Looking for a new church

Where Christians can talk among themselves, and about those Godless atheists.

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:25 pm

Og3 wrote:
(Okay, so why is an SBC so willing to help someone find a church that is not SBC? Well, very simply, I agree with Lewis, who was high Anglican: The Church may be compared to a large house, with a central hallway. Each room may have different rules and different views, but in the end, we are one house. It is between a man and the Lord of the House as to which room he may choose, or how long he may sit in the hallway without choosing. But in the end, it is good to choose a room, for that is where one finds food and warmth and fellowship. (paraphrased from the introduction to Mere Christianity, q.v.)

While I like the analogy, I'm not sure C.S. would approve of the adultery, idolatry and blatant disobedience taking place in these "rooms" during these liberal, unGodly times. I'm not sure the Lord of the house would allow some of the things taking place in these rooms to continue in His house.

I would recommend Mitch find a church that stands unwavering on the truth of the Bible and holds the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God. But since Mich has demonstrated an unwillingness to do this I doubt he would look for a church that would.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby mitchellmckain » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:12 pm

No book written in human languages with human beings involved anytime in the process can be either infallible or inerrant. Human languages and the reading process are themselves quite fallible. Looking at the pages under a microscope will show millions of deviations from a straight line in the printed words. The best you can say is that none of the errors are of any great significance to the message God is seeking to deliver. If we are reading the Bible with that magnifying glass then we are missing the message -- not seeing the forest for the trees. It is a typical symptom of legalism and the idolatry of replacing God with the Bible itself (see John 5:39).

I certainly do believe the Bible is the word of God and that means God has the exclusive proprietary rights and nobody should take on themselves to do a better job or replace the text with their own interpretation. I also believe that Jesus invest authority in the scriptures by quite a number of things he says. But there is a rather significant omission -- Jesus never explains what exactly it is that scripture consists of. Thus Jesus relies on what the consensus has already determined to be scripture. This points to a reality where the inspiration of God rather than being rare and exclusive is rather so abundant that falls from heaven in a never-ending flood. God's inspiration is everywhere -- which is not to say that everything is inspired by God, but only that God is really so active and involved in human affairs that it is impossible to shut Him out.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Og3 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:57 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Og3 wrote:
(Okay, so why is an SBC so willing to help someone find a church that is not SBC? Well, very simply, I agree with Lewis, who was high Anglican: The Church may be compared to a large house, with a central hallway. Each room may have different rules and different views, but in the end, we are one house. It is between a man and the Lord of the House as to which room he may choose, or how long he may sit in the hallway without choosing. But in the end, it is good to choose a room, for that is where one finds food and warmth and fellowship. (paraphrased from the introduction to Mere Christianity, q.v.)

While I like the analogy, I'm not sure C.S. would approve of the adultery, idolatry and blatant disobedience taking place in these "rooms" during these liberal, unGodly times. I'm not sure the Lord of the house would allow some of the things taking place in these rooms to continue in His house.

I would recommend Mitch find a church that stands unwavering on the truth of the Bible and holds the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God. But since Mich has demonstrated an unwillingness to do this I doubt he would look for a church that would.

I beg to differ. Lewis' theology was far more liberal than you probably imagine.

In his book "Surprised by Joy, the Shape of My Early Life," Lewis remarked upon the fact that some of the boarding schools he attended as a boy were rife with homosexual activity, much of it relatively open -- this was in the period before the First World War, you understand. He stated that he had been asked why he did not soundly condemn the homosexuality that he mentions.

His reply was that first, it was the sole honest expression of love in that otherwise loveless place, and second, that it was one of only two sins towards which he himself had never been tempted, and he thus could not condemn those who were. So I think that Jack was far less judgmental than you imagine him to be.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:45 am

Og3 wrote:
Chapabel wrote:
Og3 wrote:
(Okay, so why is an SBC so willing to help someone find a church that is not SBC? Well, very simply, I agree with Lewis, who was high Anglican: The Church may be compared to a large house, with a central hallway. Each room may have different rules and different views, but in the end, we are one house. It is between a man and the Lord of the House as to which room he may choose, or how long he may sit in the hallway without choosing. But in the end, it is good to choose a room, for that is where one finds food and warmth and fellowship. (paraphrased from the introduction to Mere Christianity, q.v.)

While I like the analogy, I'm not sure C.S. would approve of the adultery, idolatry and blatant disobedience taking place in these "rooms" during these liberal, unGodly times. I'm not sure the Lord of the house would allow some of the things taking place in these rooms to continue in His house.

I would recommend Mitch find a church that stands unwavering on the truth of the Bible and holds the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God. But since Mich has demonstrated an unwillingness to do this I doubt he would look for a church that would.

I beg to differ. Lewis' theology was far more liberal than you probably imagine.

In his book "Surprised by Joy, the Shape of My Early Life," Lewis remarked upon the fact that some of the boarding schools he attended as a boy were rife with homosexual activity, much of it relatively open -- this was in the period before the First World War, you understand. He stated that he had been asked why he did not soundly condemn the homosexuality that he mentions.

His reply was that first, it was the sole honest expression of love in that otherwise loveless place, and second, that it was one of only two sins towards which he himself had never been tempted, and he thus could not condemn those who were. So I think that Jack was far less judgmental than you imagine him to be.

I didn't say he was judgmental. I said he wouldn't approve. Are you suggesting C.S. Lewis approved of homosexuality? To allow and promote homosexuality in the church is to completely disregard God's design and thumb a nose at His command. Since God condemns homosexuality, I see no reason why we shouldn't either. There is a difference in judging people and condemning sin.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Og3 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:54 am

Chapabel wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Chapabel wrote:While I like the analogy, I'm not sure C.S. would approve of the adultery, idolatry and blatant disobedience taking place in these "rooms" during these liberal, unGodly times. I'm not sure the Lord of the house would allow some of the things taking place in these rooms to continue in His house.

I would recommend Mitch find a church that stands unwavering on the truth of the Bible and holds the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God. But since Mich has demonstrated an unwillingness to do this I doubt he would look for a church that would.

I beg to differ. Lewis' theology was far more liberal than you probably imagine.

In his book "Surprised by Joy, the Shape of My Early Life," Lewis remarked upon the fact that some of the boarding schools he attended as a boy were rife with homosexual activity, much of it relatively open -- this was in the period before the First World War, you understand. He stated that he had been asked why he did not soundly condemn the homosexuality that he mentions.

His reply was that first, it was the sole honest expression of love in that otherwise loveless place, and second, that it was one of only two sins towards which he himself had never been tempted, and he thus could not condemn those who were. So I think that Jack was far less judgmental than you imagine him to be.

I didn't say he was judgmental. I said he wouldn't approve. Are you suggesting C.S. Lewis approved of homosexuality? To allow and promote homosexuality in the church is to completely disregard God's design and thumb a nose at His command. Since God condemns homosexuality, I see no reason why we shouldn't either. There is a difference in judging people and condemning sin.
I'm telling you what he said.

If that reads to you as "approval" then so be it. I would call it condoning. I will agree with you that homosexuality is a sin, but I happen to believe that the sin lies more in the fact that it is -sexual than in the fact that it is homo-. We are given two templates for human sexuality, regardless our inward thoughts and desires: Complete abstinence or godly marriage. Homosexuality fits neither template.

But with that said, many things that occur every day are sins. When I shake my fist at another driver and call him a @#%!!@# idiot, I am sinning against God and against that man. If I leave work a minute early, or eat too many chocolate truffles, or think wrong thoughts about an attractive woman, or say something unflattering about a coworker, I am sinning. Every one of those deeds breaks God's heart. But I would like to know that last time a man was put out of a church for eating chocolates, or for yelling at another driver.

So why do we take one sin and make it the unpardonable sin of all sins? Remember that even Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality, but for their refusal to repent of their violent ways, despite a stern warning and being struck blind... Still, they "wearied themselves trying to find the door." So let us think carefully about a blanket condemnation of those for whom Christ died. Remember His words to Peter: "Do not call unclean that which I have cleansed."
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:04 am

Og3 wrote: I'm telling you what he said.

If that reads to you as "approval" then so be it. I would call it condoning. I will agree with you that homosexuality is a sin, but I happen to believe that the sin lies more in the fact that it is -sexual than in the fact that it is homo-. We are given two templates for human sexuality, regardless our inward thoughts and desires: Complete abstinence or godly marriage. Homosexuality fits neither template.

But with that said, many things that occur every day are sins. When I shake my fist at another driver and call him a @#%!!@# idiot, I am sinning against God and against that man. If I leave work a minute early, or eat too many chocolate truffles, or think wrong thoughts about an attractive woman, or say something unflattering about a coworker, I am sinning. Every one of those deeds breaks God's heart. But I would like to know that last time a man was put out of a church for eating chocolates, or for yelling at another driver.

So why do we take one sin and make it the unpardonable sin of all sins? Remember that even Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality, but for their refusal to repent of their violent ways, despite a stern warning and being struck blind... Still, they "wearied themselves trying to find the door." So let us think carefully about a blanket condemnation of those for whom Christ died. Remember His words to Peter: "Do not call unclean that which I have cleansed."

I agree with you. Sin is sin. There is no big sin and no little sin. However, to flaunt one's sin in the middle of church is not what we ought to be doing either. If someone stood up in church and bragged that his diabetes was a result of eating too many truffles and that he would continue to eat them no matter the consequences, then yes, that person needs to be addressed by the church. The same goes for a church member who promotes saying wrong things to a co-worker instead of granting mercy. These things should not be "approved", "condoned" or encouraged by the church any more than homosexuality should. The problem as I see it is we have allowed political correctness to infiltrate the church and we have abandoned proper church discipline.

And BTW, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual perversion:
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
For abomination see Lev.18:22
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby kjw47 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:51 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Og3 wrote: I'm telling you what he said.

If that reads to you as "approval" then so be it. I would call it condoning. I will agree with you that homosexuality is a sin, but I happen to believe that the sin lies more in the fact that it is -sexual than in the fact that it is homo-. We are given two templates for human sexuality, regardless our inward thoughts and desires: Complete abstinence or godly marriage. Homosexuality fits neither template.

But with that said, many things that occur every day are sins. When I shake my fist at another driver and call him a @#%!!@# idiot, I am sinning against God and against that man. If I leave work a minute early, or eat too many chocolate truffles, or think wrong thoughts about an attractive woman, or say something unflattering about a coworker, I am sinning. Every one of those deeds breaks God's heart. But I would like to know that last time a man was put out of a church for eating chocolates, or for yelling at another driver.

So why do we take one sin and make it the unpardonable sin of all sins? Remember that even Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality, but for their refusal to repent of their violent ways, despite a stern warning and being struck blind... Still, they "wearied themselves trying to find the door." So let us think carefully about a blanket condemnation of those for whom Christ died. Remember His words to Peter: "Do not call unclean that which I have cleansed."

I agree with you. Sin is sin. There is no big sin and no little sin. However, to flaunt one's sin in the middle of church is not what we ought to be doing either. If someone stood up in church and bragged that his diabetes was a result of eating too many truffles and that he would continue to eat them no matter the consequences, then yes, that person needs to be addressed by the church. The same goes for a church member who promotes saying wrong things to a co-worker instead of granting mercy. These things should not be "approved", "condoned" or encouraged by the church any more than homosexuality should. The problem as I see it is we have allowed political correctness to infiltrate the church and we have abandoned proper church discipline.

And BTW, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual perversion:
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
For abomination see Lev.18:22



Actually, there are differences in some sins. There is willfull sin, and oops sin. It is practiced( willfull) sin that is condemned.
-- When the silence has broken--
kjw47
resident
resident
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 4:52 pm
Location: upstate, NY
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby mitchellmckain » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:53 pm

Chapabel wrote:For abomination see Lev.18:22

AND...
Leviticus 7:18 eating of a peace offering on the third day is an abomination
Leviticus 7:21 touching an unclean thing (which includes a woman within 7 days of bearing a male child, or even a person who has touched a woman who is menstruating) and then eating of a peace offering. This is also an abomination.
Leviticus 11:10 eating seafood which does not have fins and scales
Leviticus 11:13 some birds are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey,
Leviticus 11:20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you."
Leviticus 11:23 locusts, crickets and grasshoppers are ok, "but all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you."
Leviticus 11:41 “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
Leviticus 11:42 Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Deuteronomy 7:25 using any silver or gold which was used in making an idol is an abomination
Deuteronomy 17:1 sacrificing an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever;
Deuteronomy 22:5 wearing cross gender clothing is an abomination
Deuteronomy 23:18 using the same money paid to a harlot for the work of a dog in the house of God is an abomination
Deuteronomy 24:4 remarriage to the same woman after divorce is an abomination
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Og3 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:28 pm

Chapabel, Mitch has answered your "Abomination" point well, so I'll skip it.

Regarding strange flesh, my instinct tells me that you are associating that with sexual carnality, whereas I believe you will find it to mean eating unclean foods.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:15 pm

You are entitled to your opinion but in context it has nothing to do with eating but with sex. If you want to believe sodomy refers to eating unclean food then by all means believe what you wish.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Og3 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:12 am

Chapabel wrote:You are entitled to your opinion but in context it has nothing to do with eating but with sex. If you want to believe sodomy refers to eating unclean food then by all means believe what you wish.

I am speaking of the Jude 1:7 reference to the people of Sodom preferring "strange flesh." If you compare this with the similar term in Numbers, "Strange fire" you will see that it would not logically cognate to sexual immorality.

I do not deny that the men of sodom practiced homosexuality, nor that they were inhospitable to strangers, nor that they were violent towards strangers, but the most telling point, imho, was that after being rebuked and then blinded, they still "wearied themselves" trying to break down Lot's door.

This is, however (to again invoke Lewis) "A point upon which good men may disagree."
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:37 am

Og3 wrote:
Chapabel wrote:You are entitled to your opinion but in context it has nothing to do with eating but with sex. If you want to believe sodomy refers to eating unclean food then by all means believe what you wish.

I am speaking of the Jude 1:7 reference to the people of Sodom preferring "strange flesh." If you compare this with the similar term in Numbers, "Strange fire" you will see that it would not logically cognate to sexual immorality.

Why would God punish people for eating unclean food when it would be another 400 plus years before He gave the Law and told them what food was unclean? There is nothing in Jude 7 that indicates eating unclean food. Where in the Genesis account of the cities destruction is there any hint that they were destroyed for eating pork chops and crawdads? The entire story revolves around the men of the city wanting to rape the two visiting men and Lot offering his two virgin daughters instead. The context is sexual perversion as the reason the cities were destroyed. But if you want to stick to your guns and believe they were destroyed for having a pig-pickin' go right on. I'll stand on plain Biblical teaching.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:41 am

Og3 wrote:
Chapabel wrote:You are entitled to your opinion but in context it has nothing to do with eating but with sex. If you want to believe sodomy refers to eating unclean food then by all means believe what you wish.


I do not deny that the men of sodom practiced homosexuality, nor that they were inhospitable to strangers, nor that they were violent towards strangers, but the most telling point, imho, was that after being rebuked and then blinded, they still "wearied themselves" trying to break down Lot's door.

For what purpose did they weary themselves trying to break down the door? Was it to take the men out to dinner or to rape them?
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:29 am

Chapabel wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Chapabel wrote:You are entitled to your opinion but in context it has nothing to do with eating but with sex. If you want to believe sodomy refers to eating unclean food then by all means believe what you wish.


I do not deny that the men of sodom practiced homosexuality, nor that they were inhospitable to strangers, nor that they were violent towards strangers, but the most telling point, imho, was that after being rebuked and then blinded, they still "wearied themselves" trying to break down Lot's door.

For what purpose did they weary themselves trying to break down the door? Was it to take the men out to dinner or to rape them?

I don't deny that they intended to rape the angels, which by the way, should be classified under "Extremely-Bad-Ideas."

But let's suppose that a man was about to steal your house-guest's hubcaps (for example) and you stuck your head out the door and told him that was an evil thing to do. So he threatened you and told you to mind your own business. Suppose that your house-guest then struck the man blind so that he could pull you safely into the house without violence.

Do you think that thief would continue trying to steal the hubcaps, or run like heck? How committed to his sin would he need to be if he "Wearied Himself" trying to get the hubcaps off despite your warning and the sudden utter blindness?

So shouldn't the people of Sodom have been ashamed by Lot's rebuke? Shouldn't they have gotten a clue when the "men" they intended to rape struck them blind? Is there any measure of sanity that would be consistent with "Wearying themselves trying to find the door?"

Does it not follow that the men of Sodom were so committed to their depravity that they were beyond repentance -- not even being struck blind convinced them to lay off! -- that they would never freely make a decision to follow God? And since we know that (although it is a sin) there are many men who have not been struck blind or struck dead for homosexuality, does it not follow that the real sin here -- the one worthy of physical blindness to match their spiritual blindness, and worthy of death -- was being unable to repent before God?

Would God save a homosexual today who repented, or would he say, "Sorry, but sodomy is unforgivable?"

In fact, we are told that only one sin is unforgivable, and that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit -- refusing to accept His witness and conviction, as the sodomites did when every bit of logic in their brains said that raping angels was a bad idea, and they still wearied themselves trying to find the door. I tend to think here in terms of a driving test: When it becomes clear to the tester that you will either pass or fail, and that further examination is not needed, he ends the test and returns you to the testing center. By the same token, when one has squandered one's last chance to follow God, and has set one's mind in concrete to resist Him, imho, one's days are numbered -- there is no need to test one further.

"Wearying themselves" -- blinded, rebuked, knowing good from evil, and still putting all their strength into deliberately sinning -- that's pretty much a fail.

Now, I may be wrong... But I don't believe that I am. And as I said, this is a point upon which good men may disagree.

Incidentally, at that point in time, even though shellfish and pork were not yet forbidden under Mosaic law, neither was it forbidden under mosaic law for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, so your argument there has a double edge.

But good men may disagree.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: Looking for a new church

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:11 am

Og3 wrote: Incidentally, at that point in time, even though shellfish and pork were not yet forbidden under Mosaic law, neither was it forbidden under mosaic law for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, so your argument there has a double edge.

But good men may disagree.

You are exactly right in that the Law forbidding homosexuality had not been given at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, God had given men a conscience to know right from wrong according to Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

God's moral law is embedded within the conscience of each person and written on our heart. Homosexuality strikes at the very core our society's moral direction. God's dietary law was specifically for the nation of Israel as a sign of separation and fell under their ceremonial law which was completed in Christ. I cannot see God punishing the people of Sodom for eating foods that He did not forbid them from eating. I can see God destroying the people of Sodom for being so depraved in their sexual perversion, which as you pointed out, was an indication of their rejection of Him.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

PreviousNext

Return to Christians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest