Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-04-2010, 10:10 AM Reply   
Ben, religion is a funny thing. One would think that if it was simply some made-up story, that it would die off through the centuries, just like many old stories certainly have. You ever notice there arent many threads in here regarding the time it took for the big bang to occur? There is no way for us to know and doesnt affect us one way or another so it wouldnt get many replies anyway. Yet, when a religious topic comes up, everyone posts, from the holy rollers, to the athiests, agnostics, and diests.

Is it genetic as suggested above? Well, believing in a fictional character to cope with life is a weakness, and doesnt evolution tell us that weak genes are weeded out in natural selection? Certainly the weak religion gene would have been gone centuries ago.

I wouldnt go looking for the "right religion". I would first start at the simplest place. Why do you, me, and everyone else feel compelled to look? What is so relevant about religion that you would take the time to blog about your concern? What would compel those who believe to comment, and what would compel those who do not believe to bother with those who do?

I do not have all the answers, but if you are looking for something you can witness first hand, just watch this message board (or any board for that matter). Its amazing how important it is for everyone to make statements to make them feel better about where they stand religiously. Ask youself what compells those with no dog in this hunt (including yourself) to waste any time thinking about it, and you'll be headed in the right direction.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 10:49 AM Reply   
Certainly the weak religion gene would have been gone centuries ago.

Who says it's weak? The drive to survive would likely be the strongest gene. Combine intellect with the survival gene and you get life after death.. aka religion.
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 10:58 AM Reply   
"Certainly the weak religion gene would have been gone centuries ago. "

Jason, I expect better from you. I thought you understood evolution. Evolution is about making babies before you die. The religion gene could easily be a strength within that context.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-04-2010, 11:16 AM Reply   
How? Limiting your behavior in every aspect from procreation to physical aggression\dominance just to appease a fictional diety is counterproductive to all natural instinct. How is it flawed to call that a weakness? By definition it is submissive!

The strong are out making babies with as many suitable mates as possible, and exerting their will on the weaker. Come on guys, this isnt exactly a new concept.

If religion is simply the control mechanism over the masses that you claim it to be, then the religious gene is the medium allowing the control. Still sounds like a weak trait to me.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 11:44 AM Reply   
You need to describe why it's weak. Humans are stronger and better able to survive if you put cooperation and rules in place. Many religious tenets were created to prevent disease and establish strong family ties. These were necessary for survival.

It's easy to see why religion established such a stronghold in humanity. It's more mystifying as to why that isn't so obvious. Maybe it makes God seem more real if you think religion goes against our nature.
Old    Nickbot (nickbot)      Join Date: Feb 2007       01-04-2010, 12:36 PM Reply   
religion was invented by man as a means of controlling people and explaining the un-explainable. i didn't read ben's post or this whole post but just want to add my $.02. i know how to be a good person. also, if anyone wants a good laugh, attend any religious ceremony and replace the words "god", "lord", or "jesus" with "zoltan"...really makes things sound crazy.
one more thought...if all christians and all muslims believe their god (and religion) is the one and only...which is really the one and only??
flame on (in hell, that is...)
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 1:07 PM Reply   
Jason, again, I am very surprised.

Man behaving as a self serving savage does help him gain dominance within the society. It wrecks the society and reduces overall survival.

Man is a thinking species. The collaborative power of many exceeds the power of individuals. God is the coach of the team. A powerful force especially when civilizations were more primitive.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-04-2010, 1:12 PM Reply   
"Humans are stronger and better able to survive if you put cooperation and rules in place."

Sure but simple society rules would cover that and a desire for survival would force compliance. No need for fiction to accomplish this.

I did describe why it is weak. Its purposefully limiting your potential for no other reason than to appease a diety. That is a weak genetic trait if it is indeed genetic.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-04-2010, 1:50 PM Reply   
GD, then what you are saying is only a handful of men are a part of this thinking species and everyone else are just sheep. If all it takes is intelligence to control the group or defy control then it would be a stalemate, assuming most can think.

Or, we could have been created hardcoded with a compulsion to seek out our creator. Maybe its not selective genetics at all. Maybe thats why the religious, the athiests, and everyone in between have to address it over and over. Maybe thats why every group from every continent since the dawn of man has religious beliefs.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 2:29 PM Reply   
Sure but simple society rules would cover that and a desire for survival would force compliance. No need for fiction to accomplish this.

Not so. The cause and effect are not immediately apparent. You need something stronger. For example, a man who lusts for another man's women isn't going to perceive his action as destroying the family unit until the consequences are made apparent. In early society the family unit was much more a element of survival than today.

It doesn't matter whether you use religion or just cultural pressure, but religion is effective. Early man was steeped with superstition, which implies religion as being likely more effective than today.

The desire to be immortal IMO comes from the powerful genetic trait that all animals share. But as far as we know only humans have the intellect to extent life past death, or even think in those terms. It doesn't matter whether you are superstitious or not there is a latent desire to be immortal.
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-04-2010, 2:35 PM Reply   
Why John? Where does that desire originate? Why would it be there?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 2:36 PM Reply   
GD, then what you are saying is only a handful of men are a part of this thinking species and everyone else are just sheep. If all it takes is intelligence to control the group or defy control then it would be a stalemate, assuming most can think.

You make it sound like somebody sat down one day and made up all religion. It more likely developed where they are all sharing the same stories. But yes there are always thinkers who flesh out the stories more completely and start convincing others of the "truth". You see it right now.

It's amazing that you completely dismiss the ability of humans to make up things and convince others when evidence of it is ubiquitous in our every day lives. Do you really think people in primitive societies are superior to modern day man in their ability to see through the BS.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 2:38 PM Reply   
Why John? Where does that desire originate? Why would it be there?

All animals evolved with the desire to survive as the highest priority trait. If they didn't, we wouldn't be here.
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 2:55 PM Reply   
You make it sound like somebody sat down one day and made up all religion.

Yes, while we are not certain from how man evolved, its relatively obvious that RELIGION evolved 100% from MAN.

Religion is a natural occurrence for the thinking man who desires guidance and comfort. Unfortunately, its also a avenue for division and hate (e.g. ISLAM today). These traits also propagate the following for at least the short run.

(Message edited by greatdane on January 04, 2010)
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-04-2010, 2:56 PM Reply   
Desire for earthly survival has no relation to a desire for life after death. You haven't explained how/why you think we are wired with a desire to seek life after our earthly one extinguishes. Why would we ponder such things that have no impact on our earthly lives whatsoever?
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 3:01 PM Reply   
For anyone with half a brain, its very natural to desire an after-life for loved ones. We all blow smoke up our own butts every day to please ourselves. This is just a big puff.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 3:05 PM Reply   
Eubanks, Your claim that I haven't offered an explanation is based on your assertion that desire for earthly survival is not related to a desire to live after death. I disagree with this assertion. I see no distinction between the two. The level of our intellect has simply allowed us to extend the meaning of survival.

We perceive ourselves based on our awareness. The body has little meaning as long as we aren't limited. And our belief in immortal life doesn't include being immobile brains. We inherently believe we are going to get some sort of vessel for our consciousness that is even superior to our earthly bodies. We expect to have contact with our loved ones. In essence we see life after death as a continuum of life, or the absence of death.
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-04-2010, 3:11 PM Reply   
Religion is a natural occurrence for the thinking man who desires guidance and comfort.

Wow. Have you met or do you know anyone} who is a Christ follower? Oops, I just realized you are talking about "religion". I think we know the terms are not synonymous. If you're talking about religion as "behavioral based Sunday attendees" then you could be right. No Christian I've ever met came to know Christ out of a desire for guidance or comfort. I'm talking about reality and not opinions based on personal perception.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2010, 3:23 PM Reply   
So now that you've informed us that no Christian you ever met came to Christ for comfort and guidance, give us some reality and tell us why they did.

From my perceptive it's either A) someone raised in a religious environment, B) someone who's at the bottom looking for comfort and guidance to come back, or C) someone who's been convinced that their life isn't meaningful enough and wants to experience the love of Christ. Both B and C seem to fit GD's claim.

I guess there's always D) Want to fit in. But there's an element of comfort involved with that as well.
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-04-2010, 4:56 PM Reply   
You're right. I do owe an answer based on my real life experience. I can tell you that not one person I've ever known came to a real relationship with Christ through any one of your senarios.
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-04-2010, 5:37 PM Reply   
...such limited answers, perhaps borne of limited spiritual experience?

How about E) someone looks at the facts you see and interprets them differently. Or F) someone has experienced a presence or a joy in life that he or she knows is spiritual in origin. Or, in the case of a Christian, G) someone is blessed with faith, with hope in things unseen. All three of these apply to me.

BTW, proposed answers B, C, and D don't explain unwavering belief in the face of extreme persecution for faith
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 7:31 PM Reply   
Jeff, F and G are comfort/satisfaction gainers. Regarding E, I would like to meet that person who subscribes to a specific religious doctrine entirely because of the researched facts. Someone who has considered all religions (including no religion) and has chosen one religion because of the facts with no other benefit applied.
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 7:37 PM Reply   
A through G also don't explain this guy :>)

Marshal_Applewhite
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       01-04-2010, 7:40 PM Reply   
If you think truly following Christ gives people a sense of belonging you couldn't be more wrong.
Being raised in a religious environment may make someone religious, but it doesn't make them a follower of Christ.
If you think following Christ is comforting you've never followed Christ. It is the most difficult, uncomfortable task you can ever experience.
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-04-2010, 8:10 PM Reply   
F & G are reduced to your concept of mere "comfort gainers" only if I haven't actually experienced these phenomena. I realize it doesn't square with your experience, but I have. Now, you can doubt it, but that doesn't negate what I know to be true from personal experience.

And as Barry points out, it hasn't always been "comfortable" - not by a long shot.
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-04-2010, 11:09 PM Reply   
Jeff, thanks for sharing why you "believe". If those things happened to me, I would do it too.
Old    Ben B (benbuchholz)      Join Date: Oct 2009       01-05-2010, 1:05 AM Reply   
I dont really want to join in on the whole debate here, mostly because its the same as politics; makes no progress. But Barry is right on. Being someone who does follow Christ, it IS the "Most difficult, uncomfortable task you can ever experience." I'm constantly questioning my faith, is it real? fake? waste of time? Hopefully in the end it's worth it. If not, well then i lived a good life anyway.

IMO, I think the minute you stop questioning your faith....your faith is then dead. not quite sure where i was goin with this, so i'm done

edit: although i dont really agree with your opinions benjamin (To each their own), VERY well written and i enjoyed reading it. nice job.

(Message edited by benbuchholz on January 05, 2010)
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       01-05-2010, 1:32 AM Reply   
To clarify- the difficulty/discomfort comes from the constant struggle to be more Christ-like; the struggle between the will of the natural man and the spiritual.
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-05-2010, 6:02 AM Reply   
To be fair, A), B), C), and D) do describe me for half my life. I was "religious," I wanted to be "good," and I attended church because it seemed like the right thing to do. GD's and John's comments about people that situation are accurate and fair. They see the position I was in (and so many "cultural Christians" are in) much clearer than I did at the time. Some things happened, and my perspective changed dramatically over a brief period of time. One of the interesting consequences was that some church-going members of my family were pretty uncomfortable with the change.

What I'm saying is that A), B), C) and D) are accurate observations for many whose faith is in "Religianity." They just don't describe all the explanations for professions of faith.

Ben B: "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." Mark 9:24. What a liberating passage. I can remember distinctly the first time I heard this used as a prayer.
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-05-2010, 8:44 AM Reply   
Being raised in a religious environment may make someone religious, but it doesn't make them a follower of Christ.

That's a bingo! In reference to John's senario A I totally agree. I have seen more people be pushed away from faith, church, religion, and ultimately their pursuit of Christ by being raised in a "religious" environment than I have seen become saved through those circumstances.}
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-05-2010, 9:33 AM Reply   
"So now that you've informed us that no Christian you ever met came to Christ for comfort and guidance, give us some reality and tell us why they did."

I guess the how and why are different questions, but the answers may be intertwined. I've told my story before but I'll give you the highlights. Raised in the Methodist church. By "raised" I mean attended on Sunday and went on the occasional youth group trip. I grew up in the "good person" faith both at home and at church. I had never had the gospel story presented to me as described in the bible. At 23 I met a Dude through a wakeboarding forum much like this. We became friends and started wakeboarding together. Shortly after he layed out clearly for me the gospel story. Then is when it finally hit me what Christ had done on my behalf. Not in my head, but truly in my heart I understood. I wouldn't say that I was into many "bad" things by the world's standards, but overnight those things/behaviors ceased to exist in my life. I was ready to follow Jesus...not because of my upbringing, not because I was unhappy, not because I needed to belong, not because I was looking for purpose...but because I heard, confessed, and believed the gospel story to be true. I truly felt God calling me. Accepting that calling was the best but one of the scariest decisions of my life. By scary I mean what I thought I was giving up to follow this Jesus guy. I was afraid my life would be boring, that the fun things in life would no longer be available to me, and worried about what my family and others would think about me. I worried because I didn't want to play church. I wanted to be the church, and I was worred what that would entail. None of my fears were realized but rather joy and peace like never before. I didn't give up the "bad" of our complusion or to appease a high diety but because I wanted to. I wanted to live in a way that honored the one who gave me life.

The Great Commission is both incredible and sketchy to me at the same time. It is God's plan for spreading his love and his Word by using broken, sinful people that have come to know Him. At times I think this is a terrible idea as His people can do a pretty poor job, but on the other hand I am blown away at seeing the people he uses to reach others.

So that is why I believed. The why might be different for some, but I bet the how is not. God uses people in real relationships with other people to share his story.

Am I delusional? Does this all sound crazy? I would have answered yes if this was a few years ago and somebody else was sharing the same story. }I've seen God do things in me that I would have otherwise been incable of doing. The greatest support I have for the truth of the gospel is seeing the change in people's lives who have come to live by it.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-08-2010, 5:44 AM Reply   
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703244.html

Interesting piece re: religious freedom.

Hey Rod, where'd ya go?
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-08-2010, 8:46 AM Reply   
I have been waiting a few days for you to post this Wes.

I love how opinions have now become labeled as intolerance. So he said that in his opinion the Christian faith offered something that Buddhism did not...is that really that offensive? Can he not have his own opinion? He isn't saying Tiger is not free to practice whatever religion he chooses but rather thinks that the Christian faith as something to offer him. Talk about a fire storm out of nothing.

For example, say I like and prefer Chevy to other car manufacturers. Somebody comes along and tells me that I should really buy a Ford because it has something to offer that my Chevy does not. Aren't they being insensitive to my right to choose a Chevy? Aren't they being intolerant to my preference and to what Chevy has to offer me?

I really can't believe this has become a story. Would it be a story if the guy was suggesting that the Christian faith follower Tiger Woods should try Buddhism?
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-08-2010, 8:55 AM Reply   
People don't like other people telling them how to believe. Isn't that sentiment fair? Aren't they simply expressing their opinion?
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-08-2010, 9:11 AM Reply   
I don't remember hearing Tiger say that he was offended by this dude's comments. It's funny that people outside of the situation get offended on his behalf!
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-08-2010, 9:34 AM Reply   
How/where did Brit Hume share his opinion? Was it on national TV or in a private conversation with Tiger?
Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-08-2010, 9:41 AM Reply   
People don't like other people telling them how to believe.

My comment was in response to your post. You said people don't like people telling THEM how to believe which makes it sound like the person targeted would take offense. That I can see and understand. Having the media tear a guy apart because he shared an opinion on a matter makes zero sense to me. You really think this guy was out of line for sharing his opinion? Why is it so offensive to you?}
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-08-2010, 9:54 AM Reply   
I am not offended by Brit Hume sharing his opinion (where did I ever say that). I am also not offended by others telling Brit Hume their opinion of his opinion. If he made the comments to the nation (vs Tiger) then he can expect the opinion of the nation coming back at him.
Old    GD (greatdane)      Join Date: Feb 2001       01-08-2010, 11:19 AM Reply   
...owning the word "Allah" which means "god" in arabic.

Malaysian churches attacked in 'Allah' dispute

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_re_as/as_malaysia_allah_ban

All this crap is fine until violence ensues...

"Islam is above all. Every citizen must respect that," said Ahmad Johari, who attended prayers at the National Mosque. "I hope the court will understand the feeling of the majority Muslims of Malaysia. We can fight to the death over this issue."
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-08-2010, 4:49 PM Reply   
You have been waiting a few days for me to post this? Did you even read the article I posted?
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-08-2010, 5:20 PM Reply   
Yep, that's an interesting perspective one does not often hear today.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-13-2010, 5:55 AM Reply   
Texas school board set to grapple with religion & ethnicity for the next ten years of curriculum: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/81274607.html
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-14-2010, 11:38 AM Reply   
To catch up on your race baiting in regard to internment. 11,000 Germans and 10,000 Italian's were also interned as well as many from Latin America. You say it was based on racism soley against Japanese and I say that is race baiting. You bring that subject line up almost anytime you want to try and make a racism point. The reality on the ground was:

1) JAPAN ATTACKED AMERICA not Germany or Italy. That will add a little more scorn than anything.

2) Most of the Japanese were not assimulated into American society (i.e. did not even speak English)

3) The Japanese had a completely different cultural regard in allegence to the emperor of Japan. He was regarded as a God in their community.

Your constant droning of racism against one group does not take into anything into consideration. Even with that, many groups were held regardless of number. Should the government told everytime a japanese ballon bomb landed in the United States and set off a fire during that time or should they have kept quiet like they did? Should the Government not made a deal with the mob to watch the German and Italins on the docks. Was that racist? I mean they were blowing up ships in the harbor but since it was just a simple group of people we should have just let them live and let live right?

I don't think you understand that WW2 was won based on a few well placed lies that were place with the German's that allowed us to land in Europe at all. Those lies took years. If you look into the history of WW2, you will find there were dozens of little items that lined up and went our way or we could have been wiped out. The Russians even infiltrated the Manhattan Project. That thing was in the middle of the desert and no one knew about that.

So yes, I absolutely stand by that only pointing out that Japanese were interned and that it was soley a racist act upon one group is a lie. To be honest with you, listening to the media and people who parrot that crap, I never even knew Germans and Italians were interned. I happened to see something about it on the history channel once and then started researching when I saw you post that up about we were racists against japanese because we are a racist nation crap.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-14-2010, 12:11 PM Reply   
Wow, did you just completely ignore the facts in my post? As pointed out, 100,000 of the 170,000 JA's interned were AMERICAN CITIZENS, none of the Italians and Germans were (other than some Itlian family members who willingly joined interned citizens of Italy). Tens of thousands of the JA's interned were SECOND And THIRD generation AMERICAN CITIZENS born HERE, spoke english (and wrote it) better than many of the people who post on this forum, and were assimilated (except where laws prohibited them from equality wrt marriage, property rights, labor, etc).

Nowhere have I ever said that only Japanese were interned. The point that I made (and that you continue to ignore) is that the basis for the differential treatment of JAPNESE AMERICAN CITIZENS and Italian American/German American citizens was racism. If you can't look at the general's statements (among the other facts) and see the racism there, then you're lying to yourself.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-14-2010, 12:34 PM Reply   
You competely ignor that Japan attacked America and their extremely strong social construct was allegence to the emperor of Japan. That was a fact in Japanese society at the time. Then take into account the Japanese were not integrated that well into American society thus leading to the belief they still held their cultral belief system. Yes, they were more likely to be interned vs other groups. Also the original law calling for internment was ment to go after the 120,000 japanese, 20,000 Germans, and 20,000 Italians on the west coast originally.

You are also ignoring the fact the the Japanese society was and still is not about the individual. What you and others are trying to do is placing a governments view of a group and the same governments treatment of said group as racism when that group treated itself as a group based on thousands of years of strong group ties. How is it racism to treat a group the same as they treat each other?

You can argue that internment in general was not needed. I think that would be to simplistic and hindsited to argue now, but, I don't think you can simply argue racism and you certainly can not keep bringing up racism and argue that internment is the example.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-14-2010, 12:38 PM Reply   
Let my ask this. If the Chinese attacked us and the japanese were our friends, do you think that the chinese would have treated the same?
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-14-2010, 12:41 PM Reply   
Lol so you're gonna make sweeping generalizations based on JAPANESE society (which themselves can be argued) at the time, and project those onto SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION AMERICANS BORN IN THE USA and illegally jail them based on that? You're right, that doesn't sound racist at all, lol. By your strange logic, we should be rounding up muslims, arabs, and white dudes with shaved heads left and right.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-14-2010, 1:03 PM Reply   
I am not justifying it, but, to blatantly call it racist is silly. Would we have treated the chinese the same if they attacked us?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-14-2010, 1:09 PM Reply   
I would call it smart to do if you are in a war that the mear existance of countries mattered and the scale of winning was extremely small like it was. You can sit back 60 years and try and label it but at the end of the day, we were in for the fight of our lives. I think if I had a preferrence, looking back on it, I think it was better to be in a camp than on the Normandy coast. Also, what do you think the general American public would have done to those Japanese after Japan attacked us? Do you not think, that maybe it protected the Japanese from retrobution?

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us