Missionary Debate thread

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Missionary Debate thread

Post by Davelaw on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:23 pm

from the Baptist/Evangelical perspective : everyone that has not already made individual commitment to Jesus Christ in terms of a new birth experience needs to be converted

this applies to Institutional Christianity as much or more than those who are of other Faiths
if you spent your whole life as a Baptist-you still need to be saved-that is why we sponsor revivals for our own
although Church growth is nice; its not the primary motivater -

and Baptists still feed, clothe, distribute medicine, and educate as part of our mission;
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by tmarie64 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:30 pm

See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:36 pm

Davelaw wrote:from the Baptist/Evangelical perspective : everyone that has not already made individual commitment to Jesus Christ in terms of a new birth experience needs to be converted

this applies to Institutional Christianity as much or more than those who are of other Faiths
if you spent your whole life as a Baptist-you still need to be saved-that is why we sponsor revivals for our own
although Church growth is nice; its not the primary motivater -

and Baptists still feed, clothe, distribute medicine, and educate as part of our mission;


Well, Dave, a big part of the problem here is that you have to see this from the perspective of people who have left Christianity for one reason or another.

Not only did I spend time figuring out what the hell I did believe, but I had to figure out why I didn't believe what I didn't believe as well.

It's pretty hard not to live a life with a bitter taste toward Christianity. Some of us got burned pretty hard.

all
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:48 pm

tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by gillyflower on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:55 pm

I think that the Baptist/Evangelicals are wrong about Jesus and their interpretation of the bible. One the the basic differences I see between the Christian god of my childhood and the Christian god of the Evangelicals is that the Evangelical's god is a passive god. People have to go out there and collect people for him because he can't, in other words.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by gillyflower on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:58 pm

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

You're looking at it from a Baptist/Evangelical perspective when you say "Christianity?" Because the old school Presbyterians don't look at Catholics that way.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:59 pm

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

Me to, and although I have met a lot of people that claim to, when pressed, the idea that they have about what actually is a "personal relationship with Jesus" and what would be considered a "personal relationship" don't seem very congruent.

all
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by Davelaw on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:16 pm

tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.
no man save the man Christ Jesus
and Jesus told Peter to strengthen the brethern after he had been converted.

rather from Christianity to a personal RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST. You really think someone as anti-institutional and anti-clerical as Jesus was into starting new institutions and creating a new clergy?

the Catholic Church began to emerge after Constantine lifted the ban against Christianity-it certainly was not the first Christian Church both Ebionites and Paulicians have buevtter claims for that than the Church of Rome even vthe Church of Antioch has a better claim.
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by Davelaw on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:18 pm

gillyflower wrote:
TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

You're looking at it from a Baptist/Evangelical perspective when you say "Christianity?" Because the old school Presbyterians don't look at Catholics that way.

How old School? John Knox thought Catholicism was of the anti-christ
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by Davelaw on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:20 pm

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:
TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

Me to, and although I have met a lot of people that claim to, when pressed, the idea that they have about what actually is a "personal relationship with Jesus" and what would be considered a "personal relationship" don't seem very congruent.

all
is any relationship congruent? Shouldn't an active relationship be fluid and hard to define?
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:28 pm

Davelaw wrote:from the Baptist/Evangelical perspective : everyone that has not already made individual commitment to Jesus Christ in terms of a new birth experience needs to be converted

Here's my problem with thinking there's a need for missions to largely Christian countries. Dave's church is very specific about what Christianity must be. If you don't become "born again," then you aren't truly committed to Jesus.

I defy anyone to say that a good neighbor of ours when I was a kid wasn't truly committed to Jesus. She went to Mass EVERY day of the week faithfully. I remember my mom telling me that she found out that this woman had quietly paid doctor bills for people in town who couldn't afford them, paid the milk delivery bill for another family for years and years and did many similarly charitable acts.

Except that of course she wasn't from the "born again" perspective. And some such churches thought there was no question but that she was going to hell for being a fervent "idol-worshipping" Catholic as they view that church.

I think it's a definite affront toward other Christians to attempt to convert them because your church thinks everyone must be born again, but I've discussed this with evangelicals more than once, and I do understand that they don't see it that way at all. They're honestly trying to rescue people. A gnarly issue without a doubt.

this applies to Institutional Christianity as much or more than those who are of other Faiths

I think the larger problem is that people in a church get so accustomed to what their own doctrines are within their church's context and how they're supposed to be understood that they honestly don't have any understanding of how offensive something like "Well, you must accept Jesus as your Savior and be born again. Simple as that." to a Christian whose church interprets the Bible and believes differently.

Try discussing how you feel with someone who insists theirs is the one TRUE church, no matter what you say to the contrary. A very similar and equally fruitless discussion, IMO.


Last edited by DotNotInOz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:30 pm

Davelaw wrote:
is any relationship congruent? Shouldn't an active relationship be fluid and hard to define?

There are common factors though. Most often, the people in the relationship being active participants in it. I can't say that I have a relationship with Scarlet Johannsen, or that I have a relationship with Arcimedes. Or at least I can't and be truthful.

That's not really the important part, and I'm not trying to pick a fight on that specific aspect. If you want to believe you have a personal relationship, go ahead and believe it.

You mentioned missionary work. It's great that ya'll give essentials as part of the mission. I see it as secondary to spreading a message that I consider wrong, and often detrimental.

all
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by DeavonReye on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:40 pm

True. . . . as I begun to believe a while back, "faith" and "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" are complete oposites. For me, it takes a LOT more than a belief to know I am in a relationship.
avatar
DeavonReye

Posts : 769
Join date : 2009-06-15
Location : SW MO

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by gillyflower on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:42 pm

Davelaw wrote:
gillyflower wrote:
TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)

You're looking at it from a Baptist/Evangelical perspective when you say "Christianity?" Because the old school Presbyterians don't look at Catholics that way.

How old School? John Knox thought Catholicism was of the anti-christ

Not that far back. Smile Nothing much was ever said about other denominations, very little about we're right and everyone else is wrong. It was more "this is what we think and why we think it." What happened to the people in other denominations was left up to God. If God wanted them to change, he'd do it.


_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:43 pm

Davelaw wrote:
the Catholic Church began to emerge after Constantine lifted the ban against Christianity-it certainly was not the first Christian Church both Ebionites and Paulicians have buevtter claims for that than the Church of Rome even vthe Church of Antioch has a better claim.

You're right about that, Dave. There were a great many more small sects such as the Ebionites, the Marcians and others in the very early years of Christianity than most people realize.

Catholics were taught when I grew up that theirs is the original Christian church and was the only actual Christian church until Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door. It's one of the teachings that got hammered into our heads repeatedly.

I was very surprised and somewhat angry when I studied Christian history years later and learned that that's not true.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by gillyflower on Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:46 pm

The above harkens back to my belief that we felt we had an active god while the Evangelicals have a passive god.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:09 pm

gillyflower wrote:The above harkens back to my belief that we felt we had an active god while the Evangelicals have a passive god.

Gilly, I like the idea that conversion is God's job if He sees fit to do so, and thus, missionaries should only go out to give aid but ought not to work to get people to join their church. [Capitalizing done to reflect that I'm talking about this denomination's understanding of God...no offense meant to those who don't see the deity in that sense or being exclusively that gender.]

avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by tmarie64 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:03 pm

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)
No, Catholics are Christians. We believe Christ is the son of God. We follow the teachings of Christ...hence the CHRISTIAN title. Catholicism does not promote idolatry.
As to "nonbiblical ritual"... I haven't seen ONE protestant preaching the way it was done in the bible. Christ didn't put on his Sunday suit and go stand in a nice warm/cool church and pound a pulpit.

_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by sacrificialgoddess on Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:04 pm

I think I have already said my piece on this one.

_________________
Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.

Edward Albee
avatar
sacrificialgoddess
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3199
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Oklahoma

http://kltompkins.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by Davelaw on Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:31 am

tmarie64 wrote:
TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)
No, Catholics are Christians. We believe Christ is the son of God. We follow the teachings of Christ...hence the CHRISTIAN title. Catholicism does not promote idolatry.
As to "nonbiblical ritual"... I haven't seen ONE protestant preaching the way it was done in the bible. Christ didn't put on his Sunday suit and go stand in a nice warm/cool church and pound a pulpit.

Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years.
...and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpit

and under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by Davelaw on Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:35 am

DotNotInOz wrote:
Gilly, I like the idea that conversion is God's job if He sees fit to do so, and thus, missionaries should only go out to give aid but ought not to work to get people to join their church. [Capitalizing done to reflect that I'm talking about this denomination's understanding of God...no offense meant to those who don't see the deity in that sense or being exclusively that gender.]


Again, if missionaries are trying to build Churches-they are off track-they should be evangelizing-sharing jthe personal impact of the death, burial, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ-as opposed to an institutional impact.
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by sacrificialgoddess on Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:36 am

Eh, I've never understood gods who can't speak for themselves.

_________________
Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.

Edward Albee
avatar
sacrificialgoddess
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3199
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Oklahoma

http://kltompkins.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by tmarie64 on Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:43 am

Davelaw wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:
TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)
No, Catholics are Christians. We believe Christ is the son of God. We follow the teachings of Christ...hence the CHRISTIAN title. Catholicism does not promote idolatry.
As to "nonbiblical ritual"... I haven't seen ONE protestant preaching the way it was done in the bible. Christ didn't put on his Sunday suit and go stand in a nice warm/cool church and pound a pulpit.

Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years.
...and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpit
and under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry

Really? WHERE, exactly, can you find me a fire and brimstone, "Y'all are all goin' ta hell if ya don't change your ways and think EXACTLY as I do"...speech? Because the Jesus that I've learned about NEVER shouted, NEVER threatened. He was a gentle man of peace. He didn't denigrate.
Say what you want about Catholics, but at least we respect that others have their religions and that should be respected. Conversion is not something that should be aggressively pursued, OR purchased. Telling someone, "I'm not giving you no food or aid until you listen to me preach" is a threat and a bribe. Beating someone into conversion is NOT honest conversion. Do you really think God doesn't know?

_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by sacrificialgoddess on Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:46 am

Well, Marie, he did toss the money changers out of the temple.



*cheeky grin*

_________________
Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.

Edward Albee
avatar
sacrificialgoddess
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3199
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Oklahoma

http://kltompkins.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:46 am

Davelaw wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:
TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
tmarie64 wrote:See... This is where Catholics differ.... We believe that no man can save any other man.
I also find it rather disrespectful that your leaders think that I, as a Catholic, need to be converted to Christianity. It was the first Christian church, after all. It takes a lot hubris to say that one is "more christian" than another.

Well, from the perspective of Christianity, Catholocism is a perverted version of it. It wasn't the 'first church', it was the first organized regional institution of a church, that promotes idolatry, nonbiblical ritual, and which doesn't provide a "personal relationship with Jesus". (I never had one either.)
No, Catholics are Christians. We believe Christ is the son of God. We follow the teachings of Christ...hence the CHRISTIAN title. Catholicism does not promote idolatry.
As to "nonbiblical ritual"... I haven't seen ONE protestant preaching the way it was done in the bible. Christ didn't put on his Sunday suit and go stand in a nice warm/cool church and pound a pulpit.

Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants-we identified with all the so-called fringe groups that have been under active supression for the last 2000 years.
...and yes, Jesus did put on his best Sabbath clothes and go to synagogue and pound the pulpit

and under the strict original monotheist interpretation of the 10 commandments-Icons,Saints,the adoration of people other than God the Father, and even respect for Kings-are all forms of Idolatry

This is how I saw it as a Christian. I've always been a fundamentalist in regards to religion; the original teachings that inspired the faith are what interests me, not rituals, beliefs, and ideas that oppose the original thoughts that came later. I've always felt it's best to stick to the 'real thing', or first teachings of a movement.

Catholocism with its statues, saints, ritual, etc. is just too pagan influenced for me to see it as in line with Christianity. There are pagan elements throughout most Christian traditions (yule, easter, halloween, etc) but it's pretty extreme there.

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Missionary Debate thread

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum