Jump to content

Is It Possible For An Atheist To Be A Christian?


NORM

Recommended Posts

Norm: You posted, "I think that as people evolve, the way we think and view things also must evolve. The seven tenets used to define Christianity, as Bishop Spong has so eloquently described, cease to be relevant in our society today."

 

Agreed, being Christian can be claimed with varying definitions. But, from my readings Paul defined Christianity pretty narrowly and most denominations agree with him. Paul developed Christianity based on Christ being divine. Later, Patriarchs concretized the belief in Jesus's divinity and the Trinity. He was eventually determined to be God incarnate. Would not believing any of these not preclude a non-theist from being "Christian?" (Whoa, a triple negative - I hope that gets across as intended)

 

More personally I believe one can be a follower of Jesus's doctrine and not a Christian. Again, Christian religion is the religion about Jesus not the religion of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. I know that doesn't answer the Christian/Atheist question, but I do believe most Christians don't realize Jesus was never a Christian and died a Jew.

 

George: Thanks for the thoughts. We've had this discussion many times, haven't we? It feels good to be doing it again, but, my thoughts are not new and haven't developed from those you helped me with. So, I don't have much to offer.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George: Thanks for the thoughts. We've had this discussion many times, haven't we? [...] So, I don't have much to offer.

 

Yes we have but that doesn't suggest that the discussion should be closed. Interlocutors differ and we get different perspectives. Over time, my own views have been modified to some degree (although not a Damascus-road experience). So, I think an ongoing conversation is worthwhile and your contributions are a valuable addition.

 

FWIW, my own views on the questions about what is a Christian and what is an atheist are more descriptive than prescriptive. I try to look at the features of those who claim to be Christians (from right to left) and those who claim to be atheists.

 

A prescriptive approach is one in which the characteristics are defined by the person or denomination and others are evaluated according to that set of criteria. I don't think there could ever be any common ground with this approach, the more conservative the definer, the more narrow the definition and vice versa on the liberal side.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do not follow the 7 Tennents or the 5 fundamentals ( http://en.wikipedia..../Fundamentalism ) and even question most of the 12 fundamentals ( http://www.bible-kno...hristian-faith/ ). Does this make me a none Christain? It maybe different and I maybe not recognised by fundamentalists but I am sorry that matters little to me. I do not believe in the virgin birth, the inerrancy of the bible, the atonment from the sacrifice of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the historical reality of the miracles. I do not believe in the biblical creation story either or Noah's flood. I do not believe God has a sexual identity and cannot see what on earth God would do with a sexual identity. I personally do not even believe in the trinity or the OT biblical view of God and yet that does not make me an atheist. I am (IMO) just another questioning liberal.

I personally believe God is the spirit of love and that God resides in each of us as God did in Jesus. I believe we are spirit too. I welcome in truth from wherever it comes. I do not like dogma as I feel it dictates what a person should or should not believe whether it makes sense to the individual or not. I do not like fundamentalists dictating what my Christianity should be about. In the past there were many followers from differing viewpoints such as the Ebonites, Marcionites, Gnostics, and many others and Paul was not the only voice around. I feel it is just a shame that the church destroyed much of the evidence and writtings that existed from the other voices. I struggle greatly with the idea of a biblical God who was prepared to kill all in a flood and then later try to save everyone. That said I still believe in God but not as fundamentalists would recognise. In my book also I see no problem with an athiest who is inspired by the "mythology" of the bible accounts and I can cope with the idea of an atheist being a Christian even if in my own way I guess I am still a theist. Now I if you feel I am nuts then all I say is welcome to the human race.Take a look around and see the world and tell me if you see a mark of consistency from any religion or faith or belief that has affected any faith like the spirit of love. For me a religion is just a path a person chooses to travel in order to get enlightenment but the path is not the destination. It is just the path. I believe all roads eventually led to God.

So why have I said all this? Well just to point out that not all Christians are the same as not all Atheists are the same and I believe there is still room for us all in humanity and in the faith of love which I call Christianity but others may have differing names. .

Edited by Pete
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul defined Christianity pretty narrowly and most denominations agree with him.

 

I have a theory as to why this is true. I think it goes to human nature. Jesus' teaching was so counter-cultural, that it is far more difficult to put into action. Paul's teaching lends itself to a judgmental attitude. This is something with which the human animal excels.

 

Paul developed Christianity based on Christ being divine. Later, Patriarchs concretized the belief in Jesus's divinity and the Trinity. He was eventually determined to be God incarnate. Would not believing any of these not preclude a non-theist from being "Christian?" (Whoa, a triple negative - I hope that gets across as intended)

 

Many years ago, I taught an adult Sunday School class. As I began to evolve, I would try to question some of those dogmas - to a very chilly response. The leaders of the church came down on me like a ton of bricks.

 

Chipping away at the foundations of a rigid theology is harmful to children and other living things!

 

More personally I believe one can be a follower of Jesus's doctrine and not a Christian. Again, Christian religion is the religion about Jesus not the religion of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. I know that doesn't answer the Christian/Atheist question, but I do believe most Christians don't realize Jesus was never a Christian and died a Jew.

 

I do not characterize Jesus' teaching as doctrine. To my way of thinking, Jesus was a wandering philosopher in the fashion of the ancient Greek Stoics. I think that he was a disciple of Hillel (who was a bit of a reformer himself).

 

When pressed, most Christians will admit that Jesus was a practicing Jew. How they internalize that fact, however, is where the disconnect begins. That's when Paul's gospel supersedes Jesus' worldview. I mean, it's hard to feel self righteous while seeking to dismantle the walls that divide us.

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete;

 

...I personally do not even believe in the trinity or the OT biblical view of God and yet that does not make me an atheist. ...

 

Definitely not. However, most Christians would claim you"re not a Christian. Like George says one can call them selves whatever they desire. I could claim to be Superman, but most super heroes would not agree.

 

...I personally believe God is the spirit of love and that God resides in each of us as God did in Jesus.

 

This statement also precludes you from being an atheist. But, again, not believing the tenets set by Christians would preclude one from being Christian in the eyes of the Christian.

 

I subscribe to Barrie Wilson's hypothesis that early Original Jesus Movement was very different from Paul's Christian Movement. Elaine Pagels even suggests the movements were so contrasting John's Revelation is written against Paul and his movement. Very interesting read. There are many books currently marketed suggesting Paul's movement and James's movement were more at odds than has come down through the known Gospels. James D. Tabor has a book on this subject coming in November, about a year or more past due, I might add.

 

 

I do not like fundamentalists dictating what my Christianity should be about. In the past there were many followers from differing viewpoints such as the Ebonites, Marcionites, Gnostics, and many others and Paul was not the only voice around.

 

I totally agree, but the question is can an atheist be a Christian, not can we describe our own Christianity. I contend the former cannot be. I also contend by current Christian definitions the second also cannot be. Again, we can call ourselves whatever we desire, but what others call us is another point. Most people would call me an atheist because there is no other defined place to categorize me. I will call you a Christian, but most Christians probably would not.

 

Pete, I hope you don't think I'm argumentative. I certainly don't want that to come across. Especially since I haven't been posting for maybe 7 years(?). Just trying to answer the Christian/Atheist question best I can. Again, it is of interest to me for I contend there is a difference between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus. The religion about Jesus is Pauline and is defined as Christianity. The religion of Jesus is James's and is thought to be the Ebonite heresy. Heresy being Ignatius and other's determination, not mine.

 

Good talking with you,

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like George says one can call them selves whatever they desire. I could claim to be Superman, but most super heroes would not agree.

 

Ron,

 

My proposal is those who 'sincerely' consider themselves Christian. Maybe I should add sanely and soberly as well.

 

I don't think Dawkins would sincerely call himself a Christian. I don't think the chief Rabbi in Israel would or the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia would as well.

 

However, Bishop Spong and Pat Robertson both do. So, I would accept them both as Christians (although they might not accept each other).

 

George

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vidar, as GeorgeW has described (IMO) there are Christians and Christians. The common denominator in modern times is the teachings of Jesus. In the past I guess one would have to accept that Jesus was the messiah justified by scripture in order to be Christian (Christ in my understanding from the greek for messiah or annointed one). Yet, there were. as Barrie Wilson and others point out. more views about Jesus in the past than those of Paul. The Church of the Roman empire selected Paul's view and a systematic and slow annihilation of all opposing views began. I see no reason to believe that there was no diversity prior to this event and I expect there was even diversity among the disciples.

Today we have Christians who believe in the trinity and those who do not, those who believe the bible is inerrant and those who do not. those who believe their church is the only true church and those who are more ecuminical or or universal, those who believe in baptism at birth and thise who do not, those who recognise other denominations as Christians and those who do not, some who accept other religions like the Unitarians and Quakers and some who do not. etc etc.

I personally am not willing to conduct my faith according to the dictates and creeds of others. In modern language the view is that a Christian is someone who believes on Jesus' teaching. More conservative churches will also insist that we also accept the teachings of Paul to. So where do we draw the line. If we are to strickly follow Jesus without any adulteration from my personal opinion I suspect we should all be Jews as was Jesus and his teachings. It was Paul who added to this and the church who promoted his views and with the power of Rome started to establish this view as the only one acceptable. I am sure they also had a hand in the burning of the records at Alexandria and destroying other writings that contradicted their perspective on things.

As you mentioned Barrie Wilson I quote his view of what was missing from the creed set by the church in their rush to get people to accept theirs as the only view in direct conflict with what Jesus taught :-

Barrie asks why does the creed not say:-

"We revere our teacher, Jesus who taught us to make the Kingdom of God our highest priority and to prepare for its manifestation on earth, through deeds of compassion and caring backed by an inner spirit of generosity and forgiveness.

We follow the example of Jesus who taught us to be sensitive to the needs of others and to respond appropriately.

We believe in the teachings of Jesus who challenged us to live the life of the Torah to its fullest, to embrace correct attitudes as well as right behaviour.

We acknowledge with gratitude the Jesus who gave us the hope that God's rule would eventually be sovereign over all the earth and righteous will truly inherit the earth.

We have confidence in God, creator of the universe, who alone can redeem and who, forgiving us our failings, will resurrect us from the dead to life eternal.

Why none of this? There's a lot missing from the Apostles' Creed- all of Jesus' teachings, in fact. This is truly astounding."

Barrie Wilson.

Reference:- Barrie Wilson, "How Jesus became Christian - The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher into the Son of God", Chapter 8, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

 

Now if I am to be judged as a none Christian then one has (IMO) to first deny the history of Christianity and its original diversity and influence. A fundamantalist I suspect would not have any problem with this but alas I admit I am not a fundamentalist but I do believe in the spiritual influence that can be seen in many of the said teachings of Jesus and others. I may call that God's infuence but others may say it is the spirit of humanity. My justification for this personal view of Christianity is a solid belief that Jesus' followers were diverse and I see no issue with accepting that diversity and including myself within it. I am sure many conservative churches would not accept me but like yourself, having read the history, I do not care what they or others think of me. I personally do not think Jesus did either.

I can accept an atheist as a Christian in the same way I also accept a Paulian Christian despite in my view the apparent contradictions between Paul's teachings and those of reported of Jesus. If they do not want to accept me then, for me, so what. I will still call myself a Christian.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

You make some good points. As you note, there was great diversity among early Christians until the orthodox group won. Their victory was one of power and influence, but not necessarily truth. (BTW, if you have not read Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" I am sure you would like it). As you say, if there was great diversity among the early Christians why insist on narrowing the definition now?

 

FWIW, I am developing a little different attitude about Paul (the original one) than most progressive whatevers. Maybe another thread should be started to discuss Paul (the other one).

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

You make some good points. As you note, there was great diversity among early Christians until the orthodox group won. Their victory was one of power and influence, but not necessarily truth. (BTW, if you have not read Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" I am sure you would like it). As you say, if there was great diversity among the early Christians why insist on narrowing the definition now?

 

FWIW, I am developing a little different attitude about Paul (the original one) than most progressive whatevers. Maybe another thread should be started to discuss Paul (the other one).

 

George

I really enjoyed Erhams book "Lost Christianities" and agree with your recommendation.

I am critical of Paul not because I disagree with all he is reported to say but for me he is just one voice among others. I just do not believe something just because Paul is reported to say something or that some of his letters have found themselves in the bible.

Take 1 Cor 13:4-13 for instance, I say yes that rings for me and I love it, but other parts leave me cold. I think of Paul on Women, Paul on diversity, Paul on Gay understanding and I lose respect for his message in these areas.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

Part of my softening on Paul (the other one) is that some of the more offensive passages attributed to him were not actually written by him. I referenced some of this an earlier thread - here http://tcpc.ipbhost....al-egalitarian/

 

I concluded the OP with the statement "So, were we to ignore the letters not actually written by Paul and delete a couple of possible interpolations in the authentic letters, we would be left with a ‘radical egalitarian.’ Maybe Paul has gotten a bad rap from some biblical critics."

 

Also, Robert Wright, in "The Evolution of God," attributes the notion of universal love to Paul, not to Jesus. Jesus' mission was to the Jews; Paul's was to anyone.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi George, I think I should point out, although I am not offended, my name is Pete and not Paul. :D

I am aware that a lot of writings that were said to be Paul's are very suspect (IMO). I am aware of the Pastoral writings and others that I believe were written after his death like 1&2 Timothy which was for many years seen as a fraud by the Assyrian Orthodox Church. I am aware that there is a difference in opinion of the said Paul's writings in the bible between conservative and progressive Christians. However, I do not think Corinthians is disputed and it is there Paul demands women to be silent (see:- http://www.ntrf.org/...il.php?PRKey=16 ) .I am also aware of Paul being a man in his time and the wonderful egalitarian quote in Galatians 3, which is (IMO) poorly followed in chapter 4 to say we are all sons and that is the reason we are heirs in God's promise. This may of sounded liberal for the time of Paul but it does sound a tab sexist today.

I also struggle with the atonement concept of Paul and variation to the message of Jesus which is not explained (IMO) by saying Jesus' message was for the Jews and Paul's for the Gentiles. http://www.voiceofje...aulvsjesus.html

I am happy to recognise Paul has to be taken in the context of his time but I have difficulty with Paul for the legacy he has left us with in conservative understandings.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

 

Sorry for the name confusion. I promise to do better.

 

According to Bart Ehrman ("The New Testament"), all of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are "probably pseudonymous. and Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are "possibly pseudonymous." Then, according Walker, the author of the article I cited, portions (including some of the most offensive to modern sensibilities) of 'authentic' Pauline letters, are interpolations. So, my point is that some of the material that many of us find disturbing in material attributed to Paul was not written by Paul.

 

I am not suggesting that I agree with everything he authentically wrote, but he should not be held responsible for things he did not write.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi George, I think we agree that much of what is said to be Paul's writings is very debatable (IMO). I believe much of the bible has debatable sourses but dispite this I have not seen any conclussive arguement or proof that Corinthians or Galatians are not written by Paul. In the absense of that conclussive proof and the asserted beliefs of conservatives and their presenting of so called Paul's writtngs to be the word of God through Paul and therefore akin to the teachings of Jesus I feel left with a big question mark over Paul. I am happy to accept the other letters you have quoted as most likely not written by Paul and some I believe were written after his death. I think we may well be dealing with Paul the myth rather than Paul the man when we judge Paul but without proof what am I left with.

I recognsie that without the presented Paul there is little to justify conservative thought and they continue to assert all writings are genuine. If I had conclussive proof to the support your belief that Paul never wrote the bad things then I would use it but until then I argue how Paul (albeit Paul the myth) is in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus and destructive to human respect for diversity.

It is not that I do not respect what you believe George but please forgive me in that I need something more.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

 

I don't think any of the biblical writings would meet a standard of "conclusive proof" as, among other things, none survive in their original form. I encourage you to read Walker's article. Although it would not meet your standard of proof, I think you would find it interesting and more than plausible. According to Walker, even conservative scholars now agree that one of the two sexist Corinthian passages (1 Cor 14:.4-35) is a non-Pauline interpolation.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that in the authentic writings of Paul there are many women leaders in the early church which Paul praises such as Priscilla and Phoebe, who was a deacon in Paul's church, and the controversy over the gender of Junia.

 

Yes. Good point.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original question.

 

I don't recall, but someone suggested that atheism means without a belief in god - which is likely not bad shot at it. But it does somewhat depend on which interpretation of ism we take. For example baptism and plagiarism are states or conditions rather than beliefs. Dualism could be a state or a belief.

 

Anyway, whether an atheist can be a Christian, is purely a philosophical dilemma. We by and large have our logic in place. All we have to do is agree with our axioms (the hard part).

 

For example, apparently ancient Greeks and Romans considered Jews and Christians atheists, because the Abrahamist god was none existent, so by definition Jews and Christians did not believe in god - hence atheist. It's logical according to their axioms.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

 

I don't think any of the biblical writings would meet a standard of "conclusive proof" as, among other things, none survive in their original form. I encourage you to read Walker's article. Although it would not meet your standard of proof, I think you would find it interesting and more than plausible. According to Walker, even conservative scholars now agree that one of the two sexist Corinthian passages (1 Cor 14:.4-35) is a non-Pauline interpolation.

 

George

Hi George, I am aware that the bible is full of areas which would not meet conclussive proof and on an academic level I am prepared to accept that Paul may of not wrote all in Corinthians. I am sure in my mind he did not write the pastoral letters. I think the mark of a liberal or progressive Christian is their being prepared to question the bible rather than take everthing as read or as traditionally presented. However, when one is speaking to conservative I am faced with either showing Paulian scripts that contradict Jesus and even Paul himself or enter into a debate about the authorship of the Paulian letters and say that some theologians doubt that Paul was the author of all and that some unnamed conservatives accept their view. In choosing from the two I prefer to show the contradictions rather than later. This is not out of disrespect for your beliefs but the fact I can show contradictions to a conservative but I cannot name many theologians who argue that Paul did not write all in Corinthians or many conservatives who have been convinced by their findings. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Pete

Hi Romansh,

I like your point. As this topic has demonstrated it is difficult to get all Christians to agree on traditional axioms. The fact that an Atheist may have trouble with some of them is therefore not surprising or (IMO) excludes a person from considering themselves a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Romansh,

I like your point. As this topic has demonstrated it is difficult to get all Christians to agree on traditional axioms. The fact that an Atheist may have trouble with some of them is therefore not surprising or (IMO) excludes a person from considering themselves a Christian.

 

I understand Pete, even agnostics and atheists can't quite agree on definitions

For example the poster boy of early twentieth century atheism, Betrand Russell, said:

 

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds

either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed

from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

 

For pragmatic reasons I might define a Christian as someone who has the minimum literal beliefs that Jesus was literally the son of the Abrahamic god and that he died and was ressurrected for our sins.

 

If someone claimed that they were Christian and did not have these literal beliefs then that is OK too.

 

rom

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last post here got me asking this question:

 

If the majority(?) Progressive Christians do not believe literally that Jesus was the son of God and was literally ressurected, and PCs are willing to explore actively alternative religious traditions, then why retain the Christian label? I understand this is the tradition we are familar with, but it seems curious as to why PCs would hold Christianity in someway?

 

It reminds me of the Buddhist metaphor of when we reach the yonder shore there is no need to carry the boat. While understand interpreting the Christian texts as metaphors can provide interesting insights into our existence, but so can a really good novel or a book on the nature of the cosmos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Pete, even agnostics and atheists can't quite agree on definitions

For example the poster boy of early twentieth century atheism, Betrand Russell, said:

 

 

 

For pragmatic reasons I might define a Christian as someone who has the minimum literal beliefs that Jesus was literally the son of the Abrahamic god and that he died and was ressurrected for our sins.

 

If someone claimed that they were Christian and did not have these literal beliefs then that is OK too.

 

rom

A good example of how complicated it gets. I believe son of God is a jewish expression. A bit like calling someone a son of a gun. We do not mean they were actually a son of a real gun. The expression Son of God was used for other folk too. Such as Herod. For me, I believe God spoke through Jesus as God speaks through others such as Ghandi (IMO). If that makes me a none Christian I guess it would also make Bishop Spong one too. I know its complicated but liberal Christians also have a long heritage and conservatives are not the only one (IMO) in park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read through the entire thread, but I will state what I know and what I believe.

 

The first thing is that I do know that there are in fact self identified Christian atheists. Dr. Robert M. Price from the Jesus Seminar is a member of the Episcopal Church is one who self describes as such a Christian atheist.

 

The next thing is that I believe that yes, a person can be an atheist and Christian at the same time. We do know that there existed Christian deists. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson was one of them. While deism is not atheism, it is very similar in many regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, when one is speaking to conservative I am faced with either showing Paulian scripts that contradict Jesus and even Paul himself or enter into a debate about the authorship of the Paulian letters and say that some theologians doubt that Paul was the author of all and that some unnamed conservatives accept their view. In choosing from the two I prefer to show the contradictions rather than later. This is not out of disrespect for your beliefs but the fact I can show contradictions to a conservative but I cannot name many theologians who argue that Paul did not write all in Corinthians or many conservatives who have been convinced by their findings. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

 

Pete,

 

Selecting the best case to debate with a conservative is not a criterion that I would adopt in deciding the likely truth of biblical texts.. I would prefer to go with the preponderance of evidence and let the chips fall where the may.

 

Also, in my experience, attempting to disabuse others of their beliefs is not very productive. An old friend I saw this weekend has been trying this for years with a number of people including several conservative pastors. To my knowledge he has neither 'converted' anyone nor planted any serious doubt.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last post here got me asking this question:

 

If the majority(?) Progressive Christians do not believe literally that Jesus was the son of God and was literally ressurected, and PCs are willing to explore actively alternative religious traditions, then why retain the Christian label? I understand this is the tradition we are familar with, but it seems curious as to why PCs would hold Christianity in someway?

 

It reminds me of the Buddhist metaphor of when we reach the yonder shore there is no need to carry the boat. While understand interpreting the Christian texts as metaphors can provide interesting insights into our existence, but so can a really good novel or a book on the nature of the cosmos.

Romansh,

 

PC's are free agents to retain or discard any self-label. You ask why PC's would choose to hold the Christian label in light of the definition of others such as you mentioned and because they are open to other religious tradition teachings? One could just as well ask Why not? Or one could apply that same logic to any sect or denomination of any religion that departs from another s dogma, doctrine or definition for the sake of curiosity . I think the 8 points in general provide some insight to the reasons. Many here consider themselves as followers of Jesus, known as the Christ, and found their approach to God through some of his reported teachings. Perhaps they feel they have as much a right to the label as any. To some it is not that important but irregardless i don't think that is the topic of this thread.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service