Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Outlawing Opinion


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Outlawing Opinion
by Chuck Norris

05/19/2009


It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.

Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.

Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.


For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."

The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents' Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function? When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine -- which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation -- is right around the corner.

Government isn't the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean's -- who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up -- giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions, she's been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.

I don't care what your cause is. I don't care what your mission is. I don't care what the issue is. I don't care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen's constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone's offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?

It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!

When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we've drifted from our roots. Isn't it time we returned home to the Constitution?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31927

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Senant Bill 909 has nothing to do with speech. It merely adds to the already existing Hate Crimes Law. The Hate Crimes Law provides for increased sentencing for crimes committed against persons based his or her race, religion, gender or national origin. For example, if you beat up your sons baseball coach for not playing your son in the 9th inning, you are guilty of assualt and may be sentenced for, lets say, 5 years imprisonment. If you beat the coach up because he is a Mormon, you may be senteced for, lets say, 7 years imprisonment. The reason what is commonly referred to as the "radical right" is so opposed to Senate Bill 909 is that it adds sexual orientation to the already existing protected class.

If S.B. 909 is passed, it will have absolutely no affect on your already existing rights to protest against gay marriage, or even your ability to exhibit the most vile and disgusting forms of bigotry that you want. However, if you decide that you want to committ a crime against a gay person, based solely on that person's "gayness", then not only will you receive the normal sentence, you will also receive additional sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.

I find it strange that Chuck Norriss, if he is really only concerned with his freedom of speech, had nothing to say when the Hate Crimes Law was first proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In my opinion, no class of person should be valued more than another (in the eyes of law) to the point that when someone commits a crime against them the sentencing is more or less severe based upon some artificial "protected" class or status.

The person who kills a "WASP" should not be treated any differently than the person who kills someone of color, or a woman, or someone who is gay! It is all a crime against humanity and should be treated equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
In my opinion, no class of person should be valued more than another (in the eyes of law) to the point that when someone commits a crime against them the sentencing is more or less severe based upon some artificial "protected" class or status.

The person who kills a "WASP" should not be treated any differently than the person who kills someone of color, or a woman, or someone who is gay! It is all a crime against humanity and should be treated equally.


If the WASP is killed BECAUSE he is a WASP (i.g., for his race and religion), the murderer will face the increased sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1st degree murder is first degree murder. The government has no business adding additional penalties based on who was murdered and the reasoning believed to be behind it. If they would execute all convicted first degree murders in a reasonable period of time as they should it wouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


If the WASP is killed BECAUSE he is a WASP (i.g., for his race and religion), the murderer will face the increased sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.


And if the victim is a black Jewish gay man, that would be three times the sentence? Do you even see how ridiculous the whole thing is. As Revelation said, "1st degree murder is first degree murder."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1st degree murder is first degree murder. The government has no business adding additional penalties based on who was murdered and the reasoning believed to be behind it. If they would execute all convicted first degree murders in a reasonable period of time as they should it wouldn't matter.


So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense?
The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense?
The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.


Last I knew, the killing of another in defense of one's life is not called murder!

Also, I'm not saying that circumstances of a crime should never be considered in the sentencing. I am saying the color of one's skin, their religious affiliation, their gender, nor their sexual proclivities (which is not my business) should be a basis for a special law which values one more or less important than another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense? The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.


I said first degree murder. The circumstances are considered at the trial to determine if it was first degree murder or not. Self defense that results in the death of the aggressor is not murder. Accidentally killing someone is not first degree murder either. First degree murder from Cain's murder of his brother down to the present is very often due to hate anyway. Fortunately it is still fairly rare for someone to walk up and kill someone they do not know for no reason at all and when it does happen that person often hates humanity as a whole. I submit if someone intentionally killed an innocent person not worthy of death outside of a war or the line of duty then it should not matter if they killed them because they didn't like their race, their religion, for their money, for the car they were driving, or if they killed them for no reason at all or because they were having a bad day. As I said, if the law would execute all those found guilty of first degree murder within a reasonable period of time( perhaps no more than a year or two at the max) as they should "extra" penalties would not be an issue and it would save the state from paying to keep them alive in prison for twenty or thirty years. Our society is far to easy on those who commit serious crimes worthy of death, and the legal system takes far longer than it should. What ever happened to the right to a quick and speedy trial? That should apply to both the innocent and the guilty. Isn't there an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied? There is no reason why murder cases should still be being appealed and fought over five, ten, and twenty years after they first came to trial. One way or another it should be over by then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Well let's say it isn't murder. Let's say it is theft. What if the perp steals from Jewish owned jewelry stores for the sole purpose that they are owned by Jews. Now can you see the difference? Not only will the perp receive the standard sentence for theft, but he or she will have additional time added on due to the fact that their crimes were committed against the victims based solely on the victims religion. The illegality and risk of imprisonment is there to deter the crime itself. The hate crimes law is there to deter the hate. I'm not say this is right or its wrong. I'm saying Chuck Norris, as good of a guy and Christian as he is, doesn't know what he is talking about in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Hate crime laws will lead to suppression of a lot of things. Theft is theft, no matter the motive. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Well let's say it isn't murder. Let's say it is theft. What if the perp steals from Jewish owned jewelry stores for the sole purpose that they are owned by Jews. Now can you see the difference?


Morally? No. Why he stole from them should not matter legally. The theft is what matters.

Not only will the perp receive the standard sentence for theft, but he or she will have additional time added on due to the fact that their crimes were committed against the victims based solely on the victims religion.


I understand that, and that is wrong. Thoughts are not a crime, maybe the person doesn't like Jews maybe they don't like Christians, that isn't and shouldn't be a crime in and of itself until they actually do an evil act. If they do a evil act that act is what should be criminal not their motives. What "hate crime" laws do is destroy the principle of equal justice for all under the law. Some people under hate crime laws become deserving of more punishment because of what they think rather than because of what they actually did. "Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries.

. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we


How politically correct phrases can slip into our vocabulary. "Sexual orientation" is not a biblical phrase because it implies that perversion is not a matter of sinful choice but rather how you were born as the sodomites say. I agree with your statement in concept though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Hate crime laws will lead to suppression of a lot of things. Theft is theft' date=' no matter the motive. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we.[/quote']

No one is differentiating anything. Imagine two theifs stealing two different loafs of bread from the same person. Theif #1 stole the bread from the victim because he was hungary. Theif #2, solely because the victim was a white woman. Both theifs will be subject to the exact same sentence for stealing the bread. Theif #2 will be subject to further sentencing because he also violated the hate crimes law. Do you see the difference? No one is differentiating between the crimes that were committed by both theifs. The difference comes from the fact that Theif #2 committed an additional crime.

I agree that it should not (and it is not, by the way) be a crime to hate someone for what ever reason you so choose. However, if that hate leads to a crime, which would not have happened absent the hate, then their should be consequences.

Although we have all used a bunch of examples, the Hate Crimes Law rarely comes up in cases which do not involve violence. For the most part, it is only used to prosecute people who committ senseless acts of violence against others based solely on their race, gender, religion or national origin. The most recent case I can think of happened right after 9/11 when a few college students attacked a muslim man for no reason at all. The Feds also wanted to use it against one of the men who were just recently prosecuted for a civil rights era murder, but the District Court refused to consider it because the law was not in effect at the time of the killings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

"Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries."

I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
"Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries."

I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it.


You don't have to look far.

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Ok. I'll concede that reasonable people may differ on what that consider to be legitmate or valid citations. However, the first link is to a newsletter (a webletter at that) that is admittedly a propoganda compaign against the proposed legislation, which does nothing more than list occurences which it expects the believer to accept as true without any indept factual information or legal citation to the legal proceedings it references. The only purpose behind the cite is to feed those who already have a predisposed mindset, with a list of situations which are supposed to justify that mindset. I would not be allowed to cite that article if I were making a legal argument either for, or against, the proposed legislation. Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred, the judicial proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. They are causes of action brought by one private citizen against another for things that have been done or said which either offend or disparage the person. We already have such causes of action in the U.S., we call them "libel" and "slander." Of course, in the U.S., one cannot be found liable for libel for merely printing bible verses in a newspaper. However, if the verses were a part of an article or ad that would otherwise be libel, then the same thing would happen here. That's just it about the citation. There is absolutely no way to know all the facts based on a three sentence blurb purposely written with a certain slant.

The second site is a blog which does the same thing as the first with a lot more personal opinion thrown in the mix.

I would not be comfortable basing my opinion of this issue on either of those references. I would ask for something by a credible scholarly author written from an unbiased prospective.
Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...