本篇英国essay代写-Homosexuality and the Bible讲了同性恋是一个长期存在的有争议的问题，捕捉到不同的评论，无论是中立的，支持性的还是拒绝的，对于对这个辩论的话题讲的很少的圣经，变得更加模糊不清。同性恋正确的种子是人类群众呼吁人权和平等的强大支持。本篇essay代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。
Homosexuality, a long-lasting controversial issue that captures diverse comments, be it neutral, supportive or rejective, turns even more obscure in terms of the Bible that tells little about this debated topic. The seed of rectitude of homosexuality has been sown by the stronger backing such as the call for human right and equality among human groups. When it comes to the Bible, whose attitude toward homosexual activities remains invariable, the jury is still out, in technical terms, on whether homosexual behavior is justified, despite there indeed exist some stories in this religious classic alluding to the amorality of homosexuality. It seems that even the Bible, the best seller over the world, has not drawn a clear conclusion on homosexuality.
This essay is to center around the issue of homosexuality with a biblical perspective, and bring relevant discussions in. It will bat around the assumptions on which arguments about homosexuality and the Bible are based, conceptions of sex, gender, and sexuality that are taken as given or called into question, the impact of the context where the Bible was written, and whether an ancient text can come into handy as a backing-up for a modern argument. The aim of this essay is to settle a biblical view on homosexuality, having referring to both the Bible and other works related to this topic, since homosexual behavior in biblical angle has long been disputed.
In these days, waves of homosexuals are defending themselves in an attempt to put a moral label on themselves, with human rights, people orientation and equality as their shield. Sexual orientation, a word that can be barely found in ancient times, tends to gain popularity around the world. The public is also showing increasing tolerance for homosexuals who used to be discriminated or even persecuted before. This can be smelt from a list of countries who allow gays and lesbians to get married and even draw up exclusive laws to protect their legitimate rights and interests, treating homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals.
In this connection, a culture of homosexuality seems to be emerging as some sort of fashion, as more and more stars or celebrities come out of the closet as a thundercap from a blue sky. For example, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, is blunt about his homosexuality as his pride in Tim Cook Speaks Up (Businessweek, 2014). Such disputable tendency, once held punishable, has borne on social culture, values and even public opinion. People, both heterosexual and homosexual, are viewing homosexual behavior or affection in a more tolerant way.
In this social context, a host of Christian homosexuals are coming along, challenging the doctrine of Christianity. As Hays notes in The Moral Vision of The New Testament, those homosexual believers make an endeavor to create such a concept that homosexual behavior is allowed in biblical respect. This makes the Church and Christians are becoming more tolerant for homosexuality, as a nudge for the tendency that allows for the existence of homosexual phenomenon. Hays, in his work, takes his friend Gary as an example to illustrate a rational gay considers biblical attitude toward homosexuality from an objective perspective.
However, it seems never to cross their mind that their call for legitimacy of homosexuality is prone to be untenable. This is not groundless in that the Bible by and large holds an opposing view toward homosexuality, even in the words that are not so clear-cut as unexceptionally forcible evidence. This is what you can speculate from the context instead of just garbling it.
When coming up against the issue of biblical legitimacy of homosexuality, protesters are inclined to take the notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence (Hays, 1996). When the two angels come to the two infamous cities in a bid to save the cities so long as ten men of integrity are found. The “men of Sodom” however, come to Lot’ s door, and intend to rape the angels. This stands as a mark of wickedness of the city. In this sense, it is indicated that sexual behavior between homosexual men is convicted as sin. This argument is based on the assumption that the scenario itself functions as a strong symbol of sin of homosexuality. However, many supporters hold the view that the writing shows no evidence that implies the amorality of homosexuality, as the sin of Sodom boils down to pride, excess of food, prosperous ease but no aid to the poor. There is no unambiguous settlement for illegitimacy of same-sex intercourse. And such argument is based on the assumption that only clear or definitive words lay foundation for settling the question of Christian ethics.
I dare say, homosexual sex is also alluded to in this story. Citizens in Sodom are passionate about sexual enjoyment without taking ethics or morality into account. The criticism on their indulgence and recklessness can be embodied through this story. It is fair to say that the extreme pursuit of sexual joy has been distorted into homosexual sex, as those men in Sodom crave for lust regardless of sexuality. In this sense, homosexual sex mentioned in this story serves as some sort of distorted, excessive or abnormal longing for sensual happiness. Those who accord too much importance to words hold a rigid and partial view. The story itself can serve as a visible mark of the biblical opposition to homogeneity.
What triggers debate over biblical attitude toward homosexuality includes not only the story about Sodom but also a section of intercourse in Leviticus, which takes an unambiguous view toward this stuff: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Hays, 1996). Besides, it is recorded that “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (Hays, 1996). It goes beyond any doubt that homosexual sex is definitely and unremittingly forbidden, as the Bible records. On top of that, this amoral act is also included in a series of sexual offenses alongside with adultery, incest and bestiality (Hays, 1996). In this sense, male same-sex is prohibited as evidenced by such records. There are still a minority of people, who strictly focus on verbal meaning, with the view that this intercourse stresses gays alone, leaving out lesbians. As such, it is not impartial to say that homosexuality is entirely frowned upon in the Bible for only male homosexuals are addressed while female homosexuals are seemingly forgiven. Therefore, homosexuality, in technical terms, is not completely prohibited or rejected in the Bible, as those people understand. In my point of view, however, “lying with a male as with a woman is not allowed” stands as a metaphor that implies “lying with a female as with a man is not allowed”. In this dialogue in Leviticus, the talker with God is Morse whose sexuality is male so the Lord tailors his words with the consideration of his identity as a man. If the talker is a female, it is safe to indicate that the original words will turn into that “You shall not lie with a female as with a man; it is an abomination”. Both female and male homosexuality are negated in the Bible.
There are pileups of erroneous opinions on the legitimacy of homosexuality, as Ratzinger (1994) notes, which include the claim that Sacred Scripture says nothing on the subject of homosexuality, or that it tacitly approves of it, or that all prohibitions in the scripture are no longer applicable to the modern world right now. Some of researchers tend to owe those improper opinions to translation or written forms in different epochs. In other words, the meaning and modern understanding have been distorted and fail to reflect what the Bible meant originally. In Corinthians 6, Paul raises a question to those who think the old moral rules are obsolete and of no use for them: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God ?”. And then he gives his answer: “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers”. The words of malakoi and arsenokoitai remain disputable in a technical term (Hays, 1996). The word of malakoi does not mean “homosexual” (neither in Greek nor in Hebrew). It usually comes as a pejorative slang that alludes to homosexual activities among young boys. The other word arsenokoitai was new word then that had never been found before. While some researchers remain divided on the meaning of this word, there indeed exists a certain argument about it: Robin Scroggs mentioned that this word was translated from Hebrew mishkav zakur and stood for “lying with a male” (Hays, 1996). In this sense, the word arsenokoitai represents the amoral and abominable act of homosexuality. Translation can not be regarded as a reason for biblical permit of homosexual behavior. It is fair to say that those, who take translation or difference between old and new writing patterns as causes for ambiguity of biblical judgement on homosexual behavior, are highly likely to have not made sense of what those “ambiguous” words really mean. In a word, the so-called tacit consent to homosexuals is no more than an illusion. And biblical judgement on same-sex behavior is not elusive at all.
In the New Testament, Romans is the most crucial text that brings out the condemnation of homosexual behavior in an explicit fashion (Hays, 1996). The following quoted section in Romans can best explain why the biblical judgement on homosexual behavior is negative:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (New International Version, Romans. 1. 26-27)
This intercourse includes homosexual behavior among both women and men, criticizing them for their violence against human natures. Homosexual people are chasing after lust regardless of sexuality and born natures, which embodies their reckless pursuit of sensual enjoyment without taking ethical rules into account. The quoted paragraph above reflects how God gives indulgent homosexuals up to their lust and unseemly choice of sexual partners. And female homosexuals deserve to be condemned as their male counterparts do.
However, there are still some protesters with the argument that all of condemnations noted above indeed brim over with the criticism on homosexual behavior or lust, rather than homosexual love mentally. And homosexual acts should be differentiated from platonic love that is well-known around the world. Those protesters may use the following thinking as their argument’ s backing: the Bible puts adequate condemnations on homosexual acts but little criticism on platonic love among homosexuals. In this sense, what the Bible virtually bombards is the indulgence in lust regardless of sexuality. And what Paul actually categorized into sins is homosexual acts out of passion about sensual enjoyment, not homosexual platonic love. Nevertheless, such argument itself is disputable. Same-sex love, even in a platonic style, is a reckless and wayward attitude toward sex in itself. Once same-sex love emerges, it can be implied that homosexuals have already wallowed in sensual euphoria in that their consideration about biological sexuality has been cast aside. In other words, homosexuals are so immersed in lust that they are inclined to put physical enjoyment before consideration on sexuality. They are less rational than heterosexuals.
Despite that, there goes such an interpretation that homosexual acts can be judged as guilty only among heterosexuals. Those who are naturally homosexual shall not be counted among sinful people. It is because only natural heterosexuals deserve to be convicted who are too greedy about lust to consider biological sexuality before having a sex with another person. This defence for for natural homosexuals, however, is not tenable. In no case had Paul and any other writer mentioned the concept of “sexual orientation” (Hays, 1996), who think homosexuals ought to be separated from God the Creator. And this means both natural homosexuals and heterosexuals who choose to have homosexual acts deserve to be criticized in biblical terms.
From my perspective, historical causes or factors need to be taken into consideration. It is because the Bible was written in ancient times where social environment was not so open-minded as the modern society is, and the public had relatively lower tolerance for homosexual acts. Coupled with that, homosexual phenomenon was not as wide was it is today. As such, it can be indicated that homosexuality did not caught so much attention at that time and thus Paul and other recorders did not put much emphasis on it. And this stands as a reason for inadequate condemnation against homosexual behavior in the Bible. In ancient society where population was not so large as it is today, giving birth to children was more significant than it is in today’ s world. The complementarity of the sexes, as it is recorded in Genesis that tells us God shapes mankind, male and female, according to his own image and likeness, represents the inherent unity of the Creator (Ratzinger, 1994). Homosexual acts run pole apart from God’ s will when he is creating mankind because homosexuals cannot give birth to babies and breed them. Homosexual behavior is not a complementary act that is able to transmit life and thus it “thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving”, which violates the essence of Christian living (Ratzinger, 1994).
In this connection, a reason can be drawn for the louder voice claiming that homosexual behavior is allowed by the Bible: as the number of homosexuals is growing and with the higher level of tolerance for homosexuality, more and more gays and lesbians are expected to be justified in a biblical term as a comfort to their sense of guilt. And the Church is inclined to show an ambiguous attitude toward their desire (Ratzinger, 1994). As such, it is not proper to have a look at the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago, with a modern view. Rather, we need to take a historical perspective toward this religious classic and put it in the environment where it was created. This is because a modern, new view might add subjectivity to biblical judgement on homosexual activity.
In conclusion, as far as I’ m concerned, the biblical judgement on homosexuality is negative, though my answer comes frustrating to homosexuals. Some who take an extremely rigid view on words might call the negative judgement into question. But words can by no means be regarded as the sole reference. Meanings at the deeper level are the more significant and deserve more attention. And homosexual acts among both females and males are prohibited. In these days, gays and lesbians are in an effort to pressure the Church into acknowledging the legitimacy of homosexuality in a biblical respect. However, such expectation, though growing stronger and stronger, cannot come true.
References
Cook, T. Businessweek. Tim Cook Speaks Up. 30th October 2014.
Hays. R. B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1996.
