ALL FULL MEMBERS CAN TURN THIS COLUMN OFF!!
To become a full member, and view more forums sign up on one of these! It sometimes takes a few hours to change your account.
Please contact Stan, after you register if you live in a developing Country or have other financial hardships, for a scholarship.
IF YOUR COUNTRY IS NOT LIST OR IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN NEW ZEALAND
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN AUSTRALIA
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN GREAT BRITAIN
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN EUROPE
- - - - - - - - - - -
LIVE IN MEXICO
* * * NEW * * * NEW * * * NEW * * *
|
|
|
#143783 - 11/03/07 03:03 AM
Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Immortality of the Soul—The “New Covenant Christians” Finally Show Their COLORS on the Subject
I was wondering whether the Ratzlaff theology led him and his followers to get the “complete package” of false doctrines of Christendom regarding not only the “abolished/fulfilled/changed” law of God (turned into a more “user friendly” sort of “Rule of Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”) but also the condition of the dead, and, bingo, the September/October 2007 issue of Proclamation! Magazine resolves my doubt.
The doctrine of pagan origin of the immortality of the soul, that Protestant theologian Oscar Cullmann says to be against both Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible, which “excludes all the Greek dualism of body and soul” (Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, pp. 29, 30), is also part of the deplorable package of false teachings that they adopted as they left Seventh-day Adventism, and proclaim it to poor disgruntled souls of mostly problematic Adventists, by what we can read in their “testimonies”. To confirm what I mean by my last statement, just see a segment of one of these testimonies of an ex-Adventist lady who now boasts having been set free to a real understanding of the gospel, as a member of an Evangelical church:
“I had been raising my daughter in a very non-Adventist way; we ate meat, watched whatever we wanted on TV during Sabbath hours, grocery shopped Saturday mornings, wore jewelry, and so on. I was determined my daughter would not grow up questioning God’s love and acceptance, as I had, feeling as if she could never measure up. I also determined she would understand His unconditional love, His mercy, and His grace so following Him would not seem to be an impossible burden. Therefore, even though I returned to the Adventist Church, I did not change anything else about the way we lived. Surprisingly, even with my background, I felt no guilt and knew that God loved and accepted me unconditionally”.
Later on, she speaks of her divorce (not giving details of what caused it. . .) and married a Baptist gentleman who, according to her report, she initially attempted to convert to Adventism, but, “I didn’t know my Bible nearly as well as he did and never won any debates”, she admits.
So, we have a supposed faithful Seventh-day Adventist that wasn’t well versed in the Bible and broke purposefully basic rules of the Church’s teachings, making a point of transmitting to her child those ‘liberalizing’ notions to prove that God accepts us unconditionally. Of course He does, for those who sincerely look for justification, but would He later on leave people practicing sin? No way, for the prophecy about Jesus was that He would “save his people from their sins”, and not WITH their sins (Matt. 1:21). Now, that lady’s concept of Christian education, is veeeeery strange, indeed!
Now, why did she select Sabbath breaking to prove that point? Couldn’t she choose to teach the poor little girl lying, stealing, blaspheming, coveting as well? If not, why not?!
Besides, after she became a Baptist, under the influence of the new husband, she doesn’t tell what happens, for according to the Baptist official confessional document, to go shopping and engage in one’s interests on the “Lord’s day” is a serious misdeed . . . But we will discuss that later on. Are she and the husband aware of that fact?
Back to the immortality of the soul issue, the internal front cover of the magazine brings a brief message by editor-amateur theologian Colleen Tinker where she makes clear her rejection of our position on the condition of the dead. Later on we see more of that in other articles, like the ridiculous “Understanding Adventist Terms”, full of distortions of our beliefs and sentiments, which curiously ends with a text that I would promptly quote to their authors, “theologian” Colleen Tinker and Jeremy Graham: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Mat. 12:36, 37). That applies specifically to those who distort meanings, ideas and convictions of others due to a prejudiced attitude of sheer rejection of whoever teaches “inconvenient truths”, like this thing of having to keep the Sabbath and being taught to abstain from certain foods and beverages.
But regarding the holistic view, what these people never mention is that the rejection of the traditional and popular concept of immortality of the soul is not only characteristic of Seventh-day Adventism. It has been more and more expressed by great Bible students and theologians, among whom we could mention the more recent Oscar Cullmann, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Emil Brunner, Paul Althaus, Karl Barth, Helmut Thielecke, as well as many more in the past, men of the greatest authority and reputation as scholars like the Bible translators Tyndale, Wycliff, Moffat, Weymouth and many more.
Even Martin Luther manifested himself against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, considering it a junk doctrine from Romanism to be thrown out. Even though he was not always consistent in his ideas, the fact is that even now the Brazilian Lutherans reject the concept of immortality of the soul. I have recently corresponded with a Lutheran pastor of the IECLB (Portuguese language acronym for Brazilian Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession), after I read an article in their website stressing the negation of the immortality of the soul idea. I sent him some of the material we have produced in our ministry, for which he much thanked me, calling it “precious studies”.
Speaking of “precious studies”, how about publicizing some of them for the benefit of our readers? That is what I will do some frames below.
We also have some thought-provoking questionnaires, which we submit to Mrs. Colleen et alii in the Proclamation! Magazine staff, not to the exclusion of their “guru”, Ratzlaff, of course. . . .
But I know they are not in the habit of answering our questions, even though on page 3, Mr. Ratzlaff invites people to write to him with Bible questions, informing a regular postal address for that end. Who knows that works better?! Yes, I will do that—I will submit to him, through regular mail, the many questions I addressed him (and editor Colleen Tinker) through the Internet, which were never answered. Let’s see if this way I am more successful. I will keep you posted about possible responses (or none of that, again. . .).
________
Note: For special studies on the subject of the human nature and destiny see the topics related to the subject, see studies:
* 10 Questions For Those Who Believe in the Immortality of the Soul
* 10 Specific Questions on the Foundation of the Bible Teaching on Man’s Nature
* 10 Topics That Demonstrate the Superiority of the Holistic View of Human Nature Over the Dualistic View
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#143786 - 11/03/07 03:10 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
10 QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL
1st. – Why does Jesus say to His followers that He would go to “prepare a place for you”, but the emphasis on the occupation of said abodes is not when they died and their souls went to heaven to occupy them, but the moment of their reunion with Him when He returns (John 14:1-3)?
Note: The popular opinion is that at death the deceased’s souls head to heaven, when they will meet Christ and all the others who went there before. However, it seems strange that Jesus says nothing regarding these abodes being available before the time of His return, implying that only then He will take His ones with Him to occupy said abodes.
2nd. – Why, when comforting the sisters of Lazarus, besides having used the sleep metaphor before—“Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep . . .”—He did not tell them that the deceased was in the heavenly glory, but pointed to them the resurrection hope (John 11:17-27)?
Note: Among the religious people it is so common to comfort the bereaved ones telling them how the deceased is well, happily enjoying the bliss of a better world far from the suffering and pain of this life. However, that is not the picture in the dialogue during Lazarus’ death, both on the part of Christ and that of his bereaved sisters. The theme of their conversation is not the supposed heavenly destination of the faithful follower of Christ, but the FUTURE resurrection of the dead ones.
3rd. – When Christ resurrected Lazarus, after His friend had been dead for four days, did He bring him from heaven, hell or purgatory? If it was from heaven, then He did a bad thing to him for He brought him back to this Earth’s suffering. If it was from hell (improbable, for he was a follower of the Master), He granted him a second salvation opportunity, which is unbiblical.
Note: The logic of this question is very clear: Lazarus rose from the tomb and brought no information about the afterlife. If he had something to tell, undoubtedly John evangelist would have the greatest interest and would be pleased to reproduce his words and testimony in his gospel.
4th. – Why both Christ and Paul stress that the dead ones will rise as they hear the voice of the archangel and the divine trumpet, being “awakened” from death’s sleep (Matthew 24:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:16), when their souls supposedly come from heaven, hell, purgatory, well awakened, in order to reincorporate?
Note: The sleep metaphor is constant both in the Old and New Testament, representing death. In the face of the clear texts that deal with the unconsciousness of the dead ones (who “don’t praise the Lord”—Psalm 115:17) it can be noticed why such metaphor is used, as in Psalm 13:3—“sleep in death”; in Daniel 12:2, many “who sleep in the dust of the earth”; John 11:11, “Lazarus has fallen asleep”; 1 Thes. 4:13, “those who fall asleep”; 1 Cor. 15:18, “those who have fallen asleep in Christ. . .” it’s because during death a condition of UNCONSCIOUSNESS prevails for those who died. Some more clear texts about that are: Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Isaiah 38:18,19; 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; Job 14:10-12; Jeremiah 51:39.
5th. – Why does Paul, as he discusses specifically and in detail in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15, how the final encounter of all saved ones with the Savior will be, nowhere describes souls coming from heaven, or from wherever, to reincorporate?
Note: As at the beginning of human’s history there is no “immortal soul” introduced in the original man, nothing is also said on souls coming from heaven, hell or purgatory to reincorporate when those who are gone appear during the resurrection.
6th – Paul also says to the Thessalonians that they should not regret for their dear ones who are “asleep”, concluding with the recommendation: “Therefore, encourage one another with these words” (vs. 18). He never says that they already enjoyed the heavenly bliss, but that were “asleep” and would be awakened. Why does the encouragement stem from the promised resurrection, not from the souls of their dear ones being already in heaven?
Note: This question is also of indisputable clarity. The consolation would proceed from the resurrection hope, not from the fact that those who “slept” would be already enjoying the heavenly glories.
7th. – Paul says clearly that without the resurrection of the dead—confirmed and guaranteed by that of Christ Himself—“those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost” (1 Cor. 15:16-18). Why would they be lost, since they should rather be guaranteed with their souls in heaven?
Note: The dominant theme of the chapter is the resurrection of the dead—“For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either” (1 Cor. 15:16)—thus the logic of the question is inescapable. In 1 Thessalonians 4:14 it is said that Christ will bring with Him "those who have fallen asleep", but the entire tenor of the passage and the global Bible teaching is that He will bring them, not from heaven, but from their graves (see John 5:28, 29; Daniel 12:2).
8th. – Later on in the same chapter, Paul confirms what he had said in vs. 16 a 18, stressing that he risked to die fighting beasts in Ephesus, implying that if he died he would also having be lost (vs. 32). In his commentary, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” isn’t he indicating clearly that without the resurrection there is no hope of eternal life?
Note: On the light of the previous question, this reveals an irrefutable evidence that Paul didn’t think of an “immortal soul” going to heaven when he died, for he didn’t harbor such a hope. His expectation is expressed in 2 Tim. 4:6-8 where he speaks that “on that day” he expected to receive his eternal reward. For Paul, were not for the resurrection, it wouldn’t even be worthwhile to live, since death would be the end of everything. It's interesting to see what vs. 30 and 31 say: “As for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day. . .” The idea of death/resurrection without anything in-between is very clear.
9th. – Why does Job speak of his hope of seeing his Redeemer “in my flesh”, when He finally “will stand upon the Earth”, not that he would see Him when his soul went to heaven (Job 19:25)?
Note: In chapter 14 patriarch Job applies a mortal blow on the belief in the immortality of the soul, comparing death with water from the sea that disappears and a riverbed that dries up. Now he stressed that he expected to see his Redeemer only when He stood upon the Earth (the 2nd advent of Christ), and when he had his body back, covered with his skin, not when his soul went to heaven.
10th. – Why do the words “soul” and “spirit” appear so many times in the Bible, in different meanings and contexts, but are never accompanied by the adjectives “immortal”, “eternal”, “perpetual”, besides the fact that instead of declaring that the soul will never die, what we read is about death of the soul, both in the Old and New Testaments (Eze. 18:4 and James 5:20)?
Note: An embarrassing fact to the dualist Christians is that no pagan people, either of the present or the past, is known as having renounced to their belief in souls and spirits (even attributing these to such things as volcanoes, rivers, forests, and animals) to believe that “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28, 29). The belief in the final resurrection of all dead ones is a characteristic of genuine Christianity, which doesn't accept notions of clear pagan origin. It is the result of the first lie uttered on this planet: “You will not die” (Gen. 3:4).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#143982 - 11/05/07 06:41 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 7372
Loc: CA
|
Thank you very much for your good posts here. I find the following argument particularly compelling in support of the concept of the non-immortality of the soul. I have never read a plausable explanation from those who believe the soul is immortal: 7th. – Paul says clearly that without the resurrection of the dead—confirmed and guaranteed by that of Christ Himself—“those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost” (1 Cor. 15:16-18). Why would they be lost, since they should rather be guaranteed with their souls in heaven?
Edited by John317 (11/05/07 06:42 AM)
_________________________
Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world... Surely some revelation is at hand;/Surely the Second Coming is at hand. W.B. Yeats
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#144405 - 11/11/07 01:29 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: John317]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
I also like the following question, and its "note":
8th. – Later on in the same chapter, Paul confirms what he had said in vs. 16 a 18, stressing that he risked to die fighting beasts in Ephesus, implying that if he died he would also having be lost (vs. 32). In his commentary, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” isn’t he clearly indicating that without the resurrection there is no hope of eternal life?
