-
Community Question: What first drew you to pro cycling?
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 14
- 17,510
Here you might want to look up the Joachimist apochalyptic viewpoint and its views on the "innocent society" as predicted by the sixth aetas, as requisite for the Second Coming and great End, during the initial European discovery of New World America. Evidently Columbus was guided by such "typology," "eschatology," "millennium," and "prophetic" arcana. Evangelical regeneration has had a clockwork periodicity in Christian history. Pauline theology, as we have seen in our previous discussion, programs self-overcoming, or movement beyond the individual and communal here-and-now, into the course of history's unfolding. Starting with the third century, reformation becomes a concomitant of renovation and the degree of zeal with which renovation is undertaken differentiates often the orthodox from the heretical. Renewal's enthusiasm may well be the most common element that binds heterodox impulses with the orthodox mainstream. It is the commonality that would bring, for example, Cardinal Ximénez de Cisneros, Spain's patron of the late fifteenth-, early sixteenth-century Catholic Reformation, face-to-face with such radical eschatologists as Charles de Bovalles. The cardinal and royal confessor—and zealous, some might say fanatical, crusader of Granada—of course, was also the avid promoter at court of Christopher Columbus, that other apocalyptic enthusiast who obsessively prophesied more than one kind of New World and Golden Age via the cosmogonic imagism of Pierre d'Ailly, the prophetic mirror of Joachim of Fiore, and the spiritual order this Calabrian's legacy spawned throughout the Middle Ages. The renovatio mundi about which Marselio Ficino wrote to his friend Paul of Middelburg in 1492 proclaiming the arrival of the Age of Gold has something inescapably suggestive in its timing for students of the American New World, though those resonances may well have been outside Ficino's Platonist humanism at the threshold of the Renaissance. See Pinturicchio's Resurrection fresco with Pope Borgia in it at the Vatican. Natives being conducted to the true religion, etc., at least that is what the recent restoration has brought to light.Echoes said:
At any rate there was nothing "secular" about it, or, as regards the so-called Founding Fathers, a substrata of anti-Enlightenment (while claiming to be guided by the new rationalism) was at the core of their masonic quest for world dominion. And they were deists. History still needs to be re-written.
- Aug 4, 2011
- 3,647
- 0
- 0
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,000
- 419
- 18,580
9:5: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambushEchoes said:
9:29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
9:23: O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.
I have to add, though, that I looked at some of the passages Foxxy listed, and a great many of them don't support his case at all, really aren't concerned with killing, e.g.:
3:54: And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.
5:51: O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.
8:55: Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe –
10:64: For them are good tidings in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. No change is there in the words of Allah . That is what is the great attainment.
I don't disagree with Foxxy that there are many passages in the Koran that are evidence of barbarism, I'm just not sure how he came up with many that are on his list.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,530
- 0
- 0
Fine.Merckx index said:
Because I picked suras randomly. May some are not clear cut to see how bad this book of evil is. Please remember I just wanted to give an over-view, not only about barbarism.Merckx index said:
Here is one of my "favo" (sarcasm alert!) suras about women*:
Sura 4, vers 34
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
(* It´s beyond me and every person with a common sense and love for freedom, that women (especially those I call "Femi-Nazis") would demonstrate against Pegida, but keep their mouthes shut against the quran. I don´t get it. I really don´t.)
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,530
- 0
- 0
P.S.: I am not the expert for the peaceful and friendly islam. Plus, visualizations speak more than 1.000 words.
So let the expert speak about sura 4, vers 34... And in honour of the great islam, there is a "beating etiquette". Could be worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ&feature=youtu.be&t=26s
... hope ya all enjoyed it (sarcasm alert!)
So let the expert speak about sura 4, vers 34... And in honour of the great islam, there is a "beating etiquette". Could be worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ&feature=youtu.be&t=26s
... hope ya all enjoyed it (sarcasm alert!)
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,026
- 0
- 0
OK I give, clearly you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Have fun out there, little storm trooper.FoxxyBrown1111 said:
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,026
- 0
- 0
The French Resistance in 1940 was predominantly Catholic and monarchist. Whether that statement creates sarcasm is pretty irrelevant to me, what matters to me is truth.
Israeli historian Simon Epstein published two books to suggest that the collaboration with the Nazis in France rather comes from the Left and the resistance or the Gaullist combat forces were conservative Catholics in their majority, even from the far-right Cagoule movement.
