User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 130

Thread: Blind faith

  1. #41
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Never say never.
    No, I don't discount that particular saying.

    What I'm interested in is a means to gain epistemic/evidence-based insight into the existence of a creator deity.

  2. #42
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Peguy?

    Or, anyone for that matter - do you believe there is a way to gain (falsifiable) evidence-based perspective on the existence of a hypothetical deity?
    I believe there is none whatsoever.

    Deities are nice ideas for some though, and depending just how much you like the idea, you'll believe in one. I like the idea myself, and sort of leave it at that.

    I agree with everything an empiricist may say as far as lack of evidence for God goes -- and I think Apologetics/Arguments for God's existence are the biggest waste of time. I simply believe in God because I like the idea. I guess that's blind faith in a way, but I don't think of myself as anymore blind than others. At a certain point, everyone is blind. You then either choose door number 1 or door number 2, or.. you can just sit there too, I guess. Will there be consequences to which door you choose? That may be the real question. I'm leaning on.... no. It's hard to imagine getting smacked for simply picking a wrong door. haha... that would be so lame.

  3. #43
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I believe there is none whatsoever.

    Deities are nice ideas for some though, and depending just how much you like the idea, you'll believe in one. I like the idea myself, and sort of leave it at that.

    I agree with everything an empiricist may say as far as lack of evidence for God goes -- and I think Apologetics/Arguments for God's existence are the biggest waste of time. I simply believe in God because I like the idea. I guess that's blind faith in a way, but I don't think of myself as anymore blind than others. At a certain point, everyone is blind. You then either choose door number 1 or door number 2, or.. you can just sit there too, I guess. Will there be consequences to which door you choose? That may be the real question. I'm leaning on.... no. It's hard to imagine getting smacked for simply picking a wrong door. haha... that would be so lame.
    I appreciate your honesty. William Lane Craig offers a series of interesting arguments on the unimportance of offering an empirical schematic for the existence of God.

    I can't say that I necessarily agree with him. I like to have tangible data before I can make a decision - especially on a topic as significant as theistic belief.

  4. #44
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Peguy?

    Or, anyone for that matter - do you believe there is a way to gain (falsifiable) evidence-based perspective on the existence of a hypothetical deity?

    Any and all suggestions are welcome.
    Questions about the existence of a deity are inherently ironic. They seek evidence for an entity that transcends everything, including reality itself, and for this reason, it's at the moment when someone proves God that they prove their defeat; they've taken a being that is totally beyond us and ascribed all kinds of limiting characteristics to it. "God is a trinity, not a monad." "God is love, not hate." "God is everything--these feelings, these ideas, and that table over there." Every time you speak, think, or posit a god you prove that it isn't God: you shoot the idea through with comparisons, contrasts, and limits. Nor is this even a matter of keeping quiet about that of which you can't speak. God is literally unconscionable on any level. Even a wordless awe that wafts through your soul like a savor will never manage to enfold everything; this sense of awe is always on the move, always seeking to get a hold of something beyond itself. Never is it a perfect awe; it's an awe that loses itself in a sense, however faint, of the mundane and incomplete. In fact, it's only by virtue of the worldly that this awe can even exist, otherwise it would have nothing to be in awe of. Worse yet, the moment this awe gets a hold of itself--and it always does know itself, or you wouldn't be aware of it--it realizes that it too is only a thing in the world.

    God is thus a kind of self-deception, a lie that knows it's a lie and yet still believes in itself. You'll find this same characteristic in all logical formulations; they're all ways in which we try and fail to lift ourselves above the world, and they always touch us with a sense of the absurd. Probably it's the rationalist who finds himself most unable to believe in the world; he's a student of nonsense, a weaver of webs who knows they're webs and still clings to them as though they're truths. As the absurdity of his universe mounts, he stands a good chance of reaching the supreme act of nonsense: he may come to believe in God, which amounts to embracing the emptiness of logic with yet another act of logic.

    If we can't count on the rational, all we're left with is faith. To have faith is neither to ask for proofs nor to concoct arguments; to have faith is to be like a child and believe for no reason. Faith is the antithesis of logic, the sole remedy for it, and it's only through a spirit of faith that we can convince ourselves of anything. It's possible that we could even convince ourselves that there's a God, although this belief, like all beliefs, will always have a taste of nonsense about it.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #45
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Questions about the existence of a deity are inherently ironic. They seek evidence for an entity that transcends everything, including reality itself, and for this reason, it's at the moment when someone proves God that they prove their defeat; they've taken a being that is totally beyond us and ascribed all kinds of limiting characteristics to it. "God is a trinity, not a monad." "God is love, not hate." "God is everything--these feelings, these ideas, and that table over there." Every time you speak, think, or posit a god you prove that it isn't God: you shoot the idea through with comparisons, contrasts, and limits. Nor is this even a matter of keeping quiet about that of which you can't speak.
    Right - I've heard this before, but how do you know that God is inherently things like omnibenevolent, omniscient and the like? Furthermore, what do these terms mean in practice? I think we've all seen these ideas theorized in biblical text, but certainly have never seen them in physical expression.

    And, how do you know that God is 'all things' - like the chair upon which I sit, or the forum we share to think.

    What metric are you using?

    The point I'm trying to make is that believers often ascribe transcendent terminology to describe what is essentially an exercise in pure thought/abstraction. In order for something to be viewed as credible in any other circle, one would require concrete, testable rationale. Yet, in religion, it seems to me that we require nothing of the sort in order to form profound conclusions on the essential nature of the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    God is literally unconscionable on any level. Even a wordless awe that wafts through your soul like a savor will never manage to enfold everything; this sense of awe is always on the move, always seeking to get a hold of something beyond itself. Never is it a perfect awe; it's an awe that loses itself in a sense, however faint, of the mundane and incomplete. In fact, it's only by virtue of the worldly that this awe can even exist, otherwise it would have nothing to be in awe of. Worse yet, the moment this awe gets a hold of itself--and it always does know itself, or you wouldn't be aware of it--it realizes that it too is only a thing in the world.

    God is thus a kind of self-deception, a lie that knows it's a lie and yet still believes in itself. You'll find this same characteristic in all logical formulations; all of them are ways in which we try and fail to lift ourselves above the world, and they always touch us with a sense of the absurd. Probably it's the logician who finds himself most unable to believe in the world; he's a student of nonsense, a weaver of webs who knows they're webs and still clings to them as though they're truths. As the absurdity of his universe mounts, he stands a good chance of reaching the supreme act of nonsense: he may come to believe in God, which amounts to embracing the emptiness of logic with yet another act of logic.

    If we can't count on the rational, all we're left with is faith. To have faith is neither to ask for proofs nor to concoct arguments; to have faith is to be like a child and believe for no reason. Faith is the antithesis of logic, the sole remedy for it, and it's only through a spirit of faith that we can convince ourselves of anything. It's possible that we could even convince ourselves that there's a God, although this belief, like all beliefs, will always have a taste of nonsense about it.
    So, what is your governing rationale for what to believe in? Where do you draw the line?

  6. #46
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Right - I've heard this before, but how do you know that God is inherently things like omnibenevolent, omniscient and the like? Furthermore, what do these terms mean in practice? I think we've all seen these ideas theorized in biblical text, but certainly have never seen them in physical expression.

    And, how do you know that God is 'all things' - like the chair upon which I sit, or the forum we share to think.

    What metric are you using?
    I didn't use any real metric--those we're just examples I gave to illustrate the idea that claims about God are always ironic. You could describe, experience, or think of him in any way you want, and it would only prove my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night
    The point I'm trying to make is that believers often ascribe transcendent terminology to describe what is essentially an exercise in pure thought/abstraction. In order for something to be viewed as credible in any other circle, one would require concrete, testable rationale. Yet, in religion, it seems to me that we require nothing of the sort in order to form profound conclusions on the essential nature of the universe.
    Faith is always in question: "I believe this, but it isn't a reality here and now; I can only hope and wait for it." So even the person of faith will find himself in a state of testing the waters, so to speak, although in practice he'll be more resistant to changing his mind than someone who takes a "scientific" approach. Why? Simply because you have faith to the extent that you ignore or lack reason. Faith waits, expects, and holds it breath, while reason questions. Never can you have one of the two divorced from the other. Faith is always anticipating, and it seeks to relieve this anticipation with an answer in the form of evidence, and any evidence will assert itself as something for you to believe through faith. Never can you escape this; at any given moment, you will have proof of various things and at the same instant various degrees of faith in those proofs. The only thing that can be distinguished between the two is how much questioning you do relative to believing. The scientific ideal is to do nothing but question, to question so thoroughly that you can never get a hold of anything to have faith in. The religious ideal is to wipe out questioning and turn everything into an infinite thickness of certainty. People can approach either of these ideals, but they can never achieve them, since to do so would be to destroy reality by turning it into an absolute fluidity (of questioning) or an utter stillness (of certainty).

