Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
a higher way

Is Christianity Unique?

Recommended Posts

While reading this thread, I came across this:

 

"Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless divides at a time when unified action is more crucial than ever. As a species, we must embrace the oneness of humanity as we face global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster. At that scale, our response must be as one.

 

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole.

 

 

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama ... "

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25gyatso.html?hp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts, Dutch. Your posts made me consider that, yes, I think Christianity is unique (because as far as I know, it is the only major religion where our "leader" was executed by the leading government and religious authorities), but I don't think it is exclusive. Christians claim that they see the revelation of God in the life of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that he is the only revelation of God. In fact, through a certain understanding, each of us should be revelations of God to each other and to the world.

 

So claiming that Christianity is unique doesn't make it superior.

 

Amen! The notion of each of us being a "living epistle" is profound; no matter who we are, where we are, or how old we are, God can and does shape us...!

 

Bill,

 

Thanks for pushing back on my over reaching in the first postings. I think I am saying two things.

 

But the redemption of all mankind through the resurrection of one man, this seems unique to me.

In response to this observation by Brian you described a variety of interpretations of Jesus's death and resurrection. These interpretations depend on the needs of believers in their time. Early Christians, revealing an anti-Semitic bent, emphasized that it was the Jews that killed Jesus. When I was growing up, in a Constantinian era in which the church's role was to create "good citizens", the emphasis was on the my personal responsibility in the crucifixion of Christ and my obligation to correct any unruly behavior. Today the church is often at the forefront of the social justice movement so the emphasis is on Jesus's death at the hand of authorities, both ecclesiastical and governmental. The stories of our faith seem to be reshaped for our needs in our time.

 

The faith stories of any religion are important for they carry the truth of the faith but the truth they carry is malleable and multilayered. And they are important part of what outsiders see. They are one of the surfaces of our faith. I would use both phenomenological and ontological to describe my approach to the plurality of religions. I don't think that a Hindi worships Ganeshi and that Christians hold their truths of this time in the stories of someone killed by the authorities makes either religion unique. These uniqueness is superficial and are often affected by other cultures and religions - and by the pressures of our time. The important differences in religions is in the depths - in how each religion responds to the problems of persecution, struggle, mortality, and how to live together. Similar to the ocean, the waves are what we see, but it is in the depths of the ocean that we find how those ways are created. I think each religion has different structure and creates in us different ways of being. I think we do seek to find similarities in our different beliefs but that there are different frameworks and worldviews in the depths of our religions.

 

I think that is where I am going.

 

Dutch

 

I think you are right, Dutch, when you point out that Christianity has been "used" over the years to satisfy certain "needs." In fact, I'd like to hear more on this!

I can understand how Christianity has been used to support wars and colonial expansion, and that seems quite a "blatent" example.

Today, the need seems to be little other than "getting into heaven" or "obtaining eternal life." It seems quite selfish on the surface, and probably is not what the early church was interested in, as much as some type of social change.

 

Blessings,

brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest billmc

I think you are right, Dutch, when you point out that Christianity has been "used" over the years to satisfy certain "needs." In fact, I'd like to hear more on this!

 

From my POV, Brian, I agree with Jack Spong that Christianity, like all religions, functions as a way for us to deal with the human angst of being. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. In Spong's book, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," Jack says that we are both insecure and meaning-seeking creatures. As far as we know, we are the only creatures on earth that contemplate their own mortality, knowing that our lives will come to an end, often in painful, violent, or shameful ways. If we didn't find some way to deal constructively with this angst, we would be continually fraught with anxiety by living in such a threatening world. Becoming self-conscious lead, inevitably, to our consciousness of not having much control over ourselves, our circumstances, our world, and our fate.

 

Out of this anxiety, the religions grew, positing, in many cases, an all-powerful deity or a company of powerful ones that could not only aid us in dealing with the anxieties of life now, but promise us life beyond the grave if we met whatever criteria they required of us. In this sense, yes, many religions are the same in allaying these ancient fears, comforting us that we are loved and being watched over by powers greater than ourselves, telling us that we fit into some kind of grand scheme that the universe would be incomplete without, and promising us some kind of existence that conquerors the grave. The problem is, these things are a matter of faith, not of evidence (or scant, verifying evidence). Nevertheless, due to our makeup, most people would rather hold to their religious notions than face the cold, hard facts of the universe - that things do, in fact, live and die.

 

This critique doesn't necessarily mean that religion is evil or stupid or all a lie. But it does, IMO, easily make religion a tool for the earthly powers-that-be to use to retain their power or line their coffers or maintain their control over their own little empires rather than trying to make our world a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my POV, Brian, I agree with Jack Spong that Christianity, like all religions, functions as a way for us to deal with the human angst of being. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. In Spong's book, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," Jack says that we are both insecure and meaning-seeking creatures. As far as we know, we are the only creatures on earth that contemplate their own mortality, knowing that our lives will come to an end, often in painful, violent, or shameful ways. If we didn't find some way to deal constructively with this angst, we would be continually fraught with anxiety by living in such a threatening world. Becoming self-conscious lead, inevitably, to our consciousness of not having much control over ourselves, our circumstances, our world, and our fate.

 

Out of this anxiety, the religions grew, positing, in many cases, an all-powerful deity or a company of powerful ones that could not only aid us in dealing with the anxieties of life now, but promise us life beyond the grave if we met whatever criteria they required of us. In this sense, yes, many religions are the same in allaying these ancient fears, comforting us that we are loved and being watched over by powers greater than ourselves, telling us that we fit into some kind of grand scheme that the universe would be incomplete without, and promising us some kind of existence that conquerors the grave. The problem is, these things are a matter of faith, not of evidence (or scant, verifying evidence). Nevertheless, due to our makeup, most people would rather hold to their religious notions than face the cold, hard facts of the universe - that things do, in fact, live and die.

 

This critique doesn't necessarily mean that religion is evil or stupid or all a lie. But it does, IMO, easily make religion a tool for the earthly powers-that-be to use to retain their power or line their coffers or maintain their control over their own little empires rather than trying to make our world a better place.

 

Hi Bill!

I'll take a longer look into Spong when I get a chance. My own experiences in life would certainly confirm a lot of what he says (as per your post), and now I have a question:

 

It would seem that the three major "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) have to do with the same God, and in particular, a God who says that man has a "sinful" nature; that is, something innate in man which makes him naturally need to be "forgiven."

Do other religions teach this? Or is it only the OT/NT which tell man that he is "spotted" and therefore by nature in need of forgiveness?

 

Love to hear your thoughts...!

 

Blessings,

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest billmc

It would seem that the three major "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) have to do with the same God, and in particular, a God who says that man has a "sinful" nature; that is, something innate in man which makes him naturally need to be "forgiven."

Do other religions teach this? Or is it only the OT/NT which tell man that he is "spotted" and therefore by nature in need of forgiveness?

 

That's an excellent question, Brian, and I have to admit that I am, for the most part, ignorant of an answer as I haven't really studied very many religions. I think this question would generate a lot of good discussion on the main forum, so I'd recommend asking it there.

 

But I will offer this from my POV: the three Abrahamic faiths reflect a very dualistic mindset, especially of God versus Satan or good versus evil or light versus dark with not much overlap between the categories. In this mindset, the notion prevails that good must triump over evil, that God wins, that light will dispel darkness, etc. Other religions, especially those of the far East, believe that there is some kind of "balance" to be found with the good and evil, positive and negative, light and dark. I see this in the Ying/Yang symbolism, that it is all part of a unified whole. Again, I'm by no means an expert on other religions, but, IMO, these others, because they recognize the unity of all things (even of these dualistic labels), they are not as prone as the Abrahamic religions to try to expunge all evil from humanity or to focus on the constant need of the "forgiveness of sins." Some of them challenge us to live with our dark side, trying to make peace with it, even using it as a source of strength. The old Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk gets split in half through a transporter malfunction illustrates this. The "good" Kirk is compassionate, caring, sympathetic. The "evil" or dark Kirk is selfish, paranoid, manipulative. But the good Kirk, because he lacks his dark half, is eventually rendered powerless to make decisions as his rationalism is gone. He becomes unable to command his crew and his ship because he no longer has, as the Bible would describe it, the "knowledge of good AND evil" to make him the mature commander that he needs to be.

 

And it is this, maturity, that is, to me, the real story of humanity's journey. I don't believe in "the fall." That phrase is no where used in Genesis. Not once does the author of Genesis say that Adam and Eve "fell", despite the popularity of the notion in much of mainstream Christianity. Sure, they sinned. But, IMO (though I don't take the story as historical fact), this points for our need as humans to be able to learn and tell good from evil.

 

This response is getting long and I don't want to bore you to death, so I'll close with this. My SS teacher said this morning (in a Baptist church), that without having our sins forgiven, we can't go to heaven. Now, I don't know if there is a literal heaven or not, so I didn't argue that point with him. But I did challenge him by saying that I doubt that all God would want in heaven is "forgiven" people. Having one's sins forgiven is a joyous thing, I don't deny it. But, IMO, God desires us to have Christ-like character, and being forgiven does not accomplish this. If all Christ does for us is to forgive our sins, then we become "innocent", but not truly righteous in the way of having a transformed character. In Christian terms, God doesn't want forgiven sinners in heaven, he wants people that share his character. So when I hear a Christian say that the only difference between him/her and a non-Christian is that he/she is forgiven, I tend to think that he/she has only heard HALF of the gospel. Many Christians believe that Jesus' death provides us with forgiveness. But do they go beyond that to acknowledge that his resurrection provides us with new life?

 

If you tried to change a leopard into a domestic house cat, you would need to do more than remove its "spottiness." You would need to change its heart, change its character. All three Abrahamic religions do point to "repentance", to a change of character. Those seeds are there. And there are, believe it or not, progressive Jews and Muslims that are joining with progressive Christians in focusing on humanity maturing into righteous character. This is, IMO, a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I like your Star Trek analogy –!

 

Brian, if you haven’t read Spong there is an excellent book by him on line

http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=550

 

Also, have you heard of Bruce Feiler? he’s written several books, I’ve read one --Abraham: a journey to the heart of three faiths (2002) and admired the way he was trying to find common roots among the three major religions. He literally explores the middle east terrain, interviewing people and providing interesting cultural/ historic insights into the old testament. One point I found striking, about Jerusalem -- "you can connect with God only if you understand what it means to connect with one another." The ability to get along together is what defined the place as holy or sacred in the first place.

 

I’m curious, what is your logo image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an excellent question, Brian, and I have to admit that I am, for the most part, ignorant of an answer as I haven't really studied very many religions. I think this question would generate a lot of good discussion on the main forum, so I'd recommend asking it there.

 

Done! http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1897-the-abrahamic-religions/

 

 

But I will offer this from my POV: the three Abrahamic faiths reflect a very dualistic mindset, especially of God versus Satan or good versus evil or light versus dark with not much overlap between the categories. In this mindset, the notion prevails that good must triump over evil, that God wins, that light will dispel darkness, etc. Other religions, especially those of the far East, believe that there is some kind of "balance" to be found with the good and evil, positive and negative, light and dark. I see this in the Ying/Yang symbolism, that it is all part of a unified whole. Again, I'm by no means an expert on other religions, but, IMO, these others, because they recognize the unity of all things (even of these dualistic labels), they are not as prone as the Abrahamic religions to try to expunge all evil from humanity or to focus on the constant need of the "forgiveness of sins." Some of them challenge us to live with our dark side, trying to make peace with it, even using it as a source of strength. The old Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk gets split in half through a transporter malfunction illustrates this. The "good" Kirk is compassionate, caring, sympathetic. The "evil" or dark Kirk is selfish, paranoid, manipulative. But the good Kirk, because he lacks his dark half, is eventually rendered powerless to make decisions as his rationalism is gone. He becomes unable to command his crew and his ship because he no longer has, as the Bible would describe it, the "knowledge of good AND evil" to make him the mature commander that he needs to be.

You make interesting observations, Bill! I suppose it is true that the Bible gives a message of "destroying evil." Personally, I also see it quite clear that God made both good and evil; so perhaps God requires both good and evil, and perhaps both are able to give Him glory.

 

And it is this, maturity, that is, to me, the real story of humanity's journey. I don't believe in "the fall." That phrase is no where used in Genesis. Not once does the author of Genesis say that Adam and Eve "fell", despite the popularity of the notion in much of mainstream Christianity. Sure, they sinned. But, IMO (though I don't take the story as historical fact), this points for our need as humans to be able to learn and tell good from evil.

 

Modern Christianity has modified the Scriptures so badly that I think we could dedicate a website to all the "false concepts" that exist!! Anothers include concepts like "trinity," "catechism," "pope," "purgatory," "millenialism," "rapture," etc..

 

This response is getting long and I don't want to bore you to death, so I'll close with this. My SS teacher said this morning (in a Baptist church), that without having our sins forgiven, we can't go to heaven. Now, I don't know if there is a literal heaven or not, so I didn't argue that point with him. But I did challenge him by saying that I doubt that all God would want in heaven is "forgiven" people. Having one's sins forgiven is a joyous thing, I don't deny it. But, IMO, God desires us to have Christ-like character, and being forgiven does not accomplish this. If all Christ does for us is to forgive our sins, then we become "innocent", but not truly righteous in the way of having a transformed character. In Christian terms, God doesn't want forgiven sinners in heaven, he wants people that share his character. So when I hear a Christian say that the only difference between him/her and a non-Christian is that he/she is forgiven, I tend to think that he/she has only heard HALF of the gospel. Many Christians believe that Jesus' death provides us with forgiveness. But do they go beyond that to acknowledge that his resurrection provides us with new life?

 

Not bored at all!! Maybe what your teacher was trying to tell you was, "without God having forgiven us all, no one would be able to enter paradise." It sounds awfully arrogant to say, "I'm forgiven, you are not."

 

You hit a vital point here, too: being "saved" isn't just about being set free from our innate sense of guilt. It's about becoming God-like. Being gods-in-the-making.

Films like "The Passion" miss the entire point of sacrifice of Jesus Christ, IMO. People idolize Him, saying, "oh, He was so selfless and good! I'll never be like that!" But the whole point of being a Christian is to become identical to Him!!! Yet how many Christians today have that goal?? How many Christians today are ready to get crucified? Or are they only looking and hoping to fly away on a cloud?

If you tried to change a leopard into a domestic house cat, you would need to do more than remove its "spottiness." You would need to change its heart, change its character. All three Abrahamic religions do point to "repentance", to a change of character. Those seeds are there. And there are, believe it or not, progressive Jews and Muslims that are joining with progressive Christians in focusing on humanity maturing into righteous character. This is, IMO, a good thing.

 

Nice post!!

 

Blessings,

brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I like your Star Trek analogy –!

 

Me, too! I'd love to see it...!

 

Brian, if you haven't read Spong there is an excellent book by him on line

http://www.religion-...k.asp?title=550

 

I'm having problems with the link, but I'll try again later..

 

Also, have you heard of Bruce Feiler? he's written several books, I've read one --Abraham: a journey to the heart of three faiths (2002) and admired the way he was trying to find common roots among the three major religions. He literally explores the middle east terrain, interviewing people and providing interesting cultural/ historic insights into the old testament. One point I found striking, about Jerusalem -- "you can connect with God only if you understand what it means to connect with one another." The ability to get along together is what defined the place as holy or sacred in the first place.

 

I haven't heard of him, but I like what you've posted here. I think you hit it on the head: the God of Abraham is a personal God, and our relations with our fellow man is also personal. It would seem that we are "all one!" Personally, when I read the Psalms, the verses about "destroying enemies" do not refer to destroying other people, but rather destroying the evil which we struggle with.

 

I'm curious, what is your logo image?

 

I found the cartoon picture on the web, and liked it. I've even made buttons of it, and sometimes I wear one! It's emotionally-laden and speaks to me of the root of the conflict in the middle east. Both Jews and Arabs are Semites. They are brothers. The pride has to go, the mourning and reconciling has to start. When "peace at any cost" becomes a priority, we will have a solution.

 

Blessings!

brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest billmc

One other point, Brian, that I wonder about concerning Christianity's uniqueness is, what do the other religions, if they recognize sin, do about guilt and shame?

 

In my experiences in conservative Christianity, my life was almost constantly ridden with guilt because there was always the notion that I was supposed to be perfect and I couldn't stop sinning. I sinned by what I did and thought. I sinned by what I didn't do and didn't think. I always "fell short."

 

There are, in conservative Christianity, a couple of different ways of dealing with this.

 

The first is to "1 John 1:9" my sins constantly, confessing them and claiming forgiveness until I sin again.

 

The second is to believe that Jesus died for and paid for all of my sins. Of course, this doesn't alleviate our guilt for being the cause of his death. And it also implies that God cannot accept us as we are; he has to accept Jesus in our place.

 

But still, I found that I lived with constant guilt and that organized religion sought to remind me of that often.

 

So I, too, wonder if other religions allow people to live without guilt and how they do it.

 

It seems to me that when it comes to our dark side, we either have to ignor it, try to accept it and make peace with it, or try to expunge it. My Christian past told me I was to either expunge it or to be constantly pushing it down. It would be interesting to see what other religions say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other point, Brian, that I wonder about concerning Christianity's uniqueness is, what do the other religions, if they recognize sin, do about guilt and shame?

 

In my experiences in conservative Christianity, my life was almost constantly ridden with guilt because there was always the notion that I was supposed to be perfect and I couldn't stop sinning. I sinned by what I did and thought. I sinned by what I didn't do and didn't think. I always "fell short."

 

There are, in conservative Christianity, a couple of different ways of dealing with this.

 

The first is to "1 John 1:9" my sins constantly, confessing them and claiming forgiveness until I sin again.

 

The second is to believe that Jesus died for and paid for all of my sins. Of course, this doesn't alleviate our guilt for being the cause of his death. And it also implies that God cannot accept us as we are; he has to accept Jesus in our place.

 

But still, I found that I lived with constant guilt and that organized religion sought to remind me of that often.

 

So I, too, wonder if other religions allow people to live without guilt and how they do it.

 

It seems to me that when it comes to our dark side, we either have to ignor it, try to accept it and make peace with it, or try to expunge it. My Christian past told me I was to either expunge it or to be constantly pushing it down. It would be interesting to see what other religions say about it.

 

I feel it is important to specify, however, that the innate sense of shame/guilt, if it truly exists, has been exploited by the Church for the last 2,000 years. In fact, it is precisely our most sensitive parts which some feel a liberty to take in their hands and beat us over the head with.

And that is not Christ-like at all.

Jesus never went around telling people that they're going to hell, or that they are filthy. Even the sense of being "unclean" was not necessarily always a bad thing, seeing that the disciples ate with UNwashed hands, and Jesus defended them.

The broken and poor in spirit were always cared for by Jesus; the Church wants to lord over everyone and their inner shame/guilt, and they even want money for it!!

 

So what I am saying, is that this innate shame/guilt is not "bad" or to be used to beat people over the head with. It's simply a consideration of how God made us, and why we need Him. It's a very intimate subject, and also very precious.

 

See what I'm getting at?

 

Blessings!

brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think Jesus offers a unique way. I won't say Christianity because you will have to be more specific as to what type of Christianity. If someone says they are a Buddhist, they would have to explain why type of Buddhist (Mahayana, etc.) as well as what type of Hindu they believe they are. Anyway, for me all religious traditions have elements of truth but are not THE TRUTH. The complete TRUTH is found, for me in the I AM that Jesus says He is. I also think that what Jesus offers from The Way is a reversal of what other traditions offer. They all offer devotion to the Divine, for lack of a better term, but it is more about what humans have to do. What makes Jesus different in His message is that it is what the Divine does for us - through Him. It's my belief that when He says that He is the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the father except through Him, He ultimately is referring to the I AM (Before Abraham was, I AM) - the Cosmic Christ and not necessarily the first century human Jewish man. I cannot conceive of God as being One who keeps all the His/Hers/Its children in darkness for so long. But that Divine is for me fully realized in Jesus - in human form. Buddha never claimed to be divine. Krishna was like Shiva, etc. merely an avatar, not necessarily human. Jesus was fully human and for me represents the penultimate union of the Divine as human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes Christianity unique for me is the notion that it is not about we can do in the relationship with the Divine, but what the Divine does for us. That is why God has to be a personal God. While there is something very logical about the laws of karma and reincarnation, which most or all of Hindus and Buddhist agree on despite other differences, there is the notion that the avatars in these traditions can take or leave us. They are not as personal as God is portrayed in the OT and ultimately, as one of us, in Jesus. This for me shrouds the belief in mystery, but that is what I need to get comfortable with. God is revealed as not just being a ruler but one who suffers with us even though he doesn't tell us all we want to know. He may seem harsh but it seems that this is all for our own benefit. I have come to understand this relationship more after becoming a parent. You want what's best for your child even if they cannot comprehend what you do or don't do and why. You need to be strict with them when they get out of line so they ultimately can learn the limits and consequences of their behavior. Sure, they test you, but they have to develop trust in you and that seems to be the only way to do it. Taken on a cosmic level, let's face the fact that all of us are ignorant about what's really going on and to trust in a higher being, intelligence, whatever you can call it and that whatever is in reciprocity with us. The same is true of other traditions but with Christianity, it is something we can readily identify with. It is not a thing, a law, that is impersonal. Is this a projection we make onto the universe? Sometimes I do not know. Sometimes, I actually feel its personal presence in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, I agree with you that God has given us many good gifts for which we can be thankful, perhaps the primary one being that we can, in some sense, know him or enjoy a relationship with him. But, for me, what makes "the best of Christianity" unique is the notion, not so much of what God does for us, but of what God does through us. I don't know how many church services I've sat through that focus on "Jesus Paid It All" or on God's grace or Jesus' work as a means of riding Jesus' coat-tails into heaven. :) From my reading of the gospels, I just don't see where Jesus taught his followers, "Just sit back and do nothing. I'll take care of everything on your behalf." I don't think Jesus called us to a spectator religion, but to active involvement with others and our world. Jesus, imo, balanced God's compassion for us with the notion that we are to be compassionate with others. This is why, as I think you have correctly pointed out, we can sense God's presence in us. He's not there just to take up space. Ha ha! :D :D :D He's there because, through the power of the Spirit (God's activity upon and in humans), God continues his work in the world today. As I'm sure you know, many Christians think Jesus came to make an easy way for us to go to heaven -- without works. In my opinion, Jesus came to encourage us to work to bring heaven to earth. Not an easy task, that's for sure. But God doesn't call us to something that he doesn't equip us to do. We are certainly recipents of his unmeritted blessings, there is no doubt of that. But we are also blessed in order to be a blessing. In many religions, the point is to be "the blessed." But in the best of Christianity, we are called to be a blessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as this:

 

1) God man humanity

2) God allowed humanity to sin so he could have a genuine relationship with him

3) Jesus represents a level of growth for humanity

4) The ultimate goal is for humanity to grow into that relationship

 

Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides.

 

- Martin Luther

 

Calvinists like John Piper believe we are all ready forgiven of the sins we haven't committed. I think he's right, if we are really to live righteously. The trick is not to take Christ's sacrifice for granted. That is the unforgivable sin.

Edited by matt67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...