Propitiation to the God of War

Palomar · 2005-07-20 09:12:18

*This may be "out there" -- but I'm gonna post it.

I enjoy reading Jung's works. This quote stands out in mind and could pertain to future matters on Mars...and elsewhere of course. I can't find a date, but he wrote this either during WWI or WWII (the "trouble in Europe" reference):

So we should say -- and I should like to say -- that there is a terrible demon in man that blindfolds him, the prepares for awful destruction; and it would be much better if we had a temple for the god of war where now, for instance, with all this trouble in Europe, we could say: 'The god of war is restless; we must propitiate him. Let us sacrifice to the god of war.'
And then every country would be going to the temples of the war god to sacrifice something precious. They might burn up a lot of ammunition or destroy cannons for the god of war. That would help.
To say that it is not we who want it would help because man could then believe in his goodness. For if you have to admit that you are doing just what you say you are not doing, you are not only a liar but a devil -- and then where is the self-esteem of man? How can he hope for a better future? We can never become anything else because we are caught in that contradiction: on the one side we want to do good and on the other we are doing the worst. How can man develop? He is forever caught in that dilemma. So you had better acknowledge evil -- what you call it doesn't matter. If there were priests who said the god of war must be propitiated, there would be a way of protecting yourself. But of course there are no such things, so we must admit that WE prepare the war, that WE are just thirsty for blood...

So...comments? Is it feasible? Would "sacrificing" weapons and war instruments to a god of war (even if ritualized in a temple) mostly or somewhat sate our war-like tendencies? Make us more cooperative and beneficent to our neighbor? Humans are ritual creatures, after all.

Or would we remain war-like regardless?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-20 10:03:47

The way I read it he's not so much saying that it would reduce war-like tendencies so much as it would allow us to reconcile them with the sort of people we like to think we are.

Whatever the case, there will always be those who seek to take something by force and blowing up a tank in a temple isn't going to accomplish that. When they attack, at some point someone must defend.

One could even go so far as to say that war is the natural state of humanity. All paths seem to lead us to it, regardless of initial intent.

reddragon · 2005-07-20 13:09:40

I think we would fight over control of the temple.

Seriously, if we actually did what Jung suggests, which I suspect he doesn't really intend us to do, we would only be lying to ourselves. War does come from us not from a god. If we pretend otherwise, then we can't confront that "terrible demon." I think that we can still go to war even if we don't consider the capability and desire to do so to be our inate characteristics. The "demon" will drive us to it anyway. But I do not think that we can end war without recognizing its true cause and "fighting" this cause, this aspect of human nature. We can fight without knowing the truth, but we cannot be at peace without knowing the truth.

Jung presents an interesting commentary on human psychology and how it might work in a certain hypothetical situation; he does not present a viable solution to the problem of war.

Palomar · 2005-07-20 13:41:41

I think we would fight over control of the temple.

*Geez! :shock: :? :cry:

::shakes head:: I really hope humankind isn't THAT bad off...but you might be right. [::edit:: But actually he said that *every* nation should have a temple...not just 1 temple for all mankind ::end edit::]

Cobra: The way I read it he's not so much saying that it would reduce war-like tendencies so much as it would allow us to reconcile them with the sort of people we like to think we are.

But wouldn't reconciliation promote reduction? To reconcile means to come to terms with, of course. Which lessens stress, anxiety, etc.

Cobra: Whatever the case, there will always be those who seek to take something by force and blowing up a tank in a temple isn't going to accomplish that. When they attack, at some point someone must defend.

I definitely see this point. My interpretation of Jung's statements is that he sought a lessening of war and war-like tendencies. I really doubt he intended to imply or assert that war/war-like tendencies could be entirely eradicated/eliminated.

Cobra: One could even go so far as to say that war is the natural state of humanity. All paths seem to lead us to it, regardless of initial intent.

Hobbes? Well...I am very reluctant to agree. We are so socialized with war. We've discussed before what sorts of toys and games line the store shelves. Sometimes war IS necessary...I admit that. But how many more wars have been waged over some bigshot's ego or glory-seeking; to keep the Federal wheels greased; or simply for the "joy" of blood sport (the hunt...the "art" of war)...?

It's not cut and dry to me. No pun intended.

The socialization aspects alone are intense, particularly when it goes to
imprinting upon the psyche through reinforcement.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-20 13:55:55

But wouldn't reconciliation promote reduction? To reconcile means to come to terms with, of course. Which lessens stress, anxiety, etc.

In this case it seems it would be more of a reconciliation between the ideas of "we're good, noble and peaceful beings" and "we're going to crush your armies and burn your cities to the ground. Die foreign dogs."

It's a "liberating" reconciliation in a war-like sense, if it had any effect it would seem to be that it would lead to more war. After all, we're good and noble people.

Aries made us do it. :twisted:

The socialization aspects alone are intense, particularly when it goes to
imprinting upon the psyche through reinforcement.

While that may well play a significant role in specific cases, I'm firmly of the opinion that in general the socialization aspects are drawn from natural human tendencies rather than the reverse.

Twin sons of pacifists will fight before they can walk.

clark · 2005-07-20 14:18:46

Perhaps it is best to consider that Jung is suggesting that mankind is predisposed towards violent behavior and acts of aggression, and his example of a "temple" merely an idea for a constructive outlet to help man purge these desires.

Think of sporting events in the same vein. Sports are generally, by and large, examples of aggressive behavior that are contained within a structure that provides for a constructive outlet for the aggression.

It's one of the reasons why little league is so popular with little boys. It's a good way to channel their emotional rage into something structured and constructive.

So too an idea of a temple to war that allows for mankind to "purge the urge" of violent tendency, thus satisfying the innate desire without all the destruction.

Of course this does not speak to any of the rational reasons mankind wages war, assuming there are some, and not suggesting that any try and prove it here.

C M Edwards · 2005-07-20 15:15:54

One could even go so far as to say that war is the natural state of humanity. All paths seem to lead us to it, regardless of initial intent.

There's a darn good case for that.

It's been suggested that the majority of the intertribal genetic mixing in human history has come about either as a direct result of battle/warfare or during periods where warring groups were crowded together in the same geographic region. That leads some researchers to postulate that warfare serves a biological function: It's how humans avoid inbreeding.

It's more complicated in practice of course. Warfare is only what brings the groups into contact. Defection to the other tribe is the actual mechanism of intermixing.

For example, when two troops of wild primates (baboons, chimps, gorillas, etc.) come into contact with each other in the wild, a great deal of hostility and even some fighting is typically observed among the adults. The younger primates are a whole different story, though. They can be observed excitedly dashing about, climbing trees to see, sneaking in closer, and generally excitedly trying to satisfy their curiosity about the other troop. (*GASP* Other Monkeys! :shock: ) Frequently, and completely regardless of any fighting, a young member of one troop will cross over and go with the other. Ta-dah! The screen fades to black, and genetic intermixing occurs. 8)

It's about the same with humans as it is with monkeys. :?

Our problem is, we've socialized the warfare rather than the intermixing. We focus on the incidental conflicts and neglect the other, equally important biological imperatives going on in the background.

Palomar · 2005-07-20 16:07:47

Aries made us do it. :twisted:

*Cobra, you sometimes make me chuckle at the dangedest times. :?

In this case it seems it would be more of a reconciliation between the ideas of "we're good, noble and peaceful beings" and "we're going to crush your armies and burn your cities to the ground. Die foreign dogs."
It's a "liberating" reconciliation in a war-like sense, if it had any effect it would seem to be that it would lead to more war. After all, we're good and noble people.

I disagree, though I think I see the point you're trying to make. It's an attempt to reconcile the dilemma/contradiction of:

on the one side we want to do good and on the other we are doing the worst.

::A disclaimer:: I'm no authority on Jung. The following comments are based on what reading of him I've done and my understanding so far (which certainly isn't exhaustive):

It seems he's trying to bring together a truce between our light and dark sides (if I may...). Cobra, you seem to imply it'd promote absolute denial of our negative natures and thereby inadvertently foster more of it. Jung was aware of the need to balance out; even the needs of the darker, primal instincts and etc must be recognized. This is why he wouldn't advocate denial or repression, but rather seeks the "escape valve" of ritual and its psychological impact.

In fact, I've personally experienced this "canceling out" and resultant well-being via writing, particularly when I'm stressed out or angry, i.e. when negative emotions especially are dominant; pairing opposites (even extreme opposites), allowing each to express themselves and interact in various situations, scenes, etc. Negative and positive emotions are expressed via keyboard in an artistic (or "ritual") fashion...needs (which might otherwise go unexpressed) are satisfied, a sense of harmony is achieved. It's as though I've personally/privately "propitiated" the god of negative emotions, ultimately.

Again, the idea of expression and ritual can be powerful, especially if kept within a Yin-like context.

(Yang is always ready to express itself, on the other hand -- it seems).

Hopefully this makes sense.

--Cindy

P.S.: And it's precisely Mars named after the God of War which makes this issue all the more pertinent, IMO, to future residents of it. How will they deal with the automatic war identification?

clark · 2005-07-20 17:09:04

A good area of follow up study is on ego maintenance and how this relates to individual behavior. Freud and Jung were basically at the forefront of delving into the issues of conflict and resolution in the psyche .

Basically, in a horribly condensed interpretation of the theories, they wanted to understand better why the human mind could function under great stress, and how it coped as the result of great stress.

The mind is an incredibly nimble piece of hardware and software. The fact that we can get up and go out the door in the morning is a testimony to self delusion. The possibility of death is balanced by other factors and processes in the human mind.

Psychoanalysis was really about studying the aberrations to get a better understanding of the whole mind when it was functioning. Primitive, but then the entire science isn't that old (unless you count the humors).

This all relates back to acts of violence and ways to subdue inward aggression in positive and constructive manners in order to release the urge and maintain a wellness of being. The primary theories espoused by Freud were largely the result of Victorian times, and the repression exhibited in that day. So the focus on the effects of repression of biological urges caused by social constraints is not too surprising.

As the studies have evolved over time, there has been different approaches to understanding how individuals approach the balance of competing urges, and how to redirect negative behaviors through positive and constructive outlets.

What I my self subscribe to as an elegant and informative view of human understanding is the Maslow's hierarchy of need. It's kind of a mish mash of evolutionary theory and psychological motivations that drive human behavior.

It tends to simplify overall behavior as series of stages of ever increasing needs that the human psyche is driven to achieve, once the base element is secured. Disabling or a breakdown of foundation elements lead to the general aberration of behavior and negative responses. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, it can be rather informative.

Palomar · 2005-09-11 20:33:57

*This doesn't pertain to CG Jung, but is in line with the original purpose of the thread. I've not heard of Walter Benjamin before, but here's a bit of material quoted from a book I'm reading called Breaking Open the Head by Daniel Pinchbeck.

Mr. Pinchbeck discussed Mr. Benjamin's philosophies, who died in 1940. I'll put quotes of Mr. Benjamin himself in bold.

Here goes:

"For the society as well as the individual, Benjamin realized 'intoxication for perception, of fiction for thinking.' The new consumer culture of the 19th century induced a widespread trance in the public, as capitalism breathed supernatural power into its products. The World Exhibits, the Belle Epoque's celebrations of world commerce, 'open up a phantasmagoria that people enter to be amused. The entertainment industry facilitates this by elevating people to the status of commodities. They submit to being manipulated while enjoying their alienation from themselves and others.' The euphoria induced by these spectacles was like a drug that robbed the masses of their will, that taught them how to enjoy being transformed into objects of exchange.

Intoxicated, entranced by the new world of commodities, the West lost its contact with...those archaic Dionysian festivals and annual Mysteries celebrating the transformation of primordial chaos into order. The loss of rituals...posed a threat to humanity: 'It is the dangerous error of modern men to regard this experience as unimportant and avoidable...it is not; its hour strikes again and again, and then neither nations nor generations can escape it.'

Humanity needed such periodic rites of regeneration to avoid hypnotic episodes of feverish destruction, which served the same purpose at a much greater cost. For Benjamin, this was the real significance of the First World War: 'an attempt at a new and unprecedented commingling with the cosmic powers'.

He worried that mankind's alienation from itself was deepening 'to such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.'"

(What would Mr. Benjamin's horror have been to WWII, if he'd lived to see it?)

Comments? Applications here and elsewhere (future)?

--Cindy

noosfractal · 2005-10-18 03:22:04

[Benjamin] worried that mankind's alienation from itself was deepening 'to such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.'

This is a striking image - humankind as apotemnophiliac. But doesn't the personification of humankind seem simplistic? Humankind is so complex. Does it, can it, really experience anything as a whole? If not and humankind is necessarily a plurality then I think the dynamic Benjamin is referencing is better understood in terms of the ancient ritual of scapegoating. Part of scapegoating is alienation from the scapegoat as the group shadow is projected on to it/him/her/them. Of course there is pleasure in destruction of the scapegoat - the (illusory) promise is group healing, a return to innocence, purity, unity. Like all illusions the promise of the ritual fades without increasingly elaborate repetition.
.

Palomar · 2005-10-18 14:58:28

[Benjamin] worried that mankind's alienation from itself was deepening 'to such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.'
...I think the dynamic Benjamin is referencing is better understood in terms of the ancient ritual of scapegoating. Part of scapegoating is alienation from the scapegoat as the group shadow is projected on to it/him/her/them. Of course there is pleasure in destruction of the scapegoat - the (illusory) promise is group healing, a return to innocence, purity, unity. Like all illusions the promise of the ritual fades without increasingly elaborate repetition.
.

*Hi.

Actually I don't interpret this within the context of "the scapegoat," though I see your point.

Look at how many people are self-destructive, whether consciously (don't care) or subconsciously (driven by inner "demons"). The consciously destructive folks sure seem (sometimes, perhaps often) to delight in their self-destruction.

I also think of the religious cults which (though they'd deny it) look forward to the "End Times" when, according to them, all the living human inhabitants of the Earth will face punishment, disaster and death (massive, global-wide) because they didn't convert. Apparently animals will suffer too. I've actually heard, more times than I care to count, zealous religionists verbally stating their desire for the end of the world. That's only because, IMO, they themselves haven't or can't come to grips with life and so would rather be "taken away" from it and their "tormentors" killed (and later suffering in Hell) -- all of them. The ultimate escapism.

There is a lot of malice out there, and masochism too.

My opinion.

--Cindy

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 04:43:16

*Hi.

Hi

Look at how many people are self-destructive ... delight in their self-destruction.

There does seem to be an awful lot. Is alienation a cause or a symptom? I'm thinking of the self-destructive people I know. They are tormented and want nothing more than an end to their alienation. I think they do find a wicked joy in their anti-social acts, but I think it is the surge of power they feel (a self-assertion), rather than the resulting further alienation, that delights them. They join subcultures, but note that they are subcultures - cultures apart - aspects of the complexity that is humankind rather than representative of an undifferentiated soul-sick world.

I also think of the religious cults which (though they'd deny it) look forward to the "End Times" ... IMO, they themselves haven't or can't come to grips with life and so would rather be "taken away" from it and their "tormentors" killed (and later suffering in Hell) -- all of them. The ultimate escapism.

Another subculture justifying its struggle to be apart. They've turned alienation into a virtue: "be in the world, but not of it." I think there is a little more mystery to apocalypse worship than simple desire for revenge. Consider the recurring heralds of secular apocalypse: Y2K, global warming, bird flu, peak oil - "we shall suffer for our techno-sins." Perhaps hysteria is a response to alienation. There is a Dionysiac joy in hysteria. But does this encompass the delight that Benjamin was referring to?

There is a lot of malice out there, and masochism too.

I think much can be understood in terms of raw power struggle. No techno-alienation from ancient romantic rhythms required.

Not that there is anything wrong with ancient romantic rhythms, of course

.

Palomar · 2005-10-19 07:28:09

I also think of the religious cults which (though they'd deny it) look forward to the "End Times" ... IMO, they themselves haven't or can't come to grips with life and so would rather be "taken away" from it and their "tormentors" killed (and later suffering in Hell) -- all of them. The ultimate escapism.
Another subculture justifying its struggle to be apart. They've turned alienation into a virtue: "be in the world, but not of it." I think there is a little more mystery to apocalypse worship than simple desire for revenge. Consider the recurring heralds of secular apocalypse: Y2K, global warming, bird flu, peak oil - "we shall suffer for our techno-sins." Perhaps hysteria is a response to alienation. There is a Dionysiac joy in hysteria. But does this encompass the delight that Benjamin was referring to?

*I don't consider this as part of "another subculture." The patriarchal religions are rife with violence (absolute destruction of one's enemies) and the desire for global annihilation so they can supposedly move on to a better afterlife (I should add here that I'm an agnostic and not for any "matriarchal religions" either). Muslims believe in the "End Times" similar to their Christian counterparts (with varying degrees of intensity, of course; same as is found in any group of humans). Not sure about Judaism's stance on "End Times" scenarios.

The problem is pervasive and extensive. Perhaps you are not familiar with religious sentiments such as these upclose and firsthand? I unfortunately am (parents' religion). They -want- global destruction, Armageddon -- they would delight in witnessing it for themselves (while from the safe vantage point of Heaven, of course).

In the 1990s I did a lot of comparative religion studies. The same desire is present in even the more "minor" religions: Off with your enemies, hope for divine wrath upon the entire planet with complete obliteration of everyone (except the divine's favorites of course) and everything.

As for your last question, I think of some people during the testing of the first A-bomb at Trinity: "It's beautiful."

Not everyone is this way, of course; and the emphasis varies from sect to sect. Some religious movements are very peaceful and optimistic (though they're the minority). But too many people are, for my comfort. If they don't care about the quality of their own lives, it follows they don't give much of a damn about the world at large.

I don't think Mr. Benjamin's comments were reaching nor alarmist.

--Cindy

noosfractal · 2005-10-20 03:14:39

*I don't consider this as part of "another subculture."

I probably would have argued this point before the recent resurgence. I'll still say that the hardcore hysterics are a minority.

Not sure about Judaism's stance on "End Times" scenarios.

Judaism and Christianity share the Old Testament - much of the apocalyptic flavor of Christianity comes from there (not to mention the patriarchalism). Of course, Judaism is still waiting for the Messiah to appear for the first time. I actually saw a Jewish bumper sticker the other day saying that the Messiah would appear soon (I know I'm not helping my case here).

The problem is pervasive and extensive.

There will always be hysterics and there will always be those who take advantage of them. Parts of the memetic ecosystem - at worst a disease to be fought - not a defining characteristic of humanity.

As for your last question, I think of some people during the testing of the first A-bomb at Trinity: "It's beautiful."

I think they meant awe-full. But were they seeing Dionysius or Apollo?

Not everyone is this way, of course ... But too many people are, for my comfort.

There I'll join you, but in truth, comfort is ever-fleeting.

I don't think Mr. Benjamin's comments were reaching nor alarmist.

Sounds like you're predicting the end of the world

.

Palomar · 2005-10-20 04:37:16

I don't think Mr. Benjamin's comments were reaching nor alarmist.
Sounds like you're predicting the end of the world

*Nope. Just hoping a bunch of people don't take us into a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own making. I don't want the world to end; they do.

Can't deal with a disease if you don't first make a diagnosis and then prescribe a cure.

--Cindy

noosfractal · 2005-10-20 05:23:38

Just hoping a bunch of people don't take us into a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own making. I don't want the world to end; they do.
Can't deal with a disease if you don't first make a diagnosis and then prescribe a cure.

What shall be our cure? A tax on apocalypse worship? Mandatory re-education seminars? Neuropharmaceuticals? Stern frowns? Perhaps brightly colored advertisements featuring impossibly white teeth and the slogan: "Immanentization of the eschaton makes you smell bad." We could set up a registry so that neighbors could be notified of the offender's beliefs. Maybe we could get a clock like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?

.

Palomar · 2005-10-20 05:40:09

Just hoping a bunch of people don't take us into a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own making. I don't want the world to end; they do.
Can't deal with a disease if you don't first make a diagnosis and then prescribe a cure.
What shall be our cure? A tax on apocalypse worship? Mandatory re-education seminars? Neuropharmaceuticals? Stern frowns? Perhaps brightly colored advertisements featuring impossibly white teeth and the slogan: "Immanentization of the eschaton makes you smell bad." We could set up a registry so that neighbors could be notified of the offender's beliefs. Maybe we could get a clock like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?
.

*Science and reason.

--Cindy

noosfractal · 2005-10-20 14:24:28

*Science and reason.

Hear, hear.

.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-18 13:07:21

So we should say -- and I should like to say -- that there is a terrible demon in man that blindfolds him, the prepares for awful destruction; and it would be much better if we had a temple for the god of war where now, for instance, with all this trouble in Europe, we could say: 'The god of war is restless; we must propitiate him. Let us sacrifice to the god of war.'
And then every country would be going to the temples of the war god to sacrifice something precious. They might burn up a lot of ammunition or destroy cannons for the god of war. That would help.
To say that it is not we who want it would help because man could then believe in his goodness. For if you have to admit that you are doing just what you say you are not doing, you are not only a liar but a devil -- and then where is the self-esteem of man? How can he hope for a better future? We can never become anything else because we are caught in that contradiction: on the one side we want to do good and on the other we are doing the worst. How can man develop? He is forever caught in that dilemma. So you had better acknowledge evil -- what you call it doesn't matter. If there were priests who said the god of war must be propitiated, there would be a way of protecting yourself. But of course there are no such things, so we must admit that WE prepare the war, that WE are just thirsty for blood...

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-19 14:23:27

People fight for one of two reasons, either they have something to gain, or something to lose. If someone attacks and someone defends, it is useless to convince the defender to give up his warlike ways. That's the reasoning behind the Patrick Henry Quotation. Alot of 60's type people will say, "War is bad ergo armies are bad, so therefore if your don't like war, don't prepare for war."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-07-20 09:12:18

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#2 2005-07-20 10:03:47

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#3 2005-07-20 13:09:40

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#4 2005-07-20 13:41:41

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#5 2005-07-20 13:55:55

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#6 2005-07-20 14:18:46

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#7 2005-07-20 15:15:54

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#8 2005-07-20 16:07:47

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#9 2005-07-20 17:09:04

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#10 2005-09-11 20:33:57

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#11 2005-10-18 03:22:04

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#12 2005-10-18 14:58:28

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#13 2005-10-19 04:43:16

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#14 2005-10-19 07:28:09

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#15 2005-10-20 03:14:39

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#16 2005-10-20 04:37:16

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#17 2005-10-20 05:23:38

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#18 2005-10-20 05:40:09

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#19 2005-10-20 14:24:28

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#20 2006-10-18 13:07:21

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

#21 2006-10-19 14:23:27

Re: Propitiation to the God of War

Board footer