posted
Almost two weeks ago now, a rapture-ready Christian (Which is probably my own made up term, but it seems to fit, and I apologize if it seems derogatory. That's not my intention.) challenged me in a blog to read The Gospel According to John, one chapter a day for 21 days, and then come back to him and tell him what I thought.
I assume he expected me to disappear for 3 weeks and then return, converted or on the verge of doing so.
Rather than do that, I decided to make a YouTube video series about it. And I decided that I would even follow his rules. I read 1 chapter a day, give whatever my first impression of it is, and then post the video.
I figured some of you might find it interesting, so I thought I'd share it.
Fair warning: I occasionally swear. Only in a few videos, but if you have a problem with bad language I should let you know that.
I also do my best to avoid ridiculing the text or Christians, although some of my exasperation at parts could be perceived as mocking, that was not my intent.
I've got chapters 1 through 12 posted, and loading 13 as I type this.
Let me know what you think, be critical, and feel free to tell me I'm wrong. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crap! I just realized that buy listening to even 5 seconds of your youtube video that all future text your write out on Hatrack or anywhere else will now be read to the sound of your voice.
I rather liked the voice I had crafted for you initially.
edit: As for responses to chapter 1, I may comment on every chapter but maybe not.
Historically it has been held that John wrote his gospel after Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In fact it's quite possible he had those gospels in front of him while he wrote it. Some historians have also provided evidence that the Gospel of St. John was written after the Book of Revelations. The point I think, is that John wrote his gospel with an air of, "I need to write some of the important things the other writers missed."
Jesus to me could be telling Nathaniel, "Just because I could see you under a fig tree doesn't mean I am a messiah, but you shall see greater signs that verify this claim. Jesus says several times that signs will follow those who are sent by God. Signs however are not the proof in the pudding so to speak.
Rather signs will follow the servant of God, but it's the Holy Ghost that verifies the truth of all things. So Jesus can and will perform miracles because he administers God's will. Also remember miracles in many instances convince nobody, in fact many Jews drew the conclusion that Jesus had demonic powers hence he was able to do these sorts of things.
Chapter 2: It doesn't seem like Jesus called attention to his miracle, he merely instructed a servant to fill pots with wine and to serve them. I suppose he could have silently filled the pots with wine and people would have marveled, but then the miracle would have had little point I suppose.
Also you need to realize that when the Pharisees(?) question Jesus by what authority he cleared the temple grounds, it seems to be more a challenge based on their anger that Jesus had done something that THEY should have never allowed to happen. Instead they quibbled about a technicality instead of recognizing the rightness of Jesus' actions.
Jesus says quite a few times in the gospels that he often speaks in riddles (metaphorically) so that only the sincere will understand him as the sincere will be given God's spirit so that they comprehend the truth. It also keeps the stubborn and wicked from understanding the truth so that they don't stand condemned by it. Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil. Better to be ignorant and not commit more grievous sins then to be informed and that much more committed to evil.
I am reminded of when Jesus resurrected Lazerus. At that point the Pharisees had seen and heard of several miracles, yet all they could think of was how to kill Lazerus so that he wouldn't bear witness to Jesus' divine mandate.
posted
Well lucky for you, I have a FANTASTIC voice. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Every friday I currently go into an informal debate with a friend of mine, purely on philisophical grounds he is trying to prove that God must exist. I am arguing that as an agnostic and logically I will concede the possibility that God exists as I will concede that the natural laws of the Universe it s plausible that there was a crafter but I refuse to believe in Miracles as being scientifically untestable and unobservable, I refuse to believe in organized religion as it contradicts the argument of the omnipotence paradox.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Well lucky for you, I have a FANTASTIC voice.
I completely agree, I'm listening to ye right now. Gonna show it to my friends. I think your being very clear and well spoken and coherent in your arguments and observations.
IP: Logged |
posted
Good for you. I remember a certain frustration with some of my college classes when most of the other people in the class didn't "get" basic Bible references. "Oh, c'mon. Noah? Built a big boat? Two of every animal?" When you're discussing American History and some of the influential philosophies of the eighteenth century, that can become a real handicap.
I don't by a longshot insist that everyone treat the Bible as gospel, but I *do* wish everyone knew some basics of it, if only as one more compelling and culturally important mythology.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also I neglected to mention things you said that were interesting, I'll try to do that in subsequent posts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil.
I disagree.
That's certainly how people would and do act in the Bible. But I don't think it is how people would act in the real world.
Never having seen a miracle or having had anyone tell me they were god, however, I can only speculate.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, the belief that sure knowledge of God's will would only produce worse evil among fallible humans is practically doctrinal among Mormons. I think it's highly implausible, myself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you have seen people experience miracles and then act more evil?
That's not what was being discussed-- specifically, no one used the modifier, "more," to the adjective "evil."
Here's what was being discussed:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil.
I disagree.
That's certainly how people would and do act in the Bible. But I don't think it is how people would act in the real world.
Never having seen a miracle or having had anyone tell me they were god, however, I can only speculate.
Do you see the difference in what you were asserting before and what you're asserting now?
quote:As far as I can tell, the belief that sure knowledge of God's will would only produce worse evil among fallible humans is practically doctrinal among Mormons.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mormons don't believe that miracles alone can change a wicked person's heart. To some extent, lots of modern-day missionaries have experience with this: when a person has an extremely intense, fast conversion, along with charismatic experiences (visions, healings, etc); and then a couple weeks pass, and they're suddenly angry about the Church's stance on tithing. (Definitely saw this on my mission)
I've had a few experiences that I think are miraculous. While they help strengthen my faith in the short term, and while they help bolster it when I'm feeling doubtful, the joy and clarity those miracles impart fade to memory after a while. That's why an understanding of repentance and forgiveness and the atonement of Christ is so necessary, in my opinion: those are the things which one builds their faith upon, not the intense brief encounters with the miraculous.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mormons don't believe that miracles alone can change a wicked person's heart.
That's what I was trying to say, I just didn't do a very good job.
There are several contemporary examples of early Mormon leaders falling away from the church while never denying the validity of the miracles they had witnessed. They simply found a way to reconcile that they had seen miracles with the idea that a prophet can become fallen.
The only person I can think of in my life who has a similar situation is a very good friend of my mother's who converted quite fast to Mormonism, and had a very powerful experience in the temple the day of her marriage to her husband. A month later somebody at church insulted her and she refused to ever attend church there. Eventually this translated into never attending church period, even after moving. Today she still insists that she believes in the gospel but not necessarily in going to church.
I know this isn't exactly what you asked for, and while it sounds like a cop out it's sorta hard to provide contemporary examples of a wicked person being shown signs and becoming more evil as it specifically says in the scriptures that God does not show signs to the unbelieving. So you're are sorta asking for examples of something God says generally doesn't happen.
edit: changed the "don't" at the end to "doesn't."
posted
In chapter 5, you point out that Jesus' words are red and hold up the Bible to show us that there's a lot of red on that page, but it's in black and white....
My roommate and I are enjoying listening, though.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As far as I can tell, the belief that sure knowledge of God's will would only produce worse evil among fallible humans is practically doctrinal among Mormons. I think it's highly implausible, myself.
My impression of the doctrine was that greater understanding led to greater accountability. So, for example, if you knew say speeding was a sin and then did it, your action would be worse then someone who doesn't think speeding is a sin (even if it was identical speed and circumstances).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had Jesus told those Pharisees, "I am the messiah come to save you from your sins," and then produced some miraculous miracle (how's that for a redundancy?) to verify it, at best it would have caused some to follow him, but even those sorts of converts are weak, and at worst it would have made them more determined to be evil. Better to be ignorant and not commit more grievous sins then to be informed and that much more committed to evil.
Actually, one of the most oddly funny segments of the New Testament is when one of Jesus' disciples cuts off the ear of one of the men who have come to imprison him and Jesus almost casually heals the man while saying to his follower, "Now, now, none of that..."
If that occurred, one has to imagine at least some of the guards going, "Whoa. Ah, maybe I'm on the wrong side, here..."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually looking forward to this as the approach sounded interesting. Opinions from a different view can help increase understanding things not considered before. Sadly, this is not one of those cases. I got bored by it quickly because it was clear (nothing personal) this was read in ignorance. There is some good comments in it, but mostly it comes off as lacking the education needed to understand not just religious theology, but literature.
The minute poetry was mentioned as a negative (not that I am a great fan of that myself) I felt the discussion wasn't going to go anywhere significant. I would suggest reading some Joseph Campbell and Harold Bloom and then going back and reading St. John again. This isn't because I think you will be converted. It is because you might come away with better understanding of what the writer is trying to accomplish.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I was actually looking forward to this as the approach sounded interesting. Opinions from a different view can help increase understanding things not considered before. Sadly, this is not one of those cases. I got bored by it quickly because it was clear (nothing personal) this was read in ignorance. There is some good comments in it, but mostly it comes off as lacking the education needed to understand not just religious theology, but literature.
The minute poetry was mentioned as a negative (not that I am a great fan of that myself) I felt the discussion wasn't going to go anywhere significant. I would suggest reading some Joseph Campbell and Harold Bloom and then going back and reading St. John again. This isn't because I think you will be converted. It is because you might come away with better understanding of what the writer is trying to accomplish.
Occasional, I appreciate your honest criticism.
At no point have I claimed that I am an expert in, well, anything. I'm just an average guy who is trying to read and understand. And while that turns you off to it, I think that is what is attracting people online to watch it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chapter 4: You seem to skip over much of what is in this chapter, but maybe that's the point; only commenting on things that strike you. Remember that when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she has spoken truthfully in that she has had many husbands and the man she stays with is not her husband, she says that he must be a prophet, not necessarily a God. She then proceeds to draw Jesus into a debate by mentioning several times concerning Samaritan vs Jewish worship practices and how their mountain is a better place of worship than Jerusalem. Jesus discusses the point and effectively convinces her that God isn't the trademark of the Jews but at least the Jews read and adhere to the scriptures whereas the Samaritans are discarding His revealed word. She then says, clearly missing the core of what Jesus is saying, "When the messiah comes he'll clear this all up." Jesus then in plain language states who He is. She runs off to inform the people of Jesus and his words. Jesus uses the approaching masses to teach his Jewish desciples that God has revealed his word to the Jews but that the Samaritans are also important to him. Jesus then tarries with the Samaritans and with good reason because they say, "Now we believe in you not because of the woman's words but because of who YOU are." Again Jesus isn't interested in just showing off his powers and using that to convert others. His teachings are of far more worth and value.
As for the man with the sickly son, I've always read Jesus' words, "Except thou seeth signs thou shalt not believe..." as a rebuke. The man shows a glimmer of faith by not being rebuffed and insists Jesus come. Jesus doesn't come but merely states the boy has been healed and gives the man the opportunity to demonstrate his faith by leaving it at that. The man does not question what Jesus has said, and remember Jesus can't be THAT famous this early on. I can see many folks saying, "How can you just say that he is healed, shouldn't you come in person and administrate to him?" But the man accepts that things are as Jesus has said and believes. His faith is rewarded. As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle in God's Repertoire. There is no record of God instantly extinguishing fire, but I have no doubt he could do it. God has supposedly raised the dead and is not that a greater miracle in terms of difficulty then regenerating a limb? Some animals can regenerate, but none can simply live again, so which is more difficult?
Chapter 5: I think Jesus' point is saying that he does whatever God who is Lord of the Sabbath, asks him to do. Suggesting that the Sabbath while important is not some sort of foundation by which the rest of the gospel rests upon. Helping your fellow man is far more important that sabbath observance and so when compelled to help others on the sabbath even if it involves work, Jesus complies with the commandment, and all of us should as well.
The jews of course think that God would not command somebody to break the sabbath even to help another and when Jesus responds by saying that God His father commanded it they believe Jesus has committed the capital sin of blasphemy. Jesus then at length explains the relationship he has with the father, very clearly placing himself in submission to His father, but nonetheless fully empowered to do ALL his Father commands him to do. He then once again states that the signs that follow him bear witness to His divine parentage, and that the Jews failure to recognize Him as the messiah is a consequence of their ignorance of the scriptures and their doubt.
Chapter 6: Somebody else in your youtube commentary made this point, but Jesus is saying, "You don't believe in me because of my miracles, you think I'll provide you a lifetime of free meals." They then ask him to explain what it is God wants. Jesus responds by saying they must believe in him. They ask for a sign, which is odd because Jesus just fed 5,000 people with food enough for maybe 5 people. They even counter with, "Well Moses fed our fathers with mana for years, this miracle you have performed is pathetic in comparison. I think this demonstrates that signs really don't inspire true belief, most of these people are not interested in being true disciples. The people are mad that Jesus isn't some trained monkey. So they say, "Your Jesus the son of Mary and Joseph how can you be "from heaven?"" Why should Jesus explain in detail how he is the son of God? If he had said, "I am because God actually put me in Mary's belly and I was born 9 months later. Would that really have proven the truth of his words? I don't think so, so Jesus simply said, "I came down from heaven." That's how it is, if it were not so he could not do the works they had already seen.
He then proceeds to contrast the living bread which is the words God has given him to speak, with the manna bread that does not stave off death. Whereas Jesus' gospel frees one from death, as in spiritual death, real bread merely temporarily staves off temporary physical death.
If you want the life saving bread Jesus has to offer, you must keep the commandments God reveals through him, no matter if they sound unconventional, rattle your logic, or are extremely difficult. Many people just don't want to commit to that and so those who simply saw a sign and believe leave for the most part, while Jesus' twelve disciples stick around, because their belief is based on Jesus' words not his miracles.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The jews of course think that God would not command somebody to break the sabbath even to help another
I usually avoid participating in these threads. I have had enough debates with Christians about what Jews believe to last me several lifetimes.
However, two things:
Please capitalize "Jews".
Jewish law has made exceptions to the Sabbath laws to save life and/or limb since the Law was first given. It is not clear to me whether that is relevant to the writings in question, but it is to the post I quoted.
quote:The jews of course think that God would not command somebody to break the sabbath even to help another
I usually avoid participating in these threads. I have had enough debates with Christians about what Jews believe to last me several lifetimes.
However, two things:
Please capitalize "Jews".
Jewish law has made exceptions to the Sabbath laws to save life and/or limb since the Law was first given. It is not clear to me whether that is relevant to the writings in question, but it is to the post I quoted.
Will do Rivka, I understand that there have been exceptions since the law was given, but at least for the Jews being portrayed in the NT whether factually this way or not, they are not willing to take the same liberties that Jesus does.
quote: Weak.
Since you felt inclined to respond so eloquently here are two responses of my own, you may select either one or both.
1: Oh well now that you've said that, I am completely taken aback by you astounding logic. My statement is now so obviously weak as to shame me for even saying those words in the first place. Whats more, I was so glad that you took the time to look through the whole explanation I gave and rightly ignore it, merely focusing on that particular bit as it surely invalidates everything else I said.
2: Tom would you be so kind as to elaborate on why you felt my statement was weak. Presenting a less than strong front on my own views is certainly not my intention.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to skip over much of what is in this chapter, but maybe that's the point; only commenting on things that strike you.
Exactly. I also have only a limited amount of time as YouTube only lets you post videos up to 10 minutes in length, and I want to make only one video per chapter.
quote:As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle in God's Repertoire.
We know he hasn't because it would almost certainly be HUGE news. Not just for the media, but for the scientific and medical community as well. And why would any religion want to hide it if it did happen? (edited)
quote:God has supposedly raised the dead and is not that a greater miracle in terms of difficulty then regenerating a limb?
Of course, but we have just as much evidence for people being raised from the dead as we do for limbs regrowing. Which would be no good evidence.
quote:They ask for a sign, which is odd because Jesus just fed 5,000 people with food enough for maybe 5 people.
And I think this is a brilliant move by the writers.
If my view of the world is correct, then the writers could very well have known that these miracles didn't and don't happen. So the best way to avoid having to show them is to portray the people in the story as not believing even when miracles take place. I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
quote:Tom would you be so kind as to elaborate on why you felt my statement was weak. Presenting a less than strong front on my own views is certainly not my intention.
It's weak because we certainly should have some evidence of God healing an amputee if it had happened even once in the last six hundred years. Your argument -- that it could have happened, but nobody noticed it -- could just as easily be applied to the claim that God's going around shooting candy corn vendors in the head.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't think that people would actually act this way if presented with real miracles.
You'd be surprised. Look at it from another viewpoint:
Does the presentation of fact change behavior? Clearly, not always, and sometimes, not often. Consider the campaign against smoking: despite the very tangible adverse benefits of not smoking, smokers have a hard time kicking the habit. Despite the magnitude of health defects resultant from smoking (emphysema, bad breath, yellowed teeth, phlegm), smokers still smoke.
The presentation-- even convincing evidence-- of fact does not always change behavior.
Also: it has been shown that global climate change occurs in large part because of human influence. Reliable scientific studies have shown that unless the trend is changed, we will experience dire environmental consequences. And yet people continually fight against changing their energy consumption habits, despite the powerful evidences provided to them by the majority of the scientific community that the burning and production of fossil fuels contributes enormously to the worsening climate change.
Humans don't treat fact as significantly as you seem to think, Javert.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting discussion. I'm enjoying reading/watching it.
One thing I'd like to interject about miracles is there are always various levels of interpretation. I'm Mormon and we don't believe in the supernatural, but we do believe God knows more about physics than we do. When miracles occur, they're acts of God, or manifestations of his power, that nevertheless are brought about inside the natural law of the universe.
Say I happened to be looking up at the sky and praying intently for understanding about a particular subject, and say the clouds just then, which I wasn't particularly focused on, resolved themselves plainly in a way that spelled out a word which could be a prompting or clue that might put me on the right path toward the answer I sought. If that were the case, then it wouldn't mean that the clouds or the air or even my brain did anything outside the normal physical behavior of the weather or neurons. Anyone who didn't believe in prayer or in God would easily be able to dismiss it as some sort of dream or fancy on my part, or simply a random occurrence on the part of clouds. Nevertheless I would have been answered, I would have my clue, and that clue might be productive in the sense of leading me to a higher level of understanding on the subject in question.
So every miracle also is a natural occurrence. It's real on many levels at once. And we're always free to see it and interpret it on any or all levels.
I think in one very real sense, every instant of the existence of the universe is nothing but a huge crazy miracle. When I think about what is actually going on at the deepest level we understand physically, at the level of quantum mechanics, I totally sit slackjawed in fascination and awe. The universe itself is a miracle, as is every phenomenon contained within. The mistake we make is not in seeing miracles where they don't exist, it's in thinking there's anything at all normal or humdrum about being alive moment by moment.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Humans don't treat fact as significantly as you seem to think, Javert.
Both of your examples are of gradual things that people can ignore. This is not the nature of a miracle, at least as it seems to have been presented in the Bible.
If people who were smoking started bursting into flames, and others noted this and then kept on smoking, I think you'd have an argument.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Will do Rivka, I understand that there have been exceptions since the law was given, but at least for the Jews being portrayed in the NT whether factually this way or not, they are not willing to take the same liberties that Jesus does.
Since Jesus is one of the Jews portrayed in the NT, this statement is inaccurate.
A particular group of people, who were Jews, disagreed with Jesus, who was also a Jew, about Sabbath observance. As it happens, those people were not interpreting the restrictions in accordance with what the majority of Jews, then or since, have said is the clear command to act to preserve life and limb on the Sabbath.
To interpret that as "the jews of course think . . ." is poor biblical scholarship as well as being offensive.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for why doesn't God heal amputees, how do you know He hasn't? We don't have every record of every purported miracle in God's Repertoire. There is no record of God instantly extinguishing fire, but I have no doubt he could do it. God has supposedly raised the dead and is not that a greater miracle in terms of difficulty then regenerating a limb? Some animals can regenerate, but none can simply live again, so which is more difficult?
The problem with this argument is that it only establishes that it is possible for God to have healed amputees. It does not address the probability that God has actually healed amputees. If we assume that God exists then I'm pretty sure that Javert would grant that it's possible that God has healed amputees but he would not grant that it is likely. If God actually does heal amputees then why haven't we seen it? It's safe to assume that the probability that God heals amputees is low.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Like I said, I've seen people experience the miraculous and turn around and behave poorly a few hours later.
Heck, I've been that person. It's not that much of a stretch for me to believe that miracles don't mean conversion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yeah, but you're wrong.
Like I said, I've seen people experience the miraculous and turn around and behave poorly a few hours later.
Heck, I've been that person. It's not that much of a stretch for me to believe that miracles don't mean conversion.
But until given evidence, I can only guess that what you and they saw wasn't miraculous, which explains why they turned around and behaved poorly.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news. If your next door neighbor with the two missing legs suddenly started walking again, you'd notice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I saw that in the X-Files. I think the guy had cancer. Either that or he was cancer. One of the two.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A confirmed case of a regrown limb? That would be one of the biggest news stories of the century (edit: I'll compromise on decade), probably briefly wiping the current financial problems off the front page. It would be a major part of medical journals for years. Experts from around the world would clamor for the opportunity to examine.
CNN covers people who grow huge amounts of warts and need surgery to remove them. Medical events that hold the potential to allow human regeneration would be a giant headline.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news.
"Jesus gave me my arm back!"
I'm sorry-- I don't see it gathering national attention.
Just like that, no.
But backed up by thorough scientific documentation (he was really an amputee, there are numerous witnesses both medical and laymen, there's photos and video, and he now currently has a normally operating arm, and perhaps even had documented the instant where it grew back) then it would garner national attention.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
