Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 25,282

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Full Story

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#20219 Sep 26, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Jesus merely drew the parallel. Yes, of course he was right. But, you cannot put the cart before the horse and neither did he. He noted that marriage came about as a result of the pair-bond. Not the other way around.
Marriage, as a sacrament, is a ritual recognition of the natural pair-bond. It brings the local families and tribal culture into a recognition of the boundary of trust and exclusivity established between the two being married, inside of the boundary created and recognized, and the families and tribe on the outside of the boundary. It draws on the personal integrity and commitment of the two to each other's welfare and spiritual freedom.
The previous poster is correct in noting that the female was considered to be "property." That was the reason for the tradition of dowry. You are correct in noting that the pair-bond between male and female is driven by the potential of reproduction. But, that drive is neither always fruitful nor is it always the primary reason for marriage to many couples.
Furthermore, many cultures defined marriage in terms of polygamy, even though the pair-bond remains a significant natural force.
Personal property, holdings, territory and preferred hunting and gathering grounds, access to trade, peaceful coexistence, lawful morality, tradition, language, alliance against adversity, progeny, inheritance, and many other influences are all building blocks that arise out of the creation of family and the establishment of tribe and leadership.
Rev. Ken
Too funny rev,

No, Jesus did not merely draw the 'parallel'. He adamantly confirmed the original design.

You just HAVE to spin it in mindless ways. The 'pair rebonding' IS marriage. The ceremony is simply a formal recognition of it.

And the simple reality is just as I stated, children are the primary basis of marriage. You agreed but pointlessly had to note some of numerous other customs and influences.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#20220 Sep 26, 2013
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you see that your having to jump through all these hoops you put up in this odd, circular pattern of assumptions and inferences and wholly disconnected, unrelated matter, only evidences a faulty premise? You appear to be trying to explain something that cannot be explained: why people make the choices that they do. People choose to bend over, they choose to suck and they choose to define themselves by this activity. People simply make these choices because they want to. And that may or may not be fine depending on one's thoughts on free will. What they do not have free will to do, or should not have free will to do is to impose their chosen deviancy on the rest of us.
Why is it that you Christ-insanity-ists always see reality backwards?

It is the white, male, heterosexual Christian who is imposing their chosen deviancy of superiority and uniformity onto minorities who would like to be left alone.

America has planted the seeds of destruction to the pedestal that white, male, heterosexual Christians have placed themselves on. This whole entire conversation/discussion is about those not wanting to have their pedestals destroyed which forces them to share America with people they would prefer to feel superiour to.

The days of you bigots deciding what other people can and can't do with their bodies and their lives are almost over. I can hardly wait.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#20221 Sep 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Too
(a) Biblicists are not to judge others ("Judge not, that ye be not judged"--Matt. 7:1 and "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"--Luke 6:37), despite the fact that judges, juries, voters, employers, teachers, etc. are constantly judging others.
(b) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus ("If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"--Luke 14:26).
(c) They are not to oppose evil ("But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"--Matt. 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.
(d) Believers are not to use violence ("Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"--Matt. 26:52). The degree to which Christians have ignored this maxim would fill volumes.
(e) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone "father" ("And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven"--Matt. 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored, but Catholicism uses "father" as a specific title.
(f) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide ("Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?"--Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31 inclusive).
(g) Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished ("For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"--Matt. 5:18-19 RSV). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. Consequently, biblicists should still be following the Old Law.

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#20222 Sep 26, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Shadow is not a Christian. This proves it as well.
A true Christian would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),
JESUS: John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
It seems clear enough to me that not only is Shadow not a Christian but hates Jesus as well. Shadow is a Christ-insanity-ist like KiMare.
Exactly. Just look at all the judge-its. He lives in open rebellion to the Bible's many commands.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#20223 Sep 26, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
(a) Biblicists are not to judge others ("Judge not, that ye be not judged"--Matt. 7:1 and "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"--Luke 6:37), despite the fact that judges, juries, voters, employers, teachers, etc. are constantly judging others.
(b) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus ("If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"--Luke 14:26).
(c) They are not to oppose evil ("But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"--Matt. 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.
(d) Believers are not to use violence ("Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"--Matt. 26:52). The degree to which Christians have ignored this maxim would fill volumes.
(e) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone "father" ("And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven"--Matt. 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored, but Catholicism uses "father" as a specific title.
(f) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide ("Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?"--Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31 inclusive).
(g) Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished ("For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"--Matt. 5:18-19 RSV). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. Consequently, biblicists should still be following the Old Law.
Smile.
Amen brother.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#20224 Sep 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Just look at all the judge-its. He lives in open rebellion to the Bible's many commands.
Exactly! KiMare and Shadow think about gay sex more than gay people do.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#20225 Sep 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
As I posted, even other gays disagree with your denial.
Smile
No, he said it could be a possible explanation. He didn't concur that it was.

