Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    I see you gave a long explanation to L67. I know he accepts what you say and that is why he is taking up the argument and I am explaining again to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    In truth, I am interested to see if you can find your way back to the world of reason and reality. So I look forward to your next post.
    I have not left the world of sanity, but I have come into your world of science and facts, devoid of spirit, faith and wisdom and that is the world I will leave behind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And while we are on the subject, let me tell you what needs to happen. We need to write LUCID and LOGICAL words that we can totally agree upon without any ambiguity. Like 1 + 2 = 3. If there is something we disagree about, we need to be able to EXPLICITLY state and AGREE upon the nature of our disagreement. We need to stand on a COMMON FOUNDATION OF LOGIC. This is the real problem in your posts. You consistently reject the most fundamental aspects of logic. You reject the law of the excluded middle. You reject logical implications of the form IF P THEN Q. This has made progress impossible.
    I agree and your formulation of the paradox was not as clear to me as you thought it was to yourself. Terms were not defined and that is part way to resolving an apparent paradox. So let's be clear on the terms in future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Do you understand? There is no reason we cannot ARTICULATE our differences with PERFECT CLARITY. That is the prerequisite for any progress.
    I understand this perfectly. In future, please do confuse the discussion by being too clever and bringing in unnecessary formulations.

    All the best,

    David

    PS. Since we have calmed down, the thoughts I had intended to post, I shall leave to another time and another thread.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67


    Even you have not quoted Richard's original words correctly. Richard said; "and yet angels could sin". Why did Richard have to use that phrase? When the wording as you have used and Richard used in order to have a "fresh start" was more acceptable, that is where we should have been at the beginning. The words "angels that sinned" is in the verse I quoted; why change them? Richard was not making his formulation any clearer than a formulation I did not make. I never stated the paradox in a single sentence. As I have explained following; the word "angels" is ambiguous and so the word must be defined or else as Richard likes to quote Voltaire;“If you want to debate me, first we must define the terms of our argument or there can be no meaningful debate.” That was the reason for not accepting the phrase; "and yet angels could sin". I am suspicious of the meaning Richard was using for saying; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no in my book.
    OMG. I can't believe you are this resistant to simple logic. Why did he use that phrase? Because it implies a contradiction David. How can you not see that? You said angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. Ok. Richard stated "It is a paradox if Gods will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin". In order to have a paradox we need a contradiction. So let's assume that God's will is done in heaven, "and yet angels could sin". Now we have a true statement that "God's will is done in heaven". The phrase "and yet angels could sin" contradicts our true statement therefore completing the paradox. How can you fail to see that? Logic dictates that is identical to your original paradox.



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You are making me repeat the explanation I have already given. I referred to the words which could be construed as a paradox. I did not change the words and put them into a sentence like Richard did and I was suspicious of the definition Richard was using. I have explained; to infer; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no and that why I would not accept those words which inferred that and any such words that might is the reason for having to explain them away. Like Richard, I do not expect you to see a paradox exists because Richard say the Bible teaches God's Angels sin. That is the supposition he is starting from and accuses me of having suppositions he does not agree with. When do suppositions stop being suppositions? Please answer that question.
    Because you keep having a breakdown of the english language. And when asked to formulate the paradox yourself you wrote something logically identical to Richards. It doesn't matter if Richard believes angles can sin. That is irrelevant to this dilemma because he is NOT saying any such thing.

    Read this David: THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language

    Do you see that David? Nobody is saying angels can sin. The only person who is hung up on that is YOU. The whole point of your original paradox is that angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. You have completely failed to recognize your own words and quitely clear don't understand them months later.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Are you able to have a conversation in which you cannot be insulting? I understand exactly what I am saying, if you cannot. I am not going to be deceived by "lying words". That is a warning from the Bible.

    Nice double standard David. You complain that I was insulting, and then you insult me.