Ratzinger, R. J. “Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons”. Homosexual In The Church. Eds. Jeffrey S. Siker. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994, pp. 39-47.
要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due吧。—Ace
Homosexuality, a long-lasting controversial issue that captures diverse comments, be it neutral, supportive or rejective, turns even more obscure in terms of the Bible that tells little about this debated topic. The seed of rectitude of homosexuality has been sown by the stronger backing such as the call for human right and equality among human groups. When it comes to the Bible, whose attitude toward homosexual activities remains invariable, the jury is still out, in technical terms, on whether homosexual behavior is justified, despite there indeed exist some stories in this religious classic alluding to the amorality of homosexuality. It seems that even the Bible, the best seller over the world, has not drawn a clear conclusion on homosexuality.
This essay is to center around the issue of homosexuality with a biblical perspective, and bring relevant discussions in. It will bat around the assumptions on which arguments about homosexuality and the Bible are based, conceptions of sex, gender, and sexuality that are taken as given or called into question, the impact of the context where the Bible was written, and whether an ancient text can come into handy as a backing-up for a modern argument. The aim of this essay is to settle a biblical view on homosexuality, having referring to both the Bible and other works related to this topic, since homosexual behavior in biblical angle has long been disputed.
In these days, waves of homosexuals are defending themselves in an attempt to put a moral label on themselves, with human rights, people orientation and equality as their shield. Sexual orientation, a word that can be barely found in ancient times, tends to gain popularity around the world. The public is also showing increasing tolerance for homosexuals who used to be discriminated or even persecuted before. This can be smelt from a list of countries who allow gays and lesbians to get married and even draw up exclusive laws to protect their legitimate rights and interests, treating homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals.
In this connection, a culture of homosexuality seems to be emerging as some sort of fashion, as more and more stars or celebrities come out of the closet as a thundercap from a blue sky. For example, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, is blunt about his homosexuality as his pride in Tim Cook Speaks Up (Businessweek, 2014). Such disputable tendency, once held punishable, has borne on social culture, values and even public opinion. People, both heterosexual and homosexual, are viewing homosexual behavior or affection in a more tolerant way.
In this social context, a host of Christian homosexuals are coming along, challenging the doctrine of Christianity. As Hays notes in The Moral Vision of The New Testament, those homosexual believers make an endeavor to create such a concept that homosexual behavior is allowed in biblical respect. This makes the Church and Christians are becoming more tolerant for homosexuality, as a nudge for the tendency that allows for the existence of homosexual phenomenon. Hays, in his work, takes his friend Gary as an example to illustrate a rational gay considers biblical attitude toward homosexuality from an objective perspective.
However, it seems never to cross their mind that their call for legitimacy of homosexuality is prone to be untenable. This is not groundless in that the Bible by and large holds an opposing view toward homosexuality, even in the words that are not so clear-cut as unexceptionally forcible evidence. This is what you can speculate from the context instead of just garbling it.
When coming up against the issue of biblical legitimacy of homosexuality, protesters are inclined to take the notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence (Hays, 1996). When the two angels come to the two infamous cities in a bid to save the cities so long as ten men of integrity are found. The “men of Sodom” however, come to Lot’ s door, and intend to rape the angels. This stands as a mark of wickedness of the city. In this sense, it is indicated that sexual behavior between homosexual men is convicted as sin. This argument is based on the assumption that the scenario itself functions as a strong symbol of sin of homosexuality. However, many supporters hold the view that the writing shows no evidence that implies the amorality of homosexuality, as the sin of Sodom boils down to pride, excess of food, prosperous ease but no aid to the poor. There is no unambiguous settlement for illegitimacy of same-sex intercourse. And such argument is based on the assumption that only clear or definitive words lay foundation for settling the question of Christian ethics.
I dare say, homosexual sex is also alluded to in this story. Citizens in Sodom are passionate about sexual enjoyment without taking ethics or morality into account. The criticism on their indulgence and recklessness can be embodied through this story. It is fair to say that the extreme pursuit of sexual joy has been distorted into homosexual sex, as those men in Sodom crave for lust regardless of sexuality. In this sense, homosexual sex mentioned in this story serves as some sort of distorted, excessive or abnormal longing for sensual happiness. Those who accord too much importance to words hold a rigid and partial view. The story itself can serve as a visible mark of the biblical opposition to homogeneity.
What triggers debate over biblical attitude toward homosexuality includes not only the story about Sodom but also a section of intercourse in Leviticus, which takes an unambiguous view toward this stuff: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Hays, 1996). Besides, it is recorded that “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (Hays, 1996). It goes beyond any doubt that homosexual sex is definitely and unremittingly forbidden, as the Bible records. On top of that, this amoral act is also included in a series of sexual offenses alongside with adultery, incest and bestiality (Hays, 1996). In this sense, male same-sex is prohibited as evidenced by such records. There are still a minority of people, who strictly focus on verbal meaning, with the view that this intercourse stresses gays alone, leaving out lesbians. As such, it is not impartial to say that homosexuality is entirely frowned upon in the Bible for only male homosexuals are addressed while female homosexuals are seemingly forgiven. Therefore, homosexuality, in technical terms, is not completely prohibited or rejected in the Bible, as those people understand. In my point of view, however, “lying with a male as with a woman is not allowed” stands as a metaphor that implies “lying with a female as with a man is not allowed”. In this dialogue in Leviticus, the talker with God is Morse whose sexuality is male so the Lord tailors his words with the consideration of his identity as a man. If the talker is a female, it is safe to indicate that the original words will turn into that “You shall not lie with a female as with a man; it is an abomination”. Both female and male homosexuality are negated in the Bible.
There are pileups of erroneous opinions on the legitimacy of homosexuality, as Ratzinger (1994) notes, which include the claim that Sacred Scripture says nothing on the subject of homosexuality, or that it tacitly approves of it, or that all prohibitions in the scripture are no longer applicable to the modern world right now. Some of researchers tend to owe those improper opinions to translation or written forms in different epochs. In other words, the meaning and modern understanding have been distorted and fail to reflect what the Bible meant originally. In Corinthians 6, Paul raises a question to those who think the old moral rules are obsolete and of no use for them: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God ?”. And then he gives his answer: “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers”. The words of malakoi and arsenokoitai remain disputable in a technical term (Hays, 1996). The word of malakoi does not mean “homosexual” (neither in Greek nor in Hebrew). It usually comes as a pejorative slang that alludes to homosexual activities among young boys. The other word arsenokoitai was new word then that had never been found before. While some researchers remain divided on the meaning of this word, there indeed exists a certain argument about it: Robin Scroggs mentioned that this word was translated from Hebrew mishkav zakur and stood for “lying with a male” (Hays, 1996). In this sense, the word arsenokoitai represents the amoral and abominable act of homosexuality. Translation can not be regarded as a reason for biblical permit of homosexual behavior. It is fair to say that those, who take translation or difference between old and new writing patterns as causes for ambiguity of biblical judgement on homosexual behavior, are highly likely to have not made sense of what those “ambiguous” words really mean. In a word, the so-called tacit consent to homosexuals is no more than an illusion. And biblical judgement on same-sex behavior is not elusive at all.
In the New Testament, Romans is the most crucial text that brings out the condemnation of homosexual behavior in an explicit fashion (Hays, 1996). The following quoted section in Romans can best explain why the biblical judgement on homosexual behavior is negative:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (New International Version, Romans. 1. 26-27)
This intercourse includes homosexual behavior among both women and men, criticizing them for their violence against human natures. Homosexual people are chasing after lust regardless of sexuality and born natures, which embodies their reckless pursuit of sensual enjoyment without taking ethical rules into account. The quoted paragraph above reflects how God gives indulgent homosexuals up to their lust and unseemly choice of sexual partners. And female homosexuals deserve to be condemned as their male counterparts do.
However, there are still some protesters with the argument that all of condemnations noted above indeed brim over with the criticism on homosexual behavior or lust, rather than homosexual love mentally. And homosexual acts should be differentiated from platonic love that is well-known around the world. Those protesters may use the following thinking as their argument’ s backing: the Bible puts adequate condemnations on homosexual acts but little criticism on platonic love among homosexuals. In this sense, what the Bible virtually bombards is the indulgence in lust regardless of sexuality. And what Paul actually categorized into sins is homosexual acts out of passion about sensual enjoyment, not homosexual platonic love. Nevertheless, such argument itself is disputable. Same-sex love, even in a platonic style, is a reckless and wayward attitude toward sex in itself. Once same-sex love emerges, it can be implied that homosexuals have already wallowed in sensual euphoria in that their consideration about biological sexuality has been cast aside. In other words, homosexuals are so immersed in lust that they are inclined to put physical enjoyment before consideration on sexuality. They are less rational than heterosexuals.
Despite that, there goes such an interpretation that homosexual acts can be judged as guilty only among heterosexuals. Those who are naturally homosexual shall not be counted among sinful people. It is because only natural heterosexuals deserve to be convicted who are too greedy about lust to consider biological sexuality before having a sex with another person. This defence for for natural homosexuals, however, is not tenable. In no case had Paul and any other writer mentioned the concept of “sexual orientation” (Hays, 1996), who think homosexuals ought to be separated from God the Creator. And this means both natural homosexuals and heterosexuals who choose to have homosexual acts deserve to be criticized in biblical terms.
From my perspective, historical causes or factors need to be taken into consideration. It is because the Bible was written in ancient times where social environment was not so open-minded as the modern society is, and the public had relatively lower tolerance for homosexual acts. Coupled with that, homosexual phenomenon was not as wide was it is today. As such, it can be indicated that homosexuality did not caught so much attention at that time and thus Paul and other recorders did not put much emphasis on it. And this stands as a reason for inadequate condemnation against homosexual behavior in the Bible. In ancient society where population was not so large as it is today, giving birth to children was more significant than it is in today’ s world. The complementarity of the sexes, as it is recorded in Genesis that tells us God shapes mankind, male and female, according to his own image and likeness, represents the inherent unity of the Creator (Ratzinger, 1994). Homosexual acts run pole apart from God’ s will when he is creating mankind because homosexuals cannot give birth to babies and breed them. Homosexual behavior is not a complementary act that is able to transmit life and thus it “thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving”, which violates the essence of Christian living (Ratzinger, 1994).
In this connection, a reason can be drawn for the louder voice claiming that homosexual behavior is allowed by the Bible: as the number of homosexuals is growing and with the higher level of tolerance for homosexuality, more and more gays and lesbians are expected to be justified in a biblical term as a comfort to their sense of guilt. And the Church is inclined to show an ambiguous attitude toward their desire (Ratzinger, 1994). As such, it is not proper to have a look at the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago, with a modern view. Rather, we need to take a historical perspective toward this religious classic and put it in the environment where it was created. This is because a modern, new view might add subjectivity to biblical judgement on homosexual activity.
In conclusion, as far as I’ m concerned, the biblical judgement on homosexuality is negative, though my answer comes frustrating to homosexuals. Some who take an extremely rigid view on words might call the negative judgement into question. But words can by no means be regarded as the sole reference. Meanings at the deeper level are the more significant and deserve more attention. And homosexual acts among both females and males are prohibited. In these days, gays and lesbians are in an effort to pressure the Church into acknowledging the legitimacy of homosexuality in a biblical respect. However, such expectation, though growing stronger and stronger, cannot come true.
References
Cook, T. Businessweek. Tim Cook Speaks Up. 30th October 2014.
Hays. R. B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1996.
Ratzinger, R. J. “Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons”. Homosexual In The Church. Eds. Jeffrey S. Siker. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994, pp. 39-47.
要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due吧。—Ace
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます