10:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
science is the only rigorous way we have of figuring things out.
everything else is anecdotal or redneck logic. neither of which should ever be taken seriously.
so while there most definitely are things our current understanding can't explain. there most definitely is not an alternative to the scientific method.
and its pure and utter convenience to throw away the only real way we have of figuring things out simply because you claim in the first place that it doesn't obey the rules.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2003 04:00
|