Note: On the light of the previous question, this reveals an irrefutable evidence that Paul didn’t think of an “immortal soul” going to heaven when he died, for he didn’t harbor such a hope. His expectation is expressed in 2 Tim. 4:6-8 where he speaks that “on that day” he expected to receive his eternal reward. For Paul, were not for the resurrection, it wouldn’t even be worthwhile to live, since death would be the end of everything. It's interesting to see what vs. 30 and 31 say: “As for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day. . .” The idea of death/resurrection without anything in-between is very clear.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#148509 - 12/22/07 05:31 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Hi folks.
See this:
And check these links:
http://www.saveoursundays.ca/
http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/index.html
http://cv.11.forumer.com/a/a-national-day-of-rest-save-our-sundays_post345.html
http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/WesternAustralia.htm
http://wa.greens.org.au/items/Media_Release.2004-10-26.1431
Now, I subscribed to the Forum of one of these sites and I transcribe below what I said there:
Speaking of pollution, how about all these ads that hackers are posting in this topic (and probably others)? I would urge the moderators to find ways of blocking these polluters, and no "carbon credit" acceptable. . .
As to what Carolyn said, I agree 100% with her. The idea of stopping everything one day a week is right, efficient and biblical. The idea is right, but THE DAY IS WRONG. The "Never on Sundays" idea may be good for a title of a Hollywood film, but not for the purposes of religious freedom for all.
Now, one thing is really worrisome: there are those religious people who are taking advantage of this world crisis to launch a "save the planet" campaign, by which they try to impose their agenda upon human society.
We have to face the common challenges that this crisis represent, but always respecting people's religious freedom.
Unhappily we know how history has this tendency to repeat itself. I heard that in Auschwitz, now a museum, there is a big poster in several languages saying, "NEVER MORE".
Oh, how wonderful if such ideal were really materialized among mankind. But the crude reality is that after Auschwitz we had Cambodia of Pol Pot fame, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, East Timor, and now Darfur. . . And if things are left alone in Iraq, shiites will do their ethnic cleasing job on minority sunis. . .
This religious campaigns we see under development in the US and other countries is worrisome, my friends, very worrisome, because behind the scenes there are vested interests of those who don't care for the small numbers of people who take seriously the ideals of stopping all secular and recreational activies one day a week, but do that according to God's command, not human convenience and dogmas of intolerant religious bodies.
May God have mercy on this poor battered planet, as well as on those faithful few who try to obey His commandment, keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, not the Sunday of pagan origin (the old dies solis--day of the Sun, of Roman Mithraism) that certain people are trying to impose as an inescapable law upon everyone.--Source: http://www.saveoursundays.ca/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=275#275
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#148830 - 12/25/07 12:29 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
One interesting note about my last post is that in one of these sites they are celebrating the fact that the well-known Walmart chain set an internal committee to study the feasibility of closing their stores on Sunday nationwide.
They hope that if Walmart does that, others will follow suit. . .
Let's wait and see. . .
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154247 - 01/28/08 06:38 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
The November/December edition of Proclamation! just brings much of the same stuff that we have already covered in the several articles in this series, nothing new—articles distorting the SDA doctrines and sentiments regarding the understanding of the Gospel message, beside twisting the meaning of the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, which is a dangerous enterprise in view of what Peter warns:
“. . . our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in hem of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable writes, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” – 2 Pet. 3:15-17.
Two articles have as basis the text of Colossians 2:16 and the objective of their reasoning is clearly to get rid of the Sabbath commandment, which is the leitmotif of all this ministry of deceit, even though they deny that.
Besides an article by Ratzlaff on the subject, Mr. R. K. McGregor Wright contributes with an article, titled “Nailed! The Law in Col. 2:10-13”, pretending to give the correct exegesis of the text. I addressed him personally in an e-mail and stressed how he had missed the point completely. Paul in the entire epistle of Colossians not once uses the term “law”, and what he deals with in his entire epistle is not any abolition of the law, but elimination of the guilt of a sinner forgiven by Jesus. He mentions the Sabbath and other legal principles just in passing, as he refers to some extremists that were disturbing the Christian community is Colossae.
Clearly Paul is addressing a local problem, not establishing universal principles. He refers to individuals of ascetics attitudes there who were acting among the Colossians, trying to impose upon them certain strange customs, including a certain and not well-known worship of angels. Mr. Wright replied to me even making fun of this explanation, saying in his e-mail: “This assertion is a rhetorical trick often used by liberals who want to get the focus off the point at hand (such as ‘God sends sinners to Hell’) onto some subsidiary issue (such as ‘God is love’) so that the central point is avoided, but not responded to”. With that he just shows how he missed the point again. . .
However, the fact is that nowhere else Paul discusses such teachings as “worship of angels” and people who wanted to impose upon the Christian community ideas of “touch not, taste not, handle not”, which Paul labels as “commandments and doctrines of men”. He would never refer to the Sabbath or any of the other Jewish rules utilizing this kind of language, because the Sabbath was not “doctrine of man”.
Besides, this people who use Col. 2:16 as a kind of “One-note anti-Sabbatarian Samba”, reminding the famous Tom Jobim’s bossa nova composition, can’t resolve certain serious problems in their biased interpretation:
A – If Paul’s intention is to teach freedom from Sabbathkeeping, he leaves nothing in its place. He simply would be discarding the principle of a day of rest for the Christian, which would be detrimental to one’s physical and spiritual life. See that he says nothing of then adopting any other day. . .
B – If Paul mentions rules which are “against us”, and the Sabbath is one of these things, that contradicts what Jesus said, that “the Sabbath was made because of man”, thus being for his physical and spiritual benefit. We saw how a physician, who happens to be also an Evangelical pastor, Dr. Michael Cesar, as a medical doctor exalts the principle of the Sabbath as a blessing provided by God for man. So, how could it be “against us”?
C – If Paul mentions the Sabbath commandment as a mere symbol of the salvation rest in Christ, he would be considering it a ceremonial precept. Well, we have our special study, “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is not a Ceremonial Precept”, which nor Ratzlaff or any other anti-Sabbatarian ever refuted. So, as long as it is not refuted, our arguments there prevail. This is the link that leads to the mentioned study:
http://foroadventista.com/index.php/topic,610.0.html
D – What Mr. Wright explained to me in his brief correspondence replying my e-mail, stressing that old allegation that the Sabbath is just the symbol of our rest of salvation in Christ, would the be what is found in Hebrews 3 and 4. That we have discussed already and left well proven that it is a wrong reasoning, for very good reasons we listed in the 8th surprise, in the text above, “10 Surprises for Y. Regarding Dr. Michael Cesar’s Anti-Sabbatarian CD”.
E – If the Sabbath commandment had a mere temporary, ceremonial, meaning, since it was something so important in the Jewish life, he wouldn’t miss explaining in detail its typological character, and he would elaborate in greater detail this special meaning of that principle in chapters 7 to 10 of Hebrews, which had that objective—to show how the shadows met the reality in Christ, thus abolishing those symbolic elements of the ceremonial law.
F – We have seen in our last studies how Ratzlaff is in the “wrong way” of what has been taught by the most authoritative confessional documents of the Protestant community along the centuries. Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptists’ different confessions (like that of 1689 and the one revised by Charles Spurgeon in 1855) point to the Sabbath commandment as valid and in force to the Church. Among the text that back the expositions of this tenet they quote Gen. 2:2, 3 (the Edenic origins of the Sabbath), Exo. 20:8-11 (the 4th commandment of God’s moral law), Isa. 58:13, 14 (how to keep the Sabbath, without secular or recreational activities along the time sanctified to God) and even Jer. 17:21, 27 (God’s punishment for breaking the Sabbath). Of course they reinterpret the commandment to apply it now to Sunday (which is an error), but the ideological basis of it remains.
G – We also mentioned that even now, the most representative Evangelical/Protestant leadership in the US is engaged in promoting the 10 Commandments among the Christian community as a national basis of conduct (already attracting international attention and support). Even a campaign to establish a “10 Commandments Day”--set for the first Sunday of May--is under way, something that goes against these theories of the Decalogue not being a Christian rule anymore, as Ratzlaff and his friends allege.
H – Bro. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s study on the text represents a much superior and scholarly approach to this text, and we are pleased to reproduce it here for everyone’s consideration. I think it is all we need to shut up the new collection of sophistries that this last edition of the referred to magazine presents. Enjoy it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Be sure to click on the free shipping at the checkout else you get charged.
|
|
|
12 Registered (Bob Carmin, Bravus, John317, Liz, magilly46, melvin mccarty, Taylor, 5 invisible),
34
Guests and
8
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
2842 Members
136 Forums
16828 Topics
156818 Posts
Max Online: 1237 @ 04/20/07 08:43 PM
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
