User Tag List

View Poll Results: Ni Dom Users: Which best describes your beliefs about God?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTJ: I believe there is a God

    8 14.29%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a >50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    1 1.79%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a 50-50 chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    3 5.36%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a <50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    5 8.93%
  • INTJ: I believe there is no God

    15 26.79%
  • INFJ: I believe there is a God

    9 16.07%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a >50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    2 3.57%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a 50-50 chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    4 7.14%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a <50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    5 8.93%
  • INFJ: I believe there is no God

    4 7.14%
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 140

Thread: Ni Doms: What are your thoughts on God?

  1. #101
    The elder Holmes Array Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Your simplistic meme seems to only work against straw men, my friend?
    I rather wish the members of this board would investigate what constitutes a proper straw man fallacy and quit abusing the term with such frequency.

    In short: when I intentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument with the intent of attacking this misrepresentation, I am committing a straw man fallacy. For example if, in the context of this discussion, I'd said, "Now, Christians will tell you that the universe was made by a man named Jesus Christ..." and subsequently went on to cite research questioning Jesus' existence, that would be a straw man fallacy.

    I've pointed out that many spiritualists, eager to attribute the unexplained to God, have had to content themselves with an increasingly narrow field of the unexplained, a phenomenon referred to as the God of the Gaps. I didn't make this up, and I'm not willfully distorting anyone's stance. Pointing out a lack of logical rigor does not constitute a straw man fallacy.

    Hmmm, well, let's see:

    "I feel hungry, there it is true that I am hungry."

    Yep, that seems to work...
    Assuming you're not being facetious, this demonstrates a lack of distinction between two fundamentally different interpretations of the word.

    Are you sure you're not just trying to justify your own lack of balance with regards to T and F?

    Your problem, once again, is your assumption that an openness to the idea of the Divine is caused by a "preoccupation with emotional responses".

    As I said, that notion is ridiculous.

    My openness is actually bred by reason, and my reason's own understanding of the limits of reason.
    To clarify: I believe, as I've stated, that only rational thought (here in the Jungian sense) is suited to the task of telling us anything real about the reality we inhabit. There are certain pursuits (artistic, in particular) where a greater attentiveness to our subjective emotional experiences of reality are more appropriate, but these are not my concern. I'll be the first to admit that I, to a degree partially conscious and partially unconscious, have sacrificed artistic development for intellectual rigor. Many people who've made the opposite sacrifice are unwilling to acknowledge this, and hastily label the areas of their world view that have gone untended to, so to speak, "spirituality" and pat themselves on the back.

    You really want to bring Schopenhauer into this?

    The fact of the matter is that Kant's "separate providence" argument stands.

    All you can do, in light of it, is call it a "cop-out".

    Oh, how rigorous of you...
    Given that you posited Kant's statement as the end of the line, as though he had no notable successors, yes, I felt it worthwhile to bring Schopenhauer into this.

    And here's my take, again, on the separate providences argument: anything we can know about this reality, we know on the basis of empirical evidence as filtered through our sense organs and fed through our psychological apparatus. Even the basic premise that we live in a reality of some sort that somehow came into being -- was arrived at on the basis of sensory data. Everything we know is on the basis of sensory data, and any claim we can make about our shared reality can only be supported on the basis of empirical evidence and sound reasoning. Even the religious recognize this, as they're quick to adopt any line of reasoning which supports those things they've selected to believe, but the simple fact is that intuitions and emotions do not provide any real data. Intuitions have, as their material, contents filtered in through the sensory organs and psychological apparatus. Emotions are in response to contents filtered in through the sensory organs and psychological apparatus.

    In fact, I would encourage you, in the spirit of sound thinking, to rigorously search the contents of your mind for anything with no basis in contents as filtered through the sense organs and the psychological apparatus.

    At any rate, if you can demonstrate either that Jung was mistaken and we can devote our limited free psychological energy to objective phenomenon and our emotional responses to these phenomenon equally and to equal efficacy, or can demonstrate that emotional responses to objective phenomenon do, in fact, tell us something real about the universe as we experience it, I assure you in sincerity that I'd read it with interest.

    As it stands, the spirit of your post is clearly not one of iron sharpening iron but of competitive quibbling, and I'll not respond to any post that doesn't address either of the above areas of contention.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  2. #102
    The elder Holmes Array Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Which leads me to a question I've been wondering since the beginning of this discussion: how well developed would you say your tertiary function is, Mycroft?
    A fair question. I would say, to avoid falling back upon folk typology tropes, that my realization that only rational thinking equips one to deal with life's vagaries has made me more efficacious and, consequently, phlegmatic and calm, freeing me on occasion to address my emotional needs satisfactorily.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #103
    ¤ Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    A fair question. I would say, to avoid falling back upon folk typology tropes, that my realization conviction that only rational thinking equips one to deal with life's vagaries has made me more efficacious and, consequently, phlegmatic and calm, freeing me on occasion to address my emotional needs satisfactorily.
    So not very well developed it seems...?
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  4. #104
    The elder Holmes Array Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    So not very well developed it seems...?
    Not quite the point I was attempting to make.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  5. #105
    ¤ Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Not quite the point I was attempting to make.
    But the point you did make.
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  6. #106
    ¤ Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I rather wish the members of this board would investigate what constitutes a proper straw man fallacy and quit abusing the term with such frequency.

    In short: when I intentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument with the intent of attacking this misrepresentation, I am committing a straw man fallacy. For example if, in the context of this discussion, I'd said, "Now, Christians will tell you that the universe was made by a man named Jesus Christ..." and subsequently went on to cite research questioning Jesus' existence, that would be a straw man fallacy.

    I've pointed out that many spiritualists, eager to attribute the unexplained to God, have had to content themselves with an increasingly narrow field of the unexplained, a phenomenon referred to as the God of the Gaps. I didn't make this up, and I'm not willfully distorting anyone's stance. Pointing out a lack of logical rigor does not constitute a straw man fallacy.
    No need. I know what a proper straw man fallacy is.

    The implication of your statement was that all spiritual believers fell into this category of believers (i.e., "the God of the Gaps"), and thus that the nature of the spiritual argument was properly circumscribed by this idea.

    This is not the case, and it presents the spiritual argument as weaker than it it actually is.

    As such, you'd built up a straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Assuming you're not being facetious, this demonstrates a lack of distinction between two fundamentally different interpretations of the word.
    I was being facetious (sort of).

    I felt at liberty to be so, however, because I didn't find your test as really worthy of serious consideration.

    You see, once again, the issue goes back to Kant.

    The truth is: if I feel A is true, then maybe A is true, and maybe it is not.

    If it's something capable of being empirically tested and falsified or verified, then the latter part of that statement can be verified or falsified.

    If not, then it cannot...

    And, well, simply put, there are plenty of things that cannot ...

    Including whether or not I am indeed hungry...



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    To clarify: I believe, as I've stated, that only rational thought (here in the Jungian sense) is suited to the task of telling us anything real about the reality we inhabit.
    Now, this is the point where, while I was being facetious in my earlier comment, I was not really being so entirely...

    Can rational thought tell me how a mouthful of ice cream tastes to me?

    And is it not something real how this mouthful of ice cream tastes to me?

    See, I've started to see what you've done here, and it's that you've created this linguistic framework whereby only reason is capable of revealing objective truth and intuition and emotion are relegated to some other lesser status, but, the fact of the matter is: this is just a linguistic framework...

    If you're gunna Schopenhauer my Kant, then I'm gunna Wittgenstein your Schopenhauer...

    (And the Wittgenstein card is much stronger than the Schopenhauer one)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    There are certain pursuits (artistic, in particular) where a greater attentiveness to our subjective emotional experiences of reality are more appropriate, but these are not my concern. I'll be the first to admit that I, to a degree partially conscious and partially unconscious, have sacrificed artistic development for intellectual rigor. Many people who've made the opposite sacrifice are unwilling to acknowledge this, and hastily label the areas of their world view that have gone untended to, so to speak, "spirituality" and pat themselves on the back.
    Once again, stop using straw men to make your argument seem stronger and the opposition weaker than necessarily need be the case.

    You're using specific, weak, and limited examples to imply that this must be the case for all pro-spiritual argument, which is not, in fact, the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Given that you posited Kant's statement as the end of the line, as though he had no notable successors, yes, I felt it worthwhile to bring Schopenhauer into this.
    I'm not saying he had no notable successors.

    Philosophy did, indeed, continue after Kant.

    But, the fact of the matter is, the "separate providences" argument stands.

    The paradox that Schopenhauer identified (that I remember identifying independently when I was about 6 years old) does not change that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    And here's my take, again, on the separate providences argument: anything we can know about this reality, we know on the basis of empirical evidence as filtered through our sense organs and fed through our psychological apparatus.
    I can't agree with you on this.

    Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a God.

    Well, I think it's fair to say that, even if it is true, we will likely have no empirical evidence of this God's existence.

    So why would I accept your premise, if this God in fact does exist, I believe this God exists, and thus, in believing so, I actually know the truth, without any empirical evidence.

    Once again, the point of Kant's "separate providences" argument was to separate these two realms, and you keep writhing in every way possible to avoid his (accurate) conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Even the basic premise that we live in a reality of some sort that somehow came into being -- was arrived at on the basis of sensory data.
    Not necessarily.

    We might just have the idea that everything that exists must have at one point had a beginning, as if that were an a priori truth that we are capable of understanding outside of sensory impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Everything we can know empirically is on the basis of sensory data, and any claim we can make about our shared reality can only be supported on the basis of empirical evidence and sound reasoning.
    See my corrections in bold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Even the religious recognize this, as they're quick to adopt any line of reasoning which supports those things they've selected to believe...
    Once again, you're putting up a straw man by making your opponent's position appear weaker than it actually is.

    They don't know recognize "this", as you stated it.

    They recognize that empirical evidence is an extremely powerful and useful tool upon which to base knowledge claims.

    That doesn't mean they agree with you that it's the only potential basis of knowledge claims.

    Why even make that argument?

    Are you being disingenuous, or do you actually believe what you said?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    ...but the simple fact is that intuitions and emotions do not provide any real data.
    Your logic is circular, as you're defining "real" as only those things which are based empirically and by reason, and then concluding that the data that intuitions and emotions provide are therefore not real.

    Do you not see how that is circular?

    You're reminding me here of Descartes' proof of the existence of God...

    Interesting how things have flipped around though, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Intuitions have, as their material, contents filtered in through the sensory organs and psychological apparatus. Emotions are in response to contents filtered in through the sensory organs and psychological apparatus.
    Good to see the definitions you're using.

    Could you also provide me one of "reason" so I could better understand your linguistic framework?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    At any rate, if you can demonstrate either that Jung was mistaken and we can devote our limited free psychological energy to objective phenomenon and our emotional responses to these phenomenon equally and to equal efficacy, or can demonstrate that emotional responses to objective phenomenon do, in fact, tell us something real about the universe as we experience it, I assure you in sincerity that I'd read it with interest.
    With regards to the first bolded part: what precisely do you mean by equally and to equal efficacy?

    With regards to the second: I believe I already did this in my above example about the mouthful of ice cream. Do you really not see how emotions (and even our individual emotions) are an inherent part of the universe? And, as such, if we are not well-versed in our own emotional life, then we are inherently missing out on a part of that universe? And, if by not understanding our emotions, we are missing out on a part of that universe, then how can we claim to be able to know everything about that universe via reason?

    Experience is another ground of knowledge.

    Reason does not have a monopoly on truth.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you are trivializing emotion and overemphasizing the need to shut off one's emotional life in order to develop one's rational faculties.

    I, on the other hand, believe emotion is a relevant part of this universe, as is reason, and that each has something to tell us about it.

    I also believe that it is better to develop both faculties -- the emotional and the rational -- in order to come to a more thorough and fuller understanding of the universe we live in.

    Reason alone cannot see the whole picture.

    (I will agree, however, that, without reason, one absolutely cannot see the whole picture, and that human beings who lack reason are annoying and incapable of seeing much truth.)
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  7. #107
    The elder Holmes Array Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Zarathustra, Night addressed this vein of thinking beautifully here and here, so I'll not set myself to reinventing an already finely-crafted wheel.

    (And I'll reiterate, more for the benefit of others reading this thread: pointing out the weakness in an argument is not committing a straw man fallacy.)

    So far all you've done is assure me that there are strong cases for a spiritual outlook without presenting any of these cases. I've heard, gracious, many arguments in favor of spirituality and not a one has been strong. Perhaps you'll surprise me.

    Issues you'll need to address:

    - how we can come into sound knowledge which is not on the basis of empirical evidence; e.g. how we can know something un-empirically
    - how God (or anything for that matter) could exist without a form of existence

    And if you're going to claim that we can never prove that God exists on the basis of empirical evidence, because he doesn't intersect with our empirical realm:

    - how God could be finite (which he must be, as he and our empirical universe would be separate from one another) without falling into the trap of infinite regress; e.g., if at least two objects (God and the empirical universe) adhere within reality, who created this reality?
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #108
    ¤ Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Zarathustra, Night addressed this vein of thinking beautifully here and here, so I'll not set myself to reinventing an already finely-crafted wheel.
    I will check those out when I have time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    (And I'll reiterate, more for the benefit of others reading this thread: pointing out the weakness in an argument is not committing a straw man fallacy.)
    Implying that an argument is weak by only pointing to the kinds of people who adhere to some weak form of that argument is a straw man fallacy.

    Because there are stronger forms of that argument that don't adhere to the weakness you've pointed out.

    This might also be able to be subsumed under stacking the deck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    So far all you've done is assure me that there are strong cases for a spiritual outlook without presenting any of these cases.
    I've provided a link to you; why not check it out when you have time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I've heard, gracious, many arguments in favor of spirituality and not a one has been strong.
    If you're closed off to a particular argument to begin with, then you will inveitably think it is weak.

    You will simply be imposing your will to hold to your current belief against the other's argument.

    A rather nasty habit of the will to power, particularly when used for close-minded purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Issues you'll need to address:

    - how we can come into sound knowledge which is not on the basis of empirical evidence; e.g. how we can know something un-empirically
    - how God (or anything for that matter) could exist without a form of existence
    If by "sound", you mean empirically verified (which, to be honest, you probably do), then this is a fool's errand.

    I will, however, invite you to think about the fact that some things that are empirically verifiable can be soundly understood before they are rigorously tested and verified to be true.

    Likewise, it is possible that some things that are not empirically verifiable can be soundly understood before they are rigorously tested and verified to be true (which, by definition, could never happen).

    Once again, your only counterargument to Kant's idea of "separate providences" has been to call it a cop-out.

    From someone who holds reason in such regard, I would hope you would be reasonable enough to see that that is a rather weak argument.

    While reason is a beautiful thing, it is just as important for it to recognize its own limits as for it to be used effectively.

    In fact, I'd say the latter cannot truly occur (in the largest sense) without the former having taken place.

    Aside from that, with regards to the second bullet: when you start using words like "forms of existence" with regards to a potential God, you clearly show the futility of the human mind regarding matters cosmic. You seem to have far too much faith in this linguistic framework.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    And if you're going to claim that we can never prove that God exists on the basis of empirical evidence, because he doesn't intersect with our empirical realm:

    - how God could be finite (which he must be, as he and our empirical universe would (otherwise?) be separate from one another) without falling into the trap of infinite regress; e.g., if at least two objects (God and the empirical universe) adhere within reality, who created this reality?
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "intersect" here.

    I'm also not quite sure why you made this deduction (in bold) that if he doesn't intersect (whatever precisely that means) with our empirical world, that he must be finite -- were you missing the word that I added (in underline and bold)? Something seems to be missing in that part of your writing (or reasoning)...

    As I've told you, I don't find the infinite regress argument to be a trap, but a paradox, and, in many ways, not so much a paradox, as a failure in human understanding to grasp that which it really has no ability to comprehend empirically, and then to assume that it's capable of far more than it really is.

    Also, I would ask for your definitions here for "adhere" and "reality".

    Oh, and you also didn't give me a definition to "reason" like I asked for in my last post...

    If you're gunna be throwing all these kinds of arguments around, I really need to know your precise definitions.

    I'm not playing the same language game as you.



    *

    Btw, are you sure you're not an INTP? Or might you be a heavy user of Ti?

    In earlier writings of yours (and possibly even now), I've definitely gotten an INTJ vibe from you (or at least an Ni one).

    But the style of argumentation you've been using here has seemed very Ti-based. (But perhaps I am mistaken.)
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  9. #109
    The elder Holmes Array Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Until you present some form of argument that can be analyzed and subsequently addressed, I don't see how we can advance this discussion.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  10. #110
    ¤ Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,724

    Default

    I'm not really presenting an argument so much as deconstructing yours.

    If you look at my vote in the poll, I chose the 50/50 option.

    I believe this is the only truly rational choice, as any other choice would simply be falling victim to one's preconceived biases/notions/beliefs.

    You chose to make an ignorant claim about emotion and the reasonability of belief in the Divine, and I decided to call you out on it.

    In my opinion, and I'm sure the opinion of many people who might read this discussion, you have really provided no solid grounding for your claim.

    Rather, all you have done is repeatedly reiterate your own preconceived notions/beliefs/definitions about the nature of reality, truth, reason, emotion, intuition, and the possible existence of God, and then offered circular arguments based on those preconceived notions/beliefs/definitions.

    As I said before (and have believed for sometime), I believe you are a very intelligent person.

    But, also as I said before, you are discounting the value of emotion, overstating the power of of our rational faculties, and discounting all sorts of reasonable possibilities to which you have closed yourself off under the guise of what you call "reason".
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


Similar Threads

  1. [sx] Two types of Sx doms
    By Elfboy in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 01-28-2013, 04:03 AM
  2. [sp] Sp doms COME HERE!
    By Kasper in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 06-29-2012, 09:40 AM
  3. [sx] Sx-doms...come to me ;)
    By Amargith in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 264
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 09:16 AM
  4. [Si] Can Si-doms answer this?
    By Humble Bragger in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-17-2011, 08:59 AM
  5. Si doms, what are your thoughts on God?
    By Snuggletron in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 01:45 PM

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