The first resistance movement were the "Réseau Martial" founded by Paul Dungler, an Alsacian monarchist and the "Réseau Notre-Dame" (the name itself suggests it's a Catholic movement) founded by Louis Labardonnie and the Colonel Remy, Catholics and monarchists from the Action française, Remy: a future Gaullist.
The first Resistance meeting happened in mid-July 1940 at the home of Paul Armbruster, journalist who had worked for the Action française. There were Dungler, Labardonnie, Jean Eschbach (Réseau Ajax), Gaston Pailloux, abbé Louis de Dartein, all monarchists. Dartein was the future chaplain of the Naval forces of the Free French Troops.
One of the leading resistance network Combat (formerly Mouvement de libération nationale) was founded by Henri Frenay, a Catholic and somewhat monarchist and by his wife Berty Albrechts, a Protestant nurse. The network had a majority of right-wing and even far-right members.
I can also name Edmond Michelet, Luc Robet (a devouted Catholic and viscerally anti-Republican), Daniel Cordier (future Gaullist and secretary of Jean Moulin), the Duke of Choiseul-Praslin. I can name Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma, who joined the Maquis after Dunkirk and was arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau, etc.
Examples are numerous, can but name a few. The left-wing Republicans were a minority there, while the atheistic Communists only popped up after Barbarossa as is now common knowledge. The resistants of the first hour were predominantly Monarchists and Catholics. There's no question about it.
On the other hand, those who advocated for collaboration with the Nazis were predominantly left-wingers, secularists or atheists. Pierre Laval is the most famous example of that. But Epstein brings up some never-ending lists of left-wing collaborationists. Never-ending! Déat, Doriot, Pucheu, Drieu la Rochelle, perfect examples of that too.
An atheist once told me: "I'd rather be a coward than a dead man." Food for thought!
And in order to drive the point home, I can add to it that the first to join General De Gaulle in London were also Catholic, conservative and Monarchists.
Philippe Leclerc is the most famous example of them. But Pierre Messmer, René Pleven, Honoré d'Estienne d'Orves (went on a mission in France and arrested by the Gestapo), Stanislas Mangin (son of the WWI hero), Claude Hettier de Boislambert, etc. De Gaulle himself was a monarchist at that time and a reader of the Action française.
The case is even closed for me. As long as the Left keeps ignoring that fact they won't be credible.
Israeli historian Simon Epstein published two books to suggest that the collaboration with the Nazis in France rather comes from the Left and the resistance or the Gaullist combat forces were conservative Catholics in their majority, even from the far-right Cagoule movement.
The first resistance movement were the "Réseau Martial" founded by Paul Dungler, an Alsacian monarchist and the "Réseau Notre-Dame" (the name itself suggests it's a Catholic movement) founded by Louis Labardonnie and the Colonel Remy, Catholics and monarchists from the Action française, Remy: a future Gaullist.
The first Resistance meeting happened in mid-July 1940 at the home of Paul Armbruster, journalist who had worked for the Action française. There were Dungler, Labardonnie, Jean Eschbach (Réseau Ajax), Gaston Pailloux, abbé Louis de Dartein, all monarchists. Dartein was the future chaplain of the Naval forces of the Free French Troops.
One of the leading resistance network Combat (formerly Mouvement de libération nationale) was founded by Henri Frenay, a Catholic and somewhat monarchist and by his wife Berty Albrechts, a Protestant nurse. The network had a majority of right-wing and even far-right members.
I can also name Edmond Michelet, Luc Robet (a devouted Catholic and viscerally anti-Republican), Daniel Cordier (future Gaullist and secretary of Jean Moulin), the Duke of Choiseul-Praslin. I can name Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma, who joined the Maquis after Dunkirk and was arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau, etc.
Examples are numerous, can but name a few. The left-wing Republicans were a minority there, while the atheistic Communists only popped up after Barbarossa as is now common knowledge. The resistants of the first hour were predominantly Monarchists and Catholics. There's no question about it.
On the other hand, those who advocated for collaboration with the Nazis were predominantly left-wingers, secularists or atheists. Pierre Laval is the most famous example of that. But Epstein brings up some never-ending lists of left-wing collaborationists. Never-ending! Déat, Doriot, Pucheu, Drieu la Rochelle, perfect examples of that too.
An atheist once told me: "I'd rather be a coward than a dead man." Food for thought!
And in order to drive the point home, I can add to it that the first to join General De Gaulle in London were also Catholic, conservative and Monarchists.
Philippe Leclerc is the most famous example of them. But Pierre Messmer, René Pleven, Honoré d'Estienne d'Orves (went on a mission in France and arrested by the Gestapo), Stanislas Mangin (son of the WWI hero), Claude Hettier de Boislambert, etc. De Gaulle himself was a monarchist at that time and a reader of the Action française.
The case is even closed for me. As long as the Left keeps ignoring that fact they won't be credible.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,935
- 52
- 22,580
Since when is that a legitimate argument?Hugh Januss said:
Why not extend it to god itself? Most of the world believes in god therefore he must be real too. Because if the rest of the world believes something then the minority who doesn't must automatically be wrong.
Right?
- Oct 23, 2011
- 3,846
- 0
- 0
People have been killing each other for thousands of years for all sorts of things, religious or not. And they've used all sorts of excuses for their warmongering, religions not being excepted. If anything, it is a testimony to the depravity of human nature, not to religion being evil.FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Wait, did I say that anywhere? I know that there are plenty of dangerous tendencies in some Islamic movements. I know personally Muslims who converted to Christianity while studying in Europe and are afraid to go back because the law of their country would have them receive capital punishment. Even in the West I know Muslims who have been kicked out of the family or even threatened by their family when they converted to Christianity. I'm not naive, I'm well aware that there are plenty of dangers in this area.FoxxyBrown1111 said:Good for you coming to the conclusion that the islam is a peaceful religion after reading two suras and twiswting it to your liking.
The difference between you and me is that I don't think this warrants insulting and antagonizing an entire religion. I also know Muslims who are very friendly, well integrated and contribute positively to society. I also know that there are Muslim countries where Christians and other non-Muslims can live in relative peace. Your problem is with certain forms of Islam, not with Islam as a whole.
By the way about those Sura's. I wasn't twisting anything. I told you I looked at the tafsir. Do you even know what tafsir is? If you don't, please stop posting about the Islam and do your homework first. I didn't actually took the liberty of interpreting the text; I simply looked up the standard quasi-authoritative interpretation of the Muslims themselves and they interpret it to apply to self-defense. If you don't know how the Koran and Muslim thought works, then don't bother trying to use it to accuse them, because it only shows your ignorance.
By the way, I'm sure you can dig up some uglier texts in the Koran, but after the first two it was clear to me that you didn't really study it and therefore your list was most likely pretty useless and I decided to stop wasting my time.
Hitchens was not one who could be pigeonholed into one ideology or another. I completely disagreed with his stance on Iraq, but that's not what we're talking about here. Using it as an attempt to discredit his work on religion is weak.Echoes said:"To be involved in this (Iraq War), frankly, just makes me happy."
Do you, folks, even beware of whom you are quoting? It's appalling.
I'm sorry if that statement offends you but the facts support it. Yes, religion has done some good things in terms of helping the poor and such, but the bad far outweighs the good. In fact, I would argue that 3rd world countries would be infinitely better off had they never heard of religion.Jspear said:
What is the historical context for Surah 9 - At-Tawbah? It's easy to take a quote out of its context. You can make it say what you want then. But it's pretty dishonest, I must say.
The context is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (628 or 6 AH). Before that Treaty the Muslims were already often persecuted by the other Meccans but the Treaty affirmed peace, .. for two years. In 630 the Banu Bakr tribe (allied with the Quraish - the Pagans) attacked the Khuza'a (allied with the Muslims) and the Quraish's supported them. They had just gone back on their words from the Treaty. They were at fault. Hence that order. The whole thing is of course explained in the Koran. It stands clear that the order is circumstantial. The Muslims did not kill the Pagans because they believed in idols or so, they did because they had broken their commitments.
On the other hand, the Surat Al-Baqarah (2nd one): 256 clearly states:
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
There shall be no compulsion in religion! It's primary school level in Islam. It's unequivocally written, black on white in the Koran. So every kid raised in the Islamic culture knows that and has internalised it.
Those who claim otherwise are liars and are doing a dirty job at a moment when society is pretty much diversified and the slightest spark may create a civil war.
Also Surat 16 (I-nahl) says:
Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
Again, discuss with non-Muslim in ways that are most gracious. Some translations use the word "courtesy" ("with courtesy"). This again makes it clear that Muslims have to respect non-Muslims whatever their beliefs. Those who claim otherwise lie.
And I also wish to remind fellow Christians of this verse (Al Maidah 82):
You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah [the Pagans] ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.
So please, don't fall into the Religious War trap that some are leading us to. Let us be wise and not put oil on fire.
----------
There has never been any genocide on the South American Continent (the Caraibeans are a different story), go figures. The Conquistadores had to cope with decadent Empires (Mayas, Incas, Azteques), which practiced human sacrifices on a wide scale, as Mel Gibson's film Apocalypto showed.
Under such circumstances, the Christian religion was a liberation for millions of Amerindians.
Ficino was a modern philosopher, influencing Descartes, whose work the Church constantly warned against and of course condemned. He was not Christian by any means!
"Man measures heaven and earth. [...] Who could deny that he almost has the same genius as the creator of these skies and that in some way he could create them, himself. Man will endeavour to command everywhere. He will endeavour to be as God, everywhere."
This sounds like crypto-atheism to me.
The Founding Fathers of the USA might have been deists but believed there existed a God that was reduced to an empty shell and that no longer commanded anything. So if George Washington wished to have hundreds of slaves, nothing could stop him. If Andrew Jackson wished to massacre the Indians, nothing could stop him. They are in the same category as atheists, for me.
There are three pillars in Freemasonry: nominalism (there's not one truth but several of them), naturalism (rejection of any revealed religion) and the primacy of man (Man is his own master). So Freemasonry is secularism. Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc were secularists and not Christians/Protestants.
The context is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (628 or 6 AH). Before that Treaty the Muslims were already often persecuted by the other Meccans but the Treaty affirmed peace, .. for two years. In 630 the Banu Bakr tribe (allied with the Quraish - the Pagans) attacked the Khuza'a (allied with the Muslims) and the Quraish's supported them. They had just gone back on their words from the Treaty. They were at fault. Hence that order. The whole thing is of course explained in the Koran. It stands clear that the order is circumstantial. The Muslims did not kill the Pagans because they believed in idols or so, they did because they had broken their commitments.
On the other hand, the Surat Al-Baqarah (2nd one): 256 clearly states:
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
There shall be no compulsion in religion! It's primary school level in Islam. It's unequivocally written, black on white in the Koran. So every kid raised in the Islamic culture knows that and has internalised it.
Those who claim otherwise are liars and are doing a dirty job at a moment when society is pretty much diversified and the slightest spark may create a civil war.
Also Surat 16 (I-nahl) says:
Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
Again, discuss with non-Muslim in ways that are most gracious. Some translations use the word "courtesy" ("with courtesy"). This again makes it clear that Muslims have to respect non-Muslims whatever their beliefs. Those who claim otherwise lie.
And I also wish to remind fellow Christians of this verse (Al Maidah 82):
You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah [the Pagans] ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.
So please, don't fall into the Religious War trap that some are leading us to. Let us be wise and not put oil on fire.
----------
There has never been any genocide on the South American Continent (the Caraibeans are a different story), go figures. The Conquistadores had to cope with decadent Empires (Mayas, Incas, Azteques), which practiced human sacrifices on a wide scale, as Mel Gibson's film Apocalypto showed.
Under such circumstances, the Christian religion was a liberation for millions of Amerindians.
Ficino was a modern philosopher, influencing Descartes, whose work the Church constantly warned against and of course condemned. He was not Christian by any means!
"Man measures heaven and earth. [...] Who could deny that he almost has the same genius as the creator of these skies and that in some way he could create them, himself. Man will endeavour to command everywhere. He will endeavour to be as God, everywhere."
This sounds like crypto-atheism to me.
The Founding Fathers of the USA might have been deists but believed there existed a God that was reduced to an empty shell and that no longer commanded anything. So if George Washington wished to have hundreds of slaves, nothing could stop him. If Andrew Jackson wished to massacre the Indians, nothing could stop him. They are in the same category as atheists, for me.
There are three pillars in Freemasonry: nominalism (there's not one truth but several of them), naturalism (rejection of any revealed religion) and the primacy of man (Man is his own master). So Freemasonry is secularism. Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc were secularists and not Christians/Protestants.
It does discredit him totally. I'd never use a warmongerer as intellectual reference whatever he otherwise says. At least, some here openly admitted that they advocated for this dirty war...Tom T. said:
Besides, he worked for Vanity Fair. Doesn't discredit him? One of the crappest tabloids one can think of, owned by one of the biggest Jewish business magnates in America: Si Newhouse. Oh the book that you seem to be love was published by the Lagardère Group. The publisher decided over the title, apparently. Whocan trust an author writing for Lagardère?
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,530
- 0
- 0
Would you guys ever believe I´d defend or agree with a Femi-Nazi? OFC you wouldn´t as you know me...
But here we go, the unthinkable happened, I 100% agree with the worst of them all: Alice Schwarzer of Germany.
She is one of the few speaking out against the islam religion, and hammers home some hard truth into german political corrected brainwashed heads:
"A Cologne police officer recently told me seventy or eighty percent of the rapes were committed by Turks in Cologne*. I (Alice Schwarzer) asked him: Why did not you say that so that we can go to the root of the problem? He (police officer) replied: We are not allowed to say so Mrs. Schwarzer, this counts as racism."
The whole interview:
http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/ich-bin-es-leid-eine-frau-zu-sein-264727
Use google translator, it´s working ok to understand her points in general ...
* Important info: Yet "only" 15% of the population in Cologne are Turks (1), of whom at least 96 % are moslems (2)
Great friendly and peaceful religion, this islam.
(1) Link:http://www.stadt-koeln.de/mediaasset/content/pdf15/koeln_in_zahlen_-_einwohner_2011.pdf
(2) Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion
But here we go, the unthinkable happened, I 100% agree with the worst of them all: Alice Schwarzer of Germany.
She is one of the few speaking out against the islam religion, and hammers home some hard truth into german political corrected brainwashed heads:
"A Cologne police officer recently told me seventy or eighty percent of the rapes were committed by Turks in Cologne*. I (Alice Schwarzer) asked him: Why did not you say that so that we can go to the root of the problem? He (police officer) replied: We are not allowed to say so Mrs. Schwarzer, this counts as racism."
The whole interview:
http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/ich-bin-es-leid-eine-frau-zu-sein-264727
Use google translator, it´s working ok to understand her points in general ...
* Important info: Yet "only"
15% of the population in Cologne are Turks (1), of whom at least 96 % are moslems (2)Great friendly and peaceful religion, this islam.
(1) Link:http://www.stadt-koeln.de/mediaasset/content/pdf15/koeln_in_zahlen_-_einwohner_2011.pdf
(2) Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,026
- 0
- 0
- Feb 23, 2014
- 8,500
- 1
- 12,485
Evils have been done in the name of religion. I would never defend what they did. I would call them out on it. If they followed the bible at all they would never have done what they did. 3rd world countries have benefited from Christianity specifically and are better off with it (as is any society.) The bad you see that "outweighs" the good is because they weren't/aren't following what scripture tells us to do. The problem isn't religion but people who misinterpret and abuse.Tom T. said:
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,026
- 0
- 0
Organized Religion is really nothing more than a tool for those in power to keep the peasants under control and to send them off to fight wars for more power and/or territory. The Crusades, 100 virgins, "no atheists in foxholes" and on and on. Society would certainly be the better for it if no organized religion existed.Jspear said:
We won't agree on anything, obviously, but I have a couple questions for you. Do you think it's possible to lead a good, decent and moral life without believing in god and practicing a religion? Do you think that not following scripture automatically leads to doing bad things?Jspear said:
- Feb 23, 2014
- 8,500
- 1
- 12,485
Yes I think people can live good, decent, and moral lives without being a christian. I don't believe myself to be morally better than anyone on this form...at least I'm hoping there aren't any murders around.Tom T. said:
I believe EVERY single human on the planet is a sinner and so in need of a Savior (in this sense I don't think anyone is "good.") We all do things that are not pleasing to God. So being a Christian doesn't stop us from sinning per se. You simply realize that you are a sinner, repent and trust in Jesus alone - that He can forgive you and make you right with God, and live in accordance with what He tell us in His Word. If you are a born again believer you will start to hate sin more and more and want to love God and your neighbors more and more. Not reading the scriptures doesn't automatically lead to doing bad things. Most people won't murder or rape someone regardless of their spiritual condition. But - I would argue that without the Bible you cannot have a set standard of morality. IF a christian truly follows the bible they won't covet, lie, steal, commit adultury, ect. as much. We still sin, but if our hearts have changed then we will repent, and continue following God. A non believer will be more prone to committing certain sins without it bothering their consciences. Hypothetically if there was a person who could perfectly follow Christ and His Word, than yes he would be better than any other person on the planet. But no one does follow the bible perfectly...we sin and mess up. I think this is one of the reasons why non believers criticize Christianity so much - because they look at the actions of people who say they believe in God and say "well then I don't want to follow that."
No I'm not some holier than thou type person...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 50K
-
Effects of coronavirus on professional races
- Started by Sestriere
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 3K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 15K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram