Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Immutability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    A little something on reading Scripture.

    Link

    -------

    Do we read the text literally? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    As we are going through the texts here to discuss the doctrine of God, one statement we will be given is that we are not taking the text literally. This is a favorite hangup of internet atheists. Many fundamentalists have the exact same approach. When I meet someone who says “We just read the Bible and believe what it says” then while I want to commend them for believing Scripture, I know they mean they interpret the text in a way they call literal.

    Now you might be shocked to hear I think you should read the text literally. However, by literal, I mean according to the intent of the author, which is the true definition of literal. I call what many people today do reading the text literalistically.

    The church fathers when reading the text asked what would be most fitting for the glory of God. Consider in Genesis 3, God walks through the garden in the cool of the day. Does that mean God has a literal body? Hopefully, we know that is not so. God is not limited in space and time. Some people could say this was an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. I could accept such a reading as well.

    If we went back a little earlier even, we can read in the text that on the seventh day, God rested. Now whether you take the text as referring to a long period of time or 24-hour days or take Augustine’s doctrine of instant creation or idea of John Walton’s reading, all of these sides for the most part agree that God was not tired of creating and just needed to take a breather.

    This is especially evident with some passages, especially the Psalms. God is said to be a shield and a rock in those passages. No one takes those passages to read God is literally a shield or literally a rock. The only exception might be Dake in his Dake’s Study Bible. I do not know if he went this far, but he tried to take the text literalistically and he is usually seen as holding heretical ideas.

    If we went to Deuteronomy, God is described as a consuming fire. No one thinks God is a cosmic bunsen burner. Note also that none of this requires that you believe the text is true. If I approach the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon, which I do not believe, I should still try to read the text according to the intent of the author. It’s easy to read any text in any work to make something sound ridiculous, but it’s not showing charity to the author regardless, and yes, I don’t think highly of Muhammad or Joseph Smith, but I still want to try to be as charitable to their writings as possible.

    Now keep in mind that I understand the followers of Islam and Mormonism respectively think that God is the ultimate author of those books. Christians believe in some way God is behind the text of Scripture, although very few hold to a dictation theory, certainly not in the scholarly world. An atheist reader will not believe that, but they still owe it to themselves to read the text fairly. If you are given a reading of the text that puts it in a bad light, but someone shows you one that puts in a better light, unless you have a strong argument against the latter argument, accept it.

    A personal example of this is there is a part in the Qur’an that looks like it denies that Jesus was crucified. I was actually reading a Christian scholar of Islam on the topic once who gave a reading of that text that he thinks indicates that the Qur’an does not really argue that way. Now it would certainly be easy for me to say the Qur’an denies the crucifixion which would be a historical absurdity, but I can’t do that in good conscience. Unless I am shown a clear defeater, I will go with the kinder reading of the text. I would want them to do the same with my book.

    This will happen more in the Bible when we get to passages that describe the body of God. If we take all of these in a literalistic way, God becomes quite a weird being. After all, some say if man and woman are in the image of God and that that image is physical, then God becomes a hermaphrodite.

    Here’s where some people have problems. A lot of people will say, “Yeah. God doesn’t have a physical body in His nature” and read those texts accordingly, but when it comes to God having emotions, those texts are read to read God has actual emotions. I read those differently. When God is said to be angry, it means that God is acting in a way that we perceive as angry and thus can relate to and understand. I also think my position is more consistent. I don’t read either one literalistically. If you want to say one is and one isn’t, you need to give me a reason. I would actually have more respect for the person who says both are to be read literalistically, though even then I suspect they think they have to pick and choose which ones they read that way.

    For atheist readers, I really hope there will be more attempts to read the text fairly. If you take a position out there and make it look absolutely absurd, odds are that you have not understood it. Most arguments against a position that are really simplistic are not well thought out and have been answered time and time again.

    I also think I am reading the text fairly with all of this. For the Bible, there have been many different readings throughout history. I am not claiming to be conversant in all of them. I don’t think anyone really could be seeing as we have thousands of years of readings. You have pre-Christian thought like the Dead Sea Scrolls, post-Christian thought like Jewish writings beyond the DSS and the church fathers, medieval writings, Reformation writings, post-Reformation writings, etc., and then there are plenty of different cultures that have read the Bible differently. Still, we should strive to be as fair as we can with any text. It’s easy to go through something like the Book of Mormon and find anachronisms, but when I see something and I wonder if it was there or not in the new world at the time, I should be fair and look it up and if it was there, don’t mention it. It doesn’t mean I think Joseph Smith has an accurate account, but it means I’m being fair.

    Keep this in mind as we look at the text. Will I interpret every text “literalistically”? No. Do I strive to be fair? Yes.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)
    I recommend the following for some historical perspective.







    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

      In the show there are certain events that are called "fixed points in time", meaning that even with time travel you can't stop them from happening or change them in any meaningful way. Minor details can change, but the main event will still happen. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius is one of these events in the show(until they retconned the concept of fixed points in time, but I digress). Other things can be changed through the actions of The Doctor and his companions.

      Also, I do recommend watching some of it. My personal favorite Doctor is David Tennant. I stopped following the show after Matt Slick's version of The Doctor.
      Matt Slick? Is that just a coincidence that it shares the same name as the CARM guy?



      Where did I say he has to know the future due to doctrines like Divine Simplicity? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
      Never said you did.

      I said that if EDF is true, then human freewill isn't. There are multiple versions of Divine Simplicity, and Impassibility. Some are much more extreme than others, just like the varying beliefs I mentioned in my previous post. Some versions of them teach that God has EDF with regards to the universe, and under those specific systems that teach that you end up with fatalism.

      I also agree that God is sovereign, and that man has freewill. However, certain descriptions of God's sovereignty make human freewill impossible. Any version of God's sovereignty that makes it so alternative choices are not possible in principle is not one in which freewill can exist, like in an EDF system(AFAIK most Calvinists ascribe to Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge).
      I'm still not really sold on the idea that God knowing what I would choose does not mean I was not free to choose it at any rate. I would need to see a defeater for the idea that I find persuasive. I don't see it yet.



      That's not necessarily true. It entirely depends on how time works in said "Godless" universe. If all of time already exists in a static block, then all time is technically an illusion. Under such a view there are no actual possible alternative choices you could make. What you do is something you were already predestined to do by the nature of time itself in that system. Time, freewill, and even change are all illusions under this particular theory of time. If however you have a system in which only the past and present are actualized, then the future still holds the potential for multiple decisions to be made that aren't "locked in". That would allow for freewill to exist, but doesn't correlate with a theistic EDF universe.

      Fatalism is possible in atheism and theism, and has been debated for millennia, and that debate is still ongoing in both camps even today.
      Which is the problem with hypotheticals. Technically, I would think if there was no God, we are just matter in motion and will act according to the matter, but if we hypothetically were not like that, then God's knowledge would not make any difference.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

        Well, you might be shocked at this, but I have never seen Doctor Who so I can't relate to the analogy at all.
        Heathen.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          Or possibly as a way of illustrating that previous practises of human/child sacrifice to Yahweh was something no longer acceptable to the god and hence the substitution of the animal in the place of the human/child. There is evidence that early Israelites [like their Canaanite neighbours] did practise human sacrifice.

          Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that child sacrifice was regarded as normal in both pre and post exilic periods except by prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel and notes that the Old Testament's condemnation of such a practise suggests that it was probably not uncommon amongst the ordinary people. [See: Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "Popular" Religion and "Official" Religion: Practice, Perception, Portrayal, in F. Stavrakopoulou and J. Barton [eds.] Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah, T&T Clark International 2010, pp. 37-58

          Much more than just Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

          It is hardly a secret that many of the ancient Israelites followed other gods, and in so doing would have also conducted child sacrifice which was pretty common in the region.

          As an aside, the story about Jephthah in the book of Judges most likely did not entail human sacrifice as is often assumed today.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            I recommend the following for some historical perspective.







            Recommending what you've given no indication you've read?

            As an FYI, Nick here consumes books.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

              Matt Slick? Is that just a coincidence that it shares the same name as the CARM guy?
              My bad, it's Matt Smith.

              Never said you did.
              You heavily implied it in the following sentence.

              " I also would dispute your idea that God cannot exhaustively know the future by saying He has to know the future due to doctrines like simplicity and others."

              So, unless you are claiming to be a mind reader you are effectively saying that I did say such a thing.

              I'm still not really sold on the idea that God knowing what I would choose does not mean I was not free to choose it at any rate. I would need to see a defeater for the idea that I find persuasive. I don't see it yet.
              You don't even seem to be interacting with what I've been writing here other than basic dismissals for the most part. I gave a perfectly valid* syllogism for my argument, and it was effectively ignored. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the only way our freedom could be curtailed by God is if He directly intervened to make choices for us. If each and every choice that we have to make is limited to one option then it is indistinguishable from a world in which our choices are made for us. The methodology in which our choices are limited to one option for each choice doesn't matter, as the result is the same, no freewill.

              Which is the problem with hypotheticals. Technically, I would think if there was no God, we are just matter in motion and will act according to the matter, but if we hypothetically were not like that, then God's knowledge would not make any difference.
              While there are atheistic worldviews like you describe, they are far from the only one. I know of atheists who believe in the soul, freewill, and even reincarnation. Regardless, any worldview whether theistic or atheistic that runs on a world in which time is eternally in place is not a free one. Whether this is due to a deterministic physics model, or due to God knowing everything that happens before it happens. You can at best get an illusion of freewill in these hypothetical worlds. So, in a theistic worldview how God's knowledge works does have an impact on whether or not we have freewill.

              *You can argue whether my syllogism is sound, but you haven't done that.
              Last edited by Cerebrum123; 06-08-2021, 10:43 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                My bad, it's Matt Smith.
                Thank you for clarifying.

                While he isn't David Tennant (and anyone immediately following him had mighty big shoes to fill), I thought that Smith did a fine job in the role. IMHBAO, I'd place him in my top five Doctors.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Thank you for clarifying.

                  While he isn't David Tennant (and anyone immediately following him had mighty big shoes to fill), I thought that Smith did a fine job in the role. IMHBAO, I'd place him in my top five Doctors.
                  I agree, Matt Smith did fine as The Doctor. David Tennant was a very hard act to follow. I did watch up until a little bit after Matt Smith left. When I started watching David Eccleston was The Doctor, and like one season in he was replaced. At first I was disappointed, but gave David Tennant a chance and he completely knocked it out of the park. Pretty much everything I've watched with David Tennant in it has been good. I'm still disappointed that the new DuckTales only got three seasons*.

                  *Which I still need to finish up the third one. We lost access to the cable channel that was airing it just when it started back up.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                    I agree, Matt Smith did fine as The Doctor. David Tennant was a very hard act to follow. I did watch up until a little bit after Matt Smith left. When I started watching David Eccleston was The Doctor, and like one season in he was replaced. At first I was disappointed, but gave David Tennant a chance and he completely knocked it out of the park. Pretty much everything I've watched with David Tennant in it has been good. I'm still disappointed that the new DuckTales only got three seasons*.

                    *Which I still need to finish up the third one. We lost access to the cable channel that was airing it just when it started back up.
                    I'll admit that Duck Tales grew on me after initially being disappointed with the reboot.

                    Eccleston's short run is also in my top five.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      I'll admit that Duck Tales grew on me after initially being disappointed with the reboot.

                      Eccleston's short run is also in my top five.
                      Other than the art style I was pretty hooked on the DuckTales reboot from the start. It continued to get better and better as the show went on barring a few meh episodes. It was very clear that the people who worked on the show actually did their research and made the show because they liked the source material*, even if they did deviate from it at times. There definitely were some changes I did not like, but they didn't impact me much because I didn't care as much about those characters anyway**. Many of the other changes I actually liked a lot. Webby and Ms Beakley went from very annoying, to some of my favorite characters.

                      I also love the fact that David Tennant got Catherine Tate(she played Donna Noble) from Doctor Who to come over to the DuckTales cast as Magica DeSpell.

                      Eccleston is probably my second favorite. I didn't get to watch much of the older stuff, but what I saw of Tom Baker was pretty good. Jon Pertwee had episodes with some interesting stories, but oh my gosh were those special effects bad at points(although some were surprisingly good for the time and budget)). Especially an episode called "The Three Doctors". I mean, I knew they were on a strict budget, but dang.

                      After Matt Smith left I only saw like three or four episodes, one of which was when Jodie Whittaker became The Doctor. I thought she did a pretty good job at portraying the character, but I'm only going off one episode.

                      *Not just the old DuckTales, but the old Scrooge McDuck and Donald Duck comics. There is a guy on YouTube named Seaniccus who goes very deep into the old material to show just how much they had dug up from the comics. Even some of the stuff I thought was completely new was often just a slight modification of older comics material.

                      ** I never did like Doofus Drake, but dang they made him creepy in this show. I also didn't care too much for the changes to the butler, Duckworth I think?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Recommending what you've given no indication you've read?
                        Unlike you I have copies to hand.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        As an FYI, Nick here consumes books.
                        I doubt he will read those.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Much more than just Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

                          It is hardly a secret that many of the ancient Israelites followed other gods
                          No they followed their own religion. It has to be understood that sacrifice in various forms was the major rite of the religions of this area including both Israel and Canaan. Previous assumptions that considered the Israelites and Canaanites to have profoundly different cultures have been challenged by recent archaeological evidence. From ca 1200-1000 BCE the material culture of the region shows that Israelite culture overlapped with, and was derived from, Canaanite culture.

                          That does not ignore the complexity of the history of early Israel and, it may be assumed, that some distinctions no doubt existed among the various groups that inhabited the valleys, coastal regions, and highlands in Israel’s earliest history. This West Semitic [or Canaanite] background of Israel’s culture extended to the area of religion. This can be seen from the terminology for sacrifices and personnel. Biblical Hebrew’s sacrificial language has corresponding terms in Ugaritic and/or Phoenician; e.g. zebah, “slaughtered offering”. This term is applied to sacrifices in both the cults of Yahweh and Baal and the polytheistic Israelites may have worshipped a variety of other deities including, El and Asherah as well as the sun, moon, and stars.

                          The range of religious practises within ancient Israel included the assimilation of El and the asherah symbol into the Yahwistic cult along with the significance of high places as well as necromancy and practises relating to the dead. As the identification between El and Yahweh indicates, the cult of Yahweh could be both monotheistic and syncretistic. All this indicates Israel’s and Yahwism’s Canaanite heritage; although of course all that would be later condemned as idolatry and non Yahwistic by the later editors and redactors of those Hebrew bible sections. One good example of this redaction/glossing is the historiography that is provided in Deuteronomy 32 which totally omits any suggestion that Israel’s cultural heritage was largely Canaanite, and actually implicitly denies that fact. [See Mark S Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, William B Eerdmans, 2nd Edition, 2002. Chapter One, “Israel’s Canaanite Heritage” pp. 61-67; Chapter Six “The Origin and Development of Israelite Monotheism” pp. 183-185]

                          As noted by Stavrakopoulou the practise of child sacrifice is well known throughout the Hebrew Bible and is the subject of two extensive narratives [Abraham and Isaac Genesis 22.1-9 and Jephthah’s daughter Judges 11. 29-40]. It also forms the climax of the writer of Kings account of the war against Moab as King Mesha sacrifices his first born son [2 Kings 3.26-27] and of course the sacrifice of Hiel’s first and lastborn sons in the reconstruction of Jericho [I Kings 16.34; cf. Joshua 6.26]. It should also be noted that the frequent association of child sacrifice is to and for Yahweh with many texts designating Yaweh as the recipient of these offerings.1

                          All of which would suggest that biblical attempts to insist that child-sacrifice was a foreign practise and alien to Israel and its god Yawheh is perhaps little more than a much later employment of editorial spin and gloss with the depiction of such practises being “other”.

                          Stavrakopoulou also examines the language employed in these various biblical texts and notes that the study of child sacrifice in the Hebrew bible is complicated by two closely related factors, the varying terminology of the biblical texts, and divergent interpretations of this terminology. She notes that there are only two verbs that indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the described practices intended to be understood as lethal with the words tebach/slaughter 2 and sacrifice or “ritual slaughter.3 The compounding of the word hiphil [offer up] with “in” [the] fire 4 may be taken as a clear indication of the lethal nature of these practises.[See Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin. 2004. Chapter Four “The Biblical Portrayal of Child Sacrifice” pp. 141-148].

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                          As an aside, the story about Jephthah in the book of Judges most likely did not entail human sacrifice as is often assumed today.
                          I think once again we have to look at this passage and include its use of language. In the Aqedah Abraham is rewarded by Yahweh for not withholding his child and his future success is predicated on this willingness to sacrifice his child. Although Isaac is not Abraham’s first born he is the first born from Abraham’s union with Sarah and as such has high value being referred to as Abraham’s only “begotten” child. The same word “yachid” is also used for Jepthath’s daughter.

                          That both the Aqedah and the story of Jephthah's daughter present the sacrifice of a child to Yahweh as an action that brings about blessings or military success [Judg. 11:30-33, 36] may also be viewed as references to fertility. Isaac is the progenitor of Abraham’s future descendants. However, that Jephthah’s daughter spends two moons on a mountain weeping because of her virginal status has been convincingly demonstrated by Peggy Day to refer specifically to a young female who has reached puberty but has yet to bear a child. [See P.L. Day, "From the Child is Born the Woman: The Story of Jephthah's Daughter", in, (ed.),Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, pp. 58-74]

                          Thus as the only “begotten” child Jephthah’s daughter is, like Isaac, a clear symbol of potential fertility. This emphasis on fertility is to be found in all the biblical texts that relate to sacrificing the firstborn and sacrificial laws relating to the firstborn opening the womb rather than being the father’s rightful heir. The special status of the first born is connected to the “first fruits” that belong to Yahweh and thus the firstborn is the deity’s by right.[Stavrakopoulou, Chapter Five “The Historical Reality of Child Sacrifice” pp. 191-196]


                          1 Exodus 13. 12-16; 22.39; 34.19; Deuteronomy 18.10; 2 Chronicles 28.3; 33.6
                          2 Genesis 22.10; Isaiah 57.5; Ezekiel 16.21; 23.39
                          3 Psalms 106.37,38; Ezekiel 16.20
                          4 Deut. 12.31; 18.10; Ezekiel 20.31
                          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 06-10-2021, 08:02 AM.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Mark Smith was a JEDP adherent, and everything he wrote was written through that lens. I have read those 2 books of his when preparing for a debate against a Mormon apologist who tried to use them as some support for Mormon polytheism.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Mark Smith was a JEDP adherent, and everything he wrote was written through that lens. I have read those 2 books of his when preparing for a debate against a Mormon apologist who tried to use them as some support for Mormon polytheism.
                              Is that addressed to me?
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                Is that addressed to me?
                                No. Just a bit of information for the general public.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X