• Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
choralcrusader8613

Lori Alexander 15: Leaving A Fire With Her Makeup Bag

452 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Koala said:

Why can't women be pastors?

It comes from a passage in 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet.

   So, there are some churches who do not let women become senior pastors because a pastor has authority and responsibility for the congregation.  

   The big difference comes on the issue of women remaining quiet. Fundies think it literally means a woman cannot speak in church.  Others think it is more of a principle that women should not be busy bodies, gossip and run their mouths too much, but can still speak. Still others, think Paul may have been saying this as  a cultural issue of the time because women were not educated as they are today.

   

   

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Free Jana Duggar said:

It comes from a passage in 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet.

   So, there are some churches who do not let women become senior pastors because a pastor has authority and responsibility for the congregation.  

   The big difference comes on the issue of women remaining quiet. Fundies think it literally means a woman cannot speak in church.  Others think it is more of a principle that women should not be busy bodies, gossip and run their mouths too much, but can still speak. Still others, think Paul may have been saying this as  a cultural issue of the time because women were not educated as they are today.

Oh, I am aware of the verse they base it on.  I spent my teen years in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church/school.  

I am just pointing it out that it enforces the subjugation of women.  It doesn't really matter to what to what extent they practice it.  The message is clear- Women "aren't allowed" to speak/preach/teach.  Anything they are allowed to do should be considered a gift from the generous men who are really in control.

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On FB 10 mins ago:

Quote

"But aren't you teaching God's Word to men & women through this page & your blog? (I'm trying to understand why this is acceptable when teaching God's Word is not supposed to be done by women.)"

Bets it will be deleted?

UPDATE:

Here is Lori's response to that, LOL:

Quote

The Transformed Wife Deean, I teach women and it's very clear that this is what I do since I teach the principles of godly womanhood.

Jeesh and this exchange!

Quote

 

Amy McMinn Everett I read that in biblical times women didn't have the education the men had so they asked a lot of questions in church disturbing things, that's why that verse was added

2 · 3 hrs

The Transformed Wife Amy, don't listen to that garbage, Amy, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. Women are no more educated in the ways of the LORD today than they were back then.

2 hrs

Amy McMinn Everett It made sense to me, if they could not read, weren't taught, didn't have the bible, I am sure they had more questions than what you or I have now that we have the Word at our finger tips. I don't believe we should ask questions now or preach, my point is, I can see how when those passages were written, things were different maybe

1 · 2 hrs

The Transformed Wife Women weren't different, however. We are still easily deceived and like to talk a lot! :)

 

 

Edited by AlwaysDiscerning
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

On FB 10 mins ago:

Bets it will be deleted?

UPDATE:

Here is Lori's response to that, LOL:

Jeesh and this exchange!

 

The first thing I always want to do when I read stuff like this from Lori is :angry-banghead:   She has got to be the most deliberately obtuse person on the planet. 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

"After this week, I bought all of his CDs and wrote all over my Bible learning from this great man of faith. It has been life transforming for Ken and me. Debi helped change our marriage and Mike changed how we see the Lord and who we are in Him. God is using them in powerful ways because they are willing vessels for him. The conference was free because Michael doesn’t want to be beholden to anyone, just as the Apostle Paul was a tentmaker so he wouldn’t be beholden to anyone. They preach the Gospel clearly and with authority and this is why this was my favorite church service ever!"

Sadly, I don't think Michael and Debi have a good or healthy view of marriage or of who we are in Jesus.  I'm less familiar with their theological doctrine outside of the "doctrine of sexuality", but I know they believe some very strange things about children and why they need to be beaten.  

As a rule, I don't think it's good to revere a teacher the way lori and Ken revere the Pearls and the way some women now revere Lori. Every single teacher I know has said things that I've found questionable. Michael and Debi say a heck of a lot of those things. And Lori and Ken do too. 

2 hours ago, Koala said:

 So, there are some churches who do not let women become senior pastors because a pastor has authority and responsibility for the congregation.  

I'm fine with that if it's simply accepted as a rule based on the passage Free Jana quoted and on the passage in 1st Corinthians, and the reasons given are limited to the ones that the apostle Paul gave in his letter.

In 1 Corinthians 14 there is talk about a law. What law? I ask.  I wonder if there was a law that forbade women from speaking in public assemblies.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church."

There's no talk about women being more easily deceived. That, in my opinion, is man-made doctrine. Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus, was taught the Scriptures by his mother and his grandmother.  If women are more easily deceivable, does that mean we get less of the Holy Spirit? Why then is there any talk about women prophesying? 

If women are to be silent in the churches, where are the prophesying women supposed to share their prophecy?  

2 hours ago, Koala said:

I am just pointing it out that it enforces the subjugation of women.  It doesn't really matter to what to what extent they practice it.  The message is clear- Women "aren't allowed" to speak/preach/teach.

I understand your point, Koala. I don't find it problematic simply because I believe Church is about so much more than one man standing at the front, preaching at a whole bunch of people sitting in rows.  That's one part of it, but not all.  I also think there's a huge difference between Michael Pearl's insistence that only men share in church or Steve Anderson's declaration that "after the songs it's shut-up time for the women", and your standard church where women are very much a part of everything but preaching.  We give testimonies, we participate in Bible study, we lead the singing, etc... 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all! Here's the link to the first site that showed up when I asked why priests are only men: https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/priesthood_men.htm

 

"In his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994), the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” 

 

"Priesthood is a male function, for the reason that a priest is an icon of Christ, and Christ is male. The maleness of Christ is an important sign of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. As in nearly all cultures a man takes the initiative in winning a wife, so Christ took the initiative in winning souls and establishing His Church. For this reason, marriage is a “mystery” or sacrament of the Church (Eph 5:32)."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lori post that her book is now $9.95 permanently,  because her ministry isn't about making money, Lol!!

Took her several months...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, smittykins said:

I could be wrong(and @Cleopatra7  or one of our other Catholic FJers, please don't hesitate to correct me if I am), I think it's because since Jesus and His disciples were men, they believe only men should be priests.

The previous two priests at my Episcopal church were women, and they were both AWESOME.

The current line on why women can't receive holy orders (i.e., be ordained as priests) can be found in John Paul II's 1988 apostolic letter "Mulieris dignitatem," although the topic was first broached by Paul VI in his declaration "Inter Insigniores":

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

The TL;DR version is as follows:

1. The Last Supper was an ordination ceremony, and only the male disciples were present, per Scripture.

2. If Jesus had wanted to ordain women, he would have certainly ordained his mother, who was "blessed among all women."

3. Since Jesus didn't ordain his mother or any other woman, according to Scripture or Tradition, no woman can ever be ordained.

There's also the whole business about women not being able to be "other Christs" during the mass. Per Thomas Aquinas, women are "deformed men," a concept borrowed from Aristotle, which means that women cannot properly model Jesus, the most perfect of all men and humans. Also according to Aristotle and Aquinas, men are the most complete examples of humanity, whereas women only model the partial glory of humanity. While Aquinas admits that a woman can be a queen/head of government, he says that they absolutely cannot exercise spiritual authority over men, because of Paul's injunction for women to remain silent and submissive in church:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5039.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm

 

Quote

Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.  

 Obviously, one can't get up in the public square and say that women are misbegotten men, so the "we've never ordained women before and can't do it in the future" argument tends to be more common. But I have seen conservative and traditionalist Catholics bring up the horrible specter of a pregnant female priest presiding at the altar, so the view that the female body can't be an "alter Christus" is still present in many quarters.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Koala said:

Why can't women be pastors?

Personally, I think they can.  But I think the answer from some churches would just be that according to their very literal interpretation, that isn't what the Bible instructs.  And I know from experience that they don't all have the same hateful, twisted view of women as Michael Pearl.  

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Emilycharlotte said:

Personally, I think they can.  But I think the answer from some churches would just be that according to their very literal interpretation, that isn't what the Bible instructs.  And I know from experience that they don't all have the same hateful, twisted view of women as Michael Pearl.  

 

 

Women pastors are a thing in my RCA congregation. As are women elders and deacons. I don't follow Paul I follow Jesus. Some of Jesus' best students were women, such as Mary Magdalene. Sexism in the church has really diminished the importance of women.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Free Jana Duggar said:

It comes from a passage in 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:12-14, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet.

