Personal experience argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(29-07-2015 05:21 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  The personal experience argument fails for me for the following reasons...

Most People who have had ghostly experiences are people who tend to believe in ghosts.

Most people who have experienced alien abduction are people who tend to believe in aliens.

Most people who tend to have religious experiences are people who believe in god.

Let's go beyond most to all!

But be careful, because if even one, single human spiritual experience in history is a valid one, materialism collapses.

You will have to go the "Chas route" of ALL theists are deluded saps--or not. Be careful because if you go "that deep" with your materialist, um, faith, you are now letting us inmates run the asylum!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(30-07-2015 10:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But be careful, because if even one, single human spiritual experience in history is a valid one, materialism collapses.

You are an idiot. A particular pattern of neural activity does not deny materialism. If anything it reinforces it. Religious experiences are easily induced with hallucinogens and psychotropics.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(30-07-2015 10:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 05:21 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  The personal experience argument fails for me for the following reasons...

Most People who have had ghostly experiences are people who tend to believe in ghosts.

Most people who have experienced alien abduction are people who tend to believe in aliens.

Most people who tend to have religious experiences are people who believe in god.

Let's go beyond most to all!

But be careful, because if even one, single human spiritual experience in history is a valid one, materialism collapses.

You will have to go the "Chas route" of ALL theists are deluded saps--or not. Be careful because if you go "that deep" with your materialist, um, faith, you are now letting us inmates run the asylum!

Belief without evidence is delusional.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 06:15 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(30-07-2015 10:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 05:21 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  The personal experience argument fails for me for the following reasons...

Most People who have had ghostly experiences are people who tend to believe in ghosts.

Most people who have experienced alien abduction are people who tend to believe in aliens.

Most people who tend to have religious experiences are people who believe in god.

Let's go beyond most to all!

But be careful, because if even one, single human spiritual experience in history is a valid one, materialism collapses.

You will have to go the "Chas route" of ALL theists are deluded saps--or not. Be careful because if you go "that deep" with your materialist, um, faith, you are now letting us inmates run the asylum!

I'm sure James Randi is still waiting for that one genuine experience.

Same as everyone else has been waiting for the last few thousand years....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheStraightener's post
31-07-2015, 07:49 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(29-07-2015 08:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 01:31 PM)jennybee Wrote:  I know about that prophecy from my Christian days. After leaving Christianity, I did a lot of research. Daniel does not predict Jesus. I posted something awhile back discounting Christianity's claim that Daniel predicted Jesus. It's very thorough, I can post it again if you like.

Let's keep it simple? From memory, the decree from the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall to the cutting off of Messiah the Prince was to have taken 69 shabuas or sevens.

69 * 7 years = 483 360-day Hebrew years between decree and Jesus--the first date is established (or dang close?) by archaeology. Again, all from memory but I don't know how to disprove the fact of Daniel having been written at least 250 BCE and Jesus's death on Passover week in 29 AD... Jesus specifically reproved the leaders of His day that they missed the timing of His advent.

Your math here isn't making much sense. The difference between 250 BC and AD 29 is not 483, or even close to it. What year are you using for the beginning of this? What's the justification for using that year? And what makes you think Daniel was written in 250 BC? Most Biblical scholars place it in approximately 167-164 BC.

And why do you use BCE and AD? Be consistent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
31-07-2015, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2015 10:22 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Personal experience argument
(29-07-2015 08:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 01:31 PM)jennybee Wrote:  I know about that prophecy from my Christian days. After leaving Christianity, I did a lot of research. Daniel does not predict Jesus. I posted something awhile back discounting Christianity's claim that Daniel predicted Jesus. It's very thorough, I can post it again if you like.

Let's keep it simple? From memory, the decree from the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall to the cutting off of Messiah the Prince was to have taken 69 shabuas or sevens.

69 * 7 years = 483 360-day Hebrew years between decree and Jesus--the first date is established (or dang close?) by archaeology. Again, all from memory but I don't know how to disprove the fact of Daniel having been written at least 250 BCE and Jesus's death on Passover week in 29 AD... Jesus specifically reproved the leaders of His day that they missed the timing of His advent.

The Book of Daniel is often paired with the Book of Revelation as providing the road map of future end-time events. Many alleged prophecies in Daniel were fulfilled, but is that because Daniel was a divinely inspired seer? Critical scholars see a more mundane explanation. Daniel might actually be a Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. His so-called prophecies were made ex eventu, or after the fact, so that he could pass himself off as a genuine seer. The book itself betrays more than one author. Chapters 1–6 were written in Aramaic, while chapters 7–12 are in Hebrew. Daniel makes many historical errors when talking about the Babylonian period, the time in which he supposedly lived. For example, he claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Nabonidus Cylinder found in Ur names Nabonidus as Belshazzar’s actual father.

Also, Belshazzar was a crown prince but never a king, contrary to Daniel’s claim. In Daniel 5:30, Daniel writes that a certain Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. It was actually Cyrus the Great, a Persian and not a Mede, who overthrew Babylon. On the other hand, Daniel writes about events of the Hellenistic era with extreme accuracy. Chapter 11, presented as prophecy, is on the mark in every detail. This leads to the conclusion that Daniel was witness to these events but not to those of the Babylonian period, on which he is vague and unfamiliar.

Scholars thus place the writings of Daniel at around 167–164 B.C., during the persecution of the Jews by Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes. The book was meant as inspirational fiction to encourage the Jews in their time of trial. Daniel did take a shot at making a real prophecy, predicting the death of Antiochus in the Holy Land. This genuine prophecy turned out to be wrong. Antiochus actually died in Persia in 164 B.C.

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. (Wells 2013, p 1109)

History....embrace it.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press.

Wells, S. (2013) The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
31-07-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(30-07-2015 04:40 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 10:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But be careful, because if even one, single human spiritual experience in history is a valid one, materialism collapses.

You are an idiot. A particular pattern of neural activity does not deny materialism. If anything it reinforces it. Religious experiences are easily induced with hallucinogens and psychotropics.

And... enjoyed by 90% of persons, always. Next, you'll say every theist induces their personal self-awareness of God with psychotropics!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(31-07-2015 07:49 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 08:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let's keep it simple? From memory, the decree from the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall to the cutting off of Messiah the Prince was to have taken 69 shabuas or sevens.

69 * 7 years = 483 360-day Hebrew years between decree and Jesus--the first date is established (or dang close?) by archaeology. Again, all from memory but I don't know how to disprove the fact of Daniel having been written at least 250 BCE and Jesus's death on Passover week in 29 AD... Jesus specifically reproved the leaders of His day that they missed the timing of His advent.

Your math here isn't making much sense. The difference between 250 BC and AD 29 is not 483, or even close to it. What year are you using for the beginning of this? What's the justification for using that year? And what makes you think Daniel was written in 250 BC? Most Biblical scholars place it in approximately 167-164 BC.

And why do you use BCE and AD? Be consistent.

Huh? Daniel is referring to a decree made by Artaxerxes in 444 BC or if you like, BCE.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(31-07-2015 12:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 07:49 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Your math here isn't making much sense. The difference between 250 BC and AD 29 is not 483, or even close to it. What year are you using for the beginning of this? What's the justification for using that year? And what makes you think Daniel was written in 250 BC? Most Biblical scholars place it in approximately 167-164 BC.

And why do you use BCE and AD? Be consistent.

Huh? Daniel is referring to a decree made by Artaxerxes in 444 BC or if you like, BCE.

OK. 444 + 29 = 473, which is still not 483. Not even if you account for the difference between 360-day years and 365-day years.

The "prophecies" in Daniel are a bunch of rot anyway. See goodwithoutgod's post for more details.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Personal experience argument
(31-07-2015 08:12 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 08:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let's keep it simple? From memory, the decree from the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall to the cutting off of Messiah the Prince was to have taken 69 shabuas or sevens.

69 * 7 years = 483 360-day Hebrew years between decree and Jesus--the first date is established (or dang close?) by archaeology. Again, all from memory but I don't know how to disprove the fact of Daniel having been written at least 250 BCE and Jesus's death on Passover week in 29 AD... Jesus specifically reproved the leaders of His day that they missed the timing of His advent.

The Book of Daniel is often paired with the Book of Revelation as providing the road map of future end-time events. Many alleged prophecies in Daniel were fulfilled, but is that because Daniel was a divinely inspired seer? Critical scholars see a more mundane explanation. Daniel might actually be a Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. His so-called prophecies were made ex eventu, or after the fact, so that he could pass himself off as a genuine seer. The book itself betrays more than one author. Chapters 1–6 were written in Aramaic, while chapters 7–12 are in Hebrew. Daniel makes many historical errors when talking about the Babylonian period, the time in which he supposedly lived. For example, he claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Nabonidus Cylinder found in Ur names Nabonidus as Belshazzar’s actual father.

Also, Belshazzar was a crown prince but never a king, contrary to Daniel’s claim. In Daniel 5:30, Daniel writes that a certain Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. It was actually Cyrus the Great, a Persian and not a Mede, who overthrew Babylon. On the other hand, Daniel writes about events of the Hellenistic era with extreme accuracy. Chapter 11, presented as prophecy, is on the mark in every detail. This leads to the conclusion that Daniel was witness to these events but not to those of the Babylonian period, on which he is vague and unfamiliar.

Scholars thus place the writings of Daniel at around 167–164 B.C., during the persecution of the Jews by Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes. The book was meant as inspirational fiction to encourage the Jews in their time of trial. Daniel did take a shot at making a real prophecy, predicting the death of Antiochus in the Holy Land. This genuine prophecy turned out to be wrong. Antiochus actually died in Persia in 164 B.C.

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. (Wells 2013, p 1109)

History....embrace it.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press.

Wells, S. (2013) The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC

Wow! I'd never heard that before, that Daniel was written by a false prophet who was demonstrating knowledge of actual past events and palming them off as "future" prophecies. Actually, I have heard that...

Here's the problem proponents of this theory have. Let's say, yes, Daniel was written in, say, 167 BCE. It predicts the cutting off of Messiah the prince on April 4, 29 CE. Jesus was born 4 BCE and died at age 33, 29 CE.

Further, Daniel prophesies the resolution of the Maccabean conflict, the ascendancy of Rome, that Rome's descendants will break into ten parts and intermingle but never adhere (modern Europe). Further, Revelation prophesies that the Antichrist will be supported by a woman riding a beast... in mythology, EUROPA. Europe.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: