Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: The Father of The Holy Trinity.

  1. #1 The Father of The Holy Trinity. 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Christians (or at least me) have gone by the notion that God is The Father. For instance I would say 'Oh Heavenly Father please forgive me', or 'thank you God' when referring to God Himself in person. But I actually realised just last night that God Himself is not The Father, in the same way Jesus is not God and The Holy Spirit is not God. But that means that most people worship The Father as God, when in fact they are not worshipping God at all, only the Father.

    I'll try and make sense to those who do not get what I mean:

    The Holy Trinity in Christian theology is the manifestation of all 3 forms of God, which together actually make God; The Father (being the 1st), Jesus Christ (the 2nd) and The Holy Spirit (being 3rd). So any of these alone are not God. But The Father is not God, The Father is the same amount of God as Jesus is and The Holy Spirit also, so by all respects, The Father should not be classified as God, only a part of Him. So the whole father figure thing about God, that we and most know, if wrong.

    So that begs the question, who or what IS The Father? To my belief He is an unkown part of Christianity. To others The Father is another fabrication of stupidity. Etc etc etc...

    Just thought I'd share that with you. Any ideas by Christians, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, any really... would be helpful.

    PS. All this is based on the notion that God and The Holy Trinity and all associated to the text I have described attributed to is actually real. There is a probability (and it seems a great one) that is false, therefore make your own judgement on what you think is true or false if at all there is any truth to be found or anything to be falsified by whatever means and tools you use to gather such a conclusion.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I thought God (just plain "God") was synonymous with the Trinity? So in most cases when you pray to "God" you address the Trinity and could use that term just as well.

    For analogy. God the Father = Space, the Holy Spirit = Time, etc. Now if I say "the Universe" we tend to imagine space, don't we?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yes, I suppose it is quite similar to that, very well interpolated! It makes a lot of sense now.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Your dilemma is surprisingly similar to one encountered in the corporate world. We have many bosses. A clear org chart is essential. Doesnít your religion have an org chart?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I would see the chart as a triangle with one point named for each -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit and God in the middle of the triangle. From the bottom of the triangle would be a line drawn to (your name). Each person has his own organization chart.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: The Father of The Holy Trinity. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Christians (or at least me) have gone by the notion that God is The Father. For instance I would say 'Oh Heavenly Father please forgive me', or 'thank you God' when referring to God Himself in person. But I actually realised just last night that God Himself is not The Father, in the same way Jesus is not God and The Holy Spirit is not God. But that means that most people worship The Father as God, when in fact they are not worshipping God at all, only the Father.

    I'll try and make sense to those who do not get what I mean:

    The Holy Trinity in Christian theology is the manifestation of all 3 forms of God, which together actually make God; The Father (being the 1st), Jesus Christ (the 2nd) and The Holy Spirit (being 3rd). So any of these alone are not God. But The Father is not God, The Father is the same amount of God as Jesus is and The Holy Spirit also, so by all respects, The Father should not be classified as God, only a part of Him. So the whole father figure thing about God, that we and most know, if wrong.

    So that begs the question, who or what IS The Father? To my belief He is an unkown part of Christianity. To others The Father is another fabrication of stupidity. Etc etc etc...

    Just thought I'd share that with you. Any ideas by Christians, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, any really... would be helpful.

    PS. All this is based on the notion that God and The Holy Trinity and all associated to the text I have described attributed to is actually real. There is a probability (and it seems a great one) that is false, therefore make your own judgement on what you think is true or false if at all there is any truth to be found or anything to be falsified by whatever means and tools you use to gather such a conclusion.
    This is another example of insulting the females as being left out of this characterization.

    The OT insults the females as sinners and now this insult from the catholic church?

    Where is the MOTHER?
    She is the creator and feeder to start the new life she created.
    Although the male plays a part in this process, the males do NOT create the new offspring. This is the ignorance that prevails in a male dominated society that the OT teaches.
    ONLY the cells (they look like eggs to me) can REPLICATE.

    So to me, the holy trio are the Mother, Child and the Spirit(?)

    Lets give credit where credit is due!

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Alright then, seeing as God actually has no gender, that kind of falsifies your statement a litte. Then again mine also. Told you in the OP didn't I that we'd find something?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I can understand chaotic's reaction of sexism in what appears to be a masculine reference to the Christian God (and Allah, too?), but I am not sure Christians feel a strong sentiment of gender connotation. I think, however, a personal pronoun such as He brings with it more personality that the word It would bring. At this point, I think people who refer to God as a she, often do so as a flame tactic. I suppose it would be gender neutral to say God the Parent and Jesus the Child.

    But I do not quite understand the rag on the Catholic church. Probably no other denomination in Christiandom honors or emphasizes the role of Mary more than the Catholics. You want to rag on someone, pick on the Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians who seldom mention her. I am not, by the way, a Catholic.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman portcontrol7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    60
    The word Trinity is nowhere to be found in any Bible I have ever read.
    http://sites.google.com/site/portcon...me/bobtiny.JPG

    http://theleapinthedark.blogspot.com

    "The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Port said:

    The word Trinity is nowhere to be found in any Bible I have ever read.
    Soooooo?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    The word Trinity is nowhere to be found in any Bible I have ever read.
    I don't find out how to fix a crappy peice of electrical equipment in an instruction manual. Instead, I'm supposed to go to 'troubleshooting' and pay £1 a minute to go through it step by step.

    I can understand chaotic's reaction of sexism in what appears to be a masculine reference to the Christian God (and Allah, too?), but I am not sure Christians feel a strong sentiment of gender connotation. I think, however, a personal pronoun such as He brings with it more personality that the word It would bring. At this point, I think people who refer to God as a she, often do so as a flame tactic. I suppose it would be gender neutral to say God the Parent and Jesus the Child.

    But I do not quite understand the rag on the Catholic church. Probably no other denomination in Christiandom honors or emphasizes the role of Mary more than the Catholics. You want to rag on someone, pick on the Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians who seldom mention her. I am not, by the way, a Catholic.
    I'm not being sexist dayton. If you wish I will refer to The Father as The Mother if you wish. Or The Parent. But that kind of falsifies all the statements in The Bible now doesn't it hm? Because if I use mother or parent to replace father, I am believing that The Bible is man made fiction? I'm sure thats not what you'd believe?

    PS I'm a methodist, just because I was baptised to be methodist what exactly does that mean? That I have to behave a certain way? I don't think so. they're just titles. I live a decent and mostly good life. I'm not perfect and I think tryng to be would drive me to be an insane and along with becoming a very isolated person. I can't do that. But one thing I can do, is live my life and do right by everyone as much as possible.

    The catholics? Well I could bring conspiracies into this, but then this thread would be turned into a pseudo-religious one.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I was hoping portcontrol7 would have the balls to respond and say what we all know he was implying -- that because the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, it cannot be a valid Biblical concept.

    The following is quoted from carm.org:
    [I]t is illogical to claim that since the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible that its concept is not taught therein. This kind of objection usually demonstrates a prejudice against the teaching of the Trinity [and the Bible in general]. Instead, the person should look to God's word to see if it is taught or not.
    [T]here are many biblical concepts that people believe in that don't have a specific word describing them used in the Bible. For example, the word "bible" is not found in the Bible, but we use it anyway to describe the Bible. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God. We don't have to see a specific word in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true.
    Following are other words that the Bible does not use but the concepts are mentioned.

    * Atheism is the teaching that there is no God. "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
    * Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character. Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.
    * Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh. Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1,14).
    * Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8 ).
    * Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18 ).

    So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument. Furthermore, to say that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture, is also an invalid argument. Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid. Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear. Take a look at the book of Revelation. It contains many things that are cryptic that must be interpreted after examining all of the Bible. Even then, there are disagreements as to what some things mean. Yet, we know that the truths there are true whether or not we discover them.
    Nevertheless, there are scriptures that demonstrate a Trinitarian aspect.

    * Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
    * 2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
    * Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christís gift.
    * Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."
    In addition to the above, the Bible in no place uses the word theocracy, but a quick look at the Old Testament nation of Israel shows it to be a theocracy. So it would also not be valid to suggest that the Bible does not have a concept of theocracy.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    "Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid. Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear."

    With the Bible, no limits are placed on the imaginative or the contrived.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) said:

    With the Bible, no limits are placed on the imaginative or the contrived.
    You have confused the Bible with the writings of the guru of your own religion, Richard Dawkins.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    No dayton, I'm afraid Q is correct. People can shape the Bible to what they want it to be. Some use it to justify murdering innocent people, some use it to heal the world. But the point is, it can be a very dangerous weapon, but some people think it gives them a higher authority over man, which makes them think they can get away with what they like.

    With the Bible, it is that subjective, it can be anything you want it to be. Just like your imagination.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Chaotic:

    If the Bible were the only writing with that capacity, then your argument would make sense. But consider how many people died as a result of Marx's Communist Manifesto and Hitler's Mein Kompf. Nor should we forget the writing of Mao Zedong.

    Surely you don't believe that when "[s]ome use it to justify murdering innocent people," they are doing anything other than using it improperly. You might also compare the number murders (improperly) justified through the Bible with those which are perpetrated in the name of the Q'ruan. I am not all that sure that Nazism, Communism or Maoism were misapplied.

    A number of people here, perhaps operating under the influence of Richard Dawkins and his ilk, continue to blame the world's ills on religion in general and Christianity more specifically. The hatred against religion being spewed out by Dawkins and his minions seem to me to be far more inflammatory and more likely to promote violence than anything written in the Bible. What Dawkins and Dennett and those people are saying today is not all that different from what Hitler was saying about the Jews. Too bad you do not have enough sense of history to understand that.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Chaotic:

    If the Bible were the only writing with that capacity, then your argument would make sense. But consider how many people died as a result of Marx's Communist Manifesto and Hitler's Mein Kompf. Nor should we forget the writing of Mao Zedong.
    Those books are based and focused on humans. The Bible is based on the divine, you can't even compare the role of either books. I understand your persistence, and your point of view. In many respects I agree with your statement, but in principle the foundation of the two are too different.

    Surely you don't believe that when "[s]ome use it to justify murdering innocent people," they are doing anything other than using it improperly. You might also compare the number murders (improperly) justified through the Bible with those which are perpetrated in the name of the Q'ruan. I am not all that sure that Nazism, Communism or Maoism were misapplied.
    Yes, they are very much using improperly and I agree with you. But without it there would be nothing to improperly use. The same again for the Qu'ran. I am sure that those three cannot be used rightly or wrongly. They should (with exception to perhaps communism which lessened in extremeism may be usable), never be shown on this Earth again, having seen what it does.

    A number of people here, perhaps operating under the influence of Richard Dawkins and his ilk, continue to blame the world's ills on religion in general and Christianity more specifically.
    Yes, I agree that there are a lot of people here swayed by the dogma of that man, I'm sure I don't need to display the names of those people who follow his word like we do our Messiah. Yes they do blame Christianity and religion. I personally hold their strong opinion is due to personal experience on the matter, or something that has happened in their life that they can correlate their experiences to the similarity of what religion does in their eyes. The mind sees what it wants to see. A Shield to hide behind. But then again, like all other humans, they look for somewhere else to convieniently place the blame, that is perfectly normal human nature. But can have disastrous consequences.

    The hatred against religion being spewed out by Dawkins and his minions seem to me to be far more inflammatory and more likely to promote violence than anything written in the Bible.
    I agree. Dawkins is playing a very dangerous game in a already egg shell riddened conference hall. I have seen a lot of passion from atheists on this forum, which is far stronger on Sciforums (one of the reasons I am not active there). I personally believe that Dawkins must be careful what he says and to who. Imagine of the wrong word went the way of any religious extremists. I'm sure 9/11 and 7/7...then again all events of terrorism play in our minds enough to know that is is easy enough for Dawkins to be slain, God forbid. Of course Dawkins can say what he wishes, but he must learn that actions have consequences. In a playground of life, he is the kind that tells tales of all the children and loudly plays innocent when attention is brought.

    What Dawkins and Dennett and those people are saying today is not all that different from what Hitler was saying about the Jews. Too bad you do not have enough sense of history to understand that.
    Hmm.... I have enough sense of history to understand that. I know all I need to know about WWII and the rise of nazism. But having you just said that, you have connected two ends together, that do fit, which I would never have seen. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will study this furthur...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Chaotic said:

    Yes, they are very much using improperly and I agree with you. But without it there would be nothing to improperly use. The same again for the Qu'ran. I am sure that those three cannot be used rightly or wrongly. They should (with exception to perhaps communism which lessened in extremeism may be usable), never be shown on this Earth again, having seen what it does.
    This is about the only thing in your post about which I would have some qualms. This paragraph seems somewhat internally conflicted. You seem to say that without it (the Bible?), there would be nothing to improperly use and then seem to admit that the writings of Hitler, Marx and Mao have been misued. Unless you are saying they were properly used and that was their flaw. I am not sure that religious writings are the only writing capable of being improperly applied. Certainly Dawkins' tripe could motivate someone to improper action.

    What I am considering is that as human beings, we have a tendency to seek success in four areas -- wealth, power (or influence), popularity and pleasure, each person assigning his own varying degrees of importance. When something interferes with our acquisition of any of those things which we deem important to us, we react. Evil leaders in world history have found that hatred is a far better motivator than love.

    So if one can convince a following that some other group is what is standing between them and what they deem important, it can motivate against that group. Usually, this type of motivation focuses far more on emotion than on fact or reality. As you point out, this emotionalism is often displayed by the hatred of some on this forum toward religion.

    But religion is far from being the only source of focus. Race has often been a prime motivator. Politics can also form the basis such motivation. It strikes me as foolish that some people here advocate the eradication of religion when we have three prime examples of what happens without religion -- Nazism, Communism and Maoism. I do not see these as improvements on the
    governments and economics which developed in Europe and America under the influence of Christianity. And yet these people would like to destroy that which has helped give them the very thing they cherish most -- freedom to seek wealth, power, popularity or pleasure, whichever they deem most important or most attainable.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Certainly Dawkins' tripe could motivate someone to improper action.
    Considering you haven't read a thing about Dawkins, we can safely conclude you're fabricating lies.

    Evil leaders in world history have found that hatred is a far better motivator than love.
    And if they aren't totally insane despots, they'll usually exploit the religion to motivate.

    As you point out, this emotionalism is often displayed by the hatred of some on this forum toward religion.
    Dayton confuses emotions with reason and rationale, since those properties have long left him in favor of emotional blind faith.

    It strikes me as foolish that some people here advocate the eradication of religion when we have three prime examples of what happens without religion -- Nazism, Communism and Maoism.
    Eradicating one very bad ideology does not mean other very bad ideologies are valid or should remain.

    freedom to seek wealth, power, popularity or pleasure, whichever they deem most important or most attainable.
    Is that the Christian focus, Dayton? It must be as I noticed you never said a word about learning, understanding or education, to no surprise, of course.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q):

    I cannot think of anyone who posts on this forum whose posts seethe with loathing and hate and contempt for others as do yours. Your posts are far and away the best examples of emotional prejudice without any reason or rationale I have ever seen here. Virtually every post you make is an ad homonym attack on the person you are responding to rather than using facts and data to refute their arguments. and you stupidly believe this displays your intelligence. It only displays your lack of respect for other people.

    I HAVE read some of Dawkins' stuff and a little of his background. So in calling me a liar, you establish yourself as a double liar. First, you have no basis to make such a claim since you have never seen my reading list or library, making it a lie of ignorance; and second, it is factually a downright baldface lie.

    Liar, Liar, pants on fire!
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    I HAVE read some of Dawkins' stuff and a little of his background.
    A paragraph or two, at best? Sorry, I didn't know your knowledge of Dawkins was so extensive.

    Of course, had you actually read anything by Dawkins, you probably wouldn't make the asinine remarks that you do.

    But, if you were really serious about debating Dawkins, I would highly recommend watching this series of lectures from 1991.

    http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I cannot think of anyone who posts on this forum whose posts seethe with loathing and hate and contempt for others as do yours.

    You... you... you... you stupid... your intelligence.. your lack.. you...

    ...!
    Get a grip, Christian. Or shall I start quoting sweet Jesus?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, Pong, while you are quoting, don't leave out what Jesus had to say to the Scribes and Pharisees in Luke 23. I'm not sure His words there can go down as complimentary, but rather a scathing indictment of their works. Yes, we are to turn the other cheek, but we do not have a third cheek to turn. Even Jesus had His limits on niceness.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Right, He could walk away when He wanted to.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

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