Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Should We Use Gender-Inclusive Language For God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should We Use Gender-Inclusive Language For God?

    Is this a good idea or not?

    The link can be found here.

    ----

    I recently got into a discussion on Facebook on if we should use gender-inclusive language for God. Would it really be a problem if we used more feminine language to describe God? Could it help men and women to better relate to God?

    The motive is good I am sure, but that does not mean that the action itself is. We know there are many ideas that are tried today that have excellent intentions, but they do not produce excellent results. What we would need to know is if there is any data that would help.*

    Fortunately, there is. This is in a book I am currently going through (Though I have paused to read Bart Ehrman's newest that came out today) called*Why Men Hate Going To Church. It is by David Murrow and I have found it to be incredibly eye-opening. For my own part, I can relate to much of what he says.*

    Murrow says that there are many men who believe in God and hold orthodox beliefs, but they just don't care for church. I can say there are many times I can be sitting in a service and my mind is more on a game I'd like to play when I get home. Why? Because in much of church there is nothing challenging and you often hear the same kinds of messages over and over which is pure application. There is little wrestling with the text, serious exegesis, going back to the historicity of the accounts, etc.*

    One exception to this was a church we attended in Knoxville called The Point. I remember still texting a friend of mine into apologetics during the service and saying "I can't believe I'm hearing a sermon on the Conquest in the Old Testament." Some of you might be aghast at texting during church. Don't be. ours encouraged it. They wanted us to let people know what we were doing and also to text in our questions which the preacher would answer afterward*and if it was a lengthy response, he would put up a video message of it during the week.*

    Murrow says that we have in many ways feminized the church. This is not to say that women are unimportant, but when women dominate a church, the church doesn't often get the benefits that men often bring, which is greater risk-taking and such. We become internally focused about the family of God instead of externally about the kingdom of God.

    Murrow has no thoughts of changing the Gospel. Absolutely not. Instead, remove the feminine focus. Some sayings that guys have a hard time with that he gives as examples are intimacy with God and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Intimacy in the Bible refers to sex. Men don't want to think about sex with God. We love to think about sex and to have it, but not that way. We also don't talk about personal relationships. If I called a male friend or they called me and one of us said we wanted to talk about our personal relationship, we would be asking if the other was gay.*

    Jesus does do many things that are not seen as masculine today, such as weeping openly, and no doubt some of our ideas about being a man are wrong, but not all. Jesus is not just the Lamb of God. He is the Lion of Judah. We have often turned Him into Mr. Rogers.

    Years ago I read*Five Views on the Historical Jesus.*One view presented was John Dominic Crossan's. He talked about how John the Baptist preached a fiery message and got arrested for it and put in jail and executed. Jesus saw this and decided to tone His down to a much greater message of love. Big problem with this theory. This Jesus is a mamby-pamby weakling. This Jesus is not a threat to anyone. This Jesus would never be crucified.

    Unfortunately, the data is in and men do not really like going to church when church seems too feminine. The solution again is not to change the Gospel, but to make it a place where men feel they belong. They need to be in a place where they're not ashamed to tell their fellow men where they are. Men need a place where they think masculinity is accepted and welcomed.

    How is this going to be helped by speaking of God as feminine? Men look to other men to be leaders and having God described as a woman won't help. Yes, I know there are some passages of Scripture that speak of God in some feminine terminology, but these are the exception. Most of it is masculine and needs to be emphasized.

    We can also be assured that when men start going to church, women will go more too. Women will go more because wives and children often follow the husbands. Not always, but generally if you want to win a family to Jesus, you start with the father. Women will also go if single to find a good and godly man as well at a church where real men are gathered.*

    While I can understand the desire to help people feel more comfortable at church, I can't support the idea of changing language for God. If God has described Himself in terminology that's largely male, maybe we should leave it at that and consider that God can describe Himself better than we can. A little idea can have disastrous results down the line.*

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    So much of the culture is creeping into the church that soon we shall be Laodicea........


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Is this a good idea or not?

      The link can be found here.

      ----

      I recently got into a discussion on Facebook on if we should use gender-inclusive language for God. Would it really be a problem if we used more feminine language to describe God? Could it help men and women to better relate to God?

      The motive is good I am sure, but that does not mean that the action itself is. We know there are many ideas that are tried today that have excellent intentions, but they do not produce excellent results. What we would need to know is if there is any data that would help.*

      Fortunately, there is. This is in a book I am currently going through (Though I have paused to read Bart Ehrman's newest that came out today) called*Why Men Hate Going To Church. It is by David Murrow and I have found it to be incredibly eye-opening. For my own part, I can relate to much of what he says.*

      Murrow says that there are many men who believe in God and hold orthodox beliefs, but they just don't care for church. I can say there are many times I can be sitting in a service and my mind is more on a game I'd like to play when I get home. Why? Because in much of church there is nothing challenging and you often hear the same kinds of messages over and over which is pure application. There is little wrestling with the text, serious exegesis, going back to the historicity of the accounts, etc.*
      This has bothered me for decades -- basically, ever since I got past the place where everything about Christianity and the Bible was "new" to me. Many churches deal with it by having small-group Bible studies where that kind of in-depth study, ideally in a somewhat interactive format, can take place. That's great -- for people who have the time and interest to attend.

      I don't think this particular aspect is masculine vs. feminine.

      One exception to this was a church we attended in Knoxville called The Point. I remember still texting a friend of mine into apologetics during the service and saying "I can't believe I'm hearing a sermon on the Conquest in the Old Testament." Some of you might be aghast at texting during church. Don't be. ours encouraged it. They wanted us to let people know what we were doing and also to text in our questions which the preacher would answer afterward*and if it was a lengthy response, he would put up a video message of it during the week.*

      Murrow says that we have in many ways feminized the church. This is not to say that women are unimportant, but when women dominate a church, the church doesn't often get the benefits that men often bring, which is greater risk-taking and such. We become internally focused about the family of God instead of externally about the kingdom of God.
      This seems counter-intuitive, given the heavy predominance of male leadership in churches.


      Murrow has no thoughts of changing the Gospel. Absolutely not. Instead, remove the feminine focus. Some sayings that guys have a hard time with that he gives as examples are intimacy with God and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Intimacy in the Bible refers to sex.
      This is overstated to the point of being untrue.

      And no, "guys" do not have a problem with the idea of a "personal relationship" with Jesus, unless they are victims of some toxic version of masculinity. He is our Brother and Friend as well as our Lord, and we have the same Abba. These are important "personal relationships" we should embrace.

      Men don't want to think about sex with God. We love to think about sex and to have it, but not that way. We also don't talk about personal relationships. If I called a male friend or they called me and one of us said we wanted to talk about our personal relationship, we would be asking if the other was gay.*

      Jesus does do many things that are not seen as masculine today, such as weeping openly, and no doubt some of our ideas about being a man are wrong, but not all. Jesus is not just the Lamb of God. He is the Lion of Judah. We have often turned Him into Mr. Rogers.

      Years ago I read*Five Views on the Historical Jesus.*One view presented was John Dominic Crossan's. He talked about how John the Baptist preached a fiery message and got arrested for it and put in jail and executed. Jesus saw this and decided to tone His down to a much greater message of love. Big problem with this theory. This Jesus is a mamby-pamby weakling. This Jesus is not a threat to anyone. This Jesus would never be crucified.

      Unfortunately, the data is in and men do not really like going to church when church seems too feminine. The solution again is not to change the Gospel, but to make it a place where men feel they belong. They need to be in a place where they're not ashamed to tell their fellow men where they are. Men need a place where they think masculinity is accepted and welcomed.
      I don't know that I've ever been to a church that felt "feminine."


      How is this going to be helped by speaking of God as feminine? Men look to other men to be leaders and having God described as a woman won't help. Yes, I know there are some passages of Scripture that speak of God in some feminine terminology, but these are the exception. Most of it is masculine and needs to be emphasized.
      I don't look for leadership based on gender, and I find that whole perspective carnal and unbiblical.


      We can also be assured that when men start going to church, women will go more too. Women will go more because wives and children often follow the husbands. Not always, but generally if you want to win a family to Jesus, you start with the father. Women will also go if single to find a good and godly man as well at a church where real men are gathered.*
      This is just patriarchalist speculation in the absence of supporting data.


      While I can understand the desire to help people feel more comfortable at church, I can't support the idea of changing language for God. If God has described Himself in terminology that's largely male, maybe we should leave it at that and consider that God can describe Himself better than we can. A little idea can have disastrous results down the line.*

      In Christ,
      Nick Peters
      I agree that the large majority of the language used in Scripture to describe God is masculine, and we should honor that. But if we are really going to "wrestle with the text," we should also point out the feminine aspects when they occur -- e.g., the hen gathering her chicks, or the (admittedly more convoluted) linkage of the feminine "wisdom" with the Word, and thus (in John) Jesus.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #4
        There's been a discussion about that going on this month in the thread Don't Call God "He..."

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to use gender-inclusive terminology for Satan.
          When I Survey....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Faber View Post
            There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to use gender-inclusive terminology for Satan.
            No one likes or cares about that guy! And spirits don't have a biological gender, so they can be what they want to be called. Don't know if angels go by he or not. Angels can take the form of a young man, so maybe 'he' is a generic pronoun?
            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Faber View Post
              There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to use gender-inclusive terminology for Satan.
              Well you know what they say...the devil, she's in the details.
              I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                Well you know what they say...the devil, she's in the details.
                Hillary Clinton.jpg
                When I Survey....

                Comment


                • #9
                  I follow my church's approach (PCUSA). Jesus is a male, so male pronouns are appropriate for him. Jesus called God father, so we use that language. We also try to use other images to the extent we can. In practice father tends to be more common because it's that way in Scripture and our language in worship tends to be based on Scripture. We try to avoid using "he" with God when it's not specifically Jesus, and we translate Biblical references that include everyone in a gender-neutral way.

                  We don't go to extremes like changing all hymns that call God father. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

                  I very much doubt that this approach would affect men's relationship with God. Since this is the direction language is going anyway, probably most people don't even notice it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                    I follow my church's approach (PCUSA). Jesus is a male, so male pronouns are appropriate for him. Jesus called God father, so we use that language. We also try to use other images to the extent we can. In practice father tends to be more common because it's that way in Scripture and our language in worship tends to be based on Scripture. We try to avoid using "he" with God when it's not specifically Jesus,
                    Contrary to the political misinformation, "he" is only a gender specific pronoun when it refers to a specifically masculine antecedent - otherwise it is gender neutral. "He" dates to Old English and had continued unchanged through the centuries until uneducated persons with axes to grind got altogether too much press during the 1970s. The reason that "he" was the Old English term equally applicable to male and female arises from "man" and "woman" being masculine nouns in that language. "She," by contrast is not so ancient a word (technically) and always had been specifically feminine.

                    and we translate Biblical references that include everyone in a gender-neutral way.
                    Has anyone considered the possibility that gender specific terms, such as "all believers are sons of God," might JUST be more appropriate than gender neutral language? In that particular example, "sons and daughters" or "children" doesn't eliminate inequality. If (as we are repeatedly assured is the case) sons are considered superior to daughters, neither "sons and daughters" nor "children" eliminates the option of sons being superior to daughters. If a woman is a "son of God" there is no basis for assuming any superiority of male over female.

                    Then there is the neutering of such passages as "any man aspiring to be an elder ... must be the husband of one wife." The author is referring to men who want to be elders - the passage has nothing to say about women who want to be elders. So we emasculate (sorry, "neuter") the language to what avail? (aside from having to dream up a whole swathe of invalid excuses for why the neutered passage remains a faithful translation.)

                    I very much doubt that this approach would affect men's relationship with God.
                    Interesting phrasing.
                    Since this is the direction language is going anyway, probably most people don't even notice it.
                    At one time, "men's relationship" would automatically have been read as meaning "people's relationship" - now, it must be considered ambiguous, particularly if it is stated by an advocate of "gender neutral" language.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 02-13-2018, 11:39 PM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      ...
                      Then there is the neutering of such passages as "any man aspiring to be an elder ... must be the husband of one wife." The author is referring to men who want to be elders - the passage has nothing to say about women who want to be elders. So we emasculate (sorry, "neuter") the language to what avail? (aside from having to dream up a whole swathe of invalid excuses for why the neutered passage remains a faithful translation.)
                      It does not say, "any MAN desiring..." It in fact uses a neuter term better rendered, "anyone." That's just the way it is.

                      Now, the "husband of one wife" part is where the so-called "dream[ing] up... of invalid excuses" comes in: Some NT experts such as P.B. Payne make the case that it is a figure of speech meaning "faithful spouse." That part is debatable. What is not debatable is that there is no masculine pronoun in the passage.
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      Nationalist Christian.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                      Justice for Matthew Perna!

                      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I haven't read the work in question but I'm just going off this review here. I fear Murrow has conflated cultural expectations of masculinity/femininity vs. a biblical model of gender differences. This is the same mistake made by some American pastors who have maintained that a godly masculinity involves such things as watching football, shooting guns, etc. I wonder what Murrow would make of the biblical description of David and Jonathan's friendship, which was so intimate that it was better than the love between man and woman. Based on the description in this review, he would probably think it sounds gay. This suggests that we shouldn't feel the need to bend over backwards to make the gospel more male appealing. The gospel is what it is and we shouldn't craft it differently. (I also don't see any reason to think that it's more crucial to reach fathers than mothers. Mothers tend to be closer to their children so one could just as easily argue the opposite.)

                        I'm in agreement on the issue of not portraying God as feminine, though.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                          It does not say, "any MAN desiring..." It in fact uses a neuter term better rendered, "anyone." That's just the way it is.

                          Now, the "husband of one wife" part is where the so-called "dream[ing] up... of invalid excuses" comes in: Some NT experts such as P.B. Payne make the case that it is a figure of speech meaning "faithful spouse." That part is debatable. What is not debatable is that there is no masculine pronoun in the passage.
                          ει τις εστιν (if someone is) - τις is assuredly a masculine pronoun ... μιας γυναικος ανηρ (assuredly "man" or "husband") - and τις plays against ανηρ as its referent: ανηρ does not double for "person," ανθρωπος does. τις is not only grammatically masculine, it is used as a substitute for a noun that demonstrably identifies a male (ανηρ). μιας γυναικος (of one woman/wife) - is genitive, it assigns a (conceptual) location or relationship. This is elementary grammar.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            Is this a good idea...?
                            No.
                            My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              ει τις εστιν (if someone is) - τις is assuredly a masculine pronoun ... μιας γυναικος ανηρ (assuredly "man" or "husband") - and τις plays against ανηρ as its referent: ανηρ does not double for "person," ανθρωπος does. τις is not only grammatically masculine, it is used as a substitute for a noun that demonstrably identifies a male (ανηρ). μιας γυναικος (of one woman/wife) - is genitive, it assigns a (conceptual) location or relationship. This is elementary grammar.
                              NIV2011 -- "Whoever..."

                              NET -- "If someone..."

                              ESV2011 -- "If anyone..."

                              NRSV -- "Whoever..."

                              ISV -- "The one who would..."

                              HCSB -- "If anyone..."

                              CEB -- "If anyone..."

                              CEV -- "anyone who desires..."

                              A few, like the NASB and NKJV, do use "if any MAN..." The NASB concordance shows the meaning of "tis" to be "a certain one, someone, anyone."

                              As to the rest, I addressed that. I'll leave you to contact P.B. Payne and correct the errors he makes here:


                              Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul
                              encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a
                              trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires
                              a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive
                              word, implying an open door to women as well as men. Would Paul
                              encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul
                              makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating
                              “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the
                              parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to
                              most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any
                              of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.

                              What about overseers being a “husband of one wife” in 1 Tim
                              3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, which in Greek is literally, “man of one
                              woman”? This text does not say merely “man” but “man of one
                              woman”; the whole phrase must be understood together as an
                              idiom. Some insist on extracting one word, namely, “man,” and
                              arbitrarily isolating it from its context as a new requirement that
                              every overseer be a “man.” But this is as nonsensical as arguing
                              that since “hit and run” is a felony, “run” must also be a felony.
                              Most scholars, including hierarchist scholars, understand “man
                              of one woman” to exclude polygamists or sexually unfaithful men
                              from being overseers.

                              Nevertheless, some insist that the passage also excludes
                              women. Reading a double meaning into this idiomatic phrase,
                              both an exclusion of polygamists and a universal requirement that
                              overseers be men, is unwarranted and would make nonsense of
                              most of Paul’s other multi-word requirements for overseers. Must
                              all overseers have their “own household” with slaves and multiple
                              “children” old enough to “believe” and be in subjection “with all
                              gravity”? Furthermore, since 1 Tim 3:11 identifies qualifications for
                              women deacons, the same expression, “man of one woman,” in the
                              requirements for deacons in 3:12 must not exclude women. Thus,
                              reading into “man of one woman” a requirement that overseers be
                              male is arbitrary and unwarranted.

                              It is simply Greek convention to use grammatically masculine
                              forms when referring to groups of people including men and women.
                              One excellent pastor-professor who affirms patriarchy
                              argues that it is common throughout the Bible for prohibitions
                              addressing men also to apply to women. He states, “As is widely recognized, . . . [i]n the absence of other constraints, norms which
                              utilize male-oriented terminology ought to be construed, in general,
                              as including both sexes in their purview.”

                              Jesus’s interpretation of Deut 24 in Mark 10:12 confirms this. The principle of monogamy
                              conveyed by “man of one woman” applies equally to men and
                              women just as “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exod
                              20:17) applies equally to a husband or wife coveting a neighbor’s
                              spouse. Thus, the most accurate and literal translation of “man
                              of one woman” is “monogamous” since it best conveys the Greek
                              convention’s inclusive meaning of masculine forms, and since this
                              is the natural meaning of this idiom in verse 12.

                              See full PDF here. And forgive likely formatting problems owing to copying and pasting from said PDF.

                              Both the CEB and CEV translations render the passage "correctly" according to Payne's view. E.g.:


                              1Tim 3 (CEB)
                              1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. 2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy. 4 They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, 5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church? 6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell. 7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Federalist.

                              Nationalist Christian.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                              Justice for Matthew Perna!

                              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              74 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              60 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              3 responses
                              43 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X