Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They don't become illusory. Dreams are illusory. Lucid dreams are a step above that and almost feel real. Actual projection out of your physical body is like reality but superior in everyway. It's all a different version of the same thing...kinda. A lot of it is an environment based on the individual's perception and expectations. As you think, so it becomes.
What the difference is however, is the individuals level of conscious awareness. In dreams, people aren't aware they're dreaming. If you are aware, the dream should become lucid and more lifelike. If you can shake that last layer, then it becomes identical to reality but it's outside the physical realm. There are other ways of getting there without dreaming. Falling asleep directly afterwords will make you forget the entire thing and as a direct result billions of people project but never realize it.
you are talking about TM...was big in the 60's...I owned several books on it...
What happened to you Jason? It seems I remember previous posts of yours where you were a Christian and you believed the Bible as truth, or somewhat truth anyway. I agree that there are contradictory things in the Bible and that the OT is way on out there as far as some of the stories but the NT should be viewed as the truth of what God is all about through Jesus Christ, and that is the things you mentioned like peace, love and understanding. Jesus brought all of those things, and He's the only way to achieve those things. There are truths in the Bible that you are obviously missing and your cynicism towards the whole thing is keeping you from seeing the truth.
He has gone the way of Chrstygrl...When people have a wrong understanding of scripture it is easy to lose their faith...you should be aware of that yourself...
He has gone the way of Chrstygrl...When people have a wrong understanding of scripture it is easy to lose their faith...you should be aware of that yourself...
What do you mean I should be aware of that myself? I haven't lost my faith!! Never! Are you saying I'm no longer a Christian simply because I don't believe like you do? Boy, that's so typical around here.
All the things I posted in the OP still apply imo and are things we should be watching out for. Yes, I believe that ALL will eventually bow and confess but that does not change God's plan as it is laid out in the Bible. And that plan includes some pretty rough times ahead.
What happened to you Jason? It seems I remember previous posts of yours where you were a Christian and you believed the Bible as truth, or somewhat truth anyway. I agree that there are contradictory things in the Bible and that the OT is way on out there as far as some of the stories but the NT should be viewed as the truth of what God is all about through Jesus Christ, and that is the things you mentioned like peace, love and understanding. Jesus brought all of those things, and He's the only way to achieve those things. There are truths in the Bible that you are obviously missing and your cynicism towards the whole thing is keeping you from seeing the truth.
I've posted under several different view points numerous times. The majority of the time it was because I was testing out the waters of different arguments and seeing what was typical of people when presented with a specific situation. I was temporarily adapting whatever viewpoint was necessary to further an argument, regardless of my personal beliefs. It was somewhat scientific, if you will.
The NT cannot be viewed as pure truth when the OT can be viewed as an entirely different "God". Yahweh is not Jesus. And since the OT and NT are connected in the same book, it makes the whole thing look like a storybook. I also have problems with the NT but there is no point in getting into a 400 page quoting session of specific verses I take issue with. It's a rather fruitless endeavor.
You have to view the bible objectively and ask yourself, "By what criteria am I using to take some of the bible literally and the rest as a fable?". There is no safe way to do this without introducing a massive amount of contradiction and questioning into christian belief system structures.
Peace, love, and understanding can come to people by any number of paths in life weather that be bhuddism, islam, christianity, atheism, meditation, or whatever other method people choose. There is no specific key that works for everyone.
I believe Jesus did bring all of those things but that he is not the "God" of the OT or even a "God" at all in the sense that religions think of him as. I think he was probably one of the most advanced and gifted beings to ever be on earth. There were others like him such as Guatama Bhudda. Incredibly advanced beings that showed people how to better their lives but humans, in the end, always tend to fuddle it up.
Some people need a religion to always be reminded of "Do unto others" whereas some people can realize that on their own. And yet others don't really care in the slightest and will live out their entire lives in selfishness. Jesus is not the only way to that and that is where christians are wrong. No religion has the only "answer" to life.
My personal vendetta against christianity is because I was force fed it since I was a young child. I don't have animosity towards other religions in the same way I do against christianity. I do believe that religion, in general, is bad because it teaches people archaic beliefs that promote hatred, racism, chauvinism, war, genocide, and tells people they will be rewarded for turning their brain off.
There are truths in the bible but I haven't missed them because those truths are universal, and not Jesus nor christians have the only methods of achieving that. How did people achieve that prior to Jesus coming to earth? Did you ever really think about that? How do people achieve that without hearing about Jesus? There are people on islands who have never heard of Jesus. Does that mean they will burn in hell or are doomed to being miserable for some unearthly long period of time? That doesn't make even the smallest bit of sense.
And don't mistake my spiteful attitude towards christianity as missing the truths of the bible. After all, there are only a few actual truths in the bible.
I can also make the same argument towards you or any other christian. What I've said, can be 100% proven true to anyone who wishes to do what I've said. You can see it for yourself in full color, sound, and beautiful imagery like nothing you can imagine or describe in words. The difference between me and religion is, I can prove what I'm saying to be true to anyone willing to put in the time and effort, whereas religion cannot and will not ever be able to do so.
I've posted under several different view points numerous times. The majority of the time it was because I was testing out the waters of different arguments and seeing what was typical of people when presented with a specific situation. I was temporarily adapting whatever viewpoint was necessary to further an argument, regardless of my personal beliefs. It was somewhat scientific, if you will.
The NT cannot be viewed as pure truth when the OT can be viewed as an entirely different "God". Yahweh is not Jesus. And since the OT and NT are connected in the same book, it makes the whole thing look like a storybook. I also have problems with the NT but there is no point in getting into a 400 page quoting session of specific verses I take issue with. It's a rather fruitless endeavor.
You have to view the bible objectively and ask yourself, "By what criteria am I using to take some of the bible literally and the rest as a fable?". There is no safe way to do this without introducing a massive amount of contradiction and questioning into christian belief system structures.
Peace, love, and understanding can come to people by any number of paths in life weather that be bhuddism, islam, christianity, atheism, meditation, or whatever other method people choose. There is no specific key that works for everyone.
I believe Jesus did bring all of those things but that he is not the "God" of the OT or even a "God" at all in the sense that religions think of him as. I think he was probably one of the most advanced and gifted beings to ever be on earth. There were others like him such as Guatama Bhudda. Incredibly advanced beings that showed people how to better their lives but humans, in the end, always tend to fuddle it up.
Some people need a religion to always be reminded of "Do unto others" whereas some people can realize that on their own. And yet others don't really care in the slightest and will live out their entire lives in selfishness. Jesus is not the only way to that and that is where christians are wrong. No religion has the only "answer" to life.
My personal vendetta against christianity is because I was force fed it since I was a young child. I don't have animosity towards other religions in the same way I do against christianity. I do believe that religion, in general, is bad because it teaches people archaic beliefs that promote hatred, racism, chauvinism, war, genocide, and tells people they will be rewarded for turning their brain off.
There are truths in the bible but I haven't missed them because those truths are universal, and not Jesus nor christians have the only methods of achieving that. How did people achieve that prior to Jesus coming to earth? Did you ever really think about that? How do people achieve that without hearing about Jesus? There are people on islands who have never heard of Jesus. Does that mean they will burn in hell or are doomed to being miserable for some unearthly long period of time? That doesn't make even the smallest bit of sense.
And don't mistake my spiteful attitude towards christianity as missing the truths of the bible. After all, there are only a few actual truths in the bible.
I can also make the same argument towards you or any other christian. What I've said, can be 100% proven true to anyone who wishes to do what I've said. You can see it for yourself in full color, sound, and beautiful imagery like nothing you can imagine or describe in words. The difference between me and religion is, I can prove what I'm saying to be true to anyone willing to put in the time and effort, whereas religion cannot and will not ever be able to do so.
I knew you were playing Devil's Advocate...Wonder why she couldn't discern that...I'd say you were force fed religion, not christianity...I've seen both and have experienced both and still maintain a strong Faith...I've studied many of the worlds religions and their origins and still have Faith...I've studied the sciences and still have Faith...I've discovered that many of the things that people think have been discovered and invented within the last 200 years were in fact discovered or invented thousands of years ago...If one solely looks to the sciences for answers and believes we evolved from a primordial soup (which would explain why our makeup is the same as what is in the ground) then we are just parasites that evolved on the host (earth) and parasites need to be erradicated...For we have made this planet very sick...And i wonder how they knew thousands of years ago that our makeup is what is in the earth to the point that they stated that God formed man from the soil...And if they were that scientifically advanced then why attribute it to an invisible god unless their is some Truth to Intelligent Design...It is of my viewpoint Miss Lane is far to immature in the Faith to argue with you and i have seen this before also...There is a good proverb that would be good at this point 'the fool despises knowledge'...I've met many of those also...to the point that if the information did not come from the Bible then it is not true and they won't even consider it...I work with such a person...For instance, He believes that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a real whale, however, that is metaphorical...It is not widely known today that the three days of the winter solstice 24, 25 and 26 of December (If my memory is correct) are the longest and darkest days of the year, it is when the days transit from darkest to lightest and thousands of years ago they were euphamistically known as 'the belly of the whale' for being in the belly of a whale is a very dark place to be...Metaphorically, being in the belly of the whale was considered a dark spiritual place to be, where Jonah was for he ran from God and was being rebellious, therefore spiritually dark..and since being in the belly of the whale is the length of three days, Jonah was there for three days...It is metaphorical, however my co-worker won't even consider it...'The fool despises knowledge'...Science does not disprove the existence of God but rather upholds it...And just like religion, i have found outright lies in the sciences also...This does not mean that all science is a lie, only the ones who bend it to prove a false point are liars...same in religion...
I've discovered that many of the things that people think have been discovered and invented within the last 200 years were in fact discovered or invented thousands of years ago...
Science does not disprove the existence of God but rather upholds it...And just like religion, i have found outright lies in the sciences also...This does not mean that all science is a lie, only the ones who bend it to prove a false point are liars...same in religion...
Science does prove without a doubt that evolution is 100% real. It's not even a theory anymore. There is simply overwhelming amounts of evidence now. Tons and tons more evidence and fossils than in Darwin's day.
Science has also recreated the big bang successfully with the giant hadron collider recently. But you're right to a point. How the big bang actually occured no one knows for certain. Science can't prove or disprove how it happened as of yet.
And it all depends on your definition of "God". If by "God" you mean a bearded man in the sky who is going to punish me for "sinning", then I would beg to differ and say evidence points firmly against that. If by "God" you mean some indescribable energy that is actually trillions of separate things combined into one, then I may tend to agree with you on some level.
I'm just sick and tired of the same old words being used over and over for humans describing something they can't figure out. "God" seems to be a catch all phrase along with the word "soul". Those words have all kinds of stupid and negative perceived connotations.
I also realize that new things are rarely discovered. The story of Jesus is full of similarities with the Egyptian "God" Horus and all kinds of other religions. Likewise, the stuff I am talking about is written all over ancient Sumerian and Egyptian tablets. The third eye being activated on humans is written all over history, including modern day buddhist women who have the little glitter dot on the center of their forehead.
Science does prove without a doubt that evolution is 100% real. It's not even a theory anymore. There is simply overwhelming amounts of evidence now. Tons and tons more evidence and fossils than in Darwin's day.
Science has also recreated the big bang successfully with the giant hadron collider recently. But you're right to a point. How the big bang actually occured no one knows for certain. Science can't prove or disprove how it happened as of yet.
And it all depends on your definition of "God". If by "God" you mean a bearded man in the sky who is going to punish me for "sinning", then I would beg to differ and say evidence points firmly against that. If by "God" you mean some indescribable energy that is actually trillions of separate things combined into one, then I may tend to agree with you on some level.
I'm just sick and tired of the same old words being used over and over for humans describing something they can't figure out. "God" seems to be a catch all phrase along with the word "soul". Those words have all kinds of stupid and negative perceived connotations.
I also realize that new things are rarely discovered. The story of Jesus is full of similarities with the Egyptian "God" Horus and all kinds of other religions. Likewise, the stuff I am talking about is written all over ancient Sumerian and Egyptian tablets. The third eye being activated on humans is written all over history, including modern day buddhist women who have the little glitter dot on the center of their forehead.
You need to dig deeper into the 'evolution' thing...and look for empirical evidence...There has to be matter for a big bang to occur...Where did this matter come from?...Life just does not come from nothing...Buddhist women do not wear dots, it is the Hindu women, married wear red dots (traditional) and unmarried women wear black dots (traditional)...And further, Hindu men have also wore dots on the forehead, but, in modern times it is more the women that wear them and not just red and black any more but other colors are accepted...Have youever read Genesis a book by a scientist named Henry Morris?...Look at the Jews, they have Scientific-Rabbis that explain God with science and science with God...Also, the Jews do not believe in Hell...Interesting...
Here is an excerpt from The Satanic Bible:
No other single device has been associated with Sa tanism as much as the black mass. To say that the most blasphemous of all religious ceremonies is no thing more than a literary invention is certainly a statement which needs qualifying—but nothing cou ld be truer.
The popular concept of the black mass is thus: a d efrocked priest stands before an altar consisting of a nude woman, her legs spread‐eagled and vagina thrust open, each of her outstretched fists grasp ing a black candle made from the fat of unbaptized babies, and a chalice containing the urine of a p rostitute (or blood) reposing on her belly. An inv erted cross hangs above the altar, and triangular hosts of ergot‐laden bread or black‐stained turnip are methodically blessed as the priest dutifully slips them in and out of the altar‐lady’s labia. T hen, we are told, an invocation to Satan and vario us demons is followed by an array of prayers and p salms chanted backwards or interspersed with obsce nities . . . all performed within the confines of a "protective" pentagram drawn on the floor. If th e Devil appears he is invariably in the form of a rather eager man wearing the head of a black goat upon his shoulders. Then follows a potpourri of fl agellation, prayer‐book burning, cunnilingus, fell atio, and general hindquarters kissing—all done to a background of ribald recitations from the Holy Bible, and audible expectorations on the cross! If a baby can be slaughtered during the ritual, so m uch the better; for as everyone knows, this is the favorite sport of the Satanist!
If this sounds repugnant, then the success of the reports of the black mass, in keeping the devout i n church, is easy to understand. No "decent" perso n could fail to side with the inquisitors when tol d of these blasphemies. The propagandists of the c hurch did their job well, informing the public at one time or another of the heresies and heinous ac ts of the Pagans, Cathars, Bogomils, Templars and others who, because of their dualistic philosophie s and sometimes Satanic logic, had to be eradicate d.
The stories of unbaptized babies being stolen by S atanists for use in the mass were not only effecti ve propaganda measures, but also provided a consta nt source of revenue for the Church, in the form o f baptism fees. No Christian mother would, upon he aring of these diabolical kidnappings, refrain fro m getting her child properly baptized, post h aste.
Another facet of man’s nature was apparent in the fact that the writer or artist with lewd thoughts could exercise his most obscene predilections in t he portrayal of the activities of heretics. The ce nsor who views all pornography so that he will kno w what to warn others of is the modern equivalent of the medieval chronicler of the obscene deeds of the Satanists (and, of course, their modern journ alistic counterparts). It is believed that the mos t complete library of pornography in the world is owned by the Vatican!
The kissing of the Devil’s behind during the tradi tional black mass is easily recognized as the fore runner of the modern term used to describe one who will, through appealing to another’s ego, gain ma terially from him. As all Satanic ceremonies were performed toward very real or material goals, the oscularum infame (or kiss of shame) was considered a symbolic requisite towards earthly, rather than spiritual, success.
The usual assumption is that the Satanic ceremony or service is always called a black mass. A black mass is not the magical ceremony practiced by Sata nists. The Satanist would only employ the use of a black mass as a form of psychodrama. Furthermore, a black mass does not necessarily imply that the performers of such are Satanists. A black mass is essentially a parody of the religious service of t he Roman Catholic Church, but can be loosely appli ed to a satire on any religious ceremony.
To the Satanist, the black mass, in its blasphemin g of orthodox rites, is nothing more than a redund ancy. The services of all established religions ar e actually parodies of old rituals performed by th e worshippers of the earth and te flesh. In attemp ts to de‐sexualize and dehumanize the Pagan belief s, later men of spiritual faith whitewashed the ho nest meanings behind the rituals into the bland eu phemisms now considered to bethe "true mass." Even if the Satanist were to spend each night performi ng a black mass, he would no more be performing a travesty than the devout churchgoer who unwittingl y attends his own "black mass"—his spoof on the ho nest and emotionally‐sound rites of Pagan antiquit y.
Any ceremony considered a black mass must effectiv ely shock and outrage, as this seems to be the mea sure of its success. In the Middle Ages, blasphemi ng the holy church was shocking. Now, however, the Church does not present the awesome image it did during the inquisition. The traditional black mass is no longer the outrageous spectacle to the dile ttante or renegade priest that it once was. If the Satanist wishes to create a ritual to blaspheme a n accepted institution, for the purpose of psychod rama, he is careful to choose one that is now in v ogue to parody. Thus, he is truly stepping on a sa cred cow.
A black mass, today, would consist of the blasphem ing of such "sacred" topics as Eastern mysticism, psychiatry, the psychedelic movement, ultra‐libera lism, etc. Patriotism would be championed, drugs a nd their gurus would be defiled, acultural militan ts would be deified, and the decadence of ecclesia stical theologies might even be given a Satanic bo ost.
The Satanic magus has always been the catalyst for the dichotomy necessary in molding popular belief s, and in this case a ceremony in the nature of a black mass may serve a far‐reaching magical purpos e.
In the year 1666, some rather interesting events o ccurred in France. With the death of François Man sart, the architect of the trapezoid, whose geomet rics were to become the prototype of the haunted h ouse, the Palace of Versailles was being construct ed, in accordance with his plans. The last of the glamorous priestesses of Satan, Jeanne‐Marie Bouvi er (Madame Guyon) was to be overshadowed by a shre wd opportunist and callous businesswoman named Cat harine Deshayes, otherwise known as LaVoisin. Here was an erstwhile beautician who, while dabbling i n abortions and purveying the most efficient poiso ns to ladies desirous of eliminating unwanted husb ands or loers, found in the lurid accounts of the "messes noir" a proverbial brainstorm.
It is safe to say that 1666 was the year of the fi rst "commercial" black mass! In the region south o f St. Denis, which is now called LaGarenne, a grea t walled house was purchased by LaVoisin and ***** d with dispensaries, cells, laboratories, and . . . a chapel. Soon it became de rigueur for royalty and lesser dilettantes to attend and participate i n the very type of service mentioned erlier in thi s chapter. The organized fraud perpetrated in thes e ceremonies has become indelibly marked in history as the "true bl ack mass."
When LaVoisin was arrested on March 13, 1679 (in t he Church of Our Blessed Lady of Good Tidings, inc identally), the die had already been cast. The deg raded activities of LaVoisin had stifled the majes ty of Satanism for many years to come.
The Satanism‐for‐fun‐and‐games fad next appeared i n England in the middle 18th Century in the form o f Sir Francis Dashwood’s Order of the Medmanham Fr aniscans, popularly called The Hell‐Fire Club. Whi le eliminating the blood, gore, and baby‐fat candl es of the previous century’s masses, Sir Francis m anaged to conduct rituals replete with good dirty fun, and certainly provided a colorful and harmles s form of psychodrama for many of the leading ligh ts of the period. An interesting sideline of Sir F rancis, which lends a clue to the climate of the H ell‐Fire Club, was a group called the Dilettanti C lub, of which he was the founder.
It was the 19th Century that brought a whitewashin g to Satanism, in the feeble attempts of "white" m agicians trying to perform "black" magic. This was a very paradoxical period for Satanism, with writ ers such as Baudelaire and Huysmans who, despite t heir apparent obsession with evil, seemed nice eno ugh fellows. The Devil developed his Luciferian pe rsonality for the public to see, and gradually evo lved into a sort of drawing‐room gentleman. This w as the era of "experts" on the black arts, such as Eliphas Levi and countless trance‐mediums who, wi th their carefully bound spirits and demons, have also succeeded in binding the minds of many who ca ll themselves parapsychologists to this day!
As far as Satanism is concerned, the closest outwa rd signs of this were the neo‐Pagan rites conducte d by MacGregor Mathers’ Hermetic Order of the Gold en Dawn, and Aleister Crowley’s later Order of the Silver Star (A... A...—Argentinum Astrum) and Ord er of Oriental Templars (O.T.O.),* which paranoiac ally denied any association with Satanism, despite Crowley’s self‐imposed image of the beast of reve lation. Aside from some rather charming poetry and a smattering of magical bric‐a‐brac, when not cli mbing mountains Crowley spent most of his time as a poseur par excellence and worked overtime to be wicked. Like his contemporary, Rev.(?) Montague Su mmers, Crowley obviously spent a large part of his life with his tongue jammed firmly into his cheek , but his followers, today, are somehow able to re ad esoteric meaning into his every word.
Perennially concurrent with these societies were t he sex clubs using Satanism as a rationale that pe rsists today, for which tabloid newspaper writers may give thanks.
If it appears that the black mass developed from a literary invention of the church, to a depraved c ommercial actuality, to a psychodrama for dilettan tes and iconoclasts, to an ace in the hole for pop ular media . . . then where does it fit into the t rue nature of Satanism—and who was practicing Sata nic magic in those years beyond 1666?
The answer to this riddle lies in another. Is the person generally considered to be a Satanist reall y practicing Satanism in its true sense, or rather from the point of view taken by the opinion maker s of heavenly persuasion? It has often been said, and rightly so, that all of the books about the De vil have been written by the agents of God. It is, therefore, quite easy to understand how a certain breed of devil worshippers was created through th e inventions of theologians. This erstwhile "evil" character is not necessarily practicing true Sata nism.
Here is the other part:
Nor is he a living embodiment of the element of un trammeled pride or majesty of self which gave the post‐Pagan world the churchman’s definition of evi l. He is instead the by‐product of later and more elaborate propaganda.
The pseudo‐Satanist has always managed to appear t hroughout modern history, with his black masses of varying degrees of blasphemy; but the real Satani st is not quite so easily recognized as such.
It would be an over‐simplification to say that eve ry successful man and woman on earth is, without k nowing it, a practicing Satanist; but the thirst f or earthly success and its ensuing realization are certainly grounds for Saint Peter turning thumbs down. If the rich man’s entry into heaven seems as difficult as the camel’s attempt to go through th e eye of a needle; if the love of money is the roo t of all evil; then we must at least assume the po st powerful men on earth to be the most Satanic. T his applies to financiers, industrialists, popes, poets, dictators, and all assorted opinion‐makers and field marshals of the world’s activities.
Occasionally, through "leakages," one of the enigm atic men or women of earth will be found to have " dabbled" in the black arts. These, of course, are brought to light as in the "mystery men" of histor y. Names like Rasputin, Zaharoff, Cagliostro, Rose nberg and their ilk are links—clues, so to speak, of the true legacy of Satan . . . a legacy which t ranscends ethnic, racial, and economic differences and temporal ideologies, as well. The Satanist ha s always ruled the earth . . . and always will, by whatever name he is called.
One thing stands sure: the standards, philosophy a nd practices set forth on these pages are those em ployed by the most self‐realized and powerful huma ns on earth. In the secret thoughts of each man an d woman, still motivated by sound and unclouded mi nds, resides the potential of the Satanist, as alw ays has been. The sign of the horns shall appear t o many, now, rather than the few; and the magician will stand forth that he may be recognized.
You need to dig deeper into the 'evolution' thing...and look for empirical evidence...There has to be matter for a big bang to occur...Where did this matter come from?...Life just does not come from nothing...Buddhist women do not wear dots, it is the Hindu women, married wear red dots (traditional) and unmarried women wear black dots (traditional)...And further, Hindu men have also wore dots on the forehead, but, in modern times it is more the women that wear them and not just red and black any more but other colors are accepted...Have youever read Genesis a book by a scientist named Henry Morris?...Look at the Jews, they have Scientific-Rabbis that explain God with science and science with God...Also, the Jews do not believe in Hell...Interesting...
Nobody knows that for certain, that's speculation.
Buddhistists, Hindu's, and Jainists all wear dots on their foreheads. It's even common for buddha statues to have a mark on the center of their's.
I'm not about to go off the deep end studying "satanic" literature with you on the christianity forums. Even I have enough respect not to do that.
I'll also note to you that what I'm talking about is proof to any individual who chooses to explore themselves. It doesn't need to rely on history, reading, studying, faith, or any other realm of magic, religion, or "Gods". I am talking about 100% concrete in your face proof for anyone who chooses to experience it. No amount of babbling on about history, chaos theories, or lost faith is going to change that. You can see proof for yourself or you can choose to remain blind. Your choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