    Lastly it is quite apparent you DON'T understand your own argument. I have demonstrated that above.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by L67
    David is there no end to your silliness? The word if in this case is not used as an uncertain possibility. The definition of if is:
    a : in the event that
    b : allowing that
    c : on the assumption that
    d : on condition that

    Richards paradox is as follows: It is a paradox IF God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

    Anyone of those defitions can be substituted for "if'. You can easily say that "it is a paradox in the event that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels sin.

    How can you be this stupid?
    Even you have not quoted Richard's original words correctly. Richard said; "and yet angels could sin". Why did Richard have to use that phrase? When the wording as you have used and Richard used in order to have a "fresh start" was more acceptable, that is where we should have been at the beginning. The words "angels that sinned" is in the verse I quoted; why change them? Richard was not making his formulation any clearer than a formulation I did not make. I never stated the paradox in a single sentence. As I have explained following; the word "angels" is ambiguous and so the word must be defined or else as Richard likes to quote Voltaire;“If you want to debate me, first we must define the terms of our argument or there can be no meaningful debate.” That was the reason for not accepting the phrase; "and yet angels could sin". I am suspicious of the meaning Richard was using for saying; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no in my book.
    David,

    I think I've isolated your confusion. There is no meaningful logical distinction between the phrases "and yet angels could sin" and "and yet angels sin." The "could" merely indicates that the action of "angels sinning" is possible but not necessary. It has nothing to do with the paradox per se. Either phrase is perfectly acceptable and no one who understands basic logic and the English would stumble over this point. Your comment is meaningless.

    You are showing the same kind of confusion that started this long twisted trail of confusion last September when you rejected my use of the word "yet." I had formulated your paradox into a single sentence for clarity, hoping it would make it easier for you to see the logic since you were obviously quite confused. Your answer blew my mind. Here's what you wrote in post #23 of the War in heaven thread (your words in red):
    David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. I am not saying; "and yet angels could sin" the word "yet" you have inserted implies they do. I am saying that it is a paradox to say God's Angels sin. My argument is God's Angels in Heaven cannot sin (the same as they do not sin on earth. It is "angels" which are human that sin on earth and human angels are not in Heaven..
    Your confusion here is so thick I knew it was unlikely that any explanation would help, so I had the brilliant idea of reminding you about the Law of Non-Contradiction so you would have to choose between P and Not P and so see that my formulation of the paradox was perfect and precise. So in post #24 I wrote this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,

    I don't understand your last post. Could you please tell me which of these two propositions you agree with?

    P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
    Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

    By the Law of the Excluded Middle (also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction), you must agree with one of those propositions, P or Not P.

    The Law simply states that for any proposition P, either that proposition is true, or its negation Not P is true.

    Thanks,

    Richard
    And to my utter astonishment, my effort failed and you answered by asserting that you don't reject the law of non-contradiction but that you do reject both P and Not P! Arrrrggg! My brain! My brain! Here is what you wrote:
    The law that you now state (above) I do not disagree with. I am rejecting both of your statements, because the paradox that is at the center of this present discussion does not exist.
    And it gets worse! Not only did you simultaneously affirm and deny the Law of Non-Contradiction, you went on to assert that the very paradox upon which you base your entire argument DOES NOT EXIST! Wow ... just wow. This is some deep mental doo-doo dude! We're talking some serious brain rot here. And it constantly gets deeper and deeper. It's like "fractal brain rot" that goes on forever.

    Now I understand why you say the contradiction does not exist. You have "resolved" it by saying that when Peter spoke of "angels that sinned" he was speaking about human messengers, not "God's Holy Angels" which are spiritual beings that cannot sin. I've understood that from the beginning. But this does not mean that the paradox "does not exist." It means you have RESOLVED the paradox to your satisfaction. Your assertions have been radically irrational, confused, and filled with logical contradictions and absurdities.

    So once I saw that you could not see and understand basic logical implications, I took it upon my scatological self to analyse the essence of your confusion down to the finest detail in post #27. I explained the meaning of the word "yet" and the word "if" and the nature of a logical paradox and you did not understand a word of what I wrote! I've repeated that post many times and you have consistently ignored it and shown no understanding of the most basic elements of logic and the English language.

    Here's the bottom line explanation: You constantly complain that we are "supposing God's Angels in Heaven can in" when we state the paradox and you REFUSE to make that supposition because you don't think it is true.

    And why don't you think it is not true? Because >>>IF<<< it is true, that is, IF WE SUPPOSE IT IS TRUE, >>>THEN<<< we have a CONTRADICTION. This is the essence of your argument that you posted many months ago. And now you are saying you cannot even state your own paradox because it doesn't even exist? This is deep brain doo doo David. Deep doo doo.

    So anyway, you have all the information you need if you ever want to educate yourself on how to understand logical implications. I'd be happy to help, but I certainly can't make you think if you are so adamantly opposed to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You are making me repeat the explanation I have already given. I referred to the words which could be construed as a paradox. I did not change the words and put them into a sentence like Richard did and I was suspicious of the definition Richard was using. I have explained; to infer; "and yet God's Angels could sin" is a no-no and that why I would not accept those words which inferred that and any such words that might is the reason for having to explain them away. Like Richard, I do not expect you to see a paradox exists because Richard say the Bible teaches God's Angels sin. That is the supposition he is starting from and accuses me of having suppositions he does not agree with. When do suppositions stop being suppositions? Please answer that question.
    The essence of a LOGICAL IMPLICATION is of the form SUPPOSE P IS TRUE. THAT IMPLIES Q IS TRUE. Folks who understand this are able to use the shorter form IF P THEN Q.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Are you able to have a conversation in which you cannot be insulting? I understand exactly what I am saying, if you cannot. I am not going to be deceived by "lying words". That is a warning from the Bible.
    David, you don't have a CLUE about what you are saying. You directly contradict yourself on many points. You don't understand the nature of a logical implication. You don't even understand the meaning of the words like "if" and "yet" and "could." You are radically confused. We've been discussing this ONE TRIVIAL ERROR for seven months. I have explained the meaning of practically every word needed, and yet you still are as clueless as the day we began.

    I do not enjoy telling you that your logic is fundamentally illogical, but I have no choice. And since you refused to answer for so long, and when you did answer you wrote radically insane confusion, I did let myself tell you exactly what I saw. I'm sorry if it felt "insulting" - that was not my purpose. My purpose was to find a way to ROPE YOU IN to the world of sanity. I had to use a "sharp instrument" like a whaler's spear to pierce your soul so I could drag you in from the sea of insanity. You have become my White Whale David. Call me Ahab.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I agree and your formulation of the paradox was not as clear to me as you thought it was to yourself. Terms were not defined and that is part way to resolving an apparent paradox. So let's be clear on the terms in future.
    Every word was defined with perfect precision. That was not the problem. The problem was that you didn't understand how to state a logical contradiction and how to use a contradiction to prove a point, namely, that "God's Angels can't sin." We've been going over this same error for seven months. I've explained every word from (if, yet, could, paradox, etc.) and you still show no understanding. I've never encountered anyone as resistant to basic logic as you.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I understand this perfectly. In future, please do confuse the discussion by being too clever and bringing in unnecessary formulations.
    When you say that my formulation of your paradox was "unnecessary" you prove yet again that you don't understand anything that we've been talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    PS. Since we have calmed down, the thoughts I had intended to post, I shall leave to another time and another thread.
    If we are talking calmly, why leave?

    I would like to see if you will EVER admit your error. I get the impression that this is what is disabling your brain. Your pride will not allow you to admit your error, but logic will not allow you to deny it. You apparently have chosen to sacrifice you mind in service of your pride. Can you see how very serious this is?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    OMG. I can't believe you are this resistant to simple logic. Why did he use that phrase? Because it implies a contradiction David. How can you not see that? You said angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. Ok. Richard stated "It is a paradox if Gods will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin". In order to have a paradox we need a contradiction. So let's assume that God's will is done in heaven, "and yet angels could sin". Now we have a true statement that "God's will is done in heaven". The phrase "and yet angels could sin" contradicts our true statement therefore completing the paradox. How can you fail to see that? Logic dictates that is identical to your original paradox.
    I'm glad I'm not alone. I wonder how many witnesses must stand up before David will admit his error?

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Because you keep having a breakdown of the english language. And when asked to formulate the paradox yourself you wrote something logically identical to Richards. It doesn't matter if Richard believes angles can sin. That is irrelevant to this dilemma because he is NOT saying any such thing.

    Read this David: THAT IS THE PARADOX YOU SAID I HAD TO RESOLVE! That is the paradox you say implies angels cannot sin! You didn't understand your own argument. Everyone knows that you "are not saying 'and yet angels can sin.'" DUH! That is the POINT of your paradox! You are saying that IF angels could sin, then there would be a contradiction because God's will is done in heaven (where angels are). That is exactly what I stated! How is it possible you could fail to understand this? It's nothing but the most elementary logic stated in the clearest possible language

    Do you see that David? Nobody is saying angels can sin. The only person who is hung up on that is YOU. The whole point of your original paradox is that angels can't sin if God's will is done in heaven. You have completely failed to recognize your own words and quitely clear don't understand them months later.
    I've been repeated this words, and a thousand variations of them, for seven months and David has never shown any understanding at all.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I'm glad I'm not alone. I wonder how many witnesses must stand up before David will admit his error?
    Hmmm.... that is a good question. I'm not sure it will happen. Thankfully the truth is never a lost cause. I love inspirational quotes and stumbled upon this one. It just seems so fitting.




    An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

    Mahatma Gandhi
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    What started off in this thread discussing a paradox; a contradiction. This has spilled over into other threads and has descended to an argument over grammatical English and the two words used together; "and yet". Since Richard has brought this up again, I thought my reply to Richard's reply in another thread should be brought back into this thread.

    Here we continue to resolve the paradox that Richard has said he has stated with perfect precision. That is a claim I rejected from the beginning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I had stated your paradox that is at the core of your entire argument with perfect precision, yet you rejected it. Specifically, I had presented it as follows:
    David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
    Another variation of the paradox to generalize it by Richard failed in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    P = "If God's will is done in location X then beings in location X cannot sin."
    The problem with that generalization is that we have two variables. The first variable is X and the second is BEINGS. For the first variable X we have two locations; earth and Heaven. The second variable, we have humans and God's Angels. God's Angels can be on earth and in heaven and in both locations do God's will. Humans on the other hand are on earth and cannot be in heaven. On earth God's will is both done and not done and there is only one man who has ever done God's will completely and that was Jesus (God's only begotten Son).

    Since at the beginning, Richard said I had stated the paradox clearly, he then proceeded to reformulate the paradox and I disagreed with his formulation. It is time to start anew. We can take a new approach and complete the following sentence in the most succinct and precise way; “The paradox is ........”

    The paradox is based on two verses of the Bible. 1. (Matthew 6:10 )Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 2. (2 Peter 2:4) The angels that sinned.
    Do these two verses constitute a paradox (contradiction) or not? Is the paradox real or imaginary, true or false?

    Here is what I think is the shortest summary of the paradox.

    David M - The paradox is; God’s will is done in Heaven and God’s Angels sin.

    For those reading, who do not comprehend why that is a paradox in the Bible, then I will expand.

    David M - The paradox is; God’s will is done in Heaven by God’s Angels, which are in Heaven, and God’s Angels sin, thereby not doing God’s will in Heaven.

    The contradiction is clearly stated. If anyone can improve on that and state it better, please do so that we can find an agreeable set of words.

    The challenge to Richard is now to complete the sentence; The paradox is...

    After we agree a form of words that states the paradox, we can move on and Richard can then explain in this thread, why he does not see a paradox (contradiction) exists.



    David

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271
    As if this thread needs any more confusion added to it, I was reading some of the arguments that have taken place over the last several months and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible that angels (whether in heaven or elsewhere) can sin without God's will being broken. 1 John 4:8 is not describing one of God's attributes, it is stating His foundational nature. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.


    How do the scriptures describe love?

    1 Cor 13:4-5

    Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

    Does love seek its own will? Will it bear contradiction and apparent powerlessness? Will it endure frustration?

    I believe that God has stated things in the bible describing what His will is, but part of His will may be to demonstrate to us that He is willing to suffer by not enforcing it, perhaps in this way effecting a change in those who oppose Him by showing them that one doesn't have to be enslaved to always getting things their way. I also have read some commentaries that make a distinction between God's "will" and His "plan". In His dealings within "time", His will can be thwarted (in 1 Cor 13:5 "seeking, bearing, and enduring" all have to do with time). But as to His eternal purpose or plan, He wins. His "will" may be to get there directly, but He is willing to be thwarted from that and get there in spite of apparent opposition.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Silence
    Thank you for joining in this thread. I agree with most of your comments especially those concerning God’s will and God’s plan. I do not agree that God’s Angels sin and I will give my reasons again for saying that. All the evidence in looking up all the verses associated with God’s Angels leads me to conclude they do not sin. Here is some of the scriptural evidence to support this view.

    The resurrection leads to eternal life, the same as God’s Angels have immortality already.
    Concerning the resurrection, Jesus said(Matt 22:30); For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    The Angels in Heaven behold the face of God (Matt 18:10) Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
    To behold God’s face, Angels cannot be sinful. Humans are not permitted to see God’s face for they shall die. God said to Moses (Exod 33:20) Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
    Angels can see God’s face, but man cannot, because he is sinful.

    (Psalm 103 :20) Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. 21 Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure.

    The Angels are ministering spirits (Hebrew 1:14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

    Further more in this chapter of Hebrews, we read this of Jesus (Heb 1: 9); But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,

    Jesus was sinless, and the same as man, was made lower than the Angels. The emphasis here is that Jesus as a man was destined to die.

    The Apostle Paul writes (1 Cor 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

    It has already been concluded that the resurrection leads to eternal life and God’s Angels are immortal. This means that humans, which are made of flesh and blood are not of the same substance as God’s Angels, until after the resurrection. The invention by man that God’s Angels had sex with women goes against what scripture tells us. The sons of God in Genesis 6 are not God’s Angels.

    God’s plan

    Humans have tried to bring about God’s plan, even those counted as righteous. For example, Abraham and Sarah pre-empted the time when Sarah would conceive and so Abraham at Sarah’s instigation had a child by Hagar, Sarah's handmaid. Even so, God made a great nation starting with that child but not the nation God had planned for the child that Sarah would give birth to.

    Jacob was not patient to wait for God to give him Isaac’s blessing and receive his birthright and took deceptive actions to trick Isaac into giving him his blessing.

    We can wonder how much of what happened was under God’s control from the beginning. Whatever God speaks, his word is acted on and does not return to him void (Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

    Where is there a verse that contradicts that statement? God’s will, which is under his control will be done. Jesus had to make a conscious effort to do God’s will and not his own, and so Jesus was submissive to God’s will. Jesus said (Luke 22:42); Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (John 6:38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

    Jesus tells us what the will of God is (John 6:40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

    God’s ultimate goal for the earth is for the earth to be filled with his glory and whilst man is sinful, God’s glory does not fill the earth. God is not all and in all, while man is sinful.

    All the best
    David

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271
    Hi David,
    In Matthew 22:30 immortality is not the comparison being made. The comparison is between the way life is lived by man in this age and how it will be in the next age. Marrying and being given in marriage is done by mankind in this age, but not then. This verse also refers only to the angels in heaven. There are many times where a subset of angels is implied, such as in this verse along with others like 1 Timothy 5:21 ("elect" angels, so some are not elect), Matt 25:31 ("holy" angels, so some are not holy?), Luke 12:8 (angels of God vs. angels of the dragon in Rev 12:7?). There are angels of fire, angels of the waters, and the angel of the abyss.

    I know you do not think that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is referring to angels or spiritual beings. I do. The only times the Hebrew phrase "Ben-ay ha- Elohim" is used is in Genesis 6 and the book of Job. In the book of Job the sons of God are present when the foundations of the earth were laid, before the creation of man.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •