08 June, 2006

Hell Ponderings

For anyone out there who is a believer in the existence of the devil and hell (or even if you're not but have some interesting tidbits to add), I'm curious how you might answer these (since I haven't been able to track down anyone who can offer up a half decent answer):

1. If hell is reserved for all those bad people out there, was there anyone being tortured and punished for eternity prior to Adam and Eve or was it just a great uninhabited pit of fire and lava?
2. If the devil is a fallen angel who now resides in hell with all his fallen angel friends, who was in hell before the fall? And if Satan is hell's ruler, who was taking care of things before his arrival?
3. If hell was created in Genesis 1, why would God call His creation "very good"? Hell is the domain of the ultra-wicked and the springboard from which demons and Satan enter our world. How is hell "very good" if God's sworn enemy calls it home?
4. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 & 9 are traditionally considered stock evidence proving the existence of fallen angels. If this verse is correct in the sense it's actually referring to fallen angels, how can Satan and his bad angel friends continue to carry out their subtle trickery on mankind if they're being held in "everlasting chains" (Jude 6)? Why would God chain them if this didn't prevent them from committing evil acts? Seems like a pretty useless punishment. Why not just kill them?
5. 2 Peter and Jude both refer to the evil angels as being held until the day of "judgement". God sending a bad angel to hell was the initial judgment. Why re-judge an evil angel? What can an evil angel in hell do to make God reconsider the original sentence?
6. Who was Hell's first human resident?


Blogger Rink Rat said...

I find your questions to be most curious. Since you yourself do not believe in Satan, fallen angels or hell, do your questions reflect how you believe others perceive those things? And since you readily demonstrate the sparse biblical reference to such things, I’m not sure how you expect people to answer the specific and detailed questions you ask?

Let me start by sharing where I think you and I agree. Please correct me where I may be mistaken. I believe we are living in a time before the millennium. I await God’s kingdom on this earth at his arrival. I believe in a future resurrection and future time of Judgment. I don’t believe man is yet an eternal being and that at death we are destined for Heaven, Dante’s vision of Hell or the Catholic concept of Purgatory.

But, I do not let mainstream Christianity’s misguided view of these things drive me to the extreme of believing that Satan and fallen angels do not exist at all.

I do believe the Old Testament reference to hell simply means the grave and see the New Testament reference to hell as too heavily influenced by the Greek belief in the mythical Hades when it was translated to English. And Geenna is the old dump outside of Jerusalem where the garbage was tossed and consumed by fire, a fitting analogy of the future lake of fire described in Revelation.

So, my answers to your questions at first blush might look something like this…

1. Hell is simply the grave.

2. Satan does not reside in hell but his ways of opposition to God lead to death and the grave.

3. A question suited to Catholics and other believers in their doctrine.

4. Satan and his angels were kicked out of heaven and confined (chained) to the earth where they continue to do pretty much as they please until Christ returns.

5. As ruler of a third of all the angels, they all suffered Satan’s fate. But while only a few follow him willingly, I suspect many did not. So if there is no hope for amnesty, why judge them? Why indeed unless there is hope. And it will not be God that judges them, it will be you and I, et al.

6. Abel.

Satan is allowed to roam this earth for as long as God gives us the choice whether to follow Him or not. As soon as God no longer gives us the choice, Satan will be dealt with permanently.

June 20, 2006 12:23 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

Hey Rink, thanks for your thoughts and comments.

I would say that my questions reflect a genuine curiousity in how people who believe in hell and fallen angels go about explaining the fundamentals of their belief. I don’t really have any expectations in how people are to answer the questions, only that in light of the absence of information how some of these questions are currently answered in mainstream Christian circles.

The fallen angel and hell ideas appear to be one of the only doctrines that exist solely in the minds of men because there’s virtually no evidence whatsoever of these things existing now or during biblical times. I guess I ask the questions because if they can’t be answered or explained using Scripture, how sound are they?

As for where you and I agree, I agree completely with all of your points: God’s kingdom, resurrection and judgment, and man is not an eternal being. However, we do differ in our beliefs in terms of what happens at death.

1. If an individual goes to heaven or hell at death, what’s the point of a future judgment since one has already been made?

2. If an individual goes to heaven or hell at death, what’s the big deal about a resurrection and what exactly is being resurrected?

3. I agree with all of your points about what hell and Gehena are. With that in mind, what other words or ideas in Scripture suggest hell is something different than the grave or a garbage heap?

4. If the “lake of fire” in Revelation is literal, how can a literal death, a literal hell, a literal beast, and a literal single false prophet be cast into it? (Rev. 19 & 20)

5. How can hell “die”? (Rev. 20:14)

6. Other than Jesus, who in Scripture is referred to as “going to heaven” in the sense of attaining a reward?

Combine these ideas with the many verses that discuss what actually happens to man once he dies, and it soon becomes clear that heaven and hell exist solely to pacify emotions (family members go to heaven, bad people go to hell).

About where Satan is confined or chained, Job doesn’t say Satan (or more appropriately, the “adversary”) was confined to earth, only that he was walking to and fro on it. The first glaring question is, is this an appropriate description of Satan’s mode of transportation? If so, then Satan has two legs which is quite different then the description given to us in Revelation 12 (a red dragon). And how does Satan break this confinement on earth and fight with “Michael and his angels” in “heaven” (Rev. 12)? And perhaps most importantly, why do Job and his family attribute the calamities that befell him to God and not Satan (Job 42:11)?

Chained Angels
2 Peter 2:4 says this about where Satan is supposedly confined: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” If Satan is apparently one of those “angels that sinned” then his confinement is in hell, not earth…

Personal Responsibility
Also, there are countless references in Scripture regarding personal responsibility. In the garden of Eden, the snake didn’t blame the devil for his actions (and neither does God for that matter). Jeremiah says: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (17:9) Jeremiah 16 makes reference to “the imagination of his evil heart”. God sent the Food in Genesis 6 because the “imagination of his heart was evil continually” (and if the devil were to blame for this evil influence, how did he survive the Flood if he was walking around - see below - and why was mankind ultimately punished and not Satan?) Even Jesus himself blames man and no one else for producing evil: “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” (Mat 15:19) Romans 7 perhaps sums it up best: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” (7:18)

There’s nothing in Scripture that suggests Satan is at the root of all these evil intentions. Christ never blames the Devil as the cause of evil thoughts, neither does God. Doing good instead of evil is a struggle we all face because of our sinful nature. Man takes full and complete responsibility for sinning. Mat 9:4 “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?”

The idea of a third part of the angels being cast down with Satan comes from Rev. 12:4 (note a third of the “stars”, not a third of “the angels” – and if stars are symbolic of angels, is the rest of the verse also symbolic…?) Nonetheless, Revelation 12:4, along with the rest of the book, are talking about things that have yet to come to pass. Revelation is a book about prophecy, not history (Rev. 1:1) – which naturally leads to the question as to when the “angelic fall” actually occurred. Something to keep in mind is that “angels” in the Old and New Testament can just as easily refer to human messengers as well as divine. Something to keep in mind perhaps when reading 1 Cor. 6:3…

Nonetheless, the logistics of judging fallen angels is bit much for me:

1. The fallen angels have already been judged. Hence their confinement. What could they have possibly done to deserve having their sentence reversed and where are we told about bad angels doing good works?

2. If we’re to judge angels, will we also judge Satan?

3. The idea of righteous judgment in Scripture always assumes a just and righteous judge who knows the hearts of man. The only beings who can truly say this are Christ and God. How could we be in a position to know enough about the lives of angelic immortal beings to determine what their judgment should be?

4. God condemned Satan and his angels. Since God passed the initial judgment and punishment, why would we be the ones to re-judge them?

5. Rev. 12 refers to a war after which the bad angels are cast down to earth. When does this angelic judgment take place, before or after the battle? Satan, or the beast in Revelation, is cast into the lake of fire soon afterwards. Who passed this judgment, God or the saints?

As for who the first resident of hell was, I think perhaps you mean Cain and not Abel…? If so, is Cain in hell because of his sin (murder)? Adam and Eve sinned before Cain, why aren’t they in hell? And if murder is a determining factor of whether one goes to hell or not, David killed Uriah (2 Sam 12:9). Does this mean that David is also in hell?

The choice God gave His people is the same choice He’s given us. Deu 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” God sets before us life and death. Not God and Satan. If we chose God, we live. If we chose death, well, we die (note: not punished for eternity in hell). It’s always been a personal choice. The individual makes the decision, not Satan, not God.

Less Questions, More Answers
Ultimately, it seems that the only thing that comes out of a belief in hell and Satan is question after question after question, none of which have answers grounded in Scripture. The questions cease when it’s understood that Satan is simply an adversary (which even God is referred to as in 1 Chronicles 21:1) and that our hope has yet to appear. Until this hope comes in the shape of Jesus Christ, judgment isn’t passed. There’s no heaven-going or hell-going. Upon death, we simply stay in the grave (dust to dust). We “sleep” (e.g. Acts 13:36, 1 Thes. 4:14) and are raised in that great day to be judged.

A tad long-winded. My apologies. :)

June 20, 2006 11:30 PM  
Blogger Rink Rat said...

It's very hard to share ideas with you when you spin and twist what is said. I know it's hard to understand what other people believe when you disagree with it, but please slow down when you read.

June 21, 2006 10:21 AM  
Blogger Rink Rat said...

You don't believe in spiritual angels, that Michael and Gabriel are spiritual Archangels, that Lucifer was once the most beautiful of Archangels before he sinned and God changed his name to Satan, or fallen angels, do you?

June 21, 2006 11:31 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

Spin and twist? Sorry, it wasn’t intentional!!!

I do believe in spiritual angels. I believe all angels are ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14).

I don’t believe Lucifer was once the most beautiful of archangels before he sinned and God changed his name to Satan. I don’t believe in fallen angels.

June 21, 2006 3:50 PM  
Blogger Rink Rat said...

My personal understanding of what happens to us when we die is anything but mainstream.

We do not go to heaven when we die. Hell is nothing more than the grave. There is no burning netherworld under the earth with demons and pitchforks tormenting the souls of sinners who died. When we die we do not go to heaven, but we certainly go to the grave (sheol translated into english as hell).

My answer to the first questions 1 & 2 – I don’t know why you’re asking me this. I said we are not judged at death and therefore do not go to heaven. But in as much as hell is simply the grave, all who die go down to the grave. But given the misunderstanding of mainstream Christianity of Hell, I’m reluctant to say all who die go to hell out loud.

My answer to the first question 3 - The new testament Greek uses terms such as Hades (Greek notion of the underworld) and Tartaroo (lower depths of Hades) as synonyms for Hell. But since Hades and Tartaroo do not exist, I attribute the reference to literary license on the part of the person who penned the account.

My answer to the first question 4 - The lake of fire is literal in that it will be all consuming but figurative in its being described as a lake as is much of Revelation figurative. The dragon reference is figurative, the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns is figurative, the sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth is figurative, etc. The understanding I get from Revelation 19 & 20 is that God will put an end with finality to Satan, his false prophet and the beast.

My answer to the first question 5 - The second death of Revelation 20:14 is the death of death itself. If hell is simply the grave and there is no more death both will have “died” or cease to exist.

My answer to question 6 - No man is in heaven. And while heaven exists, heaven is not our reward when we die. Jesus went to heaven because he has work to do before he returns.

The red dragon in Revelation is figurative description. As you correctly point out, Satan was not confined to the earth at the time of Job.

Chained Angels
There is no Hell to be confined to. And we know from Revelation that Satan will play a part in world affairs at the end of this age. So what did Peter mean by his statement?

Personal Responsibility
You’re right, there is nothing in scripture that suggests Satan is the root of all evil intentions. It is man’s choice. Doesn’t mean Satan doesn’t exist and can have influence if God will allow it and if you do not have the strength of faith to overcome him.

The Symbol of the Stars
Revelation 1:20 interprets the symbol of the stars as representing angels.

Revelation 12 - When I orginially said they were confined to the earth I was thinking this had already taken place. But you’re right, now that I think about it, I believe what I said was in error. Satan was allowed to appear before God’s throne in heaven as it says in Job 1. But as described in Revelation 12, he will make one last push to overthrow God in heaven which I believe we will know about when the heavenly signs described in Revelation appear as he is thrown down never to assend again.

My answer to the second question 1 - Satan has been judged, the beings who would become the beast and false prophet have been judged. The fallen angels must have not yet been judged, otherwise Paul’s statement would be foolish.

My answer to the second question 2 - Who will judge Satan? God has already condemned him. We are simply awaiting his sentencing.

My answer to the second question 3 - Sometimes those who have made mistakes are the quickest to show compassion to others who also make mistakes. But Paul must have understood the answer when he said it.

My answer to the second question 4 - If the fallen angels had been judged there would be no need to re-judge them and since Paul tells us we will judge them they must not have already been judged.

My answer to the second question 5 - Good question. Because now I’m not sure. When I orginially said they were confined to the earth I was thinking this had already taken place. But now that I think about it, I believe what I said was in error. Satan was allowed to appear before God’s throne in heaven as it says in Job 1. But I don’t know that he’s revisited since Jesus returned to heaven, I would guess not. But I believe he will make one last push to overthrow God in heaven which I believe we will know about when the heavenly signs described in Revelation appear as he is thrown down never to assend again.

No, I mean Abel. Remember, there is no torture chamber called Hell for the wicked? If hell is simply the grave, the first one to be dead and buried was Abel. No judgement takes place in going to the grave. It’s simply the first death.

The existance of Satan in no way diminishes our choice or responsibility to chose life. We make the choice. If we chose to sin it’s not Satan’s choice, it’s ours. But in that Satan is an adversary to God, and where those who are adverse to God, the Arabic proverb of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” comes to mind.

Satan is an aversary, but he’s God’s problem to deal with, not ours. At some point as indicated in Revelation, Satan will unite his fellow adversaries both spiritual and physical is one final futile and doomed attempt to destroy God’s chosen on earth who are alive at the end of this age and take God’s place. He will not succeed.

June 21, 2006 5:20 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

Ah yes, you have my apologies :) I completely understand where you’re coming from now.

I absolutely agree with you about: death (go to the grave, dust to dust), hell is the grave, the non-existence of hell as a place of torment, non-existence of heaven as a place of reward, death will eventually be defeated and that the dragon in Revelation is figurative.

That being said, am I right in saying that you believe in Satan, and that Satan isn’t the root of all evil intentions but that he has the power to influence people if God allows and if the individual doesn’t have the strength to resist him? If I’m on track here, may I ask what Satan gets in return for influencing people to sin? Also, why does God allow for the existence of Satan if he has the power to determine whether or not Satan can influence someone’s life? We're told God "tests" people, not Satan. I humbly ask only because I’m curious.

Personal Responsibility
With or without Satan, are we still the cause of evil? If so, and if our hearts are evil from the very start, then what possible influence can Satan have on evil people? Romans 7:16-18: "If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells;" Paul makes mention of no other person but himself in these verses. There is nothing else outside of man that produces evil thoughts or causes one to sin.

Symbol of the Stars
The stars in Revelation 1 are the seven angels “of the seven churches”, not angels in general. Also Revelation 12:1 mentions a woman wearing a crown of twelve stars. Are these stars symbolic of angels? I’m not saying the stars = angel idea is incorrect, but I only wonder if for the sake of consistency, it doesn’t make sense to assume every use of “star” means “angel”…? (e.g. In Rev 22:16, Jesus says he’s a “morning star” yet we’d both agree that he’s not an angel) And if "stars" in Rev. 12:4 is symbolic, is it safe then to treat the 'casting down' as being literal, especially if you believe the dragon is also symbolic?

The really interesting thing about Job is that it never actually says ‘Satan’ was in heaven. We’re only told that Satan was in “the presence of God”. This meeting need not to have taken place in heaven given the other examples in Scripture where people are said to be in the presence of God without being in heaven. For example, Deut. 19:17 (talking about priests and judges) and 2 Chronicles 19:6 (talking about judges). Also, to leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:12) doesn’t require Satan to have had access to the dwelling place of God in heaven either. For example, Cain “went out from the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 4:16) and we know he definitely wasn’t in heaven.

Secondly, the Hebrew definition for “satan” is simply “adversary or enemy” (as you so rightly pointed out previously) and when used with this definition in mind, it makes more sense NOT to attribute this word to a superhuman evil force given the context in the many instances where we find this word. For example, Number 22:22 – “satan” here is an “angel of the Lord”. In Numbers 22:32, the angel says “I went out to withstand you…” (withstand being the Hebrew word for “satan”). “Satan” in 1 Kings 11:14 is Hadad, an ‘adversary’ to Solomon, Rezon being the second ‘satan’ mentioned a few verses later. As I mentioned before, God is called “satan” in 1 Chronicles 21:1 (compare 2 Sam 24:1). There are many more instances of this Hebrew word in the OT and so given the weight of evidence, perhaps Job 1 should be looked at a little differently then tradition might dictate...?

Finally, and possibly most importantly, Job never attributed his afflictions to Satan. His declaration was simply: "The hand of God hath touched me". (Job 19:21 cf. 2:10). Even Job's brethren, sisters and acquaintances acknowledged that the evil was brought upon Job by the LORD: "they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him." (Job 42:11).

Revelation 12
Before we go any further with this one, I guess we’ll need to decide if Revelation 12 is talking about events that have already occurred or are about to occur. If these things have already occurred, then the battle in heaven has already happened. If this chapter is prophetical, then the battle in heaven hasn’t happened and Satan hasn’t taken a third of the angels with him.

1. Paul’s statement may not be so foolish if we examine the possibility of ‘angels’ in 2 Peter as being human messengers, and not divine...? (especially given the context of the chapter and the very human, historical events surrounding it (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot)

2. Hasn’t Satan’s sentence already been passed (thrown down from heaven to ultimately end up dying in a lake of fire)?

3. a "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23).
b If divine angels were sinners, then they would die.
c But Jesus said angels do not die. (Luke 20:36).
d Therefore, the angels which sinned were human, not divine angels.
e Therefore, the saints won’t be judging these spiritual messengers since one cannot judge someone who has never sinned.

4. Same as above. If you’d like, we can look at the verses in 2 Peter and Jude a little more closely and figure out what else other than divine messengers Paul might be talking about.

Agreed. In the sense that hell is nothing more than the grave, Abel was the first one there. (On that topic, have you ever considered the idea that 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude use language that suggests one as being in the grave, e.g. “chains of darkness”?)

Hm, do you think an all powerful God has problems? If Satan truly is a problem of God’s and not ours, why wouldn’t He just destroy him? From my humble point of view, if God did destroy him, we’re still in the same state of affairs as before. Satan’s existence doesn’t at all change human nature and so I can only wonder what the point of him is. We’re rotten to the bone. Humans possess lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. These are the ingredients of sin, even without Satan around. So if Satan’s existence doesn’t change anything, why must he exist?

June 22, 2006 12:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thomas Here:

Been scanning back through some prior postings and came to this one. I can't pass up pointing out that:

A) There are over 160 references in the NT warning of hell. Around 70 of these are supposed to have came from jesus.

B) If one believes the gospels, why would jesus talk more on hell than any other subject, if it wasn't supposed to exist?

I don't buy any of religions ideas, hell, heaven, god, satan, etc. however, it does amaze me when I read postings from several different people who all have their own "spin" on what the bible "really" says or "really" means. I'd have to call any book which people claim is more or less a "guide" on everything, yet is so unclear as to have so many different opinions as to what is or is not right, a pretty poor book. It seems to me that one of the most appealing aspects of the bible for many is that you really can get pretty much anything you want out of it. Doesn't that seem a little loosey goosey?

January 03, 2007 7:41 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

A. I’m not sure where you’re getting 160 from…? The word “hell” is only mentioned 54 times, and only a dozen or so of these by Christ.

B. What’s the deciding factor for this comment? What’s the ‘subject breakdown’?

Whether or not people have different views on what the Bible says about hell isn’t a reflection of the truthfulness of the Bible. It’s a reflection on the ability and willingness of man to turn the Bible into something it isn’t. History is rife with this. How many times, for example, has the Catholic Church modified her doctrines? Scripture has remained unchanged for thousands of years so we know it can’t be Scripture at the root of the doctrinal change. A few men way back in the 4th or 5th century decide that infant sprinkling is a great way to make the Church more appealing to the masses. People are curious: is infant sprinkling found in the Bible? Uh oh. Because the Church claims it’s infallible, it can’t just do away with an established teaching since uncomfortable questions would be asked. So, lie is built upon lie. Tradition becomes more important then Scripture. Church decree more important then Bible commandment. Skip ahead to the 21st century. There’s no way the Church can ever apologise or claim early traditions were wrong without sabotaging the centuries of hard work building up a loyal following. So false beliefs, which have no basis in Scripture, now have to be subtly incorporated into the occasional verse just to prove there’s a sliver of evidence (and that’s all they need as justification) proving a point of view.

There’s no mention of infant baptism whatsoever in the Bible. The process of baptism is completely dependant on the understanding of the individual regarding the symbolism of the rite. And yet still, people will go to verses like “entire households were baptized” and then make the claim “so this must have included children”. Much like your latest Job and the suspended earth comment (no offense, just a good comparison), the entire belief is based on an assumption. As soon as you show baptism was always done by full immersion, people pull the “what makes you such an expert” card. Why? Because that’s the last argument to fall back on. Discredit the other side when you’ve got nothing left to say.

How many people today use a concordance? How many know what a lexicon is? How many people actually READ the Bible? How many leave it up to their preacher or pastor to spoon-fed them their salvation? How many people quote extra-Biblical sources when trying to prove a point?

Talk to a Christian about Mary’s immaculate conception and before you know it, the old “here’s a few quotes from church forefathers” trick comes out. Talk to a Baptist about hellfire and before long, you’re told to visit Chapters and pick up a few books written by educated Baptist ministers. A JW is already quoting from the Watchtower before you’ve had a chance to find out the subject of conversation. A Mormon has memorized every book in the Book of Mormon before even opening a Bible.

Man-made religions producing their own equivalent to the Bible for the sole reason they’re unable to back up their claims using only Scripture. This is why the Bible seems so complicated. It’s no longer able to speak for itself.

Think of the arguments against hell:
1. It contradicts the nature of man (dust to dust);
2. It contradicts the nature of God (merciful, no enjoyment out of longsuffering);
3. No one in the Bible was ever ‘condemned’ to hell;
4. On the flip side, no one has ever gone to heaven;
5. Judgment isn’t now, it’s at the time of Christ’s return;
6. A word study on hell = grave, garbage pit, etc.
7. Hell doesn’t jive with the theme of resurrection;
8. Other instances of “hell” don’t fit with a place of eternal suffering (Jonah 2:1-2);
9. Satan can be easily and rationally explained away, so who’s running hell?;
10. When was hell physically created? God’s creation was “good”. Hell isn’t “good”.
11. “Immortal soul” isn’t found in Scripture. Man has a shelf life. Once his time is up, he ceases to exist.

And wouldn’t you know it, as soon as you try and discuss this sort of stuff, you’re deemed as being “difficult” and “ignorant” and “taking things out of context”. “Gehenna” was the name of a garbage heap outside of Jerusalem. But for some reason, this answer is too simple to placate. Revelation 1:1 means the writings in Revelation can't be history. But for some reason, this point is argued. Why? What makes people think the truth must surely be more complicated then it seems to be? No one wants to listen because they can’t fathom they’ve been taught the wrong thing. Human pride is always the stumbling block. Which is a shame because if people would just read the Bible and follow things to its natural conclusion, there would never be arguments about whether hell exists or not.

January 03, 2007 9:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home