Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
19-05-2019, 13:56   #241
troyzer
Registered User
 
troyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,624
Send a message via MSN to troyzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyzer

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration? Jesus was born in the summer.

C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.
troyzer is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
19-05-2019, 14:17   #242
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.
I'm not sure what the nazi reference serves to achieve, other than to suppose every one need put his belief on a par with nazi beliefs?

We are defending hos religion (some because they share his religion and views (if not quite lacking the nuance his views lacked). Others, even if they don't share his religion or view, see that one belief system (secularism) is attempting to suppress another belief system.

Quote:
And this has nothing to do with his religion.
Not sure how you figure that. He is expressing a religious belief.
antiskeptic is offline  
Thanks from:
19-05-2019, 14:24   #243
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,291
[quote=troyzer;110223865]
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyzer

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

Quote:
You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration?
Exactly.



Quote:
C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.
It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E.

Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming.

Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes.

Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past
antiskeptic is offline  
19-05-2019, 14:30   #244
troyzer
Registered User
 
troyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,624
Send a message via MSN to troyzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.
I'm not sure what the nazi reference serves to achieve, other than to suppose every one need put his belief on a par with nazi beliefs?

We are defending hos religion (some because they share his religion and views (if not quite lacking the nuance his views lacked). Others, even if they don't share his religion or view, see that one belief system (secularism) is attempting to suppress another belief system.

Quote:
And this has nothing to do with his religion.
Not sure how you figure that. He is expressing a religious belief.
I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.

If you want to make it about his religion then fine, but you're completely missing the point.

He would have been sacked whether he was religious or a nazi. It's his views that are unacceptable.

There are certain inalienable rights that we believe in as western societies and no amount of "But my religion says" can counter that. You live in a secular society, not a theocratic one. Your views are not more important just because they're religious.

The content of your words are judged independently of their motivation. Be they theological, philosophical or just political.

If you stand up as a highly public figure with a job that relies on you having a positive public image and say "Women are inferior and shouldn't have the vote or hold political office" you are going to get sacked. It doesn't matter if you're saying it because you're a Muslim or just a gigantic arsehole.

We don't care that he's a Christian. We care that he's a bigot.

Stop pretending he's a martyr, he's not. Nobody cares why he's a disgrace, we care that he IS a disgrace.
troyzer is offline  
(2) thanks from:
19-05-2019, 14:30   #245
theological
Registered User
 
theological's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
Let me provide some light fact checking on this point.

"The New Testament was literally designed by committee" - Not exactly. All of the New Testament texts were used throughout the history of the early church. One can see evidence of this through the texts that were cited extensively by the church fathers throughout the second century and others in the church.

Were the texts of the New Testament "designed" at the Council of Nicea? No.

Were the books of the New Testament agreed upon by the church at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

Was Jesus "decided" to be the Son of God at the Council of Nicea? No. This was clear from the early church from the New Testament letters and the New Testament gospels which date to the first century.

Was the Arian heresy (which denied that God the Son existed before the incarnation) condemned at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

You say these things as if we aren't familiar with the basics of Christian history, but that's not true. If we've decided to live for Jesus in an age that holds it in derision then you can be sure we've done our homework before stepping up to the plate. Jesus was clear, count the cost before following Him. (Luke 14:25-33)

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.
You're correct. I wouldn't defend Nazi views.

Christianity bears no similarity to Nazism which was a political system which oppresses others. Christianity isn't a political religion. Jesus Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" when questioned by Pilate (John 18:36). I don't agree that it should be made into a political religion either.

In this scenario, declaring Christian faith and belief doesn't constitute genuine oppression. People can either engage with him or walk on by. That's the nature of free speech.

I'm not particularly interested in him specifically however. I am interested in defending the gospel and standing for Jesus Christ.
theological is offline  
Advertisement
19-05-2019, 14:32   #246
troyzer
Registered User
 
troyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,624
Send a message via MSN to troyzer
[quote=antiskeptic;110224062]
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyzer

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

Quote:
You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration?
Exactly.



Quote:
C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.
It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E.

Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming.

Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes.

Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past
And religions show the tendencies of the religions before them.

I have no problem with this. Cultural appropriation is not exactly new. I can still enjoy Superman even though his entire character is heavily influenced by the character of Jesus who in turn was heavily influenced by Horus and a few other ancient deities who in turn were probably influenced by some proto Indo-European deity we have no written record of.
troyzer is offline  
19-05-2019, 14:37   #247
troyzer
Registered User
 
troyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,624
Send a message via MSN to troyzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by theological View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
Let me provide some light fact checking on this point.

"The New Testament was literally designed by committee" - Not exactly. All of the New Testament texts were used throughout the history of the early church. One can see evidence of this through the texts that were cited extensively by the church fathers throughout the second century and others in the church.

Were the texts of the New Testament "designed" at the Council of Nicea? No.

Were the books of the New Testament agreed upon by the church at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

Was Jesus "decided" to be the Son of God at the Council of Nicea? No. This was clear from the early church from the New Testament letters and the New Testament gospels which date to the first century.

Was the Arian heresy (which denied that God the Son existed before the incarnation) condemned at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

You say these things as if we aren't familiar with the basics of Christian history, but that's not true. If we've decided to live for Jesus in an age that holds it in derision then you can be sure we've done our homework before stepping up to the plate. Jesus was clear, count the cost before following Him. (Luke 14:25-33)

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.
You're correct. I wouldn't defend Nazi views.

Christianity bears no similarity to Nazism which was a political system which oppresses others. Christianity isn't a political religion. Jesus Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" when questioned by Pilate (John 18:36). I don't agree that it should be made into a political religion either.

In this scenario, declaring Christian faith and belief doesn't constitute genuine oppression. People can either engage with him or walk on by. That's the nature of free speech.

I'm not particularly interested in him specifically however. I am interested in defending the gospel and standing for Jesus Christ.
I didn't mean to imply that it was written at the council. By designed I mean created, edited. It was assembled at the council by normal people with agendas.

The reason why some books are considered gospel and others aren't is entirely arbitrary and motivated by the politics of the day.

You may call Arianism heresy now, but to many back then it wasn't. The fact remains that a lot of people say in a room and decided, by committee, that Jesus was the son of God and that's now official policy. The new testament they put together reflected this.

The point being that a lot of the absolutely core principles of Christianity were very much after the fact.
troyzer is offline  
19-05-2019, 14:43   #248
theological
Registered User
 
theological's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
I didn't mean to imply that it was written at the council. By designed I mean created, edited. It was assembled at the council by normal people with agendas.

The reason why some books are considered gospel and others aren't is entirely arbitrary and motivated by the politics of the day.

You may call Arianism heresy now, but to many back then it wasn't. The fact remains that a lot of people say in a room and decided, by committee, that Jesus was the son of God and that's now official policy. The new testament they put together reflected this.

The point being that a lot of the absolutely core principles of Christianity were very much after the fact.
The New Testament wasn't "created" at the Council of Nicea. Nor was the text "edited". The texts of the New Testament preexist the Council by centuries. All that was agreed at the Council of Nicea was which texts are a part of the Biblical canon.

The reason why the New Testament texts are read to this day are because they were the authoritative texts from the first century. That's basic. The gnostic gospels and other texts were written much later. That's the reason why we don't use them.

I can say that Arianism is a heresy based on the first century New Testament documents. I don't have to rely on anybody in a room, I can check these things based on what God has spoken in His Word.
theological is offline  
19-05-2019, 14:43   #249
recedite
Registered User
 
recedite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.
So what. A nazi might make the trains run on time. Does that mean a proper train service is undesirable?
Its obvious what you are up to here. Anyone who opposes your view is being labelled as a nazi.
recedite is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
19-05-2019, 14:54   #250
troyzer
Registered User
 
troyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,624
Send a message via MSN to troyzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by theological View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
I didn't mean to imply that it was written at the council. By designed I mean created, edited. It was assembled at the council by normal people with agendas.

The reason why some books are considered gospel and others aren't is entirely arbitrary and motivated by the politics of the day.

You may call Arianism heresy now, but to many back then it wasn't. The fact remains that a lot of people say in a room and decided, by committee, that Jesus was the son of God and that's now official policy. The new testament they put together reflected this.

The point being that a lot of the absolutely core principles of Christianity were very much after the fact.
The New Testament wasn't "created" at the Council of Nicea. Nor was the text "edited". The texts of the New Testament preexist the Council by centuries. All that was agreed at the Council of Nicea was which texts are a part of the Biblical canon.

The reason why the New Testament texts are read to this day are because they were the authoritative texts from the first century. That's basic. The gnostic gospels and other texts were written much later. That's the reason why we don't use them.

I can say that Arianism is a heresy based on the first century New Testament documents. I don't have to rely on anybody in a room, I can check these things based on what God has spoken in His Word.
You're not actually disagreeing with me. You say they designed the canon of the Bible. That's all I'm saying. They editorialised and decided what goes in the book and what doesn't.

Not all of the current gospels were written in the first century, you know this. Most biblical scholars think John for example was a much later than the other three, none of which were written around or even shortly after the death of Jesus.

Not all of the gnostic gospels are later as well. There is controversy over the Gospel of Thomas which may actually be older than John. It's at most the same age. Certainly it would have been circulated at the same time.

Why is Thomas not in there but John is? There's no obvious reason why other than the fact that it doesn't say Jesus is the son of God.

Your logic is circular here. You say you know Arianism is wrong because it says it in the book. The book designed by the same committee which decided that Arianism was wrong.

You don't see a problem with this?
troyzer is offline  
19-05-2019, 14:55   #251
troyzer
Registered User
 
troyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,624
Send a message via MSN to troyzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.
So what. A nazi might make the trains run on time. Does that mean a proper train service is undesirable?
Its obvious what you are up to here. Anyone who opposes your view is being labelled as a nazi.
I have no idea what you mean about the trains and no, I'm not trying to call him a Nazi.

Let's use another term. Let's say he was a scientologist who thought homosexuality was a sin, would you be defending him then?
troyzer is offline  
19-05-2019, 15:03   #252
recedite
Registered User
 
recedite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
You succintly chart the progress of the LGBT agenda. You can add non-opt out teaching of primary school kids in the UK, normalising families with two mammies or daddies.

Question for you out of curiousity. (I don't want to derail the thread so won't further a discussion on a reply)

You see homosexuality as aberrant. On what basis do you conclude that? Physically not matched for sex, not able to produce offspring?

Do you hold to naturalistic ToE? If so, how can anything be aberrant? Whats fit survives and homosexuality has survived? So is clearly fit?

If homosexuality is gene based then the current spannering (by which homosexuals may be able to have more kids than before) would see homosexuality increase. The environment (social attitudes to homosexuality, surrogacy, etc. being mere selection factors rendering homosexuality fitter than before).
It's not like you hold evolution had stopped ☺
I do believe in evolution, and you raise an interesting point (but as you say, it risks going somewhat off topic)
Basically, not every aberrant behaviour is a disadvantage to the society overall, though it may be a disadvantage to the individual.
For example in an primitive society, the insomniac "night owl" would have been useful to have around as a guard, in case of prowling animal or human attacks.
The overly adventurous/ hyperactive/ attention deficit disorder personality is useful for pioneering new territory, and finding out here new hazards (eg locating shark infested waters by swimming into them)
The homosexual man may have been a useful person to leave guarding the women and children while the other men were out hunting (can't be leaving a heterosexual man behind with the ladies )


Then there is another class of people who evolution may select for in the same way it selects for predators and parasites. These would be the psyhopaths, the paedophiles, thieves, con-men and other nasty types.
They exploit the altruistic behaviour of society around them, taking from it but contributing nothing. This kind of aberrant behaviour is the opposite to the first kind. It may confer an advantage on the individual (eg a free ride) but disadvantage on their society. Hence, like predators and parasites, the host society can only bear a small number of them before it either reacts against them or fails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Do you hold to naturalistic ToE?
I have no idea what that means, unfortunately.
recedite is offline  
19-05-2019, 17:45   #253
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyzer

I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.
Only peripherally. The reasoning is completely different. The Nazis saw homosexuality as inferior. Whereas there will be people who were homosexuals in heaven (it appears as if sexuality full stop won't be a feature of heaven, however counter-intuitive that sounds).
Its unrepenant sinners of whatever hue who will be unfit for heaven.

And those in hell will have, of course, chosen to be there ... which is markedly different to homosexuals who ended up in Auschwitz.

Quote:
If you want to make it about his religion then fine, but you're completely missing the point.
Its not about my wanting it. Folau is quoting scripture accurately. It is about religion until demonstrated otherwise.

What your point that is perpetually missed?

Quote:
He would have been sacked whether he was religious or a nazi. It's his views that are unacceptable.
Unacceptable to a those with a secular belief system which pretends to include but reveals its true colours when push comes to shove.

Belief system A decides that belief system B can't express.

Quote:
There are certain inalienable rights that we believe in as western societies
Inalienable implies objective: true at all times and places. There are no inalienable rights since there is no way to objectivize them. There are rights considered rights by the dominant mood of the times in a particular place and time is all.

Quote:
and no amount of "But my religion says" can counter that.
Just as no amount of secular religion (belief/faith based) can support it.

You've got might is right. Is all.


Quote:
You live in a secular society, not a theocratic one. Your views are not more important just because they're religious.
I accept that at this point the secular religion is dominant. That might is right, right now.

Quote:
The content of your words are judged independently of their motivation. Be they theological, philosophical or just political.
Which is a nonsense. Like that Nazi nonsense. The whole matters. Not the edited highlights.

Quote:
If you stand up as a highly public figure with a job that relies on you having a positive public image and say "Women are inferior and shouldn't have the vote or hold political office" you are going to get sacked. It doesn't matter if you're saying it because you're a Muslim or just a gigantic arsehole.
I accept that there is a utility argument: sometimes its wise to keep schtum. But only because its self beneficial if that's your priority, not because there isn't something that you are entitled to say.

Standing up against secular religion might not get you burnt at the stake. But it can your career.

Quote:
We
.. secular churchgoers

Quote:
don't care that he's a Christian. We care that he's a bigot.
a.k.a. a heretic in another age

Quote:
Stop pretending he's a martyr, he's not. Nobody cares why he's a disgrace, we care that he IS a disgrace.
Thus sayeth the lord.

Last edited by antiskeptic; 19-05-2019 at 18:25.
antiskeptic is offline  
19-05-2019, 18:11   #254
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by recedite View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
You succintly chart the progress of the LGBT agenda. You can add non-opt out teaching of primary school kids in the UK, normalising families with two mammies or daddies.

Question for you out of curiousity. (I don't want to derail the thread so won't further a discussion on a reply)

You see homosexuality as aberrant. On what basis do you conclude that? Physically not matched for sex, not able to produce offspring?

Do you hold to naturalistic ToE? If so, how can anything be aberrant? Whats fit survives and homosexuality has survived? So is clearly fit?

If homosexuality is gene based then the current spannering (by which homosexuals may be able to have more kids than before) would see homosexuality increase. The environment (social attitudes to homosexuality, surrogacy, etc. being mere selection factors rendering homosexuality fitter than before).
It's not like you hold evolution had stopped ☺
I do believe in evolution, and you raise an interesting point (but as you say, it risks going somewhat off topic)
Basically, not every aberrant behaviour is a disadvantage to the society overall, though it may be a disadvantage to the individual.
For example in an primitive society, the insomniac "night owl" would have been useful to have around as a guard, in case of prowling animal or human attacks.
The overly adventurous/ hyperactive/ attention deficit disorder personality is useful for pioneering new territory, and finding out here new hazards (eg locating shark infested waters by swimming into them)
The homosexual man may have been a useful person to leave guarding the women and children while the other men were out hunting (can't be leaving a heterosexual man behind with the ladies )


Then there is another class of people who evolution may select for in the same way it selects for predators and parasites. These would be the psyhopaths, the paedophiles, thieves, con-men and other nasty types.
They exploit the altruistic behaviour of society around them, taking from it but contributing nothing. This kind of aberrant behaviour is the opposite to the first kind. It may confer an advantage on the individual (eg a free ride) but disadvantage on their society. Hence, like predators and parasites, the host society can only bear a small number of them before it either reacts against them or fails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Do you hold to naturalistic ToE?
I have no idea what that means, unfortunately.
Thanks for the reply. I understand you to understand homosexual aberrance as disadvantageous for society ( a view I share from a utility point of view)

Maybe some other time we can probe. I've always wondered about the basis for a coherent evolutionist taking any strong stance on anything since surely he has the blind evolutionary march helicoptoring his thinking. 'Ce sera sera' is the national anthem of ToE afterall.

Some other time perhaps.

Naturalistic ToE is life without any divine input

Last edited by antiskeptic; 19-05-2019 at 19:22.
antiskeptic is offline  
19-05-2019, 18:36   #255
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,291
[quote=troyzer;110224113]
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyzer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyzer

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

Quote:
You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration?
Exactly.



Quote:
C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.
It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E.

Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming.

Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes.

Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past
And religions show the tendencies of the religions before them.

I have no problem with this. Cultural appropriation is not exactly new. I can still enjoy Superman even though his entire character is heavily influenced by the character of Jesus who in turn was heavily influenced by Horus and a few other ancient deities who in turn were probably influenced by some proto Indo-European deity we have no written record of.
I was just noting the secular faith system has the same m.o. as the religious faith system.

No real surprise (since they are both faiths and faiths held dearly tend, naturally, to want to propagate themselves).

That would make you en Evangelical Secularist ☺

Last edited by antiskeptic; 19-05-2019 at 19:18.
antiskeptic is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet