Lets vote for the Bible to be our form of government- #vote for God

A Realist · Feb 21, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I would love to debate fact to fact with you if you wish. But I typically block posters who just want to harass and belittle.

Sorry bud, but in case you haven't found out, or haven't seen the notice above, they have moved this thread to a no debate forum. No debate allowed here.

Thomas White · Feb 21, 2020

createdtoworship said:
ok that is fine, so your saying their was no state authority either, or county authority or city authority at all, it would be the authorities in charge of say the military and taxation. If not that is fine. Then we can proceed, so this is the case sir? yes?

The Puritans were given a royal charter for self-governance. Because of the words of the charter, they were an independent company claiming the land in the name of Great Britian. They formed their own government without input from Great Britain. They elected their own members (all elders of the church), collected their own taxes, formed their own militia, ran their own courts, etc. They answered to no higher government authority, not even a royal governor. They were completely independent.

Archivist · Feb 21, 2020

createdtoworship said:
ok that is fine, so your saying their was no state authority either, or county authority or city authority at all, it would be the authorities in charge of say the military and taxation. If not that is fine. Then we can proceed, so this is the case sir? yes?

They were colonies. Of course there was a central government running the colony. If you read the John Winthrop quote that I twice posted you know that. It was a theocracy. And yes, every municipality in the colony also had its own governing body. I gave you the titles of three leading books by noted experts on this subject. I suggest that you read them if you want to gain a better understanding of the government of these colonies.

Thomas White · Feb 21, 2020

Archivist said:
They were colonies. Of course there was a central government running the colony. And yes, every municipality had its own governing body.

In the case of Massachusetts Bay Colony, the royal governor was not appointed until halfway through the Salem Witch Trials, specifically because of the witch trials. Great Britian eventually learned that the colony could not effectively govern itself as a theocracy. So only in this particular case, our argument that it was a theocracy is supported by the fact there was no royal governor.

createdtoworship · Feb 21, 2020

A Realist said:
Sorry bud, but in case you haven't found out, or haven't seen the notice above, they have moved this thread to a no debate forum. No debate allowed here.

that is fine, probably better. Debate works until people can't handle being refuted. I admit that I have lost in the past, poorly. And it changed me. I didn't like the change but I think it was for the good. Hopefully now I can teach others to think logically. If you want to debate this more, just message me. Thanks. (I feel I have refuted enough misconceptions in this thread that if one were to find the thread, they can navigate the responses and get an overall good picture of what a hypothetical theocracy would entail). That is all I was wishing to do. But in the last few pages, it's just been attacks and that is why it was moved. Which I am all for. God bless.

createdtoworship · Feb 21, 2020

Archivist said:
They were colonies. Of course there was a central government running the colony. If you read the John Winthrop quote that I twice posted you know that. It was a theocracy. And yes, every municipality in the colony also had its own governing body. I gave you the titles of three leading books by noted experts on this subject. I suggest that you read them if you want to gain a better understanding of the government of these colonies.

Thomas White said:
In the case of Massachusetts Bay Colony, the royal governor was not appointed until halfway through the Salem Witch Trials, specifically because of the witch trials. Great Britian eventually learned that the colony could not effectively govern itself as a theocracy. So only in this particular case, our argument that it was a theocracy is supported by the fact there was no royal governor.

again if one can prove that the governing authority was not secular in any form, including laws not found in the Bible, then I would agree. However full spectrums of the laws of the colonies have not been posted as evidence of this fact. so I await your reply. See if there are secular laws within the colony who would be the source of those secular laws? Not God or His word for sure, and that would negate the allegation that this is a theocracy.

However this thread has been moved to the non debate section of the forum, so we are not allowed to debate further this topic.

But you can message me if you wish.
""My Two Cents Worth" Forum is a non-debate area for our Christian members to share advice with other Christian members. Christian advice is defined as advice which contains basic Christian principles that do not conflict with the site's Statement of Faith. Advice should be shared for the purpose of edifying and encouraging other Christian members."

Thomas White · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
again if one can prove that the governing authority was not secular in any form, including laws not found in the Bible, then I would agree. However full spectrums of the laws of the colonies have not been posted as evidence of this fact. so I await your reply. See if there are secular laws within the colony who would be the source of those secular laws? Not God or His word for sure, and that would negate the allegation that this is a theocracy.

However this thread has been moved to the non debate section of the forum, so we are not allowed to debate further this topic.

But you can message me if you wish.
""My Two Cents Worth" Forum is a non-debate area for our Christian members to share advice with other Christian members. Christian advice is defined as advice which contains basic Christian principles that do not conflict with the site's Statement of Faith. Advice should be shared for the purpose of edifying and encouraging other Christian members."

The document I posted provides what you request.

createdtoworship · Feb 22, 2020

Thomas White said:
The document I posted provides what you request.

Usually a historical document is not a legal document of laws. (in fact a word search of the document you provided on "law" brought zero results). So I truly doubt every law they had is in this document. I also searched the document for "theocracy" and it had zero results as well so I wouldn't be far fetched to say this is not a 'proof of early theocracy."

take care, and thanks for the debate.

Archivist · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
again if one can prove that the governing authority was not secular in any form, including laws not found in the Bible, then I would agree. However full spectrums of the laws of the colonies have not been posted as evidence of this fact. so I await your reply. See if there are secular laws within the colony who would be the source of those secular laws? Not God or His word for sure, and that would negate the allegation that this is a theocracy.

However this thread has been moved to the non debate section of the forum, so we are not allowed to debate further this topic.

But you can message me if you wish.
""My Two Cents Worth" Forum is a non-debate area for our Christian members to share advice with other Christian members. Christian advice is defined as advice which contains basic Christian principles that do not conflict with the site's Statement of Faith. Advice should be shared for the purpose of edifying and encouraging other Christian members."

And you will notice that I have not been debating since this was moved, I have simply been answering you questions. I have provided you with three excellent sources if you want to see what the laws of the colonies were. I suggest you consult them since you don’t want to accept what Thomas provided. You should be aware that these colonies got by with very little in terms of law. The Plymouth Colony, for example, never even had a charter from the British government.

createdtoworship · Feb 22, 2020

Archivist said:
You have just shown that you have no understanding whatsoever of the Amish or Mennonites.
Amish are not accepting of technology and avoid using electricity. Mennonites accept technology of all kinds, and they do use cars as well as electricity.

Perhaps you should do you research before making statements such as what you said above.

For more on the differences between the Amish and the Mennonites check out this webpage: How to Distinguish Mennonites from Amish: 7 Steps (with Pictures)

Those who burned or hung witches (they were burned in continental Europe, hung in England and the American colonies) were relying on the Bible. Exodus 22:18 says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Those who participated in witch trials and executions took those words from the Bible very literally.

Witch trials took place in many of the American colonies. However, they were particularly prevalent in the New England colonies of Massachusetts and New Haven both of which were, essentially, Christian theocracies. Colonial leaders deliberately intended to create a Bible Commonwealth, a society in which the fundamental law would be the revealed Word of God, and God would be regarded as the supreme legislator. Thus, John Winthrop announced the program before the settlement, "For the worke wee haue in hand, it is by a mutuall consent …to seeke out a place of Cohabitation and Consorteshipp under a due forme of Government both ciuill and ecclesiastical"; the "due forme" was that enacted in the Bible. John Cotton later argued that the New England colonies, having a clear field before them, were duty bound to erect a "Theocracy … as the best forme of government in the commonwealth, as well as in the Church." Consequently, the political theory assumed that the colonies were based on the Bible and that all specific laws would show biblical warrant.

One of the best treatises on the subject is The New England Theocracy: A History of Congregationalists in New England to the Revivals of 1740 by H.F. Uhden (1858). I presume that you have read it and other works on the subject. If you have not done your research you are just offering your opinion which--unless you can show some special training in the subject--doesn't count for much.

I presume you are talking of this post as to your 3 sources. If not please post a link or post number. As for this post I only see legislators "claiming" ecclesiastical authority, and other such claims. But we would actually need a list of their bylaws. As soon as there was a law that was not from the Bible it would be tossed out. I am 99% sure that even if you did post every law they ever passed, that they would NOT be straight out of scripture. That would be the only way to 'prove' a theocracy existed in the 1600's. I am simply replying to posts, what I believe they don't desire is the mocking and such that comes with debate. Asking questions is normal for any thread. Debating, as in fighting, is what they don't want. And if you read my posts you realize that while I question I do not mock or belittle. I respect everyone's viewpoint and realize that we are all christian and come from differing backrounds, and honestly I don't care what other people believe regarding theocracy. It's just a way to talk it out and have thought provoking discussion regarding it, but it doesn't both me in particular that people don't view it my way. I am fine with that.

Thomas White · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Usually a historical document is not a legal document of laws. (in fact a word search of the document you provided on "law" brought zero results). So I truly doubt every law they had is in this document. I also searched the document for "theocracy" and it had zero results as well so I wouldn't be far fetched to say this is not a 'proof of early theocracy."

take care, and thanks for the debate.

Considering that the word theocracy was not used regularly until the 18th century, I would very much doubt that it would have been used. You will, however, find what Winthrop described as a "a Due Form of Government, Both Civil and Ecclesiastical" (A Model of Christian Charity, 1630).

createdtoworship · Feb 22, 2020

Thomas White said:
Considering that the word theocracy was not used regularly until the 18th century, I would very much doubt that it would have been used. You will, however, find what Winthrop described as a "a Due Form of Government, Both Civil and Ecclesiastical" (A Model of Christian Charity, 1630).

It was used earlier in latin and greek.

"originally of the sacerdotal government of Israel before the rise of kings, from later Greek theokratia (Josephus), literally "the rule of God," from theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + kratos "a rule, regime, strength" (see -cracy). "
-Online Etymology Dictionary

But ultimately I am not exactly sure what you are getting at. If a historical document is written in the last 100 years describing an older form of government, they could easily describe a pre existing theocracy if it so existed, so this doesn't really follow.

Lastly, even if theocracy itself as a word is not found in historical documents, that is fine. The principles of a theocracy have also not been found historically speaking, namely the strict legislation of only biblical verses and no more.

Thomas White · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
It was used earlier in latin and greek.

"originally of the sacerdotal government of Israel before the rise of kings, from later Greek theokratia (Josephus), literally "the rule of God," from theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + kratos "a rule, regime, strength" (see -cracy). "
-Online Etymology Dictionary

But ultimately I am not exactly sure what you are getting at. If a historical document is written in the last 100 years describing an older form of government, they could easily describe a pre existing theocracy if it so existed, so this doesn't really follow.

Lastly, even if theocracy itself as a word is not found in historical documents, that is fine. The principles of a theocracy have also not been found historically speaking, namely the strict legislation of only biblical verses and no more.

That is literally in the first document. Also, the document was written almost 400 years ago, not within the past 100 years.

createdtoworship · Feb 22, 2020

Archivist said:
You have just shown that you have no understanding whatsoever of the Amish or Mennonites.
Amish are not accepting of technology and avoid using electricity. Mennonites accept technology of all kinds, and they do use cars as well as electricity.

Perhaps you should do you research before making statements such as what you said above.

For more on the differences between the Amish and the Mennonites check out this webpage: How to Distinguish Mennonites from Amish: 7 Steps (with Pictures)

Those who burned or hung witches (they were burned in continental Europe, hung in England and the American colonies) were relying on the Bible. Exodus 22:18 says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Those who participated in witch trials and executions took those words from the Bible very literally.

Witch trials took place in many of the American colonies. However, they were particularly prevalent in the New England colonies of Massachusetts and New Haven both of which were, essentially, Christian theocracies. Colonial leaders deliberately intended to create a Bible Commonwealth, a society in which the fundamental law would be the revealed Word of God, and God would be regarded as the supreme legislator. Thus, John Winthrop announced the program before the settlement, "For the worke wee haue in hand, it is by a mutuall consent …to seeke out a place of Cohabitation and Consorteshipp under a due forme of Government both ciuill and ecclesiastical"; the "due forme" was that enacted in the Bible. John Cotton later argued that the New England colonies, having a clear field before them, were duty bound to erect a "Theocracy … as the best forme of government in the commonwealth, as well as in the Church." Consequently, the political theory assumed that the colonies were based on the Bible and that all specific laws would show biblical warrant.

One of the best treatises on the subject is The New England Theocracy: A History of Congregationalists in New England to the Revivals of 1740 by H.F. Uhden (1858). I presume that you have read it and other works on the subject. If you have not done your research you are just offering your opinion which--unless you can show some special training in the subject--doesn't count for much.

I didn't see a direct link to this article you are quoting I had to google search it, and in the 3rd paragraph it says this:
"magistrates are neither chosen to office in the church, nor do governe by directions from the church, but by civill lawes, and those enacted in generall courts, and executed in courts of iustice, by the governors and assistants. "

it sounds like he is saying that a local court or secular civil court will choose officers of the church, i may be misunderstanding this, but that is what i think it is saying. Any comments on that? That would not be a theocracy. In a theocracy the church would appoint the courts and directors of all the public affairs not the other way around. That is sort of what I mean, many alleged theocracies, are trying to be a theocracy but ultimately find it hard not to pass secular laws because most of our life is secular, and you have civil courts choosing church leaders.

update: I read further and it seems to say that the church is who picks the magistrates. So I don't know. But without a document of all their legal laws, it's hard to tell. It did seem like they were attempting a theocracy, I admit. But without finding their laws we cannot exactly prove it.

lastly, say this group was responsible for the salem witch trials, and I am under the impression that they were. That very fact shows that some actions were not done by God's will. If they simply prayed over that action, for instance using a fleece type of prayer, God would have clearly shown them it was in error. The problem is they assumed they knew what God's will is. You can't assume.

Archivist · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I presume you are talking of this post as to your 3 sources. If not please post a link or post number. As for this post I only see legislators "claiming" ecclesiastical authority, and other such claims. But we would actually need a list of their bylaws. As soon as there was a law that was not from the Bible it would be tossed out. I am 99% sure that even if you did post every law they ever passed, that they would NOT be straight out of scripture. That would be the only way to 'prove' a theocracy existed in the 1600's. I am simply replying to posts, what I believe they don't desire is the mocking and such that comes with debate. Asking questions is normal for any thread. Debating, as in fighting, is what they don't want. And if you read my posts you realize that while I question I do not mock or belittle. I respect everyone's viewpoint and realize that we are all christian and come from differing backrounds, and honestly I don't care what other people believe regarding theocracy. It's just a way to talk it out and have thought provoking discussion regarding it, but it doesn't both me in particular that people don't view it my way. I am fine with that.

I have twice listed books on the subject, most recently in post 484. Apparently you did read those posts. I listed three books on the subject written by noted experts. As I have already said twice, if your local college or university does not have them they should be able to get them for you on ILL. I have spoken nationally on the Salem witchcraft trials and consulted all three when I prepared my remarks.

Archivist · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I didn't see a direct link to this article you are quoting I had to google search it, and in the 3rd paragraph it says this:
"magistrates are neither chosen to office in the church, nor do governe by directions from the church, but by civill lawes, and those enacted in generall courts, and executed in courts of iustice, by the governors and assistants. "

it sounds like he is saying that a local court or secular civil court will choose officers of the church, i may be misunderstanding this, but that is what i think it is saying. Any comments on that? That would not be a theocracy. In a theocracy the church would appoint the courts and directors of all the public affairs not the other way around. That is sort of what I mean, many alleged theocracies, are trying to be a theocracy but ultimately find it hard not to pass secular laws because most of our life is secular, and you have civil courts choosing church leaders.

update: I read further and it seems to say that the church is who picks the magistrates. So I don't know. But without a document of all their legal laws, it's hard to tell. It did seem like they were attempting a theocracy, I admit. But without finding their laws we cannot exactly prove it.

Again, I have provided you with the titles of three excellent treatises on the subject. I suggest that you consult them.

lastly, say this group was responsible for the salem witch trials, and I am under the impression that they were. That very fact shows that some actions were not done by God's will. If they simply prayed over that action, for instance using a fleece type of prayer, God would have clearly shown them it was in error. The problem is they assumed they knew what God's will is. You can't assume.

There were a great many witch executions by Christians are that time. Yes, they prayed over it and acted accordingly based on the answers they received.

createdtoworship · Feb 22, 2020

Archivist said:
I have twice listed books on the subject, most recently in post 484. Apparently you did read those posts. I listed three books on the subject written by noted experts. As I have already said twice, if your local college or university does not have them they should be able to get them for you on ILL. I have spoken nationally on the Salem witchcraft trials and consulted all three when I prepared my remarks.

Archivist said:
Again, I have provided you with the titles of three excellent treatises on the subject. I suggest that you consult them.

There were a great many witch executions by Christians are that time. Yes, they prayed over it and acted accordingly based on the answers they received.

ok, I will read your posts but I want a response first. How can you "prove" they were governed by God? I know you said they prayed, and they may have. But how do you prove they were governed by God. After all in the old testament if their was sin in the camp and they would consult the priests and the urrim and the thumin, and God would tell them to go out to war, and they would get defeated, and get slaughtered, and 40% of their army would die in battle. And they would cry out and God would say in a quiet patient voice, "there was sin in the camp." See the Bible says that sin is like a cloud (in lamentations), and if you have known sin in your life. It will hinder prayer. So they prayed and God confirmed to go out to war, and they ran with their tale between their legs. So again how does one prove that this alleged 'theocracy' listened to God tell them to burn witches? Further more, let me help out. We know God's will first and foremost by the word of God. The Bible says in 2 timothy 3:16-17 that the Bible is able to thoroughly equip unto every good work. It is of my view that they didn't know the new testament well enough to be able to have a proper theocracy. And the fact that they burned witches is my primary evidence for this. You quote all these passages saying this is proof of theocracy when I say that it's proof AGAINST theocracy. So in conclusion, they should have known about Jesus words 'love your enemy." "bless and do not curse." They did not. So they performed something ANTI GOD. Lastly even if they prayed, and I am not sure they did. But say they did. God can send lying spirits into the hearts of the prophets. He has done so in the past, and He can do so in the future. It is my view that this sin they did was not the only sin, but was the end result of a long line of disobedience. So too when israel fell to the benjaminites. It was because of a long time, a good many years of disobedience that culminated in a lost war and a lot of casualty. God loves to bless us. God loves to show mercy. But God also loves to correct. And when He corrected Israel that day, they wept bitterly over their sin. But that day showed that they were not in fact "governed by God." And so too the witch trial prove beyond a shadow of a doubt from first hand eye witness stories that this group was not in fact 'governed by God."

so again I have no problem reading your stuff. But I doubt that it will accomplish what you think it will. The more we talk about this, the more I believe they were in fact not "governed by God' at all.

(sources for the war between Israel and Benjamin - Judges chapter 20)

"And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first."
Judges 20:18

After God said to send Judah into battle, they did so and lost 22,000 men the first day.

"(And the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until even, and asked counsel of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the LORD said, Go up against him.)"
Judges 20:23

so they cried before the Lord after losing. But they did not repent yet, so God told them to go ahead and go out to war again.

And Israel lost 18000 men the next day.

So the body count right now is 40,000 men lost due to sin.

Then they fasted and repented of national wickedness and God delivered them to Israel in the 3rd day. But only after repentance and fasting.

See God will give you false answers to prayer, He can do whatever He wants. He is God.

Archivist · Feb 22, 2020

createdtoworship said:
ok, I will read your posts but I want a response first. How can you "prove" they were governed by God? I know you said they prayed, and they may have. But how do you prove they were governed by God. After all in the old testament if their was sin in the camp and they would consult the priests and the urrim and the thumin, and God would tell them to go out to war, and they would get defeated, and get slaughtered, and 40% of their army would die in battle. And they would cry out and God would say in a quiet patient voice, "there was sin in the camp." See the Bible says that sin is like a cloud (in lamentations), and if you have known sin in your life. It will hinder prayer. So they prayed and God confirmed to go out to war, and they ran with their tale between their legs. So again how does one prove that this alleged 'theocracy' listened to God tell them to burn witches? Further more, let me help out. We know God's will first and foremost by the word of God. The Bible says in 2 timothy 3:16-17 that the Bible is able to thoroughly equip unto every good work. It is of my view that they didn't know the new testament well enough to be able to have a proper theocracy. And the fact that they burned witches is my primary evidence for this. You quote all these passages saying this is proof of theocracy when I say that it's proof AGAINST theocracy. So in conclusion, they should have known about Jesus words 'love your enemy." "bless and do not curse." They did not. So they performed something ANTI GOD. Lastly even if they prayed, and I am not sure they did. But say they did. God can send lying spirits into the hearts of the prophets. He has done so in the past, and He can do so in the future. It is my view that this sin they did was not the only sin, but was the end result of a long line of disobedience. So too when israel fell to the benjaminites. It was because of a long time, a good many years of disobedience that culminated in a lost war and a lot of casualty. God loves to bless us. God loves to show mercy. But God also loves to correct. And when He corrected Israel that day, they wept bitterly over their sin. But that day showed that they were not in fact "governed by God." And so too the witch trial prove beyond a shadow of a doubt from first hand eye witness stories that this group was not in fact 'governed by God."

so again I have no problem reading your stuff. But I doubt that it will accomplish what you think it will. The more we talk about this, the more I believe they were in fact not "governed by God' at all.

(sources for the war between Israel and Benjamin - Judges chapter 20)

"And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first."
Judges 20:18

After God said to send Judah into battle, they did so and lost 22,000 men the first day.

"(And the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until even, and asked counsel of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the LORD said, Go up against him.)"
Judges 20:23

so they cried before the Lord after losing. But they did not repent yet, so God told them to go ahead and go out to war again.

And Israel lost 18000 men the next day.

So the body count right now is 40,000 men lost due to sin.

Then they fasted and repented of national wickedness and God delivered them to Israel in the 3rd day. But only after repentance and fasting.

See God will give you false answers to prayer, He can do whatever He wants. He is God.

So, you want to establish a theocracy. Yet you say that “God will give you false answers to prayer...He can do whatever He wants.” How can you guarantee that He won’t give false answers to those running the theocracy you want to establish? Theocracies throughout history have done some terrible things in the name of God.

createdtoworship · Feb 22, 2020

Archivist said:
So, you want to establish a theocracy. Yet you say that “God will give you false answers to prayer...He can do whatever He wants.” How can you guarantee that He won’t give false answers to those running the theocracy you want to establish? Theocracies throughout history have done some terrible things in the name of God.

God can answer a prayer however He wants but He guarantees answers to prayer if you are living in obedience and if you are not praying 'to consume it upon your lust." So if you pray to get rich, well that could actually sabotage your faith. So He probably won't answer that. But if for example I pray for a theocracy, and I am not doing it for myself but for others, and if I am living an obedient life (repenting of known sin), and being honest and open about my sin to God. He will answer. It does not mean He will say yes, but He will answer. He promises that. And once you get the hang of prayer, I will say this....it's yes more than no. But say that making a theocracy would ruin my faith, that somehow the popularity would be too much for me, the fame, the power, if it's all too much. Then He knows, and He factors that into the equation. But He will tell you. If He closes that door, you know it's a no. But if He leaves it open, then you are in the waiting. He does say that prayer can be a blessing to our lives. And laboring in prayer makes it more effective, and fasting and praying also increase it's effectiveness. But prayer is a tool he gives only His children and it's for our blessing. But you have to use it the right way. Those guys thought killing was ok, in the name of God. Yeah how opposite can you get from Christ's words? They really did not honor the gospel passages. And no doubt that could be why their prayer (if they prayed) was not answered in an accurate way. Notice God does not lie. He may have said yes to it. But in saying yes, it was to correct a wickedness, just like He said yes to Israel before they went to battle and lost 40,000.

CaspianSails · Feb 22, 2020

I understand your notion and desire but God is more interested in your heart and not your government. God's Word as government only works with those whose heart is desirous of Him. To those who do not believe the preaching of the cross is foolishness.

Lets vote for the Bible to be our form of government- #vote for God

Living in Reality

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Similar threads