    So what I want to say, basically, is that what you mentioned is a difference of degree rather than nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night
    So, what is your governing rationale for what to believe in? Where do you draw the line?
    Sometimes I believe in dragons and other times I believe in science. If I draw any lines at all, I draw them while refusing to draw them anywhere.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  7. #47
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Whaa the topic keeps changing so fast XD First I wanted to cover my personal views and expectations of whot I thought would happen, then I wanted to finish the statement I'd made but had to cut short due to class, and now ... oh meh I may as well just hop into the current conversation. Whotever XD



    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    They seek evidence for an entity that transcends everything, including reality itself, and for this reason, it's at the moment when someone proves God that they prove their defeat; they've taken a being that is totally beyond us and ascribed all kinds of limiting characteristics to it.
    I actually hold this as a strong indication of the inherent flaw in organized religion as a whole; to be a member of ANY faith is to state that yeu know the unknowable; that yeu understand whot the human mind cannot grasp; that yeu are privy to the things that yeu cannot possibly know, such as the nature of god, whot god 'wants', or whot form god would take in the first place.

    Religious texts may or may not have divine influence, but they are, in the end, written not just by humans, who are flawed in and of themselves, but moreso they are most often written by committee, and please enlighten me to the last time anything consistent and accurate has ever come out of one of those.

    By the mere definition of FAITH, it can NOT have firm proof or evidence. Or it wouldn't be taken on faith...

    Now, that being said... we can infer with some degree of certainty, with the information presented to us, that 'something' may exist beyond mortal comprehension. As to whether this 'something' is even a conscious entity, or just a giant set of clockwork gears, this we do not know, nor would we be capable of perceiving, let alone comprehending such, even if we knew of it.

    And of course there's the issue that "some degree of certainty" is kind of a pretty large variable in and of itself, not to mention that it relies solely upon current information and understanding of the information we have at this point in time, which's far from inclusive of everything there is to be known, nor all the factors related to such.

    We used to believe thunder and lightning, rainbows, and so on, were manually placed one at a time by demons, gods, angels, and mythical creatures. We now know how they operate mechanically, at least to a degree, and it's become apparent that they're not being generated by hand, and rather, there's predictable factors which create such, implying an automated system. So at the very least, either god's not all powerful, or doesn't have infinite patience, so either way, god is not 100% infinite in all regards.

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I'm leaning on.... no. It's hard to imagine getting smacked for simply picking a wrong door. haha... that would be so lame.
    Another thing I'd like to point out is this line here by KDude... really, we have how many religions? All professing to be the "one true religion"? That all others are false? Whot proof do any of them have? Anecdotal evidence, and personal beliefs mean nothing... if I had cancer and it went into remission, I could either believe it to be just a bizarre medical occurrence, I could believe it to be the work of god, of allah, or of karma, who knows! But the same information would be interpreted to fit THEIR belief system every time.

    All religions claim to be the one true one, and none offer any evidence to support such beyond the same evidence every other gives. It is a blind faith spin of the wheel, a door to be picked... to pick the wrong one out of thousands of choices equals certain damnation for all eternity too, of course. Because it makes perfect sense to drop someone in a room with 500,000 identical objects, and tell them to pick the right one, and if yeu pick the wrong one yeu're tortured for eternity. Because it truly is 500,000 identical objects, they give no explanation, no proof, no evidence, no understanding. How can yeu possibly tell the 'truth'? We don't even physically live long enough for the time it'd take to go through each and every religion and sub-religion in the depth necessary to understand them to make even a remotely educated decision, so exactly how are we expected to pick 'the right one' while blindfolded and given nothing solid to work with?

    One can only surmise that, whotever god or goddess there is out there, if any, or multiple, that they don't really care which yeu pick, as long as yeu meet certain factors. Personally, I'd like to assume that those factors are related to yeur attempt to try to learn the truth and generally be a nice person to some extent. Problem there being that 'nice person' isn't even a solid concept, but a variable in and of itself; whot may be polite in one society is an insult in another, there's no common ground really... so there's not even that.

    Regardless, if a god truly did expect me to "pick the right religion", with no information whotsoever, even *IF* I got it right, I'd boycott heaven on principle, because I refuse to worship anything that undeserving of such.

    The only thing we can be certain of, or at least reasonably so, is that the universe seems to exist... or at least we believe it does with the information we currently possess. We also are aware that at one point it did not exist; be it big bang or divine creation, who cares, it doesn't matter, somehow something had to've come from nothing. Therefore, something exists outside the universe as we know it; M-theory thinks branes make it all make sense, but that still requires the acceptance of something infinite beyond our understanding, so really, is putting the name "god" to it any different?

    In the end, we must understand that we can't understand the mere concept of infinity as it is, and that from the very starting point we begin at, we've already hit a snag in our ability to understand the universe and our creation.

    So... where's blind faith come in? Well... blind faith assumes yeu know something for certain with no evidence at all; as mentioning to victor earlier, MBTI is not reliant upon blind faith. It states that it is flawed and merely the best shot at a vague guide that made sense at the time, but is in no way flawless. There are individuals who treat it as infallible, but that is the failure of the individual, not the system.

    Blind faith doesn't reside there, but rather in those that insist on accepting every single thing written in their holy text as absolute unfettered truth with no possibility of error; that their prophet is a semi-divine being and incapable of error, be they the head of a cult, or the pope, the belief is that they have a direct line to god and know the 'truth'.

    Dogma, by definition, is a set of rules for interpretation; they TELL yeu how to think, and how to believe. Blind faith is when yeu truly believe without any idea of whot yeu believe or WHY yeu believe it. To insist that christianity, or muslim, or whotever, is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and yet... have no more reason to believe that than any other religion out there, is foolish at best, and definitely negligent if yeu force such beliefs upon children who have yet to be able to think rationally about such things themselves. Telling them it's true from a position of authority, yet giving no reason why... and not even knowing yeurself... really how does this get classified as a good thing?

    We need not pick the door in KDude's example blindly though. We can look at the door, inspect the quality, if there's cracks in its' foundation, we can tap the handle to see if it's hot. We can use our minds to try to process this information to try to come up with something that vaguely resembles at least the attempt to've understood.

    Of course, if we go by MBTI standards, I have a heavy weight of Thinking preference in my values; to me, to accept the first thing yeu're told blindly without questioning it is madness, and no god who expects that of anyone is worthy of worship, especially if it's a 1 in 500,000 chance to get it 'right'.

    Of course, those who are heavy Feelers, and likely Judgers, likely think me a fool for not being willing to accept a strict organized layout on faith alone.

    We will never see eye to eye, but I still think that if yeu want to call yeurselves the 'children of god' or treat yeurselves as demigods, or 'better than nature', that yeu should really be using yeur brains for once. I just find it so ironic that those who are of the firmest belief that they are superior, are the same ones who are anything but.

    "I'm smarter than a dumb animal! Animals didn't invent guns!" Yeah... that gives yeu all the right to go out hunting... oh wait, yeu're just giving into basic instinct on the need to hunt/kill, thereby showing yeu're not any better than the animal yeu hunt, and yeu personally didn't invent guns, and chances are yeu wouldn't be capable of such since yeu've already shown very little in the way of capacity to outreason yeur natural instincts >.>

    Oh well I'm ranting now. I'll stop for now =3

    Blah blah blah blah blah!

  8. #48
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Faith is always in question: "I believe this, but it isn't a reality here and now; I can only hope and wait for it." So even the person of faith will find himself in a state of testing the waters, so to speak, although in practice he'll be more resistant to changing his mind than someone who takes a "scientific" approach. Why? Simply because you have faith to the extent that you ignore or lack reason. Faith waits, expects, and holds it breath, while reason questions. Never can you have one of the two divorced from the other. Faith is always anticipating, and it seeks to relieve this anticipation with an answer in the form of evidence, and any evidence will assert itself as something for you to believe through faith.
    So, as a person who readily understands and employs (presumably) faith-based reasoning, how can you be certain your decisions are ultimately factual?

    I'm certain - if you are anything like me - you carry with you at all times an organic skepticism wherein your decisions are perpetually measured against an internal standard of "truth" - in your case, a faith-based truth, in mine an evidence-based - as a way to further personal understanding of your reality.

    To that end, where do you get your "faith-based" evidence? What is your source of proof for the existence of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Never can you escape this; at any given moment, you will have proof of various things and at the same instant various degrees of faith in those proofs. The only thing that can be distinguished between the two is how much questioning you do relative to believing. The scientific ideal is to do nothing but question, to question so thoroughly that you can never get a hold of anything to have faith in.
    The scientific ideal observes, examines and classifies according to measured experience. In that sense, it is a recreation of falsifiable material. While science does not (and may never will) have all the answers, the primary difference between science and religion is progression of ideology.

    Monotheistic religion often stagnates belief around theistic tradition, typically around a holy book of some sort. Science is constantly reevaluating to arrive at an understanding unencumbered by belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    The religious ideal is to wipe out questioning and turn everything into an infinite thickness of certainty. People can approach either of these ideals, but they can never achieve them, since to do so would be to destroy reality by turning it into an absolute fluidity (of questioning) or an utter stillness (of certainty).
    This seems like a scary concept - "wipe out questioning"? The elimination of thought makes easy way for absolution in compliance. Why would this 'elimination' ever be a positive thing for human understanding?

    And even then, "thickness of certainty" seems to defy the very essence of what constitutes "faith".

    Do you believe the ultimate goal of religion is to destroy faith?

  9. #49
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Another thing I'd like to point out is this line here by KDude... really, we have how many religions? All professing to be the "one true religion"? That all others are false? Whot proof do any of them have? Anecdotal evidence, and personal beliefs mean nothing... if I had cancer and it went into remission, I could either believe it to be just a bizarre medical occurrence, I could believe it to be the work of god, of allah, or of karma, who knows! But the same information would be interpreted to fit THEIR belief system every time.

    All religions claim to be the one true one, and none offer any evidence to support such beyond the same evidence every other gives.
    I appreciate your post, so I apologize for only responding to a small part of it... and seemingly to criticize. It was just something that leaped out to me when I read.

    One thing I don't like about basic postmodern thought is that sometimes it can be sloppy in tracking foundation of proof. Case in point -- in terms of pure belief systems, it's become convenient to say "all religions are built on nothing, they're all purely belief." Maybe philosophical, at core, all views are "beliefs"...

    ... but some religions have more accumulated anchoring data than others.

    I will only talk about two religions I know something specific about, especially because they contrast.

    Mormons lay claim to a civilization that existed here in North America in the 1000-1200AD time period (if I have that right)... but there is no archaeological evidence at all that such a culture existed. To me, this is a very damaging claim and any beliefs built on it lack validity to me.

    In contrast, there is a lot of hard evidence of locations and cultures from the Biblical record, as well as a pretty distinct and copious collection of docs running back close to the first century. While there are lots of questions even at that point (archaeologists are still arguing about what evidence means what and whether the Biblical record is entirely supported, and just because a textual record can be traced back still does not verify whether particular incidents and conversations ACTUALLY occurred), I would have to weight "plausibility" of the faith far differently. One is built far more on connective historical ties than another, which then weights the credibility of each.

    (... I haven't commented on Muslim documents, in comparison, because I don't know much about them, except that they only have a few copies in existence of their faith because the transmission of the docs has been aggressively controlled.)

    In any case, it means I give more weight to historical faith systems than I give to "fluff" - like belief in unicorns, for example.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    What I'm interested in is a means to gain epistemic/evidence-based insight into the existence of a creator deity.
    I see your point of view, but I think it's moot. You are asking the wrong questions if you want insight into faith. I believe measuring religious belief in an scientific way is like measuring temperature with a ruler. I just don't think that faith operates on a spectrum of rationality/irrationality.

    I think that religion, when it isn't corrupted by zealotry with ulterior motives, is concerned with answering questions that reason does not. Reason asks "what". Religion asks "why". Reason has told us about the Big Bang and it has showed us how the universe has evolved. Religion attempts to tell us not what happened, but WHY these things are happening. Why is there a universe at all? Why did life evolve? Do we have a purpose?

    This is why I don't see faith and reason in conflict, and I think religious people and empiricists who see conflict are more interested in winning than in finding truth.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Faith of a Rationalist
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:16 PM
  2. Faith vs Faithfulness
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 07:10 AM
  3. Derail from "On Spiritual Gifts": Determining faith-fact from faith-fiction
    By sassafrassquatch in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Mother Teresa's crisis of faith
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 12:18 AM
  5. Survey on faith in America
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 03:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO