Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CrimsonLine

Sexuality and Christian belief (Was: Homosexuality and the Bible)

Recommended Posts

Ken,

I cheerfully defer to your expertise in this area, with the aside that, from my limited reading, it looks to me as if the rap I laid on reader-response theory, while disputed by reader response critics, may not be merely a popular misunderstanding, but a point of contention between formalist or text-based critics and reader-response critics, whom I suppose would lodge their objections in more precise and critical language than I have done.

That said, it wasn't my intention to open a critical can of worms, nor is the reader-response reference essential to the point I was making.

P.S. Ken, I trust you have no issue with how I used the term "straw man," above. smile.png

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken,

I cheerfully defer to your expertise in this area, with the aside that, from my limited reading, it looks to me as if the rap I laid on reader-response theory, while disputed by reader response critics, may not be merely a popular misunderstanding, but a point of contention between formalist or text-based critics and reader-response critics, whom I suppose would lodge their objections in more precise and critical language than I have done.

Perhaps some early critics of early reader-response critics. Though, I don't know how many would persist in that/those characterizations. One of the things I admire about (some) reader-response critics (Stanley Fish, particularly) was their willingness to take some early criticisms to heart and modulate, moderate, or further explain their ideas...to adapt in the face of criticism rather than simply deflect or deny it. In that sense, the formalist critics who persisted in raising or renewing the characterization would, I think, be called (and actually be) out of date. It would be like someone issuing a blanket characterization of psychoanalysis Lacanian literary analysis or behaviorialist therapy based on a reduction of Freud's theories of pyschosexual develompment. But with theory you can't keep up with every development in every critical pathway, particularly if it is not yours.)

P.S. Ken, I trust you have no issue with how I used the term "straw man," above. smile.png

None, though it may amuse you to know I had a dream last night (and I rarely [as in once every few years]) remember my dreams), in which you responded to that post by cross-posting an example where I had said I was going to go "all reader-response" on some post. Make of that what you will! (My take home is that my id was wanting to go back and delete all my posts but my superego said that violated socially prescribed rules and was thus taboo; I therefore had a repressed fear that I was contradicting myself that manifested itself in the dream with getting caught in on record giving the wrong definition...every teacher's nightmare.)

Edit: And yes, I just admitted to having a dream about Steven Greydanus in a thread about homosexuality and the Bible...bed.gifwhistling2.gif

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Catholic exegesis, the various non-primary or spiritual senses of scripture (allegorical/typological, tropological/moral, anagogical/eschatological) are all predicated on the primary sense, which is the sense intended by the human author to be understood by his audience within the context of their shared symbolic world.

Just a curious aside...I seem to recall that in the Gospels, many of the OT verses quoted as prophetic references to Jesus were often actually not even necessarily references to a Messiah in their original context. So, the idea of meaning and intent changing based on the culture viewing them seems kind of...well, traditional. Adherring strictly to authors original intent seems like a standard imposed later in the game, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Deliberately" misinterpreting is an attack on my motives. You're dead wrong if that's what you intended to say, but I take no offense.

So you accidentally took two verses and randomly assigned them meanings that aren't supported by the surrounding text, completely without intention?

Are you suggesting that the lovers' allusions to dew, fruit, dripping, vineyards, gardens, goblet, springs, honey, fawns, scents, mountains, remaining until the break of day (2:17), keyholes, hands on knobs/locks, cakes, sweetness, reclining, etc... are intended to be non-sexual?

I am suggesting nothing, merely observing that you misquoted and misrepresented the two specific verses you chose to allude to.

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a curious aside...I seem to recall that in the Gospels, many of the OT verses quoted as prophetic references to Jesus were often actually not even necessarily references to a Messiah in their original context. So, the idea of meaning and intent changing based on the culture viewing them seems kind of...well, traditional. Adherring strictly to authors original intent seems like a standard imposed later in the game, so to speak.

Good question.

I totally get how it looks that way at first, especially given the familiar phenomenon of fundamentalist-style proof-texting and lists of "messianic prophecies" purporting to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. This is a shallow, unconvincing way of reading the Bible.

But a few caveats. First, I'm not proposing "adhering strictly to authors original intent," i.e., the so-called literal sense. The literal sense is not the only legitimate sense; there's a place for various spiritual senses (allegorical/typological, tropological/moral, anagogical/eschatological).

Rather, the literal sense is primary, and various spiritual senses, insofar as the readings they propose are valid, presuppose and depend upon the literal sense. You can't simply throw the literal sense to the winds, or come up with a spiritual sense that either contradicts or is simply irrelevant to the literal sense. At least, you can, but it's arbitrary and unconvincing.

Now, a superficial reading of the NT might suggest that this is precisely what the NT writers were doing. It's certainly true that very few of the OT passages cited in the New are messianic prophecies, at least in the (somewhat misleading) sense that that phrase is used today.

Nevertheless, in applying them to Jesus, the NT writers were generally not ripping random phrases or details out of their OT context and forcibly applying them to Jesus based on dubious convergences, the way that later medieval Christian allegorical reading sometimes did (e.g., the cord of Rahab, which saved the spies and her own life, as a symbol of the blood of Jesus, because both are red).

On the contrary, the NT writers were profoundly engaged in the original, literal sense of the original passages. Far from ignoring or neglecting the context of the passages they cited, they presupposed them.

Passages that originally referred to David, or the Davidic king, or to Israel itself, were reapplied to Jesus, not because the NT writers were ignoring the original referents, but because the NT writers believed that what God had accomplished in Jesus was the grand climax of something in various ways anticipated and prepared for in Israel and the Davidic monarchy.

For instance, the OT passage most often quoted in the NT, Psalm 110, originally refers to the Davidic king, possibly Solomon -- and for the NT writers, it's precisely because it applies to Solomon (or the Davidic king) that it points to Jesus, because Solomon himself, and the Davidic monarchy itself, points to Jesus. The basis for the NT application is not that words that were thought to apply to OT persons and institutions actually pointed to Jesus, but that the OT persons and institutions themselves pointed to Jesus.

So it's not just a new way of reading the OT text, but a new way of reading sacred history itself. Divine revelation comes to us not only through inspired writings that tell us about God's saving acts, but through the saving acts themselves.

More later, perhaps.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is. People in the church can look at a person smoking and think about how "terrible" this is, why don't they just quit. But maybe that wasn't what Holy Spirit was pointing at, maybe Spirit was working on something else. God is working on us all individually according to his wisdom and understanding of us and our lives. Meanwhile God's grace is there in our weakness and errors.

What God is dealing with in a person isn't necessarily what others would like dealt with.

While I understand your point, I'm not sure how it should affect what we do or say. If I'm sinning, and other friends see that I'm sinning. I'm not quite sure that their refusing to condemn what I'm doing (on the grounds that God has his own timetable to deal with my sins) would help me.

So why can't the same concepts be applied to homosexuality in the idea of flexibility. Maybe this is just such a sore spot in a person because they have been persecuted and abused that they aren't able to sort through it at the moment (coming from a view that healing would be needed.) God understands their hearts, lives and motivations. God's grace is and can be with these Christian folks until they are ready to deal with it, if ever.

This runs contrary to what we often think, because to many peoples minds surely this is what God would want to deal with quickly. But it doesn't necessarily work that way. As said, God is working in all our lives in different ways and God's grace is with the Christian.

Well, it couldn't be applied to homosexuality: (1) if acting according to gay orientation is not a sin; (2) if such action is a sin that is hurting or destroying the life of the person engaged in it; or (3) if how God may or may not deal with something is irrelevant to how Scripture instructs us to act.

So in grace, I'd think there is flexibility, just as my friends father had the flexibility of smoking, when it is obviously bad for us (in this I'm not directly comparing homosexuality to smoking.)

Because one is so obviously bad while the other isn't?

Attica, what I do appreciate about your thoughts on grace is that I believe grace does allow for the possibility that we may not currently apply traditional morality perfectly to every situation. I would be hesitant to affirm that "traditional morality" is flexible. But I would heartily affirm that the moral law may not be as all comprehensive or intricately detailed as we often think of it as being. There are aspects of moral law that are beyond any debate, but there are other aspects in practical application where there is considerable room for debate. One can deny that marriage is merely the social sanctioning of an emotional bond while, at the same time, admitting that traditional marriage can have some nuance in application (as, for example, the idea of "common law" marriage seems to allow room for).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Deliberately" misinterpreting is an attack on my motives. You're dead wrong if that's what you intended to say, but I take no offense.

So you accidentally took two verses and randomly assigned them meanings that aren't supported by the surrounding text, completely without intention?

I recalled two passages from memory, in off-handed remark. I prefaced those statements by acknowledging an unfamiliarity with the text. If you think I was trying to deliberately deceive you, by all means, stick with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recalled two passages from memory, in off-handed remark. I prefaced those statements by acknowledging an unfamiliarity with the text.
Fair enough; it's just interesting how you misquoted both of the verses you pulled in ways that would seem to relate them to the laundry list of sexual practices you've been asking SDG to ratify. Intentionally or otherwise, your hermeneutical cart does seem to be telling your scriptural horse where to go in this instance. Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intentionally or otherwise, your hermeneutical cart does seem to be telling your scriptural horse where to go in this instance.

And not just when it comes to reading scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recalled two passages from memory, in off-handed remark. I prefaced those statements by acknowledging an unfamiliarity with the text.
Fair enough; it's just interesting how misquoted both of the verses you pulled in ways that would seem to relate them to the laundry list of sexual practices you've been asking SDG to ratify. Intentionally or otherwise, your hermeneutical cart does seem to be telling your scriptural horse where to go in this instance.

Okey doke.

I grew up hearing that the only satisfactory explanation for Song of Songs was in the realm of allegory and that in no other way could the dignity of Scripture be preserved. It was always Yahweh/ Israel or Christ/the Church. Even in my most rabid conservative state, that explanation never fit and always seemed to do violence to the text. I think we've had this discussion once before at A&F on the topic of worship and the sexuality in many of the passages of SoS. Do you not feel there are any allusions to sexuality and body parts in the text?

Intentionally or otherwise, your hermeneutical cart does seem to be telling your scriptural horse where to go in this instance.

And not just when it comes to reading scripture.

Intentionally or otherwise, your hermeneutical cart does seem to be telling your scriptural horse where to go in this instance.

And not just when it comes to reading scripture.

Cute. Are you ever going to answer my nine simple yes or no questions? Since Catholics are so open to pleasure in the bedroom and since my past reductionist reasoning seems so far off base in regard to the religious imposition of fear, guilt and judgment into the marital bed, perhaps you could shed some light. Because if I am incorrect about my past assumptions of the Catholic Church and their strict condemnation of marital passions and pleasuring outside of procreative sex, I am willing to make a full and public apology. Edited by Greg P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up hearing that the only satisfactory explanation for Song of Songs was in the realm of allegory and that in no other way could the dignity of Scripture be preserved. It was always Yahweh/ Israel or Christ/the Church. Even in my most rabid conservative state, that explanation never fit and always seemed to do violence to the text.

Indeed. I don't recall the authority figures in my near-fundie background pushing that interpretation so much ... it was more along the lines of just not talking about the book. Taking Christ/Church as the primary meaning is, it seems to me, far more unnerving and problematic than reading it as love poetry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cute. Are you ever going to answer my nine simple yes or no questions?
Probably. But your fixation on that continues to illustrate that you aren't really concerned with my actual stance, only with the chalk outline you think you can draw around me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d just like to respond to a few things on the Song of Solomon before bowing out.

Yahweh is not mentioned in the two bible translations I have, King James and NRSV (not that it makes a difference here, really).

The main question with all the confusion of unnamed speakers in this book is, does the Shulamite marry Solomon, or her shepherd boyfriend? To me, marrying the shepherd makes it much more convincing as scripture. The young woman from the country sought out by the king is taken to court as he and others try to entice her into being one of his many concubines / wives, though he does not coerce her. In her thoughts, daydreams and actions, she remains faithful to the shepherd, her betrothed who values her character and chastity, who loves her heart and soul not just her body; and she keeps herself pure for him until the wedding ceremony at the end.

To me it seems doubtful that Solomon would have written the Song, since he has only a few short speeches and he is the one rejected. It might well have been written by a woman, since the Shulamite and other women do most of the speaking.

I agree it’s a stretch to say the Song includes gay relationships. But I would say it’s clearly affirming ‘true love’ understood as the Shulamite’s deep emotional bond with the shepherd, rather than the predatory, dehumanizing arrangement the king offers. The book stands against exploitation; and in that sense it’s aligned with Paul (as I read him), condemning abusive homosexual practices, but not loving, monogamous gay relationships.

On a lighter note - Here’s a sketch of how the woman might look according to the description --

http://www.acts17-11.../snip_song.html

Edited by phlox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d just like to respond to a few things before bowing out.

Not sure why you feel the need to bow out.

Yahweh is not mentioned in the two bible translations I have, King James and NRSV (not that it makes a difference here, really).

That is interesting. Wasn't aware of a textual/translational anomaly at 8:6. I was quoting from the ESV; didn't check other versions. My apologies.

The main question with all the confusion of unnamed speakers in this book is, does the Shulamite marry Solomon, or her shepherd boyfriend?

Is that really a question? 8:11-12 would seem to be a pretty clear rejection of Solomon (interestingly enough, on the grounds that he's already got a vineyard).

The book stands against exploitation; and in that sense it’s aligned with Paul (as I read him), condemning abusive homosexual practices, but not loving, monogamous gay relationships.

One can hardly expect Paul to condemn something that did not exist in his time and place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up hearing that the only satisfactory explanation for Song of Songs was in the realm of allegory and that in no other way could the dignity of Scripture be preserved. It was always Yahweh/ Israel or Christ/the Church. Even in my most rabid conservative state, that explanation never fit and always seemed to do violence to the text.

Indeed. I don't recall the authority figures in my near-fundie background pushing that interpretation so much ... it was more along the lines of just not talking about the book. Taking Christ/Church as the primary meaning is, it seems to me, far more unnerving and problematic than reading it as love poetry.

Didn't some of the early Jewish people not read that text, because they thought Song of Soloman was too risque for them? I've read this somewhere and if true it would certainly imply that they thought that this text was indeed very much about sexuality (amongst other.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cute. Are you ever going to answer my nine simple yes or no questions?
Probably. But your fixation on that continues to illustrate that you aren't really concerned with my actual stance, only with the chalk outline you think you can draw around me.

Good. smile.png

Fixation? I've mentioned it three times (is this a hint at how your going to answer the sex questions? Is doing anything three times an occasion for concupiscence or dsirodered fixation?) in this discussion and invited you to respond because you earlier dismissed my observations about Catholicism and sexual pleasure in marriage as absurd, reductionist or false. Catholic teaching is not about do's or don'ts, or where mouths or hands or orgasms are permitted to go, you've asserted. So I've given you the opportunity to answer questions about what i think are some of the more common sexual pleasures married couples can engage in and enjoy. So far silence. I'm genuinely interested to read how my parsing of the Catholic subtext about sexual activities translates into absurdity.

I will be blunt, I'm interested in your personal view, yes. But more important would be the official Catholic view of those marital delights and avenues for shared pleasure (which i admittedly assume is your position as well, since you are conservative Catholic with a public platform)

Chalk drawing? Dismissive much?

Edited by Greg P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fixation? I've mentioned it three times (is this a hint at how your going to answer the sex questions? Is doing anything three times an occasion for concupiscence or dsirodered fixation?)

The specifics of moral vs. immoral sexual practices has been the single overarching preoccupation of the text and/or subtext of practically every substantial post you've addressed to me in this discussion. Every attempt by me to invoke larger issues has been met by you with a single-minded determination to keep the discussion firmly on the level of What's Allowed vs. What's Not Allowed. The very idea of thinking seriously about sex from the perspective of higher principles has been met with skepticism ("a bit like writing a dissertation on skydiving or hang gliding").

I will be blunt, I'm interested in your personal view, yes.

Are you really? Because, frankly, that's not the sense I've gotten from you so far. "Dismissive much?" you ask. Physican, heal thyself: I'm not the one throwing around phrases like "pragmatic, efficiency-minded coitus" and "some tidy recipe of love, caring, nurturing with a pinch of passion."

But more important would be the official Catholic view of those marital delights and avenues for shared pleasure (which i admittedly assume is your position as well, since you are conservative Catholic with a public platform)

On all of this, at least, we substantially agree (with caveats around "conservative," a term I'm inclined to reject in this connection).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I am not singling anyone out for criticism: the heat is coming from more than one source.

And I do understand that this is a controversial topic which touches on deeply-held, deeply-personal issues.

Overall, you-all have done a darned good job here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Dismissive much?" you ask. Physican, heal thyself: I'm not the one throwing around phrases like "pragmatic, efficiency-minded coitus" and "some tidy recipe of love, caring, nurturing with a pinch of passion."
Both the quotes you cite are wry statements expressing my fundamental disagreement with a Church position - real or perceived- I have not attacked you as a person. I'll make that distinction and move on. You're fine with me, but I agree with Greg Wolfe about the change of tone so let's refocus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.A.A. Purves said:

:While I understand your point, I'm not sure how it should affect what we do or say. If I'm sinning, and other friends see that I'm sinning. I'm not quite sure that their refusing to condemn what I'm doing (on the grounds that God has his own timetable to deal with my sins) would help me.

It really depends on the person and the situation. Wisdom is required. That of course is why we need Holy Spirits guidance so badly. Especially Pastors and such. Some people need correction, for others that is the worst thing one could do. It would be deeply wounding. A lot of homosexuals have been deeply wounded by the church, and therefore I would imaging that they would fall into the later category. Of course then there is the question debated in this thread of whether they are doing anything wrong in the first place.

:Well, it couldn't be applied to homosexuality: (1) if acting according to gay orientation is not a sin; (2) if such action is a sin that is hurting or destroying the life of the person engaged in it; or (3) if how God may or may not deal with something is irrelevant to how Scripture instructs us to act.

Here's some thoughts as related to your points.

1) I'm coming from the place, at least at the moment, that it is behaviour that God would want to set people free from.

2) All sin is destroying the life of the person engaged in it, but God isn't trying to point out all sin for us to correct at once. If God did this (especially with a new Christian that came from a very sinful background), it would simply be too much for us. We would be overwhelmed with our sinfullness and wouldn't be able to live with ourselves. It would kill our sense of self worth, which doesn't help us to overcome sin at all.

God is working in our lives to bring us out of sin, not to beat us up or condemn us. "There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus."

3) We all fall short of how we are supposed to act according to scripture, everyday. Hence grace. Grace is working in our brokeness towards bringing us to wholeness, towards sanctifying us. We are on this journey, all of us, and none of us is going to be able to completely get it together in this lifetime. Grace is covering over my flaws and failures until I set them right, if ever. Some of them I don't even know I have yet, I'm sure. For some people they are flaws and failures that they know they should give up but just can't (or won't), like the smoking example I mentioned above. All of this and more might be applied to homosexual people. Everybody is different with a different story, backgrounds and issues.

Grace covers us until we get it together, or helps us get it together, or until we die having never got it together. God is working in each of our lives in different ways.

:Because one is so obviously bad while the other isn't?

Nope. Didn't mean that at all. Because they are both different issues with different questions, responses, history, and cultural views. If anything I would say that smoking is the thing that is obviously bad.

:There are aspects of moral law that are beyond any debate, but there are other aspects in practical application where there is considerable room for debate. One can deny that marriage is merely the social sanctioning of an emotional bond while, at the same time, admitting that traditional marriage can have some nuance in application (as, for example, the idea of "common law" marriage seems to allow room for).

I think this works for me.

:I would be hesitant to affirm that "traditional morality" is flexible.

I don't think true morality is flexible at all. Of course there is debate as to what true morality is.

But what I do think is flexible is the fact that non of us are living up to true morality. But we can still go through our lives living short of the mark and not feeling beaten up or condemned over it. Convicted from time to time (which if from God is always a loving conviction - "the Adversary" is the condemner of the brethern, not God.)

So that's where the flexibility is, I believe because of grace we can still dwell in God's loving embrace and be part of the Christian community in service to God, with God's blessing to a certain extent, even while we are engaging in destructive behaviour. Whatever that might be.

That's not to say that God doesn't want us to change, or that we shouldn't desire to better ourselves. But it is to say that "love covers over a multitude of sins", and even that grace can bring good out of our folly. God's grace towards us in our sinfullness helps us to understand the depth of his love for us, and what Christ did for us on the cross. God embracing us and even blessing us in our sinfullness is one of the ways that God whooos us with his love, into his embrace, which leads to the healing, self worth, and love that actually helps us out of sin.

I think that is the plan to overcome sin.

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book stands against exploitation; and in that sense it’s aligned with Paul (as I read him), condemning abusive homosexual practices, but not loving, monogamous gay relationships.

One can hardly expect Paul to condemn something that did not exist in his time and place.

Hmmm...is this a historical fact? I find it rather unlikely that they did not exist at all...even if Paul was unaware(which seems unlikely to me).

I would also note that if you accept the genesis chapter one as a literal event, then the entire human race is an incest factory...which means it was always a sin yet God gave no other option...or morality has SOME flexibility.

Edited by Thom Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book stands against exploitation; and in that sense it’s aligned with Paul (as I read him), condemning abusive homosexual practices, but not loving, monogamous gay relationships.

One can hardly expect Paul to condemn something that did not exist in his time and place.

Hmmm...is this a historical fact? I find it rather unlikely that they did not exist at all...even if Paul was unaware(which seems unlikely to me).

I would also note that if you accept the genesis chapter one as a literal event, then the entire human race is an incest factory...which means it was always a sin yet God gave no other option...or morality has SOME flexibility.

Good point. That is one of the reasons why I'm less and less inclined to have an ultra-literal view of Genesis. Not only this, but that amount of incest would lead to human beings with arms sticking out of their heads. smile.png

There of course are other interpretations of this text that don't lead to this problem.

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, definitely. I remember being taught evolution-without any "it's just a theory" defenses in Catholic school (I actually found out about other theories in public school...but the biology teacher confirmed to me privately that he and the other biology teachers did talk about even debunked theories to keep religious complainers from complaining to the school board about the school not teaching creationism...this was pre-intelligent design).

Plenty of Christians do not see it as true history, rather a form of myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The specifics of moral vs. immoral sexual practices has been the single overarching preoccupation of the text and/or subtext of practically every substantial post you've addressed to me in this discussion. Every attempt by me to invoke larger issues has been met by you with a single-minded determination to keep the discussion firmly on the level of What's Allowed vs. What's Not Allowed. The very idea of thinking seriously about sex from the perspective of higher principles has been met with skepticism ("a bit like writing a dissertation on skydiving or hang gliding")

Because strict ground rules about specific sex expressions in marriage reveal a pettiness and rigidity of thought that betray any or all grandiosity or majesty in its supposed "theology of the body".

To highlight this, I want to add a timely personal note: a friend of mine just came from a confirmation for her 14-year old nephew, not more than 15 minutes ago... she texted me throughout the service, as Archbishop Wenski spoke. This important sacrament was punctuated by extended diatribes on.... ta-da!-- gay marriage.... and stern admonitions about how married couples have become focused on "carnality"!!! (to a room full of 8th graders!) Of course, such anecdotes have little or no weight in these discussions, but I offer it anyway. Of all the things young people of faith face today, gay marriage and carnal hetero marriages were the biggest concern for the Archbishop tonight. I wish I could say this emphasis in the Church was isolated.

Edited by Greg P

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...