Why must a man of God feel the need stretch the truth so very far?

I still maintain that it meand, simply, a man who is uninterested in sex at all; more along the lines of asexual.

If J.C. had meant to refer to sex between two men, he simply would have done so.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#20226 Sep 26, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly! KiMare and Shadow think about gay sex more than gay people do.
I don't read any of their posts. Just scroll right past. They are obsessed people in need of therapy. Why bother with the mentally ill?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#20228 Sep 27, 2013
I remember when the Church rose up against divorce. Most couples worked through the ups and downs of marriage because of God, and maybe more so, because of the children. But then psychologists claimed divorce had no affect on children.

And the government intervened with no fault divorce. And the Church decided it was more important to welcome divorced people than to protect the life-long devastation it imparts on children.

I remember when the Church rallied against legalizing abortion. The shame of immorality reined in promiscuity. But doctors said the cost of back alley abortions was too great.

And the government intervened once again. And the Church decided not being harsh was more important than 40 million children being murdered.

Now the Church is being challenged to call ss couples the same as marriage. The courts say mutually sterile, duplicated gendered halves are equal to marriage.

And the government is once again poised to intervene. And the Pope is recommending that once again the Church step back.

Can't help but wonder what on earth that means for children.

All that is left is, "...and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Isn't that the logical response when we have brutalized the bonds of marriage and family at the expense of children?

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#20229 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
But then psychologists claimed divorce had no affect on children.
Which psychologists? As long as I've been around (43 years), psychologists have known the negative effects of divorce on children.
KiMare wrote:
The shame of immorality reined in promiscuity.
Promiscuity has always been a problem. Shame clearly doesn't work. Let's try to come up with a better strategy. Banning abortion isn't the answer though.
KiMare wrote:
All that is left is, "...and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Isn't that the logical response when we have brutalized the bonds of marriage and family at the expense of children?
How does marriage equality "brutalize the bonds of marriage?" And how is it "at the expense of children" when all of the legitimate studies have shown that children benefit when their parents are married, regardless of the parents' genders?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#20230 Sep 27, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Which psychologists? As long as I've been around (43 years), psychologists have known the negative effects of divorce on children.
<quoted text>
Promiscuity has always been a problem. Shame clearly doesn't work. Let's try to come up with a better strategy. Banning abortion isn't the answer though.
<quoted text>
How does marriage equality "brutalize the bonds of marriage?" And how is it "at the expense of children" when all of the legitimate studies have shown that children benefit when their parents are married, regardless of the parents' genders?
1. You are full of it; the issue is STILL debated;

http://www.pgepsychiatry.com/images/8/89/Pare...

2. Of course it has always been a problem, hence the powerful influence of mating behavior. The question is, has it increased since the removal of social constraints? You debate that too???

3. When the bond between natural parent and child is destroyed, any Tom and Dick is the same. Blood is thicker than water. All you have is water.

When a child is not just brutalized by divorce (are you aware of the pain of rejection in a person as the result of divorce?), but valued as not a person in the womb of it's mother, do you not think they reflect that value of themselves to other people???

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#20231 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
1. You are full of it; the issue is STILL debated;
No I'm not. This is the first I've heard of any debate. I thought everyone knew divorce sucks for kids. That should be common knowledge.
KiMare wrote:
The question is, has it increased since the removal of social constraints?
Social constraints have varied in type and strictness from time to time, culture to culture, throughout history. Has there ever been any more or less promiscuity? We can't know for sure, but I think not. The stricter the social mores, the more discreet people are about their sexual escapades, but they're still going on just as much as at any other time.

I've long been an advocate for reducing promiscuity. The fewer unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the better. If everybody were smart about sex, we could eliminate both entirely. Wishful thinking, I know.
KiMare wrote:
3. When the bond between natural parent and child is destroyed, any Tom and Dick is the same. Blood is thicker than water. All you have is water.
So, you're against adoption? What then should we do with all the parentless children?

I'm not going to get into a debate about abortion.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#20232 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

When a child is not just brutalized by divorce (are you aware of the pain of rejection in a person as the result of divorce?), but valued as not a person in the womb of it's mother, do you not think they reflect that value of themselves to other people???
Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick; you do love to pontificate.

Children adopted into (or born into) LGBT homes are just as loved as any other child BECAUSE they are specifically desired. LGBT families don't have unwanted/unexpected pregnancies.

And, small children don't sit around rationalizing the intentions of their surrogate mothers vs. their adoptive parents.

You keep blathering on as if you're some sore of expert in these matters. The reality is that you have opinions.

Still married, in each and every sense of the word.
You are impotent to do anything about that because your opinions a just that.

Carry in, KiMerde.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20233 Sep 27, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that you Christ-insanity-ists always see reality backwards?
It is the white, male, heterosexual Christian who is imposing their chosen deviancy of superiority and uniformity onto minorities who would like to be left alone.
America has planted the seeds of destruction to the pedestal that white, male, heterosexual Christians have placed themselves on. This whole entire conversation/discussion is about those not wanting to have their pedestals destroyed which forces them to share America with people they would prefer to feel superiour to.
The days of you bigots deciding what other people can and can't do with their bodies and their lives are almost over. I can hardly wait.
Dear Rev. Alan,

There is no real need or cause for injecting ANY racism into your message.

The original Hebrews included 12 tribes. These tribes proceeded to spread out and occupy a large swath of territory in the Middle East, blending over time with native populations from the Steppes of the Caucasus to the entire eastern coastal plain of Africa to northwestern Europe and eventually into North and South America. All human races today contain scattered genetic elements of Jewry and the Hebrew race.

Similarly, the actual Gospel of Christ continues to spread into every culture and race of Humanity across the planet.

What you are talking about is a fundamentalist, scripture-based, institutionalized set of bigoted views, held by individuals and groups who act like small tribes in order to develop a very parochial controlling unity.

Their views are not either exclusively or even a majority of black or white. Neither are these views primarily brown nor yellow race-based. But, these very discriminating and segregating views of others ARE found in every subset of Humanity. The same tribal influence at a primordial, subconscious level is the founding influence for gangs and cults of all sorts.

I am a white, male heterosexual Christian; an Episcopalian by birth and upbringing and to this day a member of The Episcopal Church in good standing. You cannot put me into that descriptive box - "Christ-insanity-ist. "

I am NOT an "insanity-ist" who sees things backwards. Although, there certainly ARE "insanity-ists" who disagree with my assessment of myself. They are welcome to their opinions, even if they are mistaken. It is a still a free country, despite persistent efforts by progressive political liberals to turn our Country into a nanny state. So, they get to see things their way.

But, they don't and won't always prevail.

Our job, should we wish to accept it, is to bring the actual Teachings of Christ Jesus to the fore. As an avowed "atheist," you may not think this is the right way to proceed. But, I will tell you it is. Jesus did not teach ANY adherence to anything less than the full reality and truth in Life, Light and Love.

If I understand you at all, that quest for and adherence to the truth is exactly what motivates you, also.

Rev. Ken
An ordained priest and disciple of Christ Jesus.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20234 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
rev,
I'm sorry, but the source I used referenced the use of eunuchs to clearly describe homosexuals.
Your feeble speculation and opinion does nothing to address that. Nor do you still present a viable explanation of what the passage describes.
Moreover, by your own claim, Jesus was and is capable of providing information that supersedes the knowledge of that time. My interpretation does exactly that. Your opinion fails.
Additionally, a simple search will show countless examples of my interpretation. Which made finding one from a homosexual position incredibly easy.
Perhaps this is portion that should be eliminated from your 'bible' so the diminishing number of your small god aren't confused???
You're sorry? I'd say you are very sorry. The source you used is not the source Jesus used.

Read post #20203 above, again Mr. Kimare.

You apparently failed to read it or failed to read and comprehend it the first time, leading to your discombobulated reply above.

Above you say my claim fails. Then you say your claim does exactly that.

Then you try to rely on "countless examples of" YOUR interpretation!!! LOL! Yes. There are countless people in this world who are woefully uninformed and disturbingly misguided upon whom you can continue to rely. Some of them even resort to drinking tiger piss and sniffing powdered rhino horn in order to get their courage up enough to take their idiotic views on tour.
The Lord only knows what you have imbibed over the years to get to your present state of affairs.

You end your misguided missive above with three question marks after making an error confused statement.

Well,... LOL!!!... I guess that those question marks are, in a sense, appropriate.

You're lost, Kimare. And you don't quite know where to look or what to use to find a steady bearing toward the safety of dry ground.

Here is what the Lord said: "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of Light."

Rev. Ken

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#20235 Sep 27, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't read any of their posts. Just scroll right past. They are obsessed people in need of therapy. Why bother with the mentally ill?
You are exactly right of course. One should just step over their posts like one steps over dog shit on the side walk.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#20236 Sep 27, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Rev. Alan,
There is no real need or cause for injecting ANY racism into your message.
I am a white, male heterosexual Christian; .
Do you put yourself on a pedestal?

I am or was talking about in America the white, male, heterosexual, Christians who insisted that slavery be the law of the land in America. Who also refused to allow women to exercise their right to vote and gays to exist outside the closet.

If you are a Christian you must accept God's slavery plans, the second class citizenship of women and that gays should be put to death.

How can you claim to be a Christian when you ignore huge portions of the Bible? This is what makes Christians so unacceptable, each one has his own verses that he accepts and those he rejects.

Your Bible God tells you how slaves are to be treated, how slavery is to be regulated. Your Bible God informs you why women should not vote, as they are as much below their husbands as their husband is below Christ. And you are informed that gays "shall" be put to death.

Who the hell do you think is supposed to be doing that putting?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20237 Sep 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I remember when the Church rose up against divorce. Most couples worked through the ups and downs of marriage because of God, and maybe more so, because of the children. But then psychologists claimed divorce had no affect on children.
And the government intervened with no fault divorce. And the Church decided it was more important to welcome divorced people than to protect the life-long devastation it imparts on children.
I remember when the Church rallied against legalizing abortion. The shame of immorality reined in promiscuity. But doctors said the cost of back alley abortions was too great.
And the government intervened once again. And the Church decided not being harsh was more important than 40 million children being murdered.
Now the Church is being challenged to call ss couples the same as marriage. The courts say mutually sterile, duplicated gendered halves are equal to marriage.
And the government is once again poised to intervene. And the Pope is recommending that once again the Church step back.
Can't help but wonder what on earth that means for children.
All that is left is, "...and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Isn't that the logical response when we have brutalized the bonds of marriage and family at the expense of children?
#1. "The Church," or whatever denomination(s) you may be referring to, has always discouraged divorce.

However, some Churches, some pastors, priests, ministers and secular judges and psychiatrists and most reputable organizations representing the majority view of these people are in agreement about divorce. That is, that sometimes it is unavoidable and that oftentimes, no one person is to be found "at fault."

#2. I do not know of ANY reputable psychology or psychiatry organization that has EVER claimed that divorce had no effect on children. Your statement is a blatant misrepresentation.
No. It is an outright lie, intended to bolster your baseless opinion.

#3. The government did not intervene with no-fault divorce. Reasonable people realized that many divorces occur because of factors that do not lend themselves to a determination of fault that can be assigned to either divorcing person.

#4. "And the Church decided it was more important to welcome divorced people than to protect the life-long devastation it imparts on children."

You are not excused for producing such a ridiculous, farcical claim. First of all, some very large Churches, today, continue to penalize people who have undergone a divorce. Secondly, Jesus Christ specifically acknowledged that Mosaic Law allowed for divorce. He also spoke of the consequences. But, He NEVER said that a divorce would result in a state of refusal of forgiveness and mercy for the divorced person.

Neither did He EVER, at any time, as reported in ANY scripture, require that a divorced person be refused the opportunity to marry again after having been divorced.

#5. The rest of your diatribe above, regarding abortion and the children rising up to put their parents to death is such a convoluted illogical back-asswards drift that it deserves no reply.

I am personally very glad that you are not preaching that stuff in my neck of the woods.

You are out there, Kimare.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out there.

Rev. Ken
SHADOW

Boerne, TX

#20238 Sep 27, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Just look at all the judge-its. He lives in open rebellion to the Bible's many commands.
You, alan and the unrev need to go look in a mirror pervert and stop projecting your perverted chosen lifestyle on the rest of the normal world.
Dickerman

Alexandria, VA

#20239 Sep 27, 2013
I have to say it's amazing how many stupid uneducated filthy Queer PedophiIes we have loafing on these threads. It's appalling that these uncouth perverts be allowed out in society, let alone on these threads. Take Rev. Fagg@t AKA
Rev. Alan for example, it's one of the most disgusting pieces of sh!t there is on here. It's really hard to imagine, just how many little boys he's molested in his time. It's just sickening, just sickening.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 11 min TomInElPaso 79
GOP Congressional Candidate: Gay Couples Are 'G... 32 min Barbarianism is I... 4
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr HAHAHA 50,595
Catholic bishops drop moves to accept gays 2 hr Mitt s Santorum S... 35
Pat Robertson rants over 'deadly' gay marriage ... 2 hr Rainbow Kid 7
Gay couples hope legislation makes Hawaii first... (Feb '09) 2 hr Jonah1 16,148
Blair's sister-in-law weds Muslim 'bigamist' (May '13) 2 hr Jeds 84

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE