Galactic Civilization

Create account
Login
Downloads
NewsGroup
Community
Purchase
Galactic Forum
Strategies
Mods
Empires
Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?
758 votes
1- Yes
2- No


Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread
  Search:   
Go to Bottom         Go to Bottom
#175  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/12/2004 2:02:45 PM

Having done a bit more research on the subject--I'll back away from my assertion on the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution (that assertion that Separation of Church and State was not part of the intent). Bit o' egg on my face about this too, since Jefferson was one of the clear proponents of this language and intent--and was clear on the language intending to separate relgion from the State. Sorry about that folks. Mea Culpa--I was espousing a position without enough facts.

Take a look at this page for some details on his thoughts, and the work that went into the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/rfindex.htm Link

Some more quotes from Jefferson on the subject may be found here. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm Link

To answer Exar Kuun, countries and views may change, but the principles freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press freedoms embodied in the First Ammendment were written to codify universal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The 14th Ammendment further served to guarantee these rights to all citizens and correct the major flaw of slavery that was resident in the original constitution. Reading Jefferson's preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom shows the governing mindset (even though his prose is DIFFICULT to follow--ugh--sometimes Jefferson wrote some not-so-eloquent stuff) behind the view of religious freedom.

Here is one last page, talking about the context of Church and State in Colonial Virginia. http://www.pbs.org/williamsburg/church/background.html Link

It provides a bit of an insight into the importance of the 1st Ammendment in the colonial mindset. A bit more significant than posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or saying a prayer in school, eh?
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

                      
#176  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/12/2004 2:08:37 PM

Ben--

Certainly debating religion and religious-based or -related subjects is not out of bounds. There have been some posts that have been a bit over the top, but in general the debate has been civil and reasonable. I have found a couple of good reads out of this, and had some good thinks and talks with other folks after reading this thread. Don't apologize for bringing up the subject.

                      
#177  by Veteran Samurai Ben - 4/12/2004 2:15:23 PM

Exar:

Missed your post in composition - good to see you around the Forums again!

Regarding the Puritans - the settlers of the Massachusetts Bay colony, as I recall, were certainly frowned upon in England at the time. Granted that the relative appeal of the Puritans fluctuated over time in England...and "stiff upper lip" is now a heavy metal reference, thanks, I believe, to AC/DC.

I'd argue that Nazism was more of a "pseudo-science" than a religion, as the vast majority of its supporting doctrine was twisted scientific observation. The line IS vague because a few religious elements were present as well - Nostradamus's predictions were used at one point, as I recall.

Does the founding fathers intent matter? Do not countries and their views change? Surely what matters is what the American people today believe to be the way in which they should conduct their lives?


The intent of the Founders certainly matters, as they wrote the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court is the ultimate law of the land. Modern voices get their say as well in the shifting interpretations of judges over time (for instance, a Constitutional "right to privacy" extrapolated from protection against unlawful search and seizure, later expanded to cover abortion in support of the "privacy" of the human body) and also from amendments.

Call it a balance of viewpoints. Change occurs slowly and has to have either a foundation somewhere in the Constitution, or enough of a mandate to force an amendment. In a sense, it's a good brake on public opinion, which can swing wildly on issues over the span of decades or only a few years.

                    
#178  by Veteran Samurai Ben - 4/12/2004 2:18:09 PM

Bam-Bam:

Argh! Missed YOUR post in composition! Nice Jeffersonian links, and thanks for your thoughts on the religion issue. But I brought it up to add to the discussion, not to cause discord. I shall see how other voices respond before revisiting the soapbox.

                    
#179  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/12/2004 3:15:58 PM

but in general the debate has been civil and reasonable


I'd say we've done pretty well so far

good to see you around the Forums again!




Its addictive but I am gonna be a fairly rare sight still

Change occurs slowly and has to have either a foundation somewhere in the Constitution, or enough of a mandate to force an amendment


I think here we come across something fundamentally different between our two countries, our constitution is unwritten and basically the laws of the day represent the social mood at the time. Not sure which is the better idea really.

and the press freedoms embodied in the First Ammendment were written to codify universal rights guaranteed by the Constitution


Aren't they subject to change as well?

                      
#180  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/12/2004 3:17:09 PM

I shall see how other voices respond before revisiting the soapbox.


I see nothing wrong with what you've posted Ben
[Message Edited]

                      
#181  by Veteran the 3rd child - 4/12/2004 3:37:13 PM

#180 by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/12/2004 3:17:09 PM I shall see how other voices respond before revisiting the soapbox.I see nothing wrong with what you've posted Ben [Message Edited]


agreed

on a differen't note i have an interesting piece of news to see what everyone thinks of one of my friends was watching cable news and heard that while the rest of nation may be concerned over gay marriage/civil unions whatever, one town's council (i think somewhere in east or Central US) is discussing banning homosexuality althogether... personal beliefs on whether homosexuality is wrong aside, does anyone else think that's completley stupid and unconstitutional, and there's some amusment in there: How would they enforce it.



                       Posted via Stardock Central
#182  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/12/2004 5:30:54 PM

Sodomy is already outlawed in many juridictions in the United States. That is already beyond the point of rational for me.

                      
#183  by Citizen KEmperor - 4/12/2004 5:32:43 PM

Sodomy is already outlawed in many juridictions in the United States. That is already beyond the point of rational for me.


The anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

                      
#184  by Veteran Gerakken - 4/12/2004 5:36:37 PM

one town's council (i think somewhere in east or Central US) is discussing banning homosexuality althogether... personal beliefs on whether homosexuality is wrong aside, does anyone else think that's completley stupid and unconstitutional, and there's some amusment in there: How would they enforce it.


Well, time to ramble a bit. It helps me think and, hopefully, will inspire thought in others. Of course, I'll be understanding if a few tomatoes fly because of it.

It seems to me that if we had no civic nor religious law altogether and lived like some kind of tribal animals we would still be having plenty of children. So I don't think there is any danger of running out of breeding couples. Humans are much better at living than dying, no matter how hard we have tried to date to get rid of the competition.

Let's look at what was behind all this "Go forth and multiply" thing: No matter which culture you are from, all ancient humans surmised that numbers protect resources necessary for survival and numbers can take those resources away from others. So there is little question in my mind whether humanity will survive anything short of something that makes the whole planet surface unlivable. The real question is will your specific culture or ethnic group survive, or will it be conquered/assimilated. That is really at the root of the matter. Will your "tribe" live on?

So I am having trouble tuning in to this topic right now on a religious standpoint because the moral arguements against homosexuality go back farther than any written Scripture: it is a belief rooted in the very laws of survival. I know, I know, one can easily say that God wrote the laws of the jungle as well and I will not disagree with that. But the laws of the jungle have plenty of sexual deviancy in the animal kingdom.

If one contends that God made the universe and thus the whole natural world, then the system seems to work by sheer weight of numbers: a huge number of sex acts at any one time, but the majority are under the right circumstances to reproduce. If it was not that way, then that species or sub-species will go extinct. (Not counting outside stress on the species, of course.) So I contend the natural system works even with a built-in number of sex acts that do not or cannot produce offspring. If evolution explains the natural system sans God, then blame evolution. If God made the system, then I guess He must have built that in and you know who to blame then if you find it wrong. With religion, we are really talking about which sub-species of humanity will survive.

Assuming that the survival of humanity is more important than any individual segment of it, and assuming that we are favoring a society of rights under a secular law system (as in the USA and many other countries), then the gay rights issue should not matter. The State allows childless couples to remain married and allows unions between infertile couples, so men and women who cannot or will not breed new citizens for the State are protected. Are they protected merely because of social convention based upon tradition, are they protected because they may one day produce those new taxpayers, or are they protected because that is what the spirit of a representative society enspouses: to grant equal rights under the law to all citizens? Guess what happens if you choose the last one: hello gay rights!

The last time morality was legislated on a Constitutional scale in the USA it ended up causing more crimes than it solved. (The Great Social Experiment known as Prohibition.) Trying to whack people over the head with Scripture of any type in such a multi-cultural society is wrong. That is forcing the will of one group over another. In certain countries of the world that do not enjoy such a tradition of secular law espousing representation and human rights, that leads to ethnic strife and the occasional ethnic cleansing.

Yes, I am full aware that social control must be maintained and that religious institutions have been a wonderful way of doing it. But those institutions inherently favor only their followers. Afterall, everyone else is going to Hell even if they are a couple of degrees out of line with what the accepted dogma of that faith (or sub-sect thereof) espouses. The founders of the United States wanted social control based upon the rights of the individual, and not the words of Kings or Priests. Scripture is just one source of law, it is not THE source in our American system.

                      
#185  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/12/2004 5:37:18 PM

Aye. Lawrence v. Texas. One strike for reason.

Now, let me throw out another topic of discussion.

The Patriot Act. What do you know about this act, and do you feel comfortable with the expanded capability of the Government with respect to your civil liberties?

I'll briefly state that I have serious reservations, but I want to re-read the specifics of the Act before I answer in more depth. I am not overly fond of having egg on my face (thanks again for sending me in search of more facts, Vincible).
[Message Edited]

                      
#186  by Veteran the 3rd child - 4/12/2004 8:26:11 PM

I'll briefly state that I have serious reservations, but I want to re-read the specifics of the Act before I answer in more depth. I am not overly fond of having egg on my face (thanks again for sending me in search of more facts, Vincible).


heh that's why i don't talk more in this thread although i keep up; because i don't keep up enough on current events to make a proper argument



                       Posted via Stardock Central
#187  by Veteran vincible - 4/14/2004 12:35:33 PM

Thanks Bam Bam.

I don't know enough about the Act either, unfortunately. I'm instinctively skeptical when the government wants more power to spy on me, but I haven't really looked at it in any depth.

                        
#188  by Veteran Captain Jack Sparrow - 4/14/2004 2:30:43 PM

If there is a God somebody has to point this overwhelming evidence out.


Asking for scientific proof that God exists is the same as asking for evidence God does not. It's sort of like the "so when did your side on this issue stop beating your mother." type question. It's a bating question that really has no answer. There is no scientific evidence either way. In fact, The existance of a God is not even a question Science can answer. Of course I will then need to explain why so many peeps claim it does. The answer is simple. Science has become almost like a religion these days. We all want to have the word Science to back up our view. And scientists, much like anyone else, have their own religious views. And thus, they attempt (totally in vain mind you) to explain how the evidence proves their point one way or the other. And we have several athiestis and several religious types among our scientists. There is no such proof. It comes down to a matter of faith on both sides. The theory of evolution for example, does not prove nor does it deny the existance of a God. In fact, Darwin thought it was proof of God's works.

Unlike religion, which proof is a book.This book states God created the world in seven days, planet Earth is not even 100 thousand years old ??Science gives proof that the universe is 15 billion years old, proof of the big bang, proof of evolution.


Uh to rephrase. The evidence would suggest these things. They aren't proven. Hence the word Theory.
Also, your interpretation of the Bible is flawed. It comes from an inproper translation into English of the Hebrew word for day It could mean 12 hours, 1 day, or in fact a long period of time. The Bible later suggests in that context, it means a long period of time. Also, the time line put forth by some religious authorities is flawed. In each generation, there is an average of 6 months error built in. That's because though we know A was 30 when he had b, was he 30 and a day, or one day short of 31? That's an average of 6 months to a generation. Furthermore, Generations where the bible didn't give A's age when he had be were erroneously counted as 20. Oops. Huge error there. If that is the case then, the theory of evolution is quite consistant with the Biblical account (though the bible does go beyond the relm of scientifically proveable) And to repeat, the theory of evolution does not disprove the existance of a God. It in fact doesn't answer, nor did it ask that question. And the only ones claiming it does, (both sides) do so on the basis of gratuitous assertions, NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF. And remember, When Scientists of say "Random Chance" They don't know whether it was truely random or merely something whos process they do not yet understand. The existance or absence of God is a totally unproveable thing.
I therefore reject both sides of the creation vs evolution debate and categorically reject the false dichotomy that it must be one vs the other.

So when you ask me to prove scientifically that God exists, I freely admit I cannot. You cannot prove scientifically he doesn't. So rather than get into a when did you stop beating your wife type argument, why not just accept we are of different faiths and leave it at that? For you to claim religion is merely a crutch because we cannot deal with death is dismissive and misinformed to say the least. We each owe a life. Of that I have no illusions. I'm not religious because I'm scared of death.
To someone of faith like me, I think science, far from disproving the existance of God, actually confirms it. But that comes from my faith rather than my science. I freely admit that. It's too bad you cannot. The fact is the preponderence of the evidence suggests the old earth theory is correct. Does that confirm then there is no God? It does not in the least. That comes from your faith just like my view comes from mine. It's too bad Athiests and Creation Scientists alike on both sides cannot admit this simple fact. As to where is the evidence, those that wish to find it will, those who do not wish to find it will not. But neither side can Scientifically prove the existance or non existance of God. That is not a question science can answer.



[Message Edited]

                          
#189  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/14/2004 3:25:08 PM

Asking for scientific proof that God exists is the same as asking for evidence God does not


No its not, in science we gather evidence to explain OBSERVED phenomena and constuct theories and models around that evidence.

When Scientists of say "Random Chance" They don't know whether it was truely random or merely something whos process they do not yet understand.


With reference to evolution, it does not operate by random chance, this is a misused phrase really. DNA creates a matrix of probabilities at the cellular level which are influenced by events at the level of the organism which eventually results in the selection of an organism, survival of the fittest and suchlike. It is not random in the normal sense of the word. Plus I would say that we pretty much understand the subject now, just a case of finetuning.

PS Science is not a religion, it is misused - undoubtedly
[Message Edited]

                      
#190  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:03:16 PM

Just a quick word, you must have more faith to belive in evolution than to believe in God.

      
#191  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:05:49 PM


Does God exist? The following offers candid, straight-forward reasons to believe in God...

By Marilyn Adamson



Email article to a friend
Download PDF version
Spanish version


Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Satellite footage of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if He is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?

Here then, are some reasons to consider...


1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.
Billions of people, who represent diverse sociological, intellectual, emotional, educational makeups...believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?
"Anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive people today, there is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of people all around the world, the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness even in those societies which are today polytheistic."3


2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.4 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.5

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.6

Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.7

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.8 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?

When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.


3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.
Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.
This article only touches on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"9

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.


4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?
And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.


5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
God's thoughts, personality, and attitudes can only be known if God chooses to reveal them. All else would be human speculation. We are at a loss if God does not wish to be known. But God wants us to know Him and has told us in the Bible all we need to know about His character and how to relate to Him. This makes the reliability of the Bible an important consideration.
Archaeological findings continue to confirm rather than refute the accuracy of the Bible. For example, an archeological find in northern Israel in August 1993 confirmed the existence of King David, author of many of the Psalms in the Bible.10 The Dead Sea Scrolls and other archaeological discoveries continue to substantiate the historical accuracy of the Bible.

The Bible was written over a 1500-year span, by 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, written in three different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history.11 Yet there is an astounding consistency in its message. Throughout the entire Bible the same message appears:

God created the world we live in, and created us specifically to have a relationship with Him.
He deeply loves us.
We have sinned and are under God's judgment, in need of His forgiveness.
God provided a way for our sins to be forgiven.
He asks us to receive His forgiveness and have a relationship with Him that will last eternally.
Along with this central script, the Bible specifically reveals God's character. Psalm 145 is a typical summary of God's personality, thoughts and feelings toward us. If you want to know God, here He is.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at Him. Though He talked about His Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in Him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."12 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."13

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because He constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.14

What did Jesus reveal about God's personality? What about God's thoughts, expectations and His feelings toward humankind? Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of His punishment, His love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God would have His Son receive the punishment for our sin. And Jesus willingly accepted this plan.

Jesus was tortured with a whip of nine sharp-tipped ends. A "crown" of two-inch thorns was pressed into his head. Then they secured Him to a cross by pounding nails through His hands and feet into the wood. Given His other miracles, those nails didn't keep Him on the cross; His love for us did. Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with Him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to Himself. Because of Jesus' death we can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. God says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."15 This is God, in action.

The most conclusive proof that Jesus is equal to God was Jesus' most closely scrutinized miracle - His own resurrection from the dead. Jesus said that three days after His burial He would come back to life. On the third day after His crucifixion, the almost two-ton boulder in front of His tomb was catapulted up a slope.16 The guard of well-trained Roman soldiers saw a blinding light and an angel. The tomb was empty, except for the burial clothes that had been wrapped around Jesus' body. Over the years, legal, historical and logical analysis has been applied to Jesus' resurrection and the most feasible conclusion still is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."17

Do you want to begin a relationship with God and actually know you are accepted by Him?

This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with Him, you can do so right now by asking Him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."18 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. Thank you that you want a relationship with me. Amen."

God views your relationship with Him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in Him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."19

So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.





      
#192  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:07:51 PM

Is God Real?
What are some signs for Intelligent Design?

by Andy Wineman



Email article to a friend
Is God real? That is the big question. If God is not real then you can play by whatever rules you like. But if God is real then it is a whole new ballgame. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of people do believe that there is a God. George Barna, who makes a living by asking people questions like this, found that three out of four adults think that there is a God. Ask four friends and check it out for yourself. Of course the reality of God cannot be settled by majority vote.

How can we know if God is real? Wouldn't it be nice if we could pick up the telephone and give him a call? Or drive by his house just to see if his car was in the driveway? Fortunately, there are better ways to address this question. Consider this perspective: since God is infinite and we are finite, if God wanted to make himself known he would have to make his presence clear. So, are there any signs that point to the reality of God? Winfried Corduan put it this way, "...we can look at the world and see if the world is constructed in such a way that it is reasonable to believe that there must be a God." Just as the hunter follows the trail of an animal that he has yet to see--paw prints, clumps of fur, broken branches--we are looking for the fingerprint of God in the physical world.

Various signs (lines of reasoning) have been suggested over the last few centuries. Let us briefly consider three. First, the world seems to work according to the universal law of cause and effect. That is, every observable effect must have had an initial "push" by some agent or cause. Every "thing" (a highly scientific term) that we observe is dependent upon other "things" for its existence. For example, children are dependent on parents and the earth is dependent on the sun. Thinking all the way back to the first event, it could be asked, who was the cause? This is where it appears that there must be a being that is "uncaused." Philosophers like to call this a necessary being. Could that be God?

A second sign that should be considered is what scientists today are calling the marks of Intelligent Design. The suggestion is that the universe exhibits purpose, design, and intent. This is not a new idea; William Paley suggested that if you were walking through a field and found a watch on the ground that you would recognize it as a piece of machinery that had purpose and did not simply grow in the forest like plants and trees. A rational conclusion would be that someone intentionally built the watch. The universe is infinitely more complex than a watch and as a result points that much more to an intelligent designer.

A third mark has to do with the moral foundation of the universe. C. S. Lewis referred to this as the "law of human nature." This is not to say that people everywhere are in agreement on all moral values, but that everyone does tend to live by certain common moral principles. For example, people and cultures have different ideas about when it is appropriate to take another person's life, but no one (that would be considered sane) would hold that indiscriminate cold-blooded murder for no reason would be appropriate. It appears that humanity has been intentionally created with an internal moral compass.

All three of these marks appeal to our common sense and fit observations that can be made about the world. Everyone may not be completely convinced by this reasoning, but it seems to make more sense to believe that God is real than that he is not. If that is true, then maybe there are other things that can be known about God. Why don't you try to pick up the trail and see where it leads?



      
#193  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:08:09 PM

What about Evolution?

by Duncan Moore


Email article to a friend
The Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution deals with small changes within a species which adapt that species to be better suited to its environment. This process is well supported with scientific evidence and doesn't conflict with a Christian understanding of reality.

Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it's suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator.

Macro-evolution is highly contentious and its more extreme interpretations challenge conventional Christian thinking. It's sometimes suggested that God chose to create life through evolution, however, there's now a weighty and growing body of both scientific and philosophical evidence that discredits macro-evolution. This article very briefly surveys that evidence.


Origin of Life
Firstly, there's the question of how life itself originally got started. The theory of macro-evolution suggests how to develop from one species to another, but it can't explain how to jump from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious.
There are two questions in this area that macro-evolution can't answer. Firstly, the DNA molecules which store the genetic code for living beings are extremely complex even for the most basic forms of life. Where did the original injection of the genetic information for life come from?

The second question centres around an issue termed irreducible complexity. Even in the simplest life forms there are a number of different and complex components which must all be in place for life to occur. Take any of the components away and you no longer have life. The building blocks of living beings are complex and are not independent. How can these components have been assembled separately apart from pre-existent life?


The Missing Link
A second serious challenge to macro-evolution comes in the forms of fossils. The theory suggests that through genetic mutations over a long period of time, species gradually evolve into new species. If this were the case, you'd expect to find a whole spectrum of species within the fossil record at different stages of evolution.
However, the fossil records do not show life evolving from one species to another. On the contrary, there's a notable absence of any fossils of species at intermediate stages of evolution. Further, there aren't obvious intermediate species around today. The problem of the lack of evidence for transition between species is known as the Missing Link.


2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics suggests that the universe is moving from a state of order and concentration to disorder and dispersion. Energy is spreading out and being transformed into simple, low-level forms. Thus, if you pour hot water into a bucket of cold water the heat spreads out and the hot and cold water cannot be separated out again. This principle from physics is directly at odds with the theory of macro-evolution, which sees life as developing into increasing complexity from simple forms.

Geology and the history of Earth
Macro-evolution is understood to be a very slow process, random mutations taking place and becoming established over long periods of time. From developments in Geology and Earth Sciences, the window of history where conditions suitable for evolution have existed has become shorter and shorter. Many interpretations of macro-evolution have been abandoned as the time available for species to evolve was not long enough to account for the diversity of life we see.

Conclusion
Whilst there is widespread acceptance of the theory of micro-evolution, the question of macro-evolution continues to be hotly debated. Over the last fifteen years the tide of scientific opinion has been turning against the evolutionists. The complexity and apparent design of life has defied a purely naturalistic explanation and the problem of how life started remains unanswered by the scientific community.
In addition to the huge practical and theoretical difficulties associated with macro-evolution, the physical evidence presented by DNA code and the fossil record has not supported the theory. The available evidence seems to be pointing to the separateness of different species.

As the case for all life evolving from simple cell structures is looking less and less convincing, alternative explanations are needed. Science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. To account for the diversity of life on Earth, an adequate cause is required. Many in the scientific world are beginning to seriously consider the case for intelligent design in the universe. The consistent Christian claim of history is that the intelligent designer and sustainer of the universe is the God of the Bible.



      
#194  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:08:35 PM

Was There Ever Nothing?
Are you here by Intelligent Design?
What if you came from Nothing?



Email article to a friend
Download PDF version
Have you ever thought about the beginning? What is that, you say? You know--whatever it was that showed up first. Or whatever it was that was here first, at the earliest moment in time. Have you ever strained your brain to think about that?

Wait a minute, you say, isn't it possible that in the beginning there was nothing? Isn't it possible that kazillions of years ago, there wasn't anything at all? That's certainly a theory to consider. So let's consider it--but first by way of analogy.

Let's say you have a large room. It's fully enclosed and is about the size of a football field. The room is locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows, and no holes in its walls.

Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed room that's pitch black inside. Then what happens?

Well, let's say your goal is to get something--anything at all--into the room. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the room to do that. So what do you do?



Well, you think, what if I try to create a spark inside the room? Then the room would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as something. Yes, but you are outside the room. So that's not allowed.

But, you say, what if I could teleport something into the room, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowable, because you'd be using things from outside the room. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get something inside the room using only what's in the room. And, in this case, what's in the room is nothing.

Well, you say, maybe a tiny particle of something will just show up inside the room if given enough time.

There's three problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake.

In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed room with absolutely nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?



The second problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty room? It would need a reason why it came to be. But there is nothing inside the room at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There would be nothing inside the room to cause something to show up (and yet the reason must come from inside the room).

Well, you say, what about a tiny particle of something? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in the room than something larger like, for example, a football?

That brings up the third problem: size. Like time, size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room?

The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room.

If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause!



Now let's stretch our analogy further, literally. Let's take our large, pitch-black room and remove its walls. And let's extend the room so that it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now there is nothing outside the room, because the room is all there is. Period.

This black infinite room has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.

So here's the question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now?

Yes. For something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. We would still have Absolutely Nothing.



What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing!

If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything.

Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing.

However, something exists. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, you are proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed.

Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, that means there was always a time when there was at least Something in existence. What was it?

Was it one thing or many things? Was it an atom? A particle? A molecule? A football? A mutant baseball? A refrigerator? Some cookies?



      
#195  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:09:06 PM



Something
Note: this is a follow-up to the article called Nothing.





Email article to a friend
Download PDF version
If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.

So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?

Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.

What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls--no matter how much time passes--cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.



Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.

What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?

Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!

So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.



So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?

Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.

So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could--though it seems absurd--change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.



So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.

So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.

While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.

What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.



So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.

Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.

Third, to produce Something Else--out of nothing--requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.



Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.

Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing--which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.

But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2--enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?

There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.

Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.

Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.




What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but--no matter what--Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.



      
#196  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:09:24 PM



Who
Note: this is a follow-up to the article called Something.





Email article to a friend
Download PDF version
There is an Eternal Something. Something has always existed. Something has no beginning. If this Something has any needs, It can fulfill those needs for Itself. It needs nothing else in order to exist. And It cannot produce an exact equal or another who is greater. Anything that is produced is not eternal. Therefore, the Eternal Something cannot produce another Eternal Something. It will always be greater than anything else that exists.

Now, could this Eternal Something be plural? Possibly. Let's say that originally there were five Eternal Somethings. If that were the case, however, those five would be exactly the same with respect to time and power. All unproduced, all eternal, all able to do whatever is possible to do. This again shows us that quality, not quantity, is the real issue.

So, what do we know about the Eternal Something(s)? It is not alone. For Something Else exists. You, for example. Now you have to ask yourself, are you the Eternal Something, or one of the Eternal Somethings? If you are, then you have no beginning, no needs which you yourself cannot meet, and anything that can possibly be done can be done by you. Is that who you are? If not, then you are truly Something Else, not the Eternal Something or one of the Eternal Somethings.

Let's go back to our large, pitch-black, empty room. But now let's say that one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen are in the room. For argument's sake, let's say that these are the Eternal Somethings. They have always existed. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them.



So, They decide to produce Something Else, for They are the only things that exist in the room. But wait, can hydrogen or nitrogen decide anything? Well, for them to be the Eternal Somethings, They MUST have the ability to make a decision.

Think about it. The Eternal Something must choose to change things. The Eternal Something is eternal. It has always existed independent of another. More importantly, It alone has always existed. What does that mean? It means that no event can take place without the say-so of the Eternal Something.

The Eternal Something is all there is, period. Therefore, the only thing in existence that can change the Eternal Something's aloneless is the Eternal Something Itself. There can be no force outside the Eternal Something because the Eternal Something is all there is.

Therefore, if one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen are the Eternal Somethings, no outside force can direct Them. They are all there is. They are the only force there is.

As the only force in existence, it is They alone who can change Their aloneness. There is nothing in existence that can arbitrarily, by chance, influence Them to produce Something Else.



Something Else could not be produced by chance. Why? Because, for that to happen, "chance" would have to overpower the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules. But They are all there is. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them. "Chance" is Something Else. Something Else cannot overpower the Eternal Something. In fact, at this stage, Chance does not even exist.

If Chance is something outside the Eternal Something, then it does not exist unless produced by the Eternal Something. But even if Chance were produced by the Eternal Something, Chance, since it is Something Else, would always be inferior to the Eternal Something.

So, if Something Else is produced, it is by the power and WILL of the Eternal Something. Something Else can be produced by Chance only if Chance is produced before that Something Else. But Chance itself cannot be produced by chance. It would have to be produced by the will of the Eternal Something.

What does that tell us about our hydrogen and nitrogen molecules? That They are not merely the Eternal Something(s), They are eternal persons. They have will. That is, They must have the ability to choose. Therefore, They are personal.



Again, why must the Eternal Something have the ability to choose? Think back to the empty room with only the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules in it. They are the Eternal Somethings. They alone exist in the room, and have done so eternally.

They exist totally independent of another. For survival, They need no other. Therefore, if They produce Something Else, it will not be out of necessity (as in instinct for survival as we see with animals). Also, if They produce Something Else, it will not be by chance -- unless They first produce Chance. Chance is a force, but the Eternal Somethings (the two molecules) are the only force that exists.

Furthermore, the molecules cannot be mere machines. Machines are built and programmed by an outside force of some kind. But the molecules (the Eternal Somethings) are the only force that exists. No force exists outside Them.

Therefore, if They produce Something Else inside the room, the reason for this production must reside within Them, for no other force exists. Nothing else exists within the room except Them.

They are not forced to produce Something Else by instinct, chance, necessity, or the will of another. They are controlled by no other. Whatever They do is done for reasons within Themselves.

This reason can only be Their will. They must choose to produce Something Else, or else nothing else will exist. They will remain alone forever in the room, unless They decide to produce Something Else. They must have more than the power to produce Something Else. They must -- at some moment which differentiates it from all the other moments that They've existed alone -- decide to use Their power to produce Something Else.

If they have no will (like the tennis balls we spoke of in a previous study), then Their power would never be used to produce Something Else. Their power would only be used to further Their own existence. And their aloneness would remain forever.



The Eternal Something has existed alone eternally. There must be a reason, therefore, within the Eternal Something, for that to change. If Something Else exists, it exists because of the Eternal Something, because the Eternal Something has chosen to end its aloneness.

If the reason for the Something Else is not within the Eternal Something, then Something Else will never exist. For the Eternal Something, at some point, was all that existed.

But we know that Something Else exists. Therefore, the Eternal Something must have the ability to decide to use Its power. It must have the ability to choose to produce Something Else outside of Itself. Since it has a will, the Eternal Something is personal. This means that the Eternal Something is actually an Eternal Someone.

This Eternal Someone is not controlled by instinct for survival, for It has no needs and cannot cease to exist anyway. Also, the Eternal Someone does not produce by Chance, unless It first produces Chance. Chance is a force that must be produced by the Eternal Something, or it does not exist. Finally, the Eternal Someone is not a machine. There is no other, outside of Itself, to force It or program It to do anything.


      
#197  by Veteran Disciple777 - 4/14/2004 4:09:48 PM

I think that these arguments could help those who want to ignore.

      
#198  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 4/14/2004 5:14:36 PM

you must have more faith to belive in evolution than to believe in God


Nah, I just understand it

                      
#199  by Veteran Primipilus Alexus - 4/14/2004 5:34:18 PM

And the next topic of discussion is....



                           Posted via Stardock Central
<<   <-   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (8) 9 10   ->   >> 
   Page 8 of 13   

Go to Top    Go Back to Message Board    Go to Top
To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!



Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.