New User? Need help? Click here to register for free! Registering removes the advertisements.

Computer Cops
image image image image image image image image
Donations
If you found this site helpful, please donate to help keep it online
Don't want to use PayPal? Try our physical address
image
Prime Choice
· Head Lines
· Advisories (All)
· Dnld of the Week!
· CCSP News Ltrs
· Find a Cure!

· Ian T's (AR 24)
· Marcia's (CO8)
· Bill G's (CO12)
· Paul's (AR 5)
· Robin's (AR 2)

· Ian T's Archive
· Marcia's Archive
· Bill G's Archive
· Paul's Archive
· Robin's Archive
image
Security Central
· Home
· Wireless
· Bookmarks
· CLSID
· Columbia
· Community
· Downloads
· Encyclopedia
· Feedback (send)
· Forums
· Gallery
· Giveaways
· HijackThis
· Journal
· Members List
· My Downloads
· PremChat
· Premium
· Private Messages
· Proxomitron
· Quizz
· RegChat
· Reviews
· Google Search
· Sections
· Software
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account
image
CCSP Toolkit
· Email Virus Scan
· UDP Port Scanner
· TCP Port Scanner
· Trojan TCP Scan
· Reveal Your IP
· Algorithms
· Whois
· nmap port scanner
· IPs Banned [?]
image
Survey
How much can you give to keep Computer Cops online?

$10 up to $25 per year?
$25 up to $50 per year?
$10 up to $25 per month?
$25 up to $50 per month?
More than $50 per year?
More than $50 per month?
One time only?
Other (please comment)



Results
Polls

Votes: 1180
Comments: 21
image
Translate
English German French
Italian Portuguese Spanish
Chinese Greek Russian
image
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Login to check your private messagesLogin to check your private messages   LoginLogin   Your Favorite ForumsFavForums 

God?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic       All -> FavForums -> Religion
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Is God real?
Yes
65%
 65%  [ 13 ]
No
30%
 30%  [ 6 ]
Maybe
5%
 5%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 20

Author Message
ekrubtap

Captain
Captain



Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:52 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

+++++++++++++++ATTENTION CHRISTIANS+++++++++++++ Your assignment after services this morning, good christians, is to take your wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriend (if living in sin) back to bed. OK, are we there yet? All snugly are we? OK now, while gazing lovingly into your mates big Bambi eyes, reach slowly under the covers (everything done in bed, for the first couple of hours, anyway, should be done slowly. But that's a lesson for another day) OK, reach slowly under the covers and softly and gently, dang!.......forgot to tell you to take your clothes off, didn't I? Y'all are under the covers fully clothed, aren't ya? Oh well, this can still work. Got that hand under the cover? I hope you warmed it up first. OK, now place your hand alongside your partner's breast in the area of the armpit and....start counting ribs. Both sides. Then have your partner reciprocate. Compare your findings and report back here. And if you try to tell me there is a one rib difference then you're being less than honest and doomed to roast eternally in the fires o' hell 'cause christians expect that sort of thing. Unless, of course you're Catholic, where this would be a venial sin and you have to do 30 days in the Purgatorium, where they keep the thermostat pretty darn high, before ascending into the blessed air-conditioning of heaven, where you get to sit on a cloud, listen to harp music, and mingle with the rest of the devout. Forever. Eternally.......(Spare me. If it turns out I'm wrong, send me to hell. That's where all the interesting people go, and probably a better class of party altogether.)
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
TMOV

Colonel
Colonel
Premium Member
Premium Member


Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 1590
Location: hovering nearby

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:09 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

SicPreFix wrote:
Sorry fellas, but you're acting, or at any rate speaking, like complete buffoons. If you do just a small amount of research into the genetic processes of conception, gestation, and so on, you will see that what I am saying is fact. We all begin as females, or predominantly nebulous, then stuff happens (I'm not a scientist) and we go one way or the other.

If you wish to act like twats, by all means do, it's no skin of my bulbous nose. But if you would like to to sound like the intelligent adults you think you are, then please do a little research into current genetics, gestation processes, etc., before you embarrass yourselves.

Yes, there is some debate about the issue, but if the naysayers are correct then it is as ludicrous to say we begin as males as it would be to say we begin as females.

Bottom line is the Adam story is just plain silly.

Cheers fells.

THE ADAM THEORY MAY BE SILLY , BUT THE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BE EMBARRASED IS YOU.

TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE, TAKE A COURSE IN HUMAN GENETICS.
AT THE POINT WHEN THE MALE GAMETE ENTERS THE FEMALE GAMETE, THAT IS WHEN THE GENDER OF THE OFF SPRING IS DETERMINED IF THE FEMALE CONTRIBUTES A GAMETE THAT ALWAYS HAS AN "X" CHROMOSOME AND THE MALE CAN CONTRIBUTE BOTH AN "X" AND A "Y" CHROMOSOME HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE ALL START OUT AS FEMALE?

IF THE FEMALE X IS UNITED WITH ANOTHER X THEN THE SEX OF THE OFF SPRING IS XX,,,THAT IS A FEMALE.

BUT IF THE FEMALE X IS UNITED WITH A "Y" THEN THE SEX OF THE OFF SPRING IS "XY",,, THAT IS A MALE.

STILL HAVING TROUBLE ?

TMOV
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
TMOV

Colonel
Colonel
Premium Member
Premium Member


Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 1590
Location: hovering nearby

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:11 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Blast wrote:
SicPreFix wrote:
You might be interested to know that in the real world we all begin as female.



Ah, that explains it.........



HI, BLAST,
THAT LITTLE PIECE OF DAINTY UNDIES IS QUITE BECOMING ON YOU.
T
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
ekrubtap

Captain
Captain



Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:47 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

XX and XY chromosome pairings are not cut and dried, black and white. Endicrinology plays a vital role in the process of biological sexuality, particularly hormone levels, their timing, and the body's responsiveness to them. Two examples of conditions that illustrate this point follow. The first is a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) that causes some XX female fetuses to develop male-like external genitalia because their adrenal glands produce large amounts of androgens, virilizing the fetus. These children will sometimes menstruate through the phallus after puberty. A second condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) causes XY male fetuses to develop female external genitalia. Their normal testes produce androgens but, because of a cellular abnormality that inhibits response to the hormone, gestational development is unaffected they have a female external morphology at birth.

Research into genetics yields another surprise. There are apparently several variations on the familiar XX and XY chromosomal pairings. In addition to XX and XY thereís also, for example, XO (Turners' syndrome, a sex chromosome missing), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome). Embryos can also develop with XX cells in one part of the body and XY or other type cells in another part called mosaicism. From;Disorders of Sexual Differentiation, medical journal; Gender Identity, on Ask the Expert, May 1998; What is AIS?, , on the Medhelp website; Genetic Disorders, Tulane University genetics website.

All of this may amount to no more than a moot point, though, because...
[quote]
Quote:
We've released chemicals throughout the world that are having fundamental effects on the reproductive system and the immune system in wildlife and in humans. Should we change policy? Should we be upset? Yes, I think we should be fundamentally upset. I think we should be screaming in the streets,' says Professor Louis Guiflette of the University of Florida. 'We have unwittingly entered the ultimate Faustian bargain,' argues Dr Devra Lee Davis, former deputy health policy adviser to the American govemment. 'In return for all the benefits of our modem society, and all the amazing products of modem life, we have more testicular cancer and more breast cancer. We may also affect the ability of the species to reproduce. I don't accept that bargain. The stakes are too high here. We cannot afford to take a course of action that will affect the ability of the species to persevere.'


And as an interesting aside....
From "Genome" by Matt Ridley. editor's choice. New york Times Book Review...
Quote:
In the late 1980s, two groups of scientists, one in Philadelphia and one in Cambridge, made a surprising discovery. They tried to create a uniparental mouse - a mouse with only one parent. Since strict cloning from a body cell was then impossible in mice (post Dolly, this is quickly changing), the Philidelphia team swapped the "pronuclei" of two fertilised eggs. When an egg has been fertilised by a sperm, the sperm nucleus containing the chromosomes enters the egg but does not at first fuse with the egg nucleus; the two nuclei are known as "pronuclei". A clever scientist can sneek in with his pipette and suck out the sperm pronucleus, replacing it with the egg pronucleus from another egg - and vice versa. The result is two viable eggs, but one with, genetically speaking, two fathers and no mother and the other with two mothers and no father. The Cambridge team used a slightly different technique to reach the same result. But in both cases such embryos failed to develope properly and soon died in the womb.

In the two mothers case, the embryo itself was properly organised, but it could not make a placenta with which to sustain itself. In the two fathers case, the embryo grew a large and healthy placenta and most of the membranes that surround the foetus. But inside, where the embryo should be, there was a disorganised blob of cells with no dicernible head,

These results led to an extrordinary conclusion. Paternal genes,inherited from the father, are responsible for making the placenta; maternal genes, inherited from the mother, are responsible for making the greater part of the embryo, especially it's head and brain.


So contrary to popular wisdom, the male provides the nurturing and the female provides the brawn and brains. The whole here would indicate that "God's" blueprint has gone seriously awry.

_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
TMOV

Colonel
Colonel
Premium Member
Premium Member


Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 1590
Location: hovering nearby

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:08 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

[quote="ekrubtap"]XX and XY chromosome pairings are not cut and dried, black and white. Endicrinology plays a vital role in the process of biological sexuality, particularly hormone levels, their timing, and the body's responsiveness to them. Two examples of conditions that illustrate this point follow. The first is a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) that causes some XX female fetuses to develop male-like external genitalia because their adrenal glands produce large amounts of androgens, virilizing the fetus. These children will sometimes menstruate through the phallus after puberty. A second condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) causes XY male fetuses to develop female external genitalia. Their normal testes produce androgens but, because of a cellular abnormality that inhibits response to the hormone, gestational development is unaffected they have a female external morphology at birth.

Research into genetics yields another surprise. There are apparently several variations on the familiar XX and XY chromosomal pairings. In addition to XX and XY thereís also, for example, XO (Turners' syndrome, a sex chromosome missing), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome). Embryos can also develop with XX cells in one part of the body and XY or other type cells in another part called mosaicism. From;Disorders of Sexual Differentiation, medical journal; Gender Identity, on Ask the Expert, May 1998; What is AIS?, , on the Medhelp website; Genetic Disorders, Tulane University genetics website.

All of this may amount to no more than a moot point, though, because...
Quote:
Quote:
We've released chemicals throughout the world that are having fundamental effects on the reproductive system and the immune system in wildlife and in humans. Should we change policy? Should we be upset? Yes, I think we should be fundamentally upset. I think we should be screaming in the streets,' says Professor Louis Guiflette of the University of Florida. 'We have unwittingly entered the ultimate Faustian bargain,' argues Dr Devra Lee Davis, former deputy health policy adviser to the American govemment. 'In return for all the benefits of our modem society, and all the amazing products of modem life, we have more testicular cancer and more breast cancer. We may also affect the ability of the species to reproduce. I don't accept that bargain. The stakes are too high here. We cannot afford to take a course of action that will affect the ability of the species to persevere.'


And as an interesting aside....
From "Genome" by Matt Ridley. editor's choice. New york Times Book Review...
Quote:
In the late 1980s, two groups of scientists, one in Philadelphia and one in Cambridge, made a surprising discovery. They tried to create a uniparental mouse - a mouse with only one parent. Since strict cloning from a body cell was then impossible in mice (post Dolly, this is quickly changing), the Philidelphia team swapped the "pronuclei" of two fertilised eggs. When an egg has been fertilised by a sperm, the sperm nucleus containing the chromosomes enters the egg but does not at first fuse with the egg nucleus; the two nuclei are known as "pronuclei". A clever scientist can sneek in with his pipette and suck out the sperm pronucleus, replacing it with the egg pronucleus from another egg - and vice versa. The result is two viable eggs, but one with, genetically speaking, two fathers and no mother and the other with two mothers and no father. The Cambridge team used a slightly different technique to reach the same result. But in both cases such embryos failed to develope properly and soon died in the womb.

In the two mothers case, the embryo itself was properly organised, but it could not make a placenta with which to sustain itself. In the two fathers case, the embryo grew a large and healthy placenta and most of the membranes that surround the foetus. But inside, where the embryo should be, there was a disorganised blob of cells with no dicernible head,

These results led to an extrordinary conclusion. Paternal genes,inherited from the father, are responsible for making the placenta; maternal genes, inherited from the mother, are responsible for making the greater part of the embryo, especially it's head and brain.


So contrary to popular wisdom, the male provides the nurturing and the female provides the brawn and brains. The whole here would indicate that "God's" blueprint has gone seriously awry.

i understand the abnormalities.
aside from external influences the xx and xy works as it is supposed to ,
the external influences appear to be because of the environment or the diet of the mother or a damaged chromosome being passed on to the fetus and then the blueprints are all screwed up.

i wonder what genetically engineered mutants that we ourselves are going to be responsible for introducing into the gene pool.

tmov
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
BooRad

Sergeant
Sergeant



Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 141
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:41 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

And, like, hey...don't forget the YY's either. I wonder if that could be why some people ARE bigger pricks than others??

BooRad
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
shamash

Corporal
Corporal



Joined: Mar 21, 2004
Posts: 70
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 8:30 pm    Post subject: God?
Reply with quote

let us make man in our own image and likeness......

It seems to me that God is spirit and therefore "in our own image and likeness" would mean our spirits were made in the image of God not the body.

Also lets not forget the Bible was written by men and at a time when men ruled and women were little more than property to most men. Do you think anyone at that time would have admitted(or wrote) any female was superior to them? I think not. Luckily someday the truth will come out, is coming out now about our true origins. Keep your eyes and heart open and you just may find what you weren't looking for.
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
Cuc2004

Corporal
Corporal



Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 50
Location: Uk

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:42 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Don't forget the subject guys!
_________________
Very Happy
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
ekrubtap

Captain
Captain



Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:49 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

God cannot be real. The literary god, as represented via "God's Word" in the bible as perfection personified (OK, Deified) screwed up immediately. In the attempt to create man(kind) in his perfect image he obviously fell short of the mark. Adam just didn't work out. (I know, y'all like to blame Eve, but hey, Adam made in God's image, Eve made of Adam's rib. Talking snakes. How is this Eve's fault?)

Then shortly after the tasting of the fruit of the Tree O" Good & Evil (which was supposed to kill but also failed), God's out strolling in the garden, talking to himself, which tipped off A&E to his presence, so they hide in the bushes (???), and God's like, yoo hoo, Adam and Eve, where are you? Come out, come out. Ally, ally in free. Damn, forgot the omnicience in my other pants.

So then G curses the subtle silver tonged devil of an articulating serpent, telling it to eat my dust for the rest of forever. Well that didn't work out too well either. Some of my best friends are serpents, and when we dine out they go for stuff like bugs, and mice, sometimes a cow if it's been awhile between noshes. Nary a mention of dust.
Quote:
Gen.3:20
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."
Except for...
Quote:
Heb.7:3
"Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God," was "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
So where is he now?

But A&E have got G really worried now.
Quote:
Gen 3:22 Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So who is "us"? And I don't see where mankind was forbidden to eat of the tree of life. The shrubbery of the knowledge of good and evil, yes (biblically). Is G being petulant here? Not my idea of a stable personality type for a God.
And given that Adam (but not Eve ?!?) had "become as one of us", ie a God, why didn't he just tell God1 to go to hell, instead of meakly sashaying on out of the garden.

Bear in mind that all this hilarity is just from the first few pages of the bible. The yuk fest is rampant throughout.

If this book represents God's word, then God is way less than perfect (and I'm making an effort to be polite here.) A less than perfect God is no God at all. Ergo, God does not exist.

BONUS BIBLE SEX.....Song of Solomon; My breasts are like towers.-8:10,
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.-- 4:5 He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.-- 1:13 Jeremiah; Through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks..--3:9 Lamentations They have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward. Her filthiness is in her skirts.--1:8-9 , well, yah, because...My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.-- 5:4 (Song of Solomon) Jeez, that's disgusting! Cool

Talk about your pottymouths. Razz

_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
ekrubtap

Captain
Captain



Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:04 pm    Post subject: Re: God?
Reply with quote

shamash wrote:

It seems to me that God is spirit and therefore "in our own image and likeness" would mean our spirits were made in the image of God not the body.


Then would we not all be walking around as Gods, in spirit if not in actuallity. If we were made in the spiritual image of God then we would reflect God's spirit "image" and the opposite would hold true. God would be a reflection of humanity. Take a good look at the world. Is this God? Is a God capable of all this worthy of our consideration? Has there been any time in the history of the world that the concept of God has warranted our trust (what deists generally refer to as faith)?

The tellingest argument against the existance of God/gods is that they are superfluous. We are perfectly capable of arranging our own affairs, to the extent that they can be managed, should we care to give ourselves half a chance. But no, we would be inventing Gods, and applying them to a myriad of ungodly endeavours in the name of rightiousness.

You seem a thoughtful person, shamash. Eschew faith for thought.Throw off childhood indoctrination (the greatest of religious recruitments). Be as good as you can. Don't hurt anyone if you can avoid it. Avoid harmful drugs, especially religion and practice safe sex. This path might not get you into heaven, but then you won't be missing anything, anyway.

_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
wandrinstar

Captain
Captain
Premium Member
Premium Member


Joined: Mar 07, 2004
Posts: 306
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:44 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

SicPreFix wrote:
You might be interested to know that in the real world we all begin as female.

I believe we were gestated in the earlier stages with no particular sex. It is sometime later it is decided. I read that in a response to a question, "why do men have nipples". I am speaking about early in the pregnancy. Rolling Eyes

_________________
...Kieran
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
ekrubtap

Captain
Captain



Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:02 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Yes and no. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. Genetic sex is determined at the instant the genes of a sperm combine with those of an ovum. (The sperm contain either an X or a Y chromosome, the ovum, an X. XX=female, XY=male, for those of you who slept through sex ed.) There are other possibilities as per an entry above.

Though our sex is determined when the female and male gamets meet up on that important first date, actual sexually determinent development doesn't take place until week 5-6. However we are not asexual during this period. We are, in fact, hermaphroditic. (from Hermes and Aphrodite, a couple of gods wouldn't you know.) At this point in the embryonic reproductive system the paramesonephric, or Mullerian ducts (future female ducts) develop alongside the mesonephric ducts (future male ducts). Both are collectively known as the gonadal ridges, and both sets of ducts empty into a common chamber called the cloaca. The embryo is said to be sexually indifferent and things can ostensibly go either way .
Shortly after the gonadal ridges appear, primordial germ cells migrate to them from the yolk sac and seed the developing gonads with stem cells destined to become spermatogonia or oogonia.(male or female gonads). Once these cells are in residence, the gonadal ridges differentiate into testes or ovaries, into Adam or Eve, depending on the genetic makeup of the embryo.

_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
shamash

Corporal
Corporal



Joined: Mar 21, 2004
Posts: 70
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:17 pm    Post subject: God?
Reply with quote

Is God real you ask? In order to find the answer two requirements must be met:

1.The seeing of the Ego for what it truly is(that which is the root of all suffering/problems in the world).

2.The release of same.
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
ekrubtap

Captain
Captain



Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus

PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:34 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

A qualified yea to #1, somewhat regretful nay to #2.

The ego (one of the Freudian triumvirate of id, ego, superego) is not all bad. I think without a sense of "self" we would be akin to zombies. However there is that green eyed monster "conceit" that comes bundled with the package, that I would guess is part of an ancient survival mechanism, that in turn is a bunch of electrical pulses crossing synapses in the R-complex or lymbic system (the older, more primitive parts of our brain. The R-complex, or Reptillian complex was the original brain we had back when we were tempting Adam and Eve Razz . The limbic system is built around the R-complex and adds to it but does not alter or replace it.. And relatively recently in the evolutionary scale we developed the neo-cortex which in turn surrounds the limbic and R-complex, again, adding to them but not altering them. Apparently the best we can hope for is a moderating influence and/or suppression of some of our more base instincts. Which in itself is probably a source of psychic conflict which could manifest itself in undesireable ways. (I'm guessing here.)

Which brings us to point two. We can't release ego. It is intrinsic to our "being". (and I suspect groups/individuals who claim they can/have released ego of a little ego flexing of their own.)

God is Ego. Ergo 'e go.

_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
shamash

Corporal
Corporal



Joined: Mar 21, 2004
Posts: 70
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:17 pm    Post subject: God?
Reply with quote

Yes Ekrubtap i agree with you and see that i needed to be a bit more precise here( i'm not perfect like God, but is God actually perfect- that's another story) Let take the example of Jesus Christ. He lived a life of sacrifice and giving yet he too retained ego to a certain degree, though far less that the average person of todays world. So the release of ego of which i speak is not a complete loss, but a great lessening compared to most people in todays society almost so that it would seem to be non-existent.
Back to top
View users profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic       All -> FavForums -> Religion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8a © 2001 phpBB Group

Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Version 2.2 by Paul Laudanski © 2003-2004 Computer Cops