   So, there are some churches who do not let women become senior pastors because a pastor has authority and responsibility for the congregation.  

   The big difference comes on the issue of women remaining quiet. Fundies think it literally means a woman cannot speak in church.  Others think it is more of a principle that women should not be busy bodies, gossip and run their mouths too much, but can still speak. Still others, think Paul may have been saying this as  a cultural issue of the time because women were not educated as they are today.

   

   

 

 

Fictional example, if 1 Timothy 2:12-14 read like this "But I do not allow a black person to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet"

would you still accept it and say that it's fine, after all the big difference between fundies and "normal conservatives" comes in the issue of remaining quiet?Would it be respectful of POCs or would you consider something like that too horribly racist to be tolerated?

7 hours ago, Joyce said:

Hi all! Here's the link to the first site that showed up when I asked why priests are only men: https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/priesthood_men.htm

 

"In his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994), the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” 

 

"Priesthood is a male function, for the reason that a priest is an icon of Christ, and Christ is male. The maleness of Christ is an important sign of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. As in nearly all cultures a man takes the initiative in winning a wife, so Christ took the initiative in winning souls and establishing His Church. For this reason, marriage is a “mystery” or sacrament of the Church (Eph 5:32)."

:pb_lol: another reason for I'm not Catholic (nor religious) anymore and much happier because of it. You know, women can't have maximum spiritual authority because of a metaphor!

And here you also have the reason for the RCC just can't accept same sex marriages. They are just as glued to gender roles as any fundie. Their world order crumbles if gender roles change. Never mind that Hebrews, Greeks and Romans were very misogynistic even compared to other cultures and this heavily influenced Christianity, but yeah other cultures don't count right?

Anyway @Joyce as a Catholic what do you think about the Commission for Women Deacons wanted by pope Francis? The New Testament clearly states that women were deacons back then (something fundies very conveniently forget), it isn't the same as priesthood (it wouldn't threaten Christ's sacred maleness), but women would be in a position of authority in the Church hierarchy, even over *gasp* males.

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Per Thomas Aquinas, women are "deformed men," a concept borrowed from Aristotle, which means that women cannot properly model Jesus, the most perfect of all men and humans.

Which is why it makes total sense that a bunch of child molesters can model Jesus (because penis) but even a saintly woman cannot (because no penis).

Because having external genitals consisting of floppy sensitive gonads and a flesh-tube right dangling between one's legs (interfering with all manner of those Hunting The Mammoth style functions) is obviously a superior genital arrangement to a relatively streamlined vulva around a passage leading to the cradle of all humanity. Naturally, ejaculation trumps the female orgasm. Obviously, that noblest of haploid gametes, the sperm cell, is far more important than the egg (that dwarfs it) or the vast personal resources that go into nurturing the resulting zygote over the following months.

Nevermind, of course, that science says that all embyros develop identically (as females)  for quite some time past a detectable heartbeat-  science is only important when it upholds the Patriarchy.

Nay. The main thing is a dick. It's spiritually crucial- you see, all the people that got recorded (in books written by men) were men, which obviously means women weren't important to Jesus. Except when we feel like it, like noticing that Jesus didn't just pop into existence a full grown man (even though an omnipotent God could obviously do that)- Mary carried, gave birth to, nursed, and reared Him. Almost like that process is important for some reason.

Psh. I'm sure it's nothing.

19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lori's reply to a comment on yesterday's "Not Broken" doodle contained this gem (bolded mine):

"As soon as we believe, every sin we have ever committed or will commit is completely forgiven and we are washed white as snow."

So .....Um... Ah. ....Lori is saying that Bible-believing Christians are completely absolved of all future sins? That they are free to say or do any and every evil, sinful thing they want and never have to repent again of all the evil wicked things they do? Because they now have a "get out of Hell free card"?  You know -- evil things like beating your children with a leather strap for spilling raisins.

Lori, honey, that's not how it works.

But course she's referring to Michael Pearl teachings.  How Lori can believe any word about God/Jesus that comes out of that horrible man's mouth I will *never* understand.

 

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Lori's reply to a comment on yesterday's "Not Broken" doodle contained this gem (bolded mine):

"As soon as we believe, every sin we have ever committed or will commit is completely forgiven and we are washed white as snow."

So .....Um... Ah. ....Lori is saying that Bible-believing Christians are completely absolved of all future sins? That they are free to say or do any and every evil, sinful thing they want and never have to repent again of all the evil wicked things they do? Because they now have a "get out of Hell free card"?  You know -- evil things like beating your children with a leather strap for spilling raisins.

Lori, honey, that's not how it works.

But course she's referring to Michael Pearl teachings.  How Lori can believe any word about God/Jesus that comes out of that horrible man's mouth I will *never* understand.

 

Believing that is what gives Lori the license to be a bitch. She can be a bitch forever in the future because she is already forgiven. If you follow this line of thinking, why should women worry about yoga pants and causing men to lust, if the men lust and sin well they are already forgiven, so WHO CARES!

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi laPapessaGiovanna! Thank you for the question. I support the commission for women deacons. In fact, if the Pope allows women priests and same sex marriages in the future, that would be good too. I tend to be submissive and just follow the leadership, so I don't rock the boat. But if it was just me, I support gender equality for all. Thank you! :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Lori post that her book is now $9.95 permanently,  because her ministry isn't about making money, Lol!!

Took her several months...

Yes, that's why. It's not because no one is buying her book, and she spent so much to produce it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lawfulevil said:

Nevermind, of course, that science says that all embyros develop identically (as females)  for quite some time past a detectable heartbeat-  science is only important when it upholds the Patriarchy.

*This*  Now for way back when, sure we can blame true ignorance, but today it's verifiable that male and female embryo's are identical.  The old question:  why do men have nipples?  The way it reads to me, since females are the ones who actually create and develop said fetus, perhaps it is the male who is "misbegotten".  Why...would a deity give such an important role to the lesser of the two?  There are examples of animals where the male carries the babies (seahorses for one) so it isn't impossible or against The Plan.  

Edited by Imrlgoddess
wording
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lawfulevil said:

science is only important when it upholds the Patriarchy

And when they find that 1 scientist/doctor out of 100 scientists/doctors who supports their view on something. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate getting into arguments about Catholicism, but I will say just a few things. 

1--The Commission on Females in the Diaconate has already met, so it is not merely a proposal to have one. That is a very important step in the right direction for female leadership in the Church. The Catholic Church changes at a glacial pace so a different kind of patience applies. BUT...if female deacons are approved, it is a bigger change than many outside the church may understand. Deacons may give homilies and often do. In other words, we would have women preaching in church. They can also perform baptisms and weddings that do not take place within a mass (most baptisms do not and some couples choose to have a wedding without a mass). By all means, then, this would mean that women are not silent in church. But we are not made to be silent now any more than any unordained male is. Women can speak in church aside from giving a homily in the same way that unordained men may do. I have been to Catholic retreats led by women more times than I can count--where women essentially preached outside the context of a mass. And, for the record, I have never in my life been to a Catholic women's retreat. Only to workplace retreats for Catholic schools, RCIA retreats for people in the process of converting and confirmation retreats as a youth sponsor--all mixed gender events. Michael Pearl's rules would never apply. 

2--Francis has been good for women thus far. Aside from  the commission on women deacons, he has appointed the first woman to a leadership position within the Vatican, has spoke out about the need for and value of female leadership within parishes/church life, and lifted some sanctions/restrictions previously imposed on some orders of nuns. 

3--As someone who was for a short time evangelical and surrounded by evangelicals and charismatics (neo-pentecostals) before converting to Catholicism, I can tell you that there is a huge difference in the position of women in the two traditions. Yes, there are no female priests. But in most parishes, women hold many, many other leadership positions. Over half of our parish board is female. Every employee of our parish besides the priest and a maintenance person is female. The architect that oversaw our church renovation is female and she will be overseeing the renovation of the offices and rectory that is now being planned.  In the Archdiocese I live in, the first male superintendent of schools in 35+ years took over three years ago--he succeeded not one but three straight women. Many other women hold leadership positions in the archdiocese, particularly those positions held by lay people. Last time I looked, more women than men. By contrast, I knew of churches during my time in evangelical world that did not allow women to hold leadership positions outside of children's ministries. Someone mentioned Mary as a point about why women should not be overlooked in the gospel. I shouldn't have to explain that it is not the Catholics overlooking the role of Mary. Protestants of all stripes are the ones guilty of that. 

Beyond that, I have never heard anyone preach gender roles or female submission in a Catholic church or school. This is an important thing to note because I attended Catholic school in the Most Conservative Diocese in America (tm). A diocese so conservative that there are literally stories of one Cardinal Ratzinger telling young American priests and young American families to move there because it was superior. Meanwhile the largest Catholic school in that diocese boasts a college completion rate for its alumni of 97%--and it is definitely a co-educational school. They expect their female graduates to go to college and succeed in careers. In the alumni magazine, women alumni are featured for achievements in secular fields and academics as often as men. And even in a senior marriage course at that high school where we were treated to a woman waving around her chart of her cycle (minor digression--but if you want to see a lot of bright red uncomfortable 18 year old boys in one room...), gender roles and female submission were not taught. We were, in fact, told that those biblical passages were written in the context of the culture of the time and not applicable to our time. 

Is the church perfect when it comes to gender equality? No. Just like the rest of the world, it has a ways to go. But making American Catholicism the scapegoat for gender inequity in religion...there are plenty of other places to look. I even know nuns who wear pants. 

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great that women have a lot of roles in individual parishes, and maybe they even make some decisions about the day to day running of those churches.

But, who ultimately is in authority when it comes to The Church?

Hint: It ain't the women.

 

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joyce, I would totally read Lori-as-Serena-Joy.  Ken would probably enjoy handmaids...

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this and it made me think of Lori. 

dramabtch.jpg

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's great that women have a lot of roles in individual parishes, and maybe they even make some decisions about the day to day running of those churches.
But, who ultimately is in authority when it comes to The Church?
Hint: It ain't the women.
 
 


Again though...why go after the Catholic Church first in this area? Why in a world with IFB and Michael Pearls have people in this thread decided that the real villain of gender inequity is a denomination that has made progress, allows women many positions of leadership and is actively moving toward more?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think half (or more) of the church leadership problem stems from misunderstanding what Church is and what Church leadership is called to do.   If Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head (for everything that means) of the Church, then the leadership should be doing what Jesus does: serve, help grow, equip, be an example.  Jesus taught that whoever wants to be the greatest should become a servant to all.  So leadership is a position of service, not of being served. 

Sadly, the Church today is more like a club or a business. Leadership is all about teaching, preaching and exercising authority, but there's little talk about serving and being an example.  Christian leaders lead, primarily, by example.  How much emphasis is placed on the requirements laid out in some of the epistles and in the book of Acts?  How much emphasis is placed on being imitators of Christ -as described in Philippians 2 or Ephesians 5-?  

There's this wrong concept of church and family as organizations built around relationships of authority and submission, where one or a few rule, and everyone else is in submission to the authorities.   But the passages suggest something different to me.  Yes, there's authority -in the church- but it's authority in serving and being an example. Much like any other authority that we trust and want to follow because they actually show us what we want or need to know.  A bad leader shouldn't be followed. A leader who is basically out there to make money or make a name for himself is not a true Church leader. A leader that doesn't live a life worth imitating isn't a good leader.  In that sense, women are leaders and there are female leaders in the Church. Jesus even pointed out a certain woman as an example of love and faith.  

What is the job of a church leader? Much like a teacher in a school, a church teacher or leader is concerned with helping those in his/her care to learn and grow. Ephesians 4 says:  (11-16)

 

Quote

And he (Jesus) gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I found this list of Bible verses that go into leadership and what it implies.  Should it be male only? I don't think so. Does Jesus want the men to be the ones who take the responsibility to oversee the Church? It appears to say that, and I have nothing against that. But it's servanthood, not domination or demanding submission.  

www.openbible.info/topics/church_leadership

Edited by onemama
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its time to talk about 50 shades with Lori again!

Quote

"Also, when you are filling your mind with other people’s sexcapades, you are hurting your own sexual relationship with 'your husbands with “vain imaginations.”"

NOPE, only has made mine better. HE loves our fantasy, "imagination" life.

Quote

"Do not have pleasure in watching other people sin on a screen or read about it in a book! It will NOT make your sex life better."

NOPE again. 

 

 

Edited by AlwaysDiscerning
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now