 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Link |
[quote="Major B. Trammell"] | Link wrote: |
I can also assure you of this (and I had a very good laugh when I first read this latest post of yours)- my life and my reputation are not tied to and do not rise and fall based on whether or not I agree with your failed doctrines. Worry not for my reputation, friend.  |
You misinterpreted my intent then. I know some of my own views aren't too popular around with certain people on this forum that don't share them, and I wouldn't imagine merely agreeing with me would do anything for your reputation. Bragging and projecting of image as someone who is arrogant and condescending with a middle school attitude isn't good for your reputation. If you were just sort of joking around, perhaps your reputation should be a concern. But, hey, if you are sincere about the way you think about yourself and others, at least you are being sincere. Your consistency in the way you treat other posters makes me think you are very sincere in this.
| Quote: |
You're not looking for discussion, anyway (as evidenced by the whole Gal. 3 issue in the first place- "Show me a Scripture. Ok. I mean besides that one"). |
That's not what I said. You still haven't shown a scripture that actually proves your point. But that's pretty typical with discussions where you use these tactics.
| Quote: |
I can list reason after reason, Scripture after Scripture, Church father after Church father |
I can't say I've ever seen anyone present a clear case from bishops and other authors who get labeled as the 'patristics' from the second century up through Nicaea that argued for gender egalitarian in regard to ministry roles, especially the roles of elder/bishop (or elder and bishop since the roles were treated as two separate things fairly early on.) If you could show me where one of these authors unambiguously listed all the female church bishops during those centuries or some other such evidence. Of course, I wouldn't accept it as scripture, but it would be fascinating if you found any evidence at all from authors during that time period who were respected by the mainstream church of that era. Even a quote from a heretic from that time would be an interesting find.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 4:45 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Major... |
Aaron Scott |
The reason we don't "roll over" because an argument has been made is because we KNOW that that argument has utterly FAILED to address the objections of scripture that have been raised.
You don't get to quote one, two, or even twenty verses, claim it proves this or that, all while conveniently overlooking or ignoring verses to the contrary. The only thing Link, Poimen, I, and others have been pointing out is this failure.
YOU: The Bible says there is neither male nor female, so there should not be any distinction in leadership roles, etc.
US: That cannot be what the verse means, because ELSEWHERE it is made abundantly clear, through precedent, example, and the clear statement of scripture, that the wife is to submit to the husband (which eviscerates the whole "neither male nor female" notion you are arguing), that man is the head of the woman (ditto), that only males were selected by Jesus for apostleship, that only males were kings and priests....
YOU: Doesn't matter.
US: And WE'RE the ones who are entrenched? WE'RE the ones who don't have an argument?
YOU: Exactly.
Sometimes arguments are made on this site for YEARS before they began to catch on. Why? Because many people have knee-jerk reactions at first (me included!), then eventually begin to actually hear and understand the argument being made...then may slightly or significantly modify their own position.
When I first came here, there were about two people who didn't believe in pre-trib. And while a number of people still do, there has been an acceptance that the post-trib position does have merit--something that many would not have admitted years ago. Over time, some of my own positions have been modified (e.g., my stridency about certain issues in the Church of God).
Really, if you have nothing to contribute but mockery, you have hurt your side of the argument worse than you think, since some of us believe that playing the "bigoted" and "traditional" card is all that the other side really has going for it.
Last edited by Aaron Scott on 8/16/12 6:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/16/12 5:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Something each one of us needs to keep in mind is that we probably agree with 95% or more of everything the average poster on this forum believes in. If you listed out beliefs about spiritual gifts, the virgin birth, etc., there is an awful lot of agreement. If you find some point you disagree with, you should still treat the other posters as brothers and sisters in Christ, not right them off as someone to be mocked. I notice most people on this forum don't mock other people when they disagree over an issue or two. Most educated people out of high school don't do that.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 5:16 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bravo! Thanks for an excellent illustration! |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
I wasn't referring to lists of female church bishops authored by Church fathers or whatever lame hypothetical junk you decided to tear into. I was referring to other things such as interpretations of Scriptures, verifications of people in Scripture, and other writings by Church fathers which would be key to my position and key to understanding the culture and context of the Scriptures upon which this debate (not really a debate, here) is based.
But, just as I pointed out, you're not interested in discussing the issue. I could post truth after truth, evidence after evidence, Scripture after Scripture, Church father after Church father, and you would not give even 2 seconds of consideration. Why? Because your only intention is to argue your mistaken view. You will not even consider another view nor even a simple statement before you launch into some argument that a mere word, on its own and away from any context, sets off. That is sufficiently evidenced in your last post. |
I am always open to learning from the scriptures and I've let go of a lot of beliefs over the years when I found out they didn't line up.
You can pretend that you have lots of wisdom and insight to share, and that you just insult people because your wisdom is too good to share with the rest of the forum if you want to. If you do have something to share, all people know of you is what you show them.
And then you question why it is that I'm content to point and laugh at you rather than dedicate any time to positing reasoned and thoughtful posts on the topic?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 2:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
Would Paul have been qualified to be a Bishop? Duhhhhh
Some of the posts on here have my head spinning... 
I just spent an hour reading arguments about being argumentative from: Major, Link, Aaron and even Poimen. I can never get that hour back...never!
Shame on you  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/16/12 3:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| diakoneo wrote: | | Would Paul have been qualified to be a Bishop? Duhhhhh |
Paul had a 'measure of rule' that was related to bringing the Gospel to unreached territories (II Corinthians 10.) Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they did not have many fathers, for in the Gospel of Jesus Christ he had become their father. He also wrote that they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord.
The type of men he said to appoint as bishops had demonstrated maturity in pastoral skills in how they handled themselves and how they pastored their own families. These are two separate types of ministries, and Paul v. the elders were 'qualified' in different wants.
| Quote: | I just spent an hour reading arguments about being argumentative from: Major, Link, Aaron and even Poimen. I can never get that hour back...never!
Shame on you |
Sorry 'bout 'dat. Let's argue the orginal topic without being argumentative. 
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 4:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
[quote="Link"] | diakoneo wrote: | | Would Paul have been qualified to be a Bishop? Duhhhhh |
| Quote: | Paul had a 'measure of rule' that was related to bringing the Gospel to unreached territories (II Corinthians 10.) Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they did not have many fathers, for in the Gospel of Jesus Christ he had become their father. He also wrote that they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord.
The type of men he said to appoint as bishops had demonstrated maturity in pastoral skills in how they handled themselves and how they pastored their own families. These are two separate types of ministries, and Paul v. the elders were 'qualified' in different wants. |
I was asking a question to be facetious. It seems that others would use the fact that he was single to disqualify him from being a Bishop, though he is the one who gave the qualifications to begin with.
Perhaps, he deliberately disqualified himself, because he would never want the job
Now back to the arguing!!! |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/16/12 4:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Major... |
Aaron Scott |
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive....
As I have also said, I don't believe Paul was trying to make absolute requirements, but was giving general guidelines to ensure that high-quality men were placed in these positions.
BUT, and this is the point you are refusing, it is still clear that he made no opening for women in this job. That is, whether I agree that his points are descriptive or prescriptive, it is still addressed to MEN.
If he had been speaking to BOTH men and women, then these points, whether descriptive or prescriptive, would not have been couched in male-centric terms.
HOWEVER, beyond all of that (let us lay aside this passage entirely for a moment), if there is no gender in God, so to speak, then is a wife to submit to her husband? Is a man the head of woman?
ONLY if these are no longer true is it the case that your interpretation of "neither male nor female" is the correct version. IF, however, a woman is to submit to her husband (be in subjection), and if man is still the head of woman, THEN you have no grounds for arguing that this hierachical distinction is erased when it comes to church leadership.
THAT is the point that you and others have conveniently overlooked (though I do admit that Tom Sterbens seems to realize this, and he has made arguments that appear to support a different understanding of the husband-wife hierarchy).
In any case, we certainly aren't going to come to any greater understanding if you are going to act so insulting toward those with whom you disagree. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/16/12 5:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Major B. Trammell wrote: |
And since that IS the case, one who holds that view must also hold the view that Paul disqualified both himself and Jesus from holding those offices in the church.
There's no way around that. |
The Bible doesn't specifically call Paul and overseer. His qualifications came from his call and his evangelistic and apostolic work producing new converts.
Peter does call the Lord, "the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls."
Could one argue that there are different qualifications for being the Bishop of the entire church, and the apostolically-appointed bishop of a local church. I suppose so. Be that as it may, what we can argue is that there is Biblical precedent for a celibate man (or Man) in this case, being a 'bishop'.
How do we approach this-- we can appoint any old person as bishop without any Biblical precedent, or since requirements are given for the role, we need to follow Biblical instructions and precedents?
If we think we can do any ol' thing, of course women can be bishops. But there is no Biblical example of women operating as 'bishops.'
And Paul does NOT write, "I do not permit a celibate man to teach or usurp authority over a married man" leading up to his instructions that "the bishop must be the husband of one wife." He DOES say that he does not permit a woman to teach a man right before his instructions that the bishop be the husband of one wife.
So not only do we have no precedent or direct command of scripture to back up the idea of women bishops, we also have scripture right in the context of the passage that throws a big monkey wrench in the whole idea.
The church is a family. The bishop Paul describes is first faithful with his own household, and then entrusted with caring for the household of faith. There is a 'hierarchy' (choose another word if you can't stand that one) in the home where the wife submits to the husband. Male bishops make sense in this regard. The husband is the head of the wife and the bishop is to rule his house well. Hebrews 13 in the KJV says, "Obey them that have the rule over you." If a man's wife were a bishop, should she have the rule over him?
| Quote: | | Now, since that is the case, we can reasonably conclude (regardless of which side of the argument you fall on)- at least, here (that is, in this particular Scripture)- that since Paul is speaking in generalities, he doesn't intend the masculine terms to be prohibitive of women serving in the same role. |
Your case is not bad up to here. But the 'speaking in generalities' argument is too lose to be tight enough to hold water. The argument so far has nothing to do with whether masculine terms prohibit women. We should look more at the context for that, including the part about men and women right before the instruction that the bishop should be the husband of one wife.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 6:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
PastorJackson |
very well stated arguement | Major B. Trammell wrote: | | diakoneo wrote: |
I was asking a question to be facetious. It seems that others would use the fact that he was single to disqualify him from being a Bishop, though he is the one who gave the qualifications to begin with.
|
If we use the Scripture that says, "A bishop must be... the husband of one wife..." as proof that a bishop must be a man because only a man can be a husband, then likewise, to be consistent in your interpretation and application, you absolutely MUST conclude that a bishop must also be a husband. After all, it does say, "A bishop... must be the husband..."
And since that IS the case, one who holds that view must also hold the view that Paul disqualified both himself and Jesus from holding those offices in the church.
There's no way around that.
Unless.... to use the term Josh Henson has been writing, you believe the list of qualifications, here, to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Since common sense tells us that Paul is not disqualifying himself and Jesus (and others like them) from holding these offices in the church, then common sense also tells us that these qualifications (husband, wife, children, etc.) are a general descriptive list (as opposed to a set-in-stone command) of the character a bishop should possess.
Now, since that is the case, we can reasonably conclude (regardless of which side of the argument you fall on)- at least, here (that is, in this particular Scripture)- that since Paul is speaking in generalities, he doesn't intend the masculine terms to be prohibitive of women serving in the same role. |
_________________
Are the things you are living for, worth Christ dying for?
http://www.jacksonplant.org/
http://jacksonplant.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/jackson.plant |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4743
8/16/12 6:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
Descriptive rather than prescriptive might be common ground I could understand someone holding.
The argument, however, that Paul would never give descriptive advice or a strict prescription that would eliminate him falls very flat to me. I don't think Paul would have accepted any congregation's suggestion that he leave his work to become an 'elder' or a 'bishop' at a local church, regardless of what that meant to them or if we have any parallel position to either office today. Did the twelve not give very similar advice when Stephen was the first chosen? Did they not use the rationale that this was work they didn't need to be bothering themselves with?
..................
I have been checked in my spirit from asking why anyone who feels so strongly that the CoG is in gross error on this does not simply go and join themselves to the AoG. What checks me is that I don't know how I would answer if God asked me why I don't go. Every office open to women is not what has made the AoG so much more successful than us. (IMO) Congregations that accept their own duty as revealed in NT scripture is the biggest difference, and I think, the biggest reason for the different result. I wonder if their laymen are more ready to work. I wonder if they are more ready to study. I wonder if they are more ready to teach. That is what discipleship is, and discipleship brings growth like plowing and planting brings a harvest.
Even as the CoG is downsizing its central government, in practice it is consolidating even further how at every level decisions are being made in smaller and smaller rooms. Accountability is a dirty word that makes people really angry. ABs do not hesitate to ignore the MINUTES. Pastors don't. The pew has no clue that they are supposed to be responsibly overseeing some things, what those things are, or how they are to go about it.
So I am not going to ask anyone why they don't go. And please, I beg you all return the favor. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3944
8/16/12 9:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Bro Bob wrote: | | Descriptive rather than prescriptive might be common ground I could understand someone holding. |
So which category are we going to put teachings against murder, adultery, and homosexual behavior-- prescriptive or descriptive?
I heard a man once argue that a difficult verse was supposed to be in quotes. We could just argue that any verse or part of a verse we don't like was in quotes. Paul was just quoting his argument, and they didn't have quotation marks back then. If we put some quotes around 'not' in 'Thou shalt not covet', 'Thou shalt not kill', 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' that would be really convenient.
I don't think the 'descriptive versus prescriptive' perspective fits I Timothy 3 either. No matter how you apply it to today, it was 'prescriptive' to it's original audience.
When hear reports of church leaders who fall into adultery or mismanage funds, doesn't it ever occur to you that churches might be better of if they were a bit stricter, rather than laxer, about passages like I Timothy 3 and Titus 1? Where are we supposed to get our ideas about qualifications for ministry if not the Bible-- just pull them out of.. somewhere where we shouldn't pull them out of?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 9:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
I am going to try something new around here. If I am asked a question, I will not ignore it, or go further into stating my opinion until I have given answer, even if that answer is "I don't know" or "You got me good on that one". Enjoy it. It probably won't last. (Bro Bob, can God make something so big that he can't pick it up?)
My answer, in blue font, will follow the question.
| Quote: | Bro Bob wrote:
Descriptive rather than prescriptive might be common ground I could understand someone holding. |
So which category are we going to put teachings against murder, adultery, and homosexual behavior-- prescriptive or descriptive?
Link, I didn't say I was holding that position, but that I could understand someone holding it. This is preferable to me than to just see very clear words treated as if they did not exist. That is the way the flow chart treated the writings of Paul in the "So you think homosexuality is a sin." thread treated them. At least they are admitting the words are there. At least they are admitting it is the preferential description of how things would be ideally.
I have never seen any of those who promote every office being available to women tell us what they think these words DO mean.
... When hear reports of church leaders who fall into adultery or mismanage funds, doesn't it ever occur to you that churches might be better of if they were a bit stricter, rather than laxer, about passages like I Timothy 3 and Titus 1?
Absolutely. Perhaps no one benefits more from being open and accountable than the leader himself. Similarly, "not a novice" was for the protection of the novice. You are so dead on right on this that it grieves me to admit our error is something we will have to answer for at our judgment.
Where are we supposed to get our ideas about qualifications for ministry if not the Bible... ?
You may have noticed I did a little editing there. Let God be true and every man a liar. We have no other source. Certainly not our own smart little brains.
........................................
And then Tom asked:
So are you saying that the office of bishop would have had a greater restriction or prerequisite for service, than the place of apostle?
I don't know that being a celibate male is a lesser restriction than being allowed one really good woman, who gave me children, who helped me raise them in a Godly manner, who I was always proud to be with, and who would give me her very best input while being willing to concede that my best decision would end it.
I am not certain, Tom, you and I agree on so many things. But I don't know anyone who holds a higher standard for who was and who is not an apostle than I hold.
(Rabbit trail warning.) I believe the work of an apostle is finished. Anyone claiming that authority today would receive the same response from me that someone claiming to be the messiah would get.
In sum, lesser restriction? Hardly. There are none who qualify today in my view. It doesn't get any more restrictive than that. Different work, different calling? Clearly. (Yes, I know, we have some who claim to be apostles in the CoG. Go for it.)
I'm sorry it offends. But I think Paul gave those folks the best advice (if it was only advice) that he knew how to. I have seen church councils work well. I have seen them in turmoil. I never saw one in turmoil that was composed of men who met every single standard Paul imposed. The descension was always traced to men who were divorced and remarried, or men who were novices, young, and had never married. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3944
8/16/12 10:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Bro Bob,
Sorry if my post wrongly implied what your view was. I lose track honestly. I appreciate your response.
| Bro Bob wrote: |
I'm sorry it offends. But I think Paul gave those folks the best advice (if it was only advice) that he knew how to. I have seen church councils work well. I have seen them in turmoil. I never saw one in turmoil that was composed of men who met every single standard Paul imposed. The descension was always traced to men who were divorced and remarried, or men who were novices, young, and had never married.[/color] |
I just thought this was a quote worth repeating.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/16/12 11:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| The scary truth... |
Aaron Scott |
The scary truth is that, ultimately, you must be led of the Spirit AND the Word. If the Spirit is truly leading you to a place that seems at odds with the word (don't forget that this is a TRUE leading of the Spirit), then you must revisit your interpretation of the scripture.
Down deep, I feel assured that Paul wasn't making rules that would knowingly have excluded himself and Jesus. Of course, this all goes back to be resistance to the notion that EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible is inspired (though I believe that EVERY SINGLE WORD of scripture IS).
This was a man of God who was giving his best advice to a church. Why do we think that everything Paul said or did was inspired, but we never feel that way about our own overseers, etc.? After all, we are in the SAME CHURCH, anointed by the SAME SPIRIT, and we have zero scripture for supposing that they (or the prophets, for that matter) are inspired any differently than we are today.
Scary? Yes. It always gets a little scary when we say such things. But the truth is that even by going ONLY with the text itself, we have a "serious" disagreement on what is meant. No, I don't think that the other side is giving the correct weight to the scriptures that are contrary to them, but nevertheless, they do feel that what they have read leads them to a certain conclusion. So we are no more in "danger" by going with the Spirit than by going with the text.
Now, I have zero problem with Paul's requirements. I am convinced in my heart (and not by the text) that Paul is not speaking words that have been inspired VERBATIM. It would be my belief that He was impressed of God to "do something" to organize the church, and so he gave his best advice, not thinking of himself, but certainly not purposely excluding himself.
At the same time, he may honestly have felt that for that church, it was best to go with married men, for if they have learned to rule well their households, then they would have an understanding of how to handle the house of God. (I know that some of my perceptions changed once I became a father.)
If the opposing side HONESTLY feels that the HOLY SPIRIT has told them that women should be every bit in leadership as men, then at some point we have to say "work out your own salvation," for we see and feel it differently (to which THEY say, "work out your own salvation.")
At the same time, the Spirit and the Word agree. So if either side is acting in a way that is contrary to what the Spirit gave in the scriptures, they stand accountable to God. No, this is not a heaven or hell issue, especially since it arises from honest disagreement over the meaning of scriptures. I think God will bless us if we DO...or if we continue to DON'T. He's good like that, knowing we are all operating from sincere intentions.
However, as a "parting shot," I would caution all of us to neither be too beholden to tradition, nor too beholden to current standards. The former might keep us from changing when we should; the latter might make us change when we shouldn't.
Just my thoughts. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/17/12 4:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| My two cents... |
diakoneo |
Thank God for Paul's writings! I believe as Peter did they are inspired. They, more than any other scripture, are pointed to the Gentile church. I don't believe the Jewish Christian would have to be told so many things and advised in such a way.
Yes we can ignore what Paul prescribes if we want to. I don't believe God will strike us dead or hold it over us, but I do believe we will not be the best stewards of what God has given us either as demonstrated by Bro. Bob's post onchurch's councils.
Bro. Bob wrote:
| Quote: | | I'm sorry it offends. But I think Paul gave those folks the best advice (if it was only advice) that he knew how to. I have seen church councils work well. I have seen them in turmoil. I never saw one in turmoil that was composed of men who met every single standard Paul imposed. The descension was always traced to men who were divorced and remarried, or men who were novices, young, and had never married. |
Some of us seem to think that these scripture are no longer relevant. That they are outdated. That we know better now than they did then. But the more I study some of the things that were going on at that time the more I realize as Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the sun." They had homosexuality, adultery, rebellion, murder, calamity, terrible governments...on and on, just as we do.
If we are prescribed something to get rid of an infection, we can take it and get rid of it or we can walk around with pneumonia. Yes we can, but we won't be very productive! Our body may eventually fight it off, but why don't we just take our medicine 
Paul's prescriptions for the church are timeless and if we will take them to heart, I do believe we will be better steward's of Christ's church! |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/17/12 9:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
Jesus could have made a real statement about women in leadership by appointing a female as one of the 12. Paul advocates men in the roles of overseers and says the women should bear children and take care of their homes. To the original post about Galatians 3:28, it is completely illogical to deduce that Paul was using this text to advocate women as overseers.
But in the end, none of us are persuaded by the points of the other, correct? So carry on! |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
8/17/12 10:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Jesus could have made a real statement about women in leadership by appointing a female as one of the 12. |
But since he didn't, we therefore know that he didn't want women in leadership?
And can we conclude he also did not want Gentiles in leadership? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/17/12 11:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Jesus could have made a real statement about women in leadership by appointing a female as one of the 12. |
But since he didn't, we therefore know that he didn't want women in leadership?
And can we conclude he also did not want Gentiles in leadership? |
If Paul had written, "I do not permit a Gentile to teach or usurp authority over a Jew...The bishop must be Jewish", then it would be pretty foolish to use Galatians 3:28 to argue for Gentiles in leadership.
But since Paul does not specify that a bishop must be Jewish and he instructed a redeemed uncircumcised Greek (Titus) appointing elders/bishops, it does not make sense to argue that he did not believe in Gentiles being bishops.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/17/12 1:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
Link, don't waste your time on "bonnie" because "she" believes women have the right to be overseers despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise  |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
8/17/12 1:39 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
