A conversation came up recently as to whether or not somebody can earn their way into heaven with good deeds. The specific example given was Gandhi. This post is not to decide where Gandhi is right now. Only God knows and decides. But we can use scripture to help us understand what determines where God sends us when we die. So the main question is this: Does God turn good people away from heaven for rejecting His gift to us?
One thing we know as a fact is that every man is a sinner. It doesn't take much. If we steal one thing in our life, that makes us a thief. If we so much as lust after another person, we're an adulterer. We're born into a fallen world, and eventually break our relationship with God by sinning. The bible teaches us that the only thing that saves us from our sins is our faith, not our works. Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."
Remember the thief who died on the cross next to Jesus. The thief didn't get a chance to redeem his sinful life with good deeds. Instead, he put his faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus's response was, "today you will be with me in paradise".
What does God use to measure our good deeds? What do our works look like to Him? God is perfect. That can be the only comparison. How good of a deed can we do on Earth to achieve God's perfect standard? We measure our works according to what we know in our feeble human minds. One man's good deeds may seem perfect to another, because we are limited in our knowledge of goodness and perfection. To God, "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). While we think we are doing good on earth by our human standards, they are unrighteous in the face of God.
If we can earn our way into heaven through good works, how many good works does it take to redeem ourselves? (thanks PA). If you sin 10 times, does it take 10 good works? Or does it have to be of a certain magnitude? Say, bringing Independence to several countries?
Sometimes it can be difficult to think that a good person could be sent to Hell. We know that God is loving, and some might say that a loving God wouldn't turn away a good person, regardless of their beliefs. But when we say that we're creating our own God. It's much easier to create a God of convenience, the perfect God that we would like to believe in. A God that doesn't judge us, and only sends the most evil people to Hell. The serial killers, rapists, and child molesters. But if we believe in the God of the Bible, this is not the case. God is loving, but he is also jealous. He is vengeful. He does hate. He hates pride and arrogance. He hates evil-doers. If this is not the God you know, ask yourself a question. How are you creating your image of God? If not the bible, then from where?
“And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you.” (Leviticus 26:27-30)
If we believe that Jesus is God, we must obey Him. What did Jesus tell us?
"When the Holy Spirit comes, He will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment; in regard to sin, because men do not believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see Me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned." (John 16:8-11)
Put yourself in the position of a parent. You gave your child life, clothing, a home, and unending love. But your child turns their back on you, simply because they are too proud to be dependant on somebody other than him or herself. Maybe they grew to hate you because you gave them rules and they rebelled. Your child never thanked you, but instead went out to make their own life, and never spoke to you again. You tried to call them, to write, but they ignored you. Eventually, they go out to become the greatest charity worker of all time. They've dedicated their whole life to helping others. One day they become homeless, and nobody will take them in. Then they show up at your home. They tell you, "I've come to live with you. I know I hurt you, and rejected you. But look at how much I've helped everybody. I've made so many people's lives better. You're obligated to take me in now, I've earned it". What would a just response be? "I raised you with loving kindness to adulthood. You turned your back on me. I tried to reach you but you didn't respond. You chose your path and you excluded me from it. Yet you did favors for other people. And because of this you tell me I owe you my home."
Does the child deserve a place in their father's home now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
As the proponent of the Ghandi argument, i must say I stand by it. But my interpretation of God is different from others' views. If we all follow the Bible perfectly, we will be Catholics who live very limited lives. The problem is, God didn't write the Bible, men did. All men have agendas, save perhaps one. If religions didn't argue that non-believers would be condemned, there would be no reason for there to be believers. As for the thief on the cross, he didn't live long, but his last act was standing up for Christ. That's a decent action to go out on.
I don't know what agenda the Gospel writers would have had. There are many reasons I believe this. Sure, being martyred is fun, but that's about all they gained from their beliefs and writings. They received no monetary gain, no positions of power, and they certainly weren't held in high regards in society. The only reason they could have written what they did is because they believed it to be true. When Paul was writing letters from prison, I struggle to think of what altenative motive he could have had. I certainly doubt he was collecting indulgances.
