Jump to content

Homosexuality And The Progressive Christian


Recommended Posts

So, while abortion has no Biblical support...

 

George,

Maybe not directly but let's look at this through a few scriptures. Let's start by clarifying what a pregnant woman is carrying. Isaiah 7;14, prophesying Mary being with child, Jesus. Since prophecy, by definition, indicates a future event, it can be inferred that a pregnant woman is carrying a child from moment of conception. Should we not protect the unborn child with as much zeal as a child walking this earth?

 

Now, on to Psalm 139:13-16. God foreknew everyone before they were even conceived, according to the Psalmist. So, if you believe God is our creator, why would one want to destroy the life which God creates?

 

Now, before you consider throwing miscarriage into the mix, know that our finite minds have no idea why some things occur. The most intriguing question is if God created the unborn child, why do miscarriages occur? I could not tell you but I don't pretend to know the answer and I am unwilling to make assumptions, suppositions or conjecture on this subject. God is God and I leave it at that.

 

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I recently served as pastor in a Ucc church and we hung on our outside wall a banner which stated, "We believe God loves all people. ( a rainbow flag was placed under the statement.) In the two years

Hello, my new friends.   Let's get started.   I'd very much like to know the thoughts of 'progressive' Christians on the subject of homosexuality.   respectfully,   Kath

Thanks for your reply Grampa~   I'm glad to hear of your church. I'm not gay but I am a supporter of gay rights. Being a Presbyterian church, I wonder how they preach the bible and avoid the whole "

George,

Maybe not directly but let's look at this through a few scriptures. Let's start by clarifying what a pregnant woman is carrying. Isaiah 7;14, prophesying Mary being with child, Jesus. Since prophecy, by definition, indicates a future event, it can be inferred that a pregnant woman is carrying a child from moment of conception. Should we not protect the unborn child with as much zeal as a child walking this earth?

First of all, Isaiah 7 was not a prophecy about the Virgin Mary but it was a prediction given to King Ahaz about his child. Second of all, the entire virgin birth myth was based on a mistranslation of the Isaiah prophecy. Matthew based his reading on the Greek translation of the OT and so he mistranslated "young woman" as "virgin" and the whole virgin birth is based around this mistranslation. You're essentially trying to argue that abortion is murder because Mary would have murdered Jesus if she had an abortion and the messiah never would have been born. Even if Mary did have an abortion, the notion that God couldn't have found some other way to bring the messiah into the world is just silly and is putting limits on the power of God and this is just an argument from emotional appeal.

 

Now, on to Psalm 139:13-16. God foreknew everyone before they were even conceived, according to the Psalmist. So, if you believe God is our creator, why would one want to destroy the life which God creates?
So why did God drown all the babies in the world in the flood and why did he murder all the first born babies in Egypt?
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Isaiah 7 was not a prophecy about the Virgin Mary but it was a prediction given to King Ahaz about his child. Second of all, the entire virgin birth myth was based on a mistranslation of the Isaiah prophecy. Matthew based his reading on the Greek translation of the OT and so he mistranslated "young woman" as "virgin" and the whole virgin

 

To get a deeper understanding of Isaiah 7:14, this is a good read:

 

http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/immanuel.htm

 

While I don't agree with the explanation that Jesus is a mere man, the rest of it explains the relation between Isaiah 7:14 and Matt 1:23 as well as other NT verses that speaking of Jesus' conception and birth.

 

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get a deeper understanding of Isaiah 7:14....

 

 

The Hebrew word generally translated by Christian interpreters as 'virgin' does not mean 'virgin' but rather merely 'young woman'.

 

Virginity, to this day, is an important concept within Judaism as it has legal consequences, and so we are very careful not to bandy about terms. When a woman is a virgin, we use the word 'besulah' - virgin - and that's exactly what we mean.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hebrew word generally translated by Christian interpreters as 'virgin' does not mean 'virgin' but rather merely 'young woman'.

 

Virginity, to this day, is an important concept within Judaism as it has legal consequences, and so we are very careful not to bandy about terms. When a woman is a virgin, we use the word 'besulah' - virgin - and that's exactly what we mean.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

 

Yes, the word for virgin betulah is clear at Gen. 24:16, "The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin (betulah), whom no man had known . . ."

 

The word in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah. Isaiah was talking about a young woman and expressing no opinion on whether she had "known a man." If it was important, he would have said so using betulah.

 

George

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does everyone think about Spong's gay manifesto? As much as I greatly respect Spong, I have to disagree with his suggestion that we should just stop debating this issue and pretend it's already been resolved. On the one hand, as a gay man, I can understand Spong's frustration with homophobic Christians who claim to be representing the love of Jesus and I think there are some people you just can't have a dialog with on this issue like the Phelps and David Bahati. On the flip side, I think there are many Christians who are good people with good intentions but are being misinformed by their churches on the issue of homosexuality and I think it would be a disservice to the church to cut off dialog with these people simply because we disagree on this issue. I'm a member of the message boards at the site GayChristian.net and I like the healthy balance they try to take on this issue. They have two sides on the issue about homosexuality that they label as "side A Christians" and "side B Christians." "Side A" Christians are Christians who believe homosexuality is approved of by God and that it's possible to be a Christian and be in a same-sex relationship while "side B" Christians are Christians who think homosexual acts are sinful but it's not sinful to be attracted to the same sex. They have a lot of members on both sides of the issue and they've had Christian guests on both sides of the issue on their podcast to foster a dialog of tolerance and acceptance within the church. The one side they won't accept as part of the dialog is the side that claims even thinking homosexual thoughts is a sin and lies about how homosexuality can be changed but I think this is a more productive dialog then Spong's suggestion. Do you think we should continue having dialog with Christians who think it's a sin but still want to have this dialog or should we just stop debating it like in Spong's manifesto?

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

Since you ask....My personal view is in agreement with Spong.

 

Debating it here specifically is to me "preaching to the choir" for the most part. I don't think many minds will be changed on the subject by debate.

 

I was a fundamentalist against homosexuality and my mind wasn't changed by debate on the subject of homosexuality. What did it for me was not having either side pushed on me or told what was true or not true biblically but fellowshipping with homosexuals as an equal member of humanity and finding that ones choice of lifestyle in those matters of those i was in contact with had no bearing on love and kindness shown to others. In fact it was my conclusion that those i met were far more considerate and sensitive and thoughtful in matters of heart than many of my straight friends. To me, that speaks louder than any words or the Bible.

 

You see, i don't need to know if one is gay or not. It is your own business. It simply makes no difference to me anymore. I guess you could say i can feel his frustration with homophobic. I want to move on as i'm sure Spong does.

 

Joseph

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand Bishop Spong's statement, and that it's pretty much the same thing I've come to myself on this matter.

 

When someone wants to bring it up and try to bait me into arguing it, my response has become along this line"

 

"You know, I'm 62 yrs old, so don't you know I've heard every so-called "biblical" argument and bible verse quite you might come up with, plus some even you probably don't know, at least 62,000 times in my life....and I have no doubt you've probably heard every counter-argument point I might bring up... you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.... so let's just not go there."

 

Jenell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I don't think you'll ever convert the hardcore believers but there is a subgroup of Christians who might believe homosexuality is a sin but could be converted to supporting LGBT rights like Philip Yancey and Tony Campalo who could help reach the evangelical community in a way that a hardcore liberal like Spong couldn't and we're missing out on all sorts of opportunities to build bridges if we just excommunicate everyone that doesn't agree with us on the moral aspect but might be an ally in the political aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I guess my real point is i don't think debate or more talk will build bridges. There comes a time where it has been talked to death. Kind of like the fundamental Christian message you hear from the fire and brimstone preachers. The message is old and everyone has pretty well heard it and some PC's like myself are weary of it. Like Janell, I would rather not go there. Rather, it seems to me less talk and debate and more actions of kindness and love will go further to persuade others that perhaps their view was wrong. And if not, so be it. it seemed to work for me.

 

Peace,

Joseph

 

PS. By now with 85 posts in this thread along with more in other threads the answer to THE question of the thread. by Kath. "I'd like to know how Progressive Christians feel about it" (Homosexualsity and the Progressive Christian), the answer IMO should be fairly clear.

POINT 4 - By calling ourselves progressive,we mean that we are Christians who invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (those of all sexual orientations and gender identities)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree as I think more talk about the issues will help build bridges and change people's views. One example is with my own mother. My mother was raised a fundamentalist Christian and she used to take the perspective that homosexuality was evil and that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that gays were part of a secret agenda to destroy Christianity. But recently my mother was watching the View and they were interviewing Lady Gaga and they were talking about Elton John being a gay father and showed clips of him with their baby. My mother was gushing over how adorable the baby was and then she said out of the blue that there was nothing wrong with gays wanting to get married and raise children. I think if we all just shut ourselves from the world and didn't ever discuss these issues with anyone then people like my mother would never get exposed to these kinds of ideas like tolerance and loving others and my mother might still have her old homophobic beliefs. The surveys all show that if you know a gay person, the less likely you are to be homophobic. This is why I think it's important for gays who are able to come out to come out and speak openly about these issues to let the world know we're just like everyone else, that there's nothing to be afraid of to change people's minds and hearts. If we don't fight these battles and share who we are with the world, who will? Nobody ever won a civil rights battle in an ivory tower. And for what it's worth, Rob Bell's new book Love Wins, which argues against the existence of hell, is number one on Amazon.com's list of top religion books, so apparently the debate over the existence of hell is still a hot topic (no pun intended) among Christians.

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I am inclined to agree with you. There are some whose mindset cannot be changed. But, there may be others who might be influenced by dialog and reason. I think, like most moral issues, we know down deep what is right and wrong, but sometimes need encouragement to do what is right and overcome our worst impulses.

 

In this particular forum, it is true that we would be largely preaching to the choir with a few exceptions who come here to challenge progressive Christianity and are unlikey to be persuaded by reason. But, I see no harm in pointing out the poverty of their position. And, I hate to see bigotry left unchallenged.

 

George

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, the explanation I provided here is the very one passed down from generation to generation, the very argument in effect even at the time of Jesus - and the only one Jesus would have been familiar with. I did not make this up, Doug. Also, please note that I am a Litvish rabbi - an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, not a liberal one: the explanation I provided is the most right-wing Jewish explanation on the books.

 

Remember, first of all: the OT is a Jewish work; Jewish culture and thinking are at work here. If we want to understand the original OT laws, we have to think like Jews, not as Christians.

 

Logically, given that the NT was not written at the time, we have to take the OT words alone as our basis for our initial argument as to what the 'original' laws were all about. Given that, we only know that men were forbidden to have sex with other men while women were not forbidden to have sex with other women.

 

If homosexuality were to be forbidden outright, we would have expected statements to be made regarding male and female homosexuality side by side, as the Bible states other laws, such as, "A man may not wear a woman's garments and a woman may not wear a man's garments."

 

Given no prohibition against female homosexuality, we must ask why the prohibition against male homosexuality? The prohibition must not have anything to do with homosexuality itself but rather something else. The obvious 'something else' is the spilling of seed: men spill (waste) their reproductive seed while engaging in homosexual relationships but women do not spill (waste) their seed during homosexual relationships.

 

At the time, it was believed that men had limited reproductive capacities, and that wasting semen was therefore quite wrong; a man who purposefully engaged in sexual behavior that could not possibly impregnate a woman was seen as purposefully ignoring G-d's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply'". On the other hand, women were believed to have unlimited reproductive powers, up until a certain age, and so it was thought that women could engage in sexual behaviors that did not lead to impregnation without defying the commandments.

 

Judaism is very concerned, even today, about keeping G-d's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. The Torah is quite explicit about the importance of not spilling seed: it is recorded that G-d took the lives of men who spilled their seed. It is quite logical that the law prohibiting male homosexual acts is all about just that - the prohibition against the spilling of seed - and, in deed, that is exactly the explanation of our Jewish Sages going back literally thousands of years.

 

I have explained the prohibition to you as Jesus and his followers would have understood it.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

 

Hi Reb Ben,

 

As I read your reply, Ezra.4:2 came to mind. It was also claimed then that the traditions of their worship had been handed down ever since the Assyrians had brought them to Samaria. So, are you saying that as an Ultra Orthodox Practisioner, the Scripture of 2Kgs. does or do not apply to your intrepretation of Torah?

 

"Doug, the explanation I provided here is the very one passed down from generation to generation, the very argument in effect even at the time of Jesus - and the only one Jesus would have been familiar with. I did not make this up, Doug."

 

I agree that Jesus was familiar with Torah, but I contend that he wasn't satisfied with the version marketed by the Pharisees or the source used by the seventy Jewish Scholars who created the Septuagint for Ptolemyll. According to Josephus, the former Israelite Allies of the Medo-Persians, residing in Palestine, were prohibited by their Rabbis from teaching their sons the despised Greek lauguage, saying;"It's better to let your sons eat the flesh swine than for them to learn and speak the language of the Greeks." As the history of the Septuagint is studied, the above revelation seems to cast a shadow of truth upon your allgegation that the Torah the Jewish scholars translated was indeed a Jewish work, stemming from the proselyte Jewish compilation of the one alluded to in 2Kgs.17:24-35, and the compilation the rejected descendants of those founding Proselyte Jews of 2Kgs. were still using at Ezra.4:2. I didn't make this up either Reb. It's why I included Chapter and verse to show the sources of this indoctrination.

As I delve into the history of the Judean emancipation from Babylon, there were Proselyte Jews that remained in Palestine, after Judah's captivity, per Ezra.4:2. Since the Moseic Torah had accompanied the Israelite Judeans into their captivity, what version was being used by the Jews that remained, their version that'd been handed down to them for the generations after the Assyrians had deposited them in Samaria? 2Kngs.17:24-35 again

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree as I think more talk about the issues will help build bridges and change people's views. One example is with my own mother.

 

As Joseph M said above this, "Rather, it seems to me less talk and debate and more actions of kindness and love will go further to persuade others that perhaps their view was wrong. And if not, so be it. it seemed to work for me."

 

Neon, I think the example you give of your mother is more an example of it being less talk and debate and more actions of kindness and love at work. Consider that your mother wasn't watching or listneing to talk and debate about homosexuality, or the right or wrong of it, but watching a personal story from the lives of a same-sex couple parenting a child.

 

As also noted, someone actually knowing or having a loved one that is homosexual are far less likely to be homophobic...it is much easier to condemn and hate those we csannot imagine being like ourselves in any way than to condemn and hate those we love and care about, those we have gotten to know, and therefore, have "humanized."

 

But I don't think talk and debate, arguing for or against, the right or wrong of it, and the basis for that opinion one way or the other, does anything to build bridges, and does a lot of increase antagonism. For good or ill, media in our society has tremendous power to influence and bring social change. The increasing openness to portrayal of homosexuals and same-serx couples as real people thaty can be kind and caring and "like us" (from perspetive of those negative to them) is so much more a powerful influence than mere talk and debate. All the talk and debate in the world probably wouldn't have brought about the adjustment you observed in your mother's views on the matter, but touching her heart and conscience by showing her an example of a loving same sex couple parenting a child, particularly an example showing someone she may have already admired, such as Elton John, in that capacity was effective.

 

Jenell

Link to post
Share on other sites

For demonstration of the comparative effectiveness of talk and debate VS more acts of kindness and caring, in this issue, I share this true story of someone I know.

 

Having met the parents of two brothers who were my son's friends, one of which is openly gay, I would never have suspected their religious background and the effect of their own son being gay on that.

 

The parent had been lifelong active participants in the fundamentalist Pentacostal commuunity. The father was a Pentecostal preacher and had pastored several Pentecostal congregations, and was in fact an active pastor at the time his son, in his teens, "came out" with his homosexual orientation.

 

I do not know all of what that family went through in that crisis, I've never asked and they do not talk about it. But the outcome was the family leaving the Pentecostal faith, and the father leaving religious ministry.

 

Now, as active in Pentcostalism, especially in the role of preacher/pastor, there was not likely any argument for acceptance of homosexuals that hadn't been heard a thousand times over, and rejected. This man PREACHED homophobia in a classically homophobic community!

 

It was love and kindness, for their son and what he was going through as he struggled to accept and openly confess his own homosexuality that turned the hearts of those parents.

 

Jenell

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the word for virgin betulah is clear at Gen. 24:16, "The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin (betulah), whom no man had known . . ."

 

The word in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah. Isaiah was talking about a young woman and expressing no opinion on whether she had "known a man." If it was important, he would have said so using betulah.

 

George

 

Exactly. 'Besulah' is the one word used in the Hebrew Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud to indicate virginity.

 

And, for those of you who might wonder, 'besulah' and 'betulah' are both correct transliterations of the same Hebrew word. The first transliteration reflects Ashkenaz pronunciation while the second reflects Modern Hebrew pronunciation. Same word.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. 'Besulah' is the one word used in the Hebrew Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud to indicate virginity.

 

And, for those of you who might wonder, 'besulah' and 'betulah' are both correct transliterations of the same Hebrew word. The first transliteration reflects Ashkenaz pronunciation while the second reflects Modern Hebrew pronunciation. Same word.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Rabbi,

 

Thanks again. I didn't realize that besulah was a variation of betulah. I had assumed a typo. I think the biblical Hebrew is the latter since it is written with tav.

 

To anyone who knows: What are the Greek words used in Isaiah (in the Septuagint) and in the Gospel stories? Are different Greek words used? If so, are the meanings different? I think it has been established that the Gospel writers referenced the Septuagint.

 

George

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does everyone think about Spong's gay manifesto? As much as I greatly respect Spong, I have to disagree with his suggestion that we should just stop debating this issue and pretend it's already been resolved. On the one hand, as a gay man, I can understand Spong's frustration with homophobic Christians who claim to be representing the love of Jesus and I think there are some people you just can't have a dialog with on this issue like the Phelps and David Bahati. On the flip side, I think there are many Christians who are good people with good intentions but are being misinformed by their churches on the issue of homosexuality and I think it would be a disservice to the church to cut off dialog with these people simply because we disagree on this issue. I'm a member of the message boards at the site GayChristian.net and I like the healthy balance they try to take on this issue. They have two sides on the issue about homosexuality that they label as "side A Christians" and "side B Christians." "Side A" Christians are Christians who believe homosexuality is approved of by God and that it's possible to be a Christian and be in a same-sex relationship while "side B" Christians are Christians who think homosexual acts are sinful but it's not sinful to be attracted to the same sex. They have a lot of members on both sides of the issue and they've had Christian guests on both sides of the issue on their podcast to foster a dialog of tolerance and acceptance within the church. The one side they won't accept as part of the dialog is the side that claims even thinking homosexual thoughts is a sin and lies about how homosexuality can be changed but I think this is a more productive dialog then Spong's suggestion. Do you think we should continue having dialog with Christians who think it's a sin but still want to have this dialog or should we just stop debating it like in Spong's manifesto?

 

Personally, I get tired of discussing the issue and would like to move on - not only because it's a non-issue for me but also because I have found that the vast majority of people who argue so vociferously against homosexuality are fundamentalists who are not going to change their minds based upon logical argument. I tire quickly of them, just as I would if forced to argue with a psychotic person who is determined to pronounce the sky green.

 

I agree with Joseph that most minds are changed not through argument but by getting to know gay people personally.

 

So, I guess I would favor simple, matter-of-fact statements from various faith groups - as part of their charters or whatever - affirming acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Let the vociferous naysayers go argue amongst themselves on an island somewhere.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Edited by Rabbi Benjamin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabbi,

 

Thanks again. I didn't realize that besulah was a variation of betulah. I had assumed a typo. I think the biblical Hebrew is the latter since it is written with tav.

 

To anyone who knows: What are the Greek words used in Isaiah (in the Septuagint) and in the Gospel stories? Are different Greek words used? If so, are the meanings different? I think it has been established that the Gospel writers referenced the Septuagint.

 

George

 

Ashkenaz Jews always say 'besulah' but if the word in the Biblical text is pointed as a 'tav' they will layn it (chant it from a kosher scroll) as 'betulah'.

 

Oh, how I wish I knew Greek so as to be able to discuss those words with you, too.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virginity, to this day, is an important concept within Judaism as it has legal consequences, and so we are very careful not to bandy about terms. When a woman is a virgin, we use the word 'besulah' - virgin - and that's exactly what we mean.

 

Dearest Rabbi,

I don't disagree with your statement above. Bottom line here is a direct vs indirect interpretation of virgin. Ok, so what if the correct translation is "young woman"? Did not Mary say to the angel Gabriel "How can this be as I have not known a man?" That is about as direct confirmation of her virginity without actually using the word. It doesn't change a thing scripturally.

 

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished God and Sex by Michael Coogan. It was published last year. In it, I think he comments on all of the topics discussed on this thread. One of those is the Romans 1 passage that many claim "proves" that homosexuality is condemned by God. Coogan makes many of the same observations that Spong made in The Sins of Scripture to refute this claim.

 

As to talk vs. action: The Presbyterian Church USA has now made it possible for LGBT candidates for the ministry to be ordained. In that, it joins various Congregational, Lutheran, and Episcopal denominations. Because of the emphasis on participation of clergy and lay representatives at all levels (local, regional and national) in the Presbyterian decision-making process, getting to this point required a lot of talk. But I suspect that, more than that, it was the result of people's minds being changed by first-hand encounters with LGBT people in their churches and elsewhere. So I am reluctant to "let go" of the topic.

Edited by grampawombat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished God and Sex by Michael Coogan. It was published last year. In it, I think he comments on all of the topics discussed on this thread. One of those is the Romans 1 passage that many claim "proves" that homosexuality is condemned by God. Coogan makes many of the same observations that Spong made in The Sins of Scripture to refute this claim.

 

As to talk vs. action: The Presbyterian Church USA has now made it possible for LGBT candidates for the ministry to be ordained. In that, it joins various Congregational, Lutheran, and Episcopal denominations. Because of the emphasis on participation of clergy and lay representatives at all levels (local, regional and national) in the Presbyterian decision-making process, getting to this point required a lot of talk. But I suspect that, more than that, it was the result of people's minds being changed by first-hand encounters with LGBT people in their churches and elsewhere. So I am reluctant to "let go" of the topic.

 

Also an interesting resource:

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html

 

In Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), John Boswell makes a similar argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Hello, my new friends.

 

Let's get started.

 

I'd very much like to know the thoughts of 'progressive' Christians on the subject of homosexuality.

 

respectfully,

 

Kath

Please see Point # 4 of the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the question that I have been 'dealing' with for quite some time: If we are to accept homosexuality because they are also Gods children and sexuality is not a choice we are born homosexual or straight, then couldn't pedophiles use this same argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could use that argument if they wished but i for one would not accept it as valid and it is my understanding that the intent of point 4 is not inclusive of such.

Joseph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service