Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » And So it Begins (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: And So it Begins
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not sure what you mean by "outside source". What beliefs would not be selected and would not be from an outside source?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I just believe it is an act of cognitive dissonance (carried out my millions every day) to simultaneously select one's beliefs while also believing they come from an outside source.

Who exactly do you think does that? Certainly not part of any Christian doctrine that I'm aware to believe that your "beliefs" come from an outside source.
quote:
Note - this says nothing about the quality of those beliefs, some of which are no doubt very admirable. In fact, the "selected beliefs" that move away from official doctrine tend to move in directions I agree with. I am critical only of the dissonance involved.
And that's just offensive, which is why once again, you should never pretend you can interpret someone else's faith better than they can.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am not sure what you mean by "outside source". What beliefs would not be selected and would not be from an outside source?

I think "revelation" would count as an "outside source", no? Meaning, the truth coming from a source other than human reason, and requiring faith to believe in it. Isn't it Catholic doctrine that human beings are incapable of grasping the whole truth, and that on their own would not have been capable of gaining the knowledge granted through Christ's revelation?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No matter what, we incarnate humans are incapable of grasping the whole truth. What specifically do you mean by revelation? Is it necessarily an outside source? Would a person or a book also be an outside source?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
No matter what, we incarnate humans are incapable of grasping the whole truth. What specifically do you mean by revelation? Is it necessarily an outside source? Would a person or a book also be an outside source?

In the Bible, when God speaks to a prophet in dreams or in person, is that a case of 'the prophet using his reason to deduce facts about the world' or is it 'a supernatural force granting him wisdom/knowledge otherwise unavailable'?

When Jesus came to Earth and taught Men how to be like him, was this 'general rational philosophy', which is to say, the sort of wisdom any old Buddha-type could have given as a teacher, or was it special revelation otherwise unattainable purely by human reason?

I'm not sure how else to specify this without walking into a pit trap. "Outside source" means "from a supernatural source", which presumably can mean either God or the Devil in Christianity. It's sort of hard in a way for a materialist to specify to a Christian what an "outside source" might be since they deny the existence of outside sources, but anyhow I think this is the general idea of what the term might mean.

[ June 29, 2015, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring has interpreted my comment correctly.

Seriati - I am neither trying to offend nor am I interpreting someone's faith, or even any particular faith, since my comment is quite general in nature and not limited to Catholics. My observation is that people often identify themselves as followers of a faith (to be understood to mean "someone who follows a doctrine or text or some other source of revelation") when in fact they are actively changing it according to their personal moral preferences, which are (I would argue) emergent from sources other than the official doctrines. The claim in the article from kmb is that these preferences are from the "imagination" imbued in Catholicism, and of course they may be compatible with elements taught in the religion (since none of them are beyond interpreting in many ways), but it is implicitly a denial of some fundamental tenets of the religion in order to embrace others that are preferred by the individual.

That choice (which tenets are important? which should I follow and which should I ignore?) is made by each individual, and not all the same. I would argue that the choices of which tenets to follow is where you really see one's own moral preferences, generated perhaps from years of experiences, empathy, and perhaps even genetics, emerge.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So by "outside" you don't mean from outside one's self; you mean outside the of the world in some way? Or do you mean in some sort of mystical way like revelation which would not be necessarily "outside" of one's self at all. Or are you mistakenly conflating those things?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should have been clearer... nobody develops morality in a complete vacuum, so what I'm referring to is whether one's conception of morality is derived from socialization (which could mean from direct experiences or storytelling or some other communal source of knowledge) vs. morality that is derived from some divine or supernatural authority, as in many religions of the world. In the latter case, it is profoundly difficult to "change one's mind" on a moral issue without a new interpretation to justify the change, which sort of usurps the authority of the religion. In the former case, changing one's moral position happens without much dissonance since there is no divine authority that must first be subverted.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
In the Bible, when God speaks to a prophet in dreams or in person, is that a case of 'the prophet using his reason to deduce facts about the world' or is it 'a supernatural force granting him wisdom/knowledge otherwise unavailable'?

Honestly, does it matter? The question is whether the believer today's beliefs are imposed by an outside source. The answer of course is always mixed, unless you know of a baby that raised itself to adulthood without any outside aid, no parents, no teachers, no nothing.

It's always a mix too, because we have an endless amount of good and bad sources for beliefs and we exercise our discretion and judgment as to which to apply. There's a reason though that the religious have to study their religion. A prophet having a dream isn't all there is to understanding whether there's a lesson there or a warning, maybe even a false doctrine.
quote:
When Jesus came to Earth and taught Men how to be like him, was this 'general rational philosophy', which is to say, the sort of wisdom any old Buddha-type could have given as a teacher, or was it special revelation otherwise unattainable purely by human reason?
It couldn't be both? Ever find a really good treatise that summarizes everything on a topic in one place? Compared that to a topic where you have to work across hundreds of sources to get to the same spot? Why do you think there has to be something purely magically for their to be a special validity?
quote:
It's sort of hard in a way for a materialist to specify to a Christian what an "outside source" might be since they deny the existence of outside sources, but anyhow I think this is the general idea of what the term might mean.
Then don't try. Don't interpret other people's religion and you don't have the problem of trying to shoe horn a concept from your world view inappropriately into theirs.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Seriati - I am neither trying to offend nor am I interpreting someone's faith, or even any particular faith, since my comment is quite general in nature and not limited to Catholics.

I'm not sure its applicable, even to Catholics.
quote:
My observation is that people often identify themselves as followers of a faith (to be understood to mean "someone who follows a doctrine or text or some other source of revelation") when in fact they are actively changing it according to their personal moral preferences, which are (I would argue) emergent from sources other than the official doctrines.
You have a partial point here, most faith's are shared faiths and of necessity that requires that you share the core tenants of the faith. But you're not generally expected to understand or have interpreted them with perfection (at least not in religions that believe you can't be perfect), and in many there is latitude on things that aren't core.
quote:
The claim in the article from kmb is that these preferences are from the "imagination" imbued in Catholicism, and of course they may be compatible with elements taught in the religion (since none of them are beyond interpreting in many ways), but it is implicitly a denial of some fundamental tenets of the religion in order to embrace others that are preferred by the individual.
And you are more of an expert on Catholicism that kmbboots? Is that your assertion? Or is your assertion that it doesn't appear logically consistent and you don't understand?
quote:
That choice (which tenets are important? which should I follow and which should I ignore?) is made by each individual, and not all the same.
Of course, you have a brain and free will for a reason. Of course you should also listen for better insight in all things and be ready to adapt.
quote:
I would argue that the choices of which tenets to follow is where you really see one's own moral preferences, generated perhaps from years of experiences, empathy, and perhaps even genetics, emerge.
Why would you feel a need to "argue" that? Do you think anyone disagrees?

It's not in human nature to apply a moral rule consistently and not internalize it, so regardless of source that history will also be included in the preferences you recognize.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I should have been clearer... nobody develops morality in a complete vacuum, so what I'm referring to is whether one's conception of morality is derived from socialization (which could mean from direct experiences or storytelling or some other communal source of knowledge) vs. morality that is derived from some divine or supernatural authority, as in many religions of the world. In the latter case, it is profoundly difficult to "change one's mind" on a moral issue without a new interpretation to justify the change, which sort of usurps the authority of the religion. In the former case, changing one's moral position happens without much dissonance since there is no divine authority that must first be subverted.

And this says to me you don't understand religion. You may have missed the amount of study that goes into the faith of the deeply religious.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I should have been clearer... nobody develops morality in a complete vacuum, so what I'm referring to is whether one's conception of morality is derived from socialization (which could mean from direct experiences or storytelling or some other communal source of knowledge) vs. morality that is derived from some divine or supernatural authority, as in many religions of the world. In the latter case, it is profoundly difficult to "change one's mind" on a moral issue without a new interpretation to justify the change, which sort of usurps the authority of the religion. In the former case, changing one's moral position happens without much dissonance since there is no divine authority that must first be subverted.

You seem to think that those are two separate things. "Divine" revelation is, in my experience, not external but internal. The Holy Spirit which is an integral part of a person rather that something imposed from outside. Discernment is using study, tradition, experience, prayer, and everything else we can get our hands on to figure out if what we believe the Holy Spirit is revealing is actually that or something else. Likewise, we use the Holy Spirit to help us "sort" and evaluate our experience, study, tradition, scripture and so forth. And all of those things in combination.

Does that help clear things up a bit?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You may have missed the amount of study that goes into the faith of the deeply religious.
I've read a lot of Tolkien, but it would be a mistake for me to conclude that having re-read Lord of the Rings around forty times has made me an expert in the defeat of evil, bodiless demigods.

-------------

In somewhat related news, especially as relates to the OP: I would be very happy if Sanders were to somehow wind up with the Democratic nom.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You may have missed the amount of study that goes into the faith of the deeply religious.
I've read a lot of Tolkien, but it would be a mistake for me to conclude that having re-read Lord of the Rings around forty times has made me an expert in the defeat of evil, bodiless demigods.
Probably not, but it might give you some insight into good and evil or the danger of power. It might inspire you to appreciate the heroism of ordinary people.

When I talk about study, I am not only talking about studying scripture.
quote:


-------------

In somewhat related news, especially as relates to the OP: I would be very happy if Sanders were to somehow wind up with the Democratic nom.

Me, too. I am hopeful that he will, at least, drag the conversation to the left.

[ June 30, 2015, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I've read a lot of Tolkien, but it would be a mistake for me to conclude that having re-read Lord of the Rings around forty times has made me an expert in the defeat of evil, bodiless demigods.

There's a difference between reading a text and studying one. I wasn't aware that Tolkien was held out as a primer for defeating demigods.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
You have a partial point here, most faith's are shared faiths and of necessity that requires that you share the core tenants of the faith. But you're not generally expected to understand or have interpreted them with perfection (at least not in religions that believe you can't be perfect), and in many there is latitude on things that aren't core.


Well, since we're talking about Catholicism and the broad Catholic acceptance of SSM despite the official doctrinal position, is your claim that those doctrines are not "core"?

quote:
And you are more of an expert on Catholicism that kmbboots? Is that your assertion? Or is your assertion that it doesn't appear logically consistent and you don't understand?


The latter. It isn't clear to me how you can support SSM and still be Catholic unless you are basically refuting a core element of Catholicism in favor of something else.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
In the Bible, when God speaks to a prophet in dreams or in person, is that a case of 'the prophet using his reason to deduce facts about the world' or is it 'a supernatural force granting him wisdom/knowledge otherwise unavailable'?

Honestly, does it matter? The question is whether the believer today's beliefs are imposed by an outside source. The answer of course is always mixed, unless you know of a baby that raised itself to adulthood without any outside aid, no parents, no teachers, no nothing.

It's always a mix too, because we have an endless amount of good and bad sources for beliefs and we exercise our discretion and judgment as to which to apply. There's a reason though that the religious have to study their religion. A prophet having a dream isn't all there is to understanding whether there's a lesson there or a warning, maybe even a false doctrine.
quote:
When Jesus came to Earth and taught Men how to be like him, was this 'general rational philosophy', which is to say, the sort of wisdom any old Buddha-type could have given as a teacher, or was it special revelation otherwise unattainable purely by human reason?
It couldn't be both? Ever find a really good treatise that summarizes everything on a topic in one place? Compared that to a topic where you have to work across hundreds of sources to get to the same spot? Why do you think there has to be something purely magically for their to be a special validity?
quote:
It's sort of hard in a way for a materialist to specify to a Christian what an "outside source" might be since they deny the existence of outside sources, but anyhow I think this is the general idea of what the term might mean.
Then don't try. Don't interpret other people's religion and you don't have the problem of trying to shoe horn a concept from your world view inappropriately into theirs.

Seriati,

Seriously, what are you addressing here? My post was solely to help clarify the meaning of the term "outside source." That's all. I was not speaking about how one builds wisdom, how children are taught, how religion is a combination of learning and training methods, or what a religious person is supposed to believe. Your criticisms here are really chimeras in regards to the single point I was addressing.

Do you seriously think the term "outside source" is hard to understand? Any person who isn't a materialist believes in "outside sources" of some kind. In fact, even the belief in teleology necessarily involves an "outside source" in the abstract.

I have to say it seems like JoshCrow is being stonewalled linguistically so that he can't proceed to debate his point. Anyone who believes that there is an influence on the universe other than matter believes in an "outside source", and if that source adds information to or changes the universe then that is a source of change other than what a materialist accepts as possible. In Christianity this would be called revelation, and divine intervention, respectively. Christianity believes in miracles, no? That is change from an "outside source." I was trying to be general about this earlier; I honestly don't know why this point is even being contended.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Divine" revelation is, in my experience, not external but internal. The Holy Spirit which is an integral part of a person rather that something imposed from outside. Discernment is using study, tradition, experience, prayer, and everything else we can get our hands on to figure out if what we believe the Holy Spirit is revealing is actually that or something else. Likewise, we use the Holy Spirit to help us "sort" and evaluate our experience, study, tradition, scripture and so forth. And all of those things in combination.

Does that help clear things up a bit?

Well, how does one distinguish the Holy Spirit from one's mind? Is that an odd question?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It isn't clear to me how you can support SSM and still be Catholic unless you are basically refuting a core element of Catholicism in favor of something else.
Are you speaking within the Catholic church or in society at large, without regard to the church?

Because if it's the latter, the answer is the same as how you can support Protestant marriage, Jewish marriage, Islamic marriage, Hindu marriage, Buddhist marriage, Quaker marriage, and any other form of marriage outside the Catholic tradition.

There may be more interesting hurdles to navigate in advocating for the Church itself to change position, but respecting and supporting the separation of church and state is easy to support without deviating from the faith.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
You have a partial point here, most faith's are shared faiths and of necessity that requires that you share the core tenants of the faith. But you're not generally expected to understand or have interpreted them with perfection (at least not in religions that believe you can't be perfect), and in many there is latitude on things that aren't core.


Well, since we're talking about Catholicism and the broad Catholic acceptance of SSM despite the official doctrinal position, is your claim that those doctrines are not "core"?

Yes. There are a bunch of bishops that wouldn't agree with me but some would as would more than half the Catholics in the US and most developed countries.
quote:


quote:
And you are more of an expert on Catholicism that kmbboots? Is that your assertion? Or is your assertion that it doesn't appear logically consistent and you don't understand?


The latter. It isn't clear to me how you can support SSM and still be Catholic unless you are basically refuting a core element of Catholicism in favor of something else.

I don't know how many more ways I can explain it. Opposing marriage equality is contrary to what I (and see above) consider core Catholic doctrine. For example, the sacramental nature of the world as described in the article I posted.

[ June 30, 2015, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So essentially what I'm hearing is that a significant contingent (possibly even a majority in some places) of people who identify as Catholic in fact reject the Vatican and Pope as the ultimate authority?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. And, historically, have often done so. You might note Paul arguing with Peter all through the New Testament. Authority, sure, but not ultimate. As I have noted many times here, the history of the Catholic Church is full of doctrine that was once considered contrary to the teaching of the Vatican.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Well, since we're talking about Catholicism and the broad Catholic acceptance of SSM despite the official doctrinal position, is your claim that those doctrines are not "core"?

I'm not Catholic, I don't make any claims about Catholicism. And particularly not about what someone "has" to believe to be Catholic.
quote:
quote:
And you are more of an expert on Catholicism that kmbboots? Is that your assertion? Or is your assertion that it doesn't appear logically consistent and you don't understand?
The latter. It isn't clear to me how you can support SSM and still be Catholic unless you are basically refuting a core element of Catholicism in favor of something else.
Yet, kmbboots explained it to you, in one set of words, did you see where she 'refuted a core element' of Catholicism? I didn't.

I think you're under the impression that religious doctrine is fixed and settled and that the religious must adhere to it without thought less they are outside their core beliefs. That's pretty much completely backwards for many religions, where debates of theology have never ceased and application to the modern word is a never ending process. It's entirely possible for even long held doctrines to change in light of new information (including new secular information), that's a bit of the idea behind revealed truth - that's not rote concepts forced on you.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I’m probably straddling the fence between being Catholic and agnostic at this point so I’m also far from any authority on the subject. As to how one can reject a “core tenant” of the faith and still claim to be a part of it, the easy answer is whether or not you feel the issue is a “core tenant” or not. I very early on decided to ignore any aspect of the faith I felt was just a means of controlling a population or was a safeguard against disruption, for lack of a better term. Even as a kid, if not scolded or corrected for it, it’s not difficult to separate the morality and lessons of how to be “good” from the rules of day to day life.

As kids grow up more things become apparent. Does God really care about a specific cleansing ritual or how food is prepared? Likely not but following some of these rules lead to better sanitation practices and better health by people who wouldn’t have had the motivation or understanding of more mundane reasons to perform or abstain from these acts.

There are tons of things in most religion which are just “Do this, because I said so” like a parent to a child. Now maybe I’ll be penalized or miss out on some reward in the afterlife because I ate the wrong food, did work on the wrong day or didn’t repeat a specific phrase or passage as often or at the correct times. I expect however that most of these “tenants” are just meant to be viewed from the context they originated in as ways to improve the community as a whole and insure the survival of the particular belief system. What was well intentioned to help people out should change. And honestly, we shouldn’t require a new profit every few generations to give us updates.

Free will and building off of the knowledge of those who came before us should be enough. Assuming we are able to retain the important messages passed down (both cultural and religious) and leave the unimportant behind as historically interesting but now unnecessary. Where you run into problems with any divinely inspired guidance is the concept of infallibility. If you can’t rectify that concept with an, “Any information revealed has to be understood by the recipient.”, way of thinking; Then pretty much all religions have a built in expiration date.

[ July 01, 2015, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1