Was it the thief rebuking the other man on the cross that caused Jesus to say, "this day you will be with me in paradise"? Or was it when the thief said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"? And don't forget Gandhi went out rejecting Christ ;)
How do you think God reacted when Gandhi told His chosen people (the Jews) that they should give themselves up to the butcherknife and throw themselves into the ocean (during the holocaust).
If we all follow the bible perfectly, how will our lives be limited? I'd argue they'll be blessed (and I don't think the bible calls us to be Catholics).
I know your interpretation of God to be different than others', but where does it come from? What develops your view of God? I'm not attacking, just curious.
But Gospel writeers didn't put together the modern Bible. The Church did hundreds of years after Christ died. They determined what got in, and what didn't. "Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6)."
For limiting life, the Old Testament bans pork and crustaceans and limits leavened bread. Swearing at your parents would get you stoned. Gays are considered abominations. Of course the Old Testament also lifts stories directly from the Gilgamesh epic and claims the world is some 6,000 years old. The Bible is wonderful, but it can not be interpreted 100% literally.
I get my view of God from three main assumptions. 1) God is love. He gave his Son for us out of love. Virtually no one claims God condemns children, our species' only innocents, and we are all God's children. 2) Deeds speak louder than words. Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery, and there is no higher path than the ways of the Christ. 3) God gave us our minds for a reason. Our brain is what separates us from animals. God gave us intelligence and free-will to make our world better. My belief in the Almighty is something I can reason out. If God didn't want us to think, he wouldn't have made us in His image.
Whenever someone says my intepretation of God, they generally are redefining God to fit into their world, as opposed to fitting into God's world. We so want Him to fit into our limited viewpoint of the world. The truth is, God is unchanging and unwavering. He is the only foundation that is not built of sand. The bible is His gift to us, divinely inspired to guide us, teach us and draw us to Him. And that drawing always brings us back to His gift, as Mcq said. There is one road that leads that way and it is through His son. Read the new testament and see if there are alternatives to that. You won't find any.
If someone had the idea that they earned it, it would be a problem.
Did Ghandi think that he earned his way to a better life?
Or was he doing what he did out of genuine concern for others?
And if he did expect a reward, how is that different from Christians who expect to get to heaven because they believe?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ghandi in heaven.
Not one bit.
But I don't understand his motives (although I can surmise from what I've seen).
Whether or not he is there, I trust the judgment God will make on it.
Faith.
I have to disagree with Kinggame. The Bible may have been written by men, but was inspired by God. So the only agenda was God's. 1 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, (21) for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
Your reference of Matthew 16:18 is a misinterpretation by Catholics. Jesus is using a rock as reference to a foundation. Check back to Matthew 7:24-25. "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: (25) and the rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew and the beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock."
You will also see that Christ is the foundation. Acts 4:11-12 "This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone. (12) Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
and 1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Finally I would say that Mother Teresa who had done a plethora of good work according to society even questioned her own salvation.
Here is an article if you didn't hear about it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2321124.ece
The Reliability of the Bible
by Charles F. Stanley
Is the Bible the Word of God? If we want to be intellectually honest, we will study the evidence. Just like a jury weighs the evidence and then decides on a verdict, we can investigate the historical evidence and determine if the Bible is reliable.
You might know that most modern translations of the Bible are based on ancient manuscripts (documents written by hand) in the original languages, not on a translation of a translation, as people often believe. (Some paraphrased Bibles are exceptions to this generality.) In a study of historical manuscripts, reliability is determined in part by 1) the date they were written, 2) the origin, and 3) the condition of the manuscripts.
This is true in studying any historical document, whether biblical or not. During the first century, two important Romans wrote history. The first was Caesar, who wrote during the first century. But his writing was not discovered until 900 years after it was written. We have only 10 copies of it.
Caesar’s book is quoted in other history books. No one doubts its authenticity, even though there are few copies and many years between the writings and their discovery.
The other writer of Roman history, Tacitus, wrote The Annals about the battles his father-in-law fought. Virtually nothing is known about these battles other than what Tacitus wrote.
We don’t even have all the letters or manuscripts. We only have 20 copies, about 60 percent, and those copies, too, are dated about A.D. 900 or 950. Even though we do not have a lot of copies and even though there is a significant amount of time between the writing and the finding of the writing, no one doubts the authenticity of this man’s work.
How does the Bible compare to the writings of these two men? A copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was found together in one volume in A.D. 250. In Egypt, historians discovered a copy of the gospel of Luke, just as it appears in our Bible, dated A.D. 175. A fragment of John is dated A.D. 150. Apparently, soon after the gospel events, people started distributing copies in Egypt, not just in Jerusalem. Scholars believe Jesus Christ died in A.D. 30, so there is a relatively small time span between His death and the oldest copies of the writings.
By A.D. 350, there were five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This is incredible evidence that the news needed to get out to the whole world. In light of the test of the date, origin, and condition of the manuscripts, the New Testament evidence is more reliable than ancient history.
Although we don’t have the originals of any of the ancient manuscripts, we do have copies. The earliest manuscripts we have were written on papyrus, which is made out of a water plant that grew in Egypt. Papyrus isn’t very durable. It became brittle with age or rotted with dampness and soon wore out. We can see why copies were necessary. But this is true of all ancient documents. For instance, it is true of the writings of Homer—of which, by the way, there is not a complete known copy dated earlier than A.D. 1300.
The New Testament writers, often poor and relatively unknown, had their writings better cared for than the powerful, influential Roman Empire. Could it have been that the Story itself was so powerful? Although the Romans were very interested in getting their story spread throughout the world, the followers of Christ had Someone orchestrating the distribution of their manuscripts.
Because there were so many manuscripts, those working on the canon of Scripture took the manuscripts and compared them. There were some differences, but the differences were minimal. Many were grammatical, such as a plural noun in one manuscript, but a singular noun in another. The substantial variations make up only 1/1000 of the New Testament. This is about one quarter of one page of the Greek text.
Let me give you an example in English of how most of the variations look. Suppose you receive a telegram that reads, “You inherited a million.” You probably would not say, “A million what? I don’t like this telegram.” The next day, you receive another telegram that reads, “You have inherited a million dollar.” You probably would not complain that the s is missing on the word dollar. The next day, you get another telegram: “You’ve inherited a million dollars.” You probably would not say, “Okay, which is it: You or you’ve? Dollar or dollars?”
These are “variant texts” telegrams. But comparing one with another doesn’t make you doubt your good news. Suppose you had 5000 telegrams with only that little variation. You would probably believe you had inherited a million dollars! Those are exactly the types of minute variations in the Biblical manuscripts. All those manuscripts, spread throughout the world, copied over and over, still bear no significant discrepancies that affect the truth.
The New Testament gets an A+ when we apply the tests of the date, origin, and condition of the manuscripts. If we do not accept the biblical manuscripts, we need to throw out all of ancient history. Other historical manuscripts, which are so widely accepted, do not pass the tests with flying colors like the biblical texts.
It stands to reason that God loves us enough and loves His Word enough that He watched over every writer and scribe so that we would know the greatest love story ever told.
--Adapted from Charles Stanley’s Handbook for Christian Living. 1996. pp. 187-191.
.
Scottie, when I said "my view" it was so Chris would know I was referencing the question he asked. That said, interpreting God is not refitting Him to bend to my opinion, it is simply trying to find Him. For God I look to the Bible, but also to the world around me, and to what's inside of me. He gave us the ability to think and to reason. I believe these were his most generous gifts.
To the other points you made, I disagree. God is unchanging? Perhaps, I don't claim to know His way. Does his message change? Certainly, if we view th Bible as messages from God. In the Torah He told the Hebrew soldiers to kill men, women and children. In the New Testament, it's "turn the other cheek." That is as inconsistent as is possible.
Well said, Roland.
We can disagree Craig. But as a non-Catholic, I know their scholars put together the Bible, and have a solid grasp of it. The Mathew quotes may have multiple interpretations, as does any thing with as much symbolism as the Bible, but to say thousands of years of scholars simply misinterpreted something comes across, at worst, prideful, and at best, naive. And, of course Mother Teresa doubted her own salvation. Everyone should, and someone humble enough to dedicate their entire life to serving at the feet of the world's poorest is more likely than most. I don't doubt her salvation at all. She makes Gandhi look a little schmucky. ;p
Great post, Anonymous ;p. We are blessed to have such a complete collection of Biblical manuscripts, and we have the Catholics to thank for them. That's partially because they were there and Protestants weren't, but part of me wonders if the other half of Christianity could have done as good a job. We are the more iconoclastic side.
We make much over the Individual's right to interpret the Bible, or to find their own view of God, which is ironic, as that was the number one reason behind the Protestant movement. You and God, period. Every week in the U.S. five new Protestant churches are founded. Not buildings built, but new stand-alone religions. God bless them. Whatever brings people to find peace with God and live good lives. Who am I to say they're wrong?
I'm not so sure God changed from times he helped those in war to when Jesus said "turn the other cheek". Jesus was telling us that if a man hits you, don't hit him back. It's on an individual level. They "eye for an eye" standard in the Old Testament is given to Israel as a body, or government, a judiciary process. Throughout the Bible, God gives nations and governments rules and laws that are seperate from individual people. When we read God's word, we have to consider the context. Jesus didn't come to tell the government not to punish criminals, nor does he ever say anything that reflects that. Otherwise, it seems as though he might have said something about the two men being crucified next to him.
If anything, Jesus made the rules more strict than the laws of the old Testament. The jews believed adultery only to be a physical act, yet Jesus told us that it occurs as easily in the heart.
When many Christians and non-Christians state that God changed when he came down as a man, they are mistaken. The OT teaches us that God is loving, but wrathful, veangeful, and jealous also. Jesus came not to destroy the law, but fulfill it. Jesus had his moments of anger. Take his monologue addressed to the pharisees when he was calling them hippocrites, snakes, and vipers. He overturned the merchants' tables in the temple while enraged.
God has many different sides. In the Old Testament God had to use wrath and violence to get peoples attention. The type of people that lived back then would not have responded to love and kindness. Men ruled with power, and responded to power, which unfortunatley, typically involved violence.
In Jesus's time, men were a little more advanced. While there was still violence, man had grown. God was able to show another side of Himself to us; the loving, forgiving God. He was able to reach us with these messages, just look at how people carry his teachings as slogans today. "Turn the other cheek." "Love your neighbor".
God didn't change from one personality to another. He simply showed us that he wasn't as transparent as some thought. He didn't only want to teach His people by destoroying them when they violated the Law. Instead, he showed us his love and mercy; love and mercy He has always had, but the ancient Jews would have perceived as weakness.
As to us living limited lives because of food restrictions in the bible ;)
When God sent His son to us to die, he made all living things clean that were once unclean. In Acts, Peter refuses to eat cloven animals, because he never had and never would (according to the law). But the Holy Spirit told him that God has made all things clean, and Peter didn't have the authority to call unclean what God had made clean.
As far as Giglamesh is concerened, there is a story of a flood in it. A story lifted from another epic, Atrahasis. So we have three different accounts of a great flood. This doesn't tell me one is wrong, the other correct, but that we have a multi-sourced story telling us the same thing. The flood happened. If that's the case, it helps me take the flood story a bit more literally.
If you've made it this far in my response, reply with a 0.o and I'll give you extra credit.
I refute the claim of being prideful or naive. It is not prideful to give an alternative interpretation with scriptural support. What I consider to be naive is to rely on an interpretation based on historical longstanding. Does this mean that we are to agree with all doctrine that has longevity?
The reason I mentioned that Mother Teresa