Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
? to all the people that believe in the b |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 2345> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||
Aelfgifu 
Caliph 
Joined: 25-Jun-2006 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 3387 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: ? to all the people that believe in the bPosted: 12-Feb-2007 at 08:25 |
|||||||||
But if I would study deeper into climatology, I would undoubtly find evidence that what the climatologists are saying is true, or that they were wrong. As they base their theories on research of facts, their findings can be either proven or disproven. But if I would study religion in depth, I would find that it is just based on assumption and blind faith, because there is no factual basis for it. After all, faith is at the basis of religion.
If people want to believe in it, that's totally fine, but it doesn't do it for me.
It's not that your not supposed to understand it's that you don't need to understand, as long as what you do doesn't harm anything important.
I do not understand this line... Are you saying that you can believe whatever you want as long as you dont harm anyone with it? True, but not a good point in defence of faith. Or do you mean that as long as the spiritual leadership is good, the people can follow them blindly? Also true, but very very dangerous from an ethical point of view. I think it is absolutely vital that everyone does understand what he or she believes in. Faith I can accept, blind faith is unacceptable. An example: "That man has studied the subject and you have not, so he knows better than you" is the exact answer a former friend gave me when I disagreed with her about her choice to trust in a quack instead of a certified doctor. Not a very good argument, wouldn't you say? Edited by Aelfgifu - 12-Feb-2007 at 09:00 |
||||||||||
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 19:08 |
|||||||||
Not really. People began to criticize the accuracy of the Bible since the Age of Enlightenment. But as science and archeology advances... they are slowly admitting how accurate the Bible is. Many world class scientists and archeologiests are being converted into Christian. And the foundation of science that we know today mainly the works of religious people who believed that science was another language of praising the divine God.
Pyramid of the Ramsesse when Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt showed some interesting evidence that proves the accuracy of the Bible. As some may recall, Ramsesse provided the straws for the Hebrews to use in order to make bricks. When Moses came to urge his people to be freed, he was not happy. In fact, he showed his anger by ordering that Hebrews must now collect their own straws... Well, the study of the bricks used in his pyramid shows that as the layers of pyramid went higher, the straw components in the bricks were less concentrated than the lower layers. Many believed that Roman's order for every Romans and her subjects to count their number of families and report was ignored as made up stories. After studying Roman laws, the world archeologists concluded that the Roman authorities actually did this. In fact, such census have taken place every 14 years. Ancient civilization of Hittite was mentioned many times in the Bible, and many disregard it as Biblical myth. The archoleogical digs not too long ago discovered several cities (Including the capital city) of the Hittite. I could go on and on if I have to...
Have anyone wondered why the Bible, unlike many other religious books, gave so many details that just seems irreverent. Why not just get to the point? It could save papers, efforts and (For modern days) it could save some memory spaces in the harddrives. Bible is a realiable source that is slowly gaining credibility in the field of science and others... including math! The Bible is among the first earliest books to mention that the skilled people of Carthage used pie (Math term) to accurately build the temple that Solomon designed. Many professional people (Scientists, archeologists, professers) who rejected the Bible in the beginning admits that they did not make careful investigations to reserach and make careful conclusion. And let's face it, the Bible must be wrong. You do not see a man returning from the dead. You do not sea a man waving his walking stick and the sea splits in half. This is, from my point of view, a careless and rude reaction. Imagine you and your friends spent all their life dedicated to write a researched paper and when you handed in, with swelling pride, the teacher scoff that your essay without even reading it... since the first sentence mentions something that makes no logical sense... so he gives you 0.
Let's be honest. How many of you that believe in Bible actually read the Bible? How many of you that does not believe? Just because it makes no sense to your 3 pound brain does not mean it's not true. Einstein's Theory of Relatively should not make sense to any AE members (Those that truly understand it and can explain it fully, well... congradulation. But you get the idea) but I can assure you that it is real because when a nuclear warhead strikes to you, you will feel the Einstein's theory as the atoms split and convert the lost mass to energy. Lots of energy.
|
||||||||||
Join us. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
JanusRook
Sultan 
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2419 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 01:45 |
|||||||||
By trying to understand religion and our own faith, and trying to become closer to God. Sorry that statement got a bit convoluted, it made perfect sense in my head but looking back on the statement it seems like I'm advocating religious genocide or something. Which I'm certainly not, although I believe I am advocating religious extinction, "survival of the fittest" kind of mentality, the false religions in time will die off and the real religion (since it would have to be supported by God) will survive.
Of course faith is the basis of the religion, but there is also logic involved (at least hopefully) and this is what theologians do, they take statements of faith and logically try to reduce them to their basic ideas and if those ideas aren't contrary to the laws of the universe and the logical reasoning is sound, that statement of faith carries more weight than say "seven literal days of creation". Again I agree it's all a matter of faith.
As long as you live your life in a manner that is respectful and loving of others then you don't need to understand the nuances of religion, because realistically you are 'living the faith'. I think that this is the ultimate defense of religion, because if you said that in order to lead a religious life you have to follow all of these specific tenants then every religious person would be a hypocrite because we aren't perfect, we screw up, and it isn't up to men to determine how egregious our transgressions are. This is what I mean when it's not necessary, its preferable that you do understand your religion so that you can make better decisions during the course of your life.
I also agree with this, it's like a parent-child relationship. The parent looks out for the well being of the child, even if the child doesn't understand what taxes are, what a seatbelt is used for, or why they lock their doors at night. Wouldn't you agree that in this case the child should just blindly follow the parent's advice? On the reverse side of this, (and why I agree this is dangerous) if a parent is abusive the child should no longer listen to the parent. The same is true with a church, if the leadership isn't looking out for the well being of the congregation then they shouldn't be followed blindly. This again is why it is important for at least a few to understand.
True but that's why you have credentials, in the case of the doctor, if he got his degree from Bahamas University, I would be extremely suspicious, but if he had a good record with his patients in comparison to other doctors in the field I would still go to him. Same in the case of religious studies, if you go to the homeless man on the street corner preaching "The end times." then you are getting a "quack". However if you go to a Quranic scholar of 30 years who has written multiple articles on the Sharia and is praised by muslims everywhere for his piety, then you are getting a "cancer-specialist type of doctor". ....Back to your specific reference, if you had studied medicine you could have pointed to your friend specifically what was wrong with what the quack said, instead of what you saw as generally wrong. To make another religious example, you wouldn't need much training in religion to find the references in the Da Vinci code ridiculous, yet many people believe in that quackery. |
||||||||||
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 3387 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 05:09 |
|||||||||
|
Pekau, I'm sorry but I very much disagree. The more we learn about history, the more it is shown that the Bible is wrong on any historical matter. To take your example: There is no evidence at all (and the number of straws in a pyramid is no evidence in whatever sense of the word) neither historically or arhaeologically that the Jewish nation was ever in Egypt or has ever left it en-masse.
In fact the Bible mixes up so many dates, facts, rulers and events it is historically hardly any more reliable than the Saga of the Volsungen.
All religious historians I know take the Bible as a methaphorically meant writing. But this whole issue does not matter to religious belief at all: the historical accuracy of the Bible is completely irrelevant to the queston of faith. We know that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is historically accurate, but it does not make people believe in the eternal thruth of Viking Invasion.
Your remark that the amount of detail in the Bible suggestt authenticity is also not too convincing. The Illias is also full of irrelevant detail, that does not make it the truth.
And I although I agree that there is a fair number of things my three pound brains will probably never get, it does not mean that anything is true or false because I do not get it. The fact that I do not understand the relativity theory does indeed not mean it is false, but that I do not understand the theory behind Star-Trek warp power does not make it true.
But just because the fundamentals of faith do not contradict the fundamentals of the Universe does not make it any more believable... (besides, this is rather arguable: miracles as in making people coming back from the dead do contradict the fundamentals of the universe...)
Yes it is faith, and that doesn't work for me, but it does for you, so we are both happy as we are then...
True, but what I meant is that if you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others with it is not a good defence for any specific faith. After all, this theory can be used in defence of every religion or belief, including my atheism. I do not hurt others by being an atheist, I can do things like caring for my fellow human being and living a decent life without being religious. After all, you don't have to be religious to be consiencious.
I think quite a few have to understand what they believe in. In a democracy, everybody can vote. I think that as a consequence, everyone has to know politics enough to realise what their vote means. To take a rather extreme example: One of the main points of the German National-Socialism in WWII was that people should not think for themselves but do as their leaders told them. When confronted with the crimes committed in this period, the only defence they had was "wir haben es nicht gewusst' and 'befehl ist befehl'... People always should know what they believe in to make sure their leaders stay trustable. That is what the trias politica of all western nations is based on, so why not faith?
"Others in the field" would in this case be other quacks, as the field was not an scientifically accepted one. The doctor told her that she was indeed overweight (partially because a bad gland) but that she only needed to abstain from sugar. This in itself was no problem with me, but he also told her that she could eat as much fat as she wanted to and that unrefined sugar was also ok. That is bull. This man was giving her advice that could serously damage her health.
Oh, I really did not need any medical training to see what is wrong with his advice, just a little common sense would do, but like I said, whenever I tried to point out the obvious errors in his theory, she would give me the quoted reply. End of discussion.
I dont... I thought that book was the dissapointment of the century.  Edited by Aelfgifu - 13-Feb-2007 at 05:37 |
||||||||||
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
gcle2003
King 
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 07:21 |
|||||||||
Everybody has ALWAYS thought the Bible is accurate in places: there has, for instance, always been plenty of evidence of the Babylonian captivity. And no-one as far as I know has ever denied that Jerusalem was the capital of Judaea, or that the two Herods mentioned were historical characters, or that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea under Tiberius.
But to give the impression that people are finding the Bible to be more and more accurate is ridiculous.
This discussion is more easily carried on in Jewish terms. What you presumably call the Old Testament has always in Judaism been seen as three separate collections: that's why it is referred to as the Tanakh - an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim - respectively the books of the law, the books of the prophets, and the 'writings'. The Ketuvim are then divided into subcollections including the histories (Kings, Chronicles, etc) and purely literary (Proverbs, Song of Solomon, etc).
The histories reflect an oral tradition of Jewish history, which, not surpringly, is more accurate the closer it gets to the time of the earliest written versions we have - Maccabees is probably the most historically accurate of all. It basically consists of things for which there is outside historical evidence, plus things for which there isn't. So it can't be surprising that occasionally evidence is found confirming, or in line with, stuff in the histories.
That happens in all traditions. I'm pretty sure that if any of the Indians among us happen to read this, they would be happy to give examples from Indian tradition.
But none of that goes any way to improving the chances that the other sections of the Tanakh are true - though of course for writings like Job or the Song of Solomon, literal truth has nothing to do with it.
But the vast majority aren't.
And anyway it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is doing it.
Not me.
The Tanakh is a mixture of all kinds of different sources. The books of the law lay down rules and regulations for conduct, just like similar codes in other regions. Then there are all sorts of poetic and fictitious tales that don't particularly pretend to be historical, but just point a moral - and the Jews were and are a culture that used parables a lot. Then there are the equivalent of, say, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which are histories (accurate or otherwise).
So what you have is almost the entire literature of the Jews bound in one volume - as if you were to bind together the Homeric epics, a few plays by Euripides and Aristophanes, a collection of the laws laid down in various Greek city states, Xenophon and Herodotus, and some works by Aristotle and Plato and call the whole thing one book.
And the accuracy or otherwise of Xenophon and Herodotus would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of of Aristotle's or Plato's philosophies.
Just as the fact that the considerable historical accuracy of the Sherlock Holmes stories (far more than the Bible) doesn't prove that Sherlock Holmes existed. Or that the stories ever happened.
Me. At considerable length. Starting when I was a child and continuing to now. In various versions.
Of course I have also spent time studying the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagavadgita, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Homeric myths, the Bok of the Dead and many others of equal validity.
Somehow I doubt you have.
I would hope that most AE members are fully capable of understanding Einstein's two (not one) theories of relativity.
It's not anyway a question of making sense. The fact that something makes sense isn't particularly important to its validity. For instance, continuing your analogy, Aristotle's laws of motion and Newton's theory of gravity all make sense. But they're not true.
Afterthought: Showing that something is not incompatible with an assertion, as with your example of the straw, doesn't contribute to proving it true. Edited by gcle2003 - 13-Feb-2007 at 07:27 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
JanusRook
Sultan
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2419 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 09:22 |
|||||||||
Yet with current technology defibrilators give an electric shock which makes the heart beat again, and science has shown that people can be thought dead when they really aren't, such as haitian vodoo priests creating zombies. What many people considered dead in the past, we would now consider "critical condition" or dying. Besides we are to believe that Christ is the incarnation of a being that exists outside of our current space-time. Your telling me that such a being wouldn't be able to manipulate matter in such a way as to change it. Of course this is where faith and science split, since we get into the no-evidence available mantra.
True and under my beliefs as long as you lead a righteous life you will attain salvation with less soul-cleansing.
Aha! But how many people actually know what their representatives stand for. Ask any random person and you will find either a. they don't know who represents them or b. what they stand for besides a few basic issues. I'm not sure how it is in the Netherlands, but American voters really don't know enough about the issues to warrent "universal suffrage". Anyway, I think this is a good analogy for religion, you really want people who know things about the subject to install your leaders, but in reality the majority of the people might as well draw names out of a hat.
We do have a secondary source, it's called the Bible (or any Holy Book for that matter) and Church Tradition, if a current spiritual leader goes way out of bounds on either the book or the tradition then the populace can see that they are not "trustable".
Yeah, that's pretty bad. I guess the only religious counter I can give to that are cults of personality that fade away once the leader either dies or abandons his followers. Like suicide cults, and such.
If this was a religious situation the only advise would be to pray for them, since hopefully once they realized the truth they wouldn't have done anything too bad. I mean once your friend realized she wasn't losing any weight, she stopped believing in the quacks right?
I never suggested you did, obviously. But yes I am glad to hear that there is one more intelligent person in the world. I mean, it wasn't even original, they copied some other guys work without any shame.
I assume glce you mean that they aren't because they all ready considered themselves christians? Even if they didn't consider themselves "practicing christians"? |
||||||||||
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 11:02 |
|||||||||
Correct assumption. The point I was answering was the claim that many scientists are being converted to Christianity by the discovery that more and more details of the Bible are historically correct.
People who were born Christian, brought up Christian, or converted to Christianity for other reasons obviously shouldn't be included, any more than those who belong to other religions or are atheist or agnostic. Which must add up to the vast majority of scientists.
Personally I very much doubt that any scientists have been converted to Christianity by discovering that some part of the Bible was historically accurate. Edited by gcle2003 - 14-Feb-2007 at 11:03 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 11:07 |
|||||||||
|
Some have been converted to Christianity by observing science though, which I find quite interesting.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 11:28 |
|||||||||
|
If there was a God, we can presume he would be perfect and his thoughts would also be perfect as to think of imperfections would be an imperfection itself. If therefore, God created us in his perfect image we must be perfect but as religion tells us, we must not think of ourselves as being as perfect as god. This is another great hypocrisy of religion. If we are imperfect something perfect could not have created us!
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 15:03 |
|||||||||
They've also been converted to Buddhism via the same path. And I've no doubt at all that other religions can make the same claim.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'observing science' but if you mean studying the universe as revealed to us through scientific investigation then that has accounted for many religious experiences, not just Christian ones.
But you can't believe all you hear. Einstein slipped up once and mentioned 'God' and then had to spend the rest of his life indignantly denying that he believed in any kind of personal god. But still the rumour doesn't get damped out that he believed in God.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 17:49 |
|||||||||
Let's put this Einstein issue behind us once and for all. Here is what he said on the issue-
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Now! No more of this nonsense! |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 19:29 |
|||||||||
True. Although the period of history at the time of Pharoh Merneptah (c1224 BC) is a period that an exodus could have occured in.
And, um, what would these obvious errors be exactly? You shouldn't attempt to apply common sense to science, too often I find it leads you to a mistake. I haven't studied nutrition, although others in my family have, and if I remember correctly, refined sugar is much worse for you than unrefined sugar or fat regarding putting on weight. So this "quacks" advice actually looks to have a solid scientific foundation. Unless of course you listen to the pharmacuiticals and alopathic medicine boards and don't consider nutrition to be a science (which is a load of nonsense |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 21:47 |
|||||||||
|
If you apply common sense to science then you won't believe much of it.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 23:43 |
|||||||||
Depends on the science but essentially yes. Common sense is often wrong. Its uncommon sense you need to understand the world. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Eondt
Earl 
Joined: 23-Aug-2006 Location: South Africa Online Status: Offline Posts: 279 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 02:40 |
|||||||||
I haven't studied nutrition either but I do suffer from diabetes and have read up alot on nutrition. Unrefined sugar is definately worse for you than refined when it comes to putting on weight. It has to do with the Glycemix Index. Unrefined sugar (carbohydrates) takes a bit longer to enter the blood. If you don't immediately burn the carbohydrates that enter your blood, the body transforms it into fat. Therefore if you're an active athlete like a runner, refined sugar is fine for you. If you're not so active, try to eat foods where the carbs enter your blood at a slower rate. Fat, although bad for you regarding cholestrol does nothing to your blood sugar, so perhaps his advice was in context to a blood-sugar problem?
PS. Sorry for side-tracking the thread
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 3387 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:13 |
|||||||||
|
We did get sidetracked a bit yes...
On the nutrition point:
People with overweight are at a risk for diabetes (type 2 I think) because this type is caused by immunity of your body to insuline. It is the same as with all types of immunity: overexposure causes it. Eating lots of sugar causes your body to make lots of insuline. If you do it too much, you will become immune to it and the insuline will not work (or will not be made, I'm no expert either so don't pin me down on the exacts). As unrefined sugar goes from your digestive system into your blood a lot faster, and all at once, it causes insuline spikes. So it is bad for your health in that respect.
And then of course there is the fact that if you do not start some pretty intensive sporting right after, the sugar will be turned into fat for storage. This goes for any form of sugar, carbs or fat: if you don't burn it, it will add on to the love-handles. Overweight is very seriously unhealthy because of the strain on your organs and the damage to bloodvessels and such.
Telling an already overweight person that she can eat all the fat and unrefined sugar she wants is extremely bad advice for her health. But whatever, it is none of my concern anymore. About a year ago she decided to post her true opinion of me on her blog and I then decided I was not interested in any further contact with her. She can explode for all I care.
 |
||||||||||
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:24 |
|||||||||
The problem with that dating is that there is a stele which, inter alia, commemorates a victory of Memeptah's over Israel during his Canaan campaign. That would place the exodus, if any, much earlier: Memeptah only reigned ten years.
Personally I prefer the dating that puts the emigrant Hebrews - the first 'children of Israel' - among the followers of the Hyksos who conquered Egypt, ruling roughly 1650-1550 BC, until being finally kicked out by Ahmose.
But I don't want to divert into a discussion more properly placed in another forum.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 3387 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:29 |
|||||||||
 I am SO MAD! I just typed an enormous post, and I just got an error and now it is GONE...
AND THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!
I HATE IT!
I'll be damned If I type the whole lot again!
|
||||||||||
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended Joined: 23-Oct-2006 Location: AUSTRALIA Online Status: Offline Posts: 3224 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 06:58 |
|||||||||
|
I.really.hate.it.when.that.happens
 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
JanusRook
Sultan
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2419 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 12:21 |
|||||||||
I know the feeling so many times I've posted a huge reply and then just gave up on it. Here's some advice next time this happens that works for me about 80% of the time. Just hit the refresh button (do nothing else on the window) and if you get the error again wait a minute and hit refresh again. Or you could do what some of our more paranoid posters do and just notepad everything. |
||||||||||
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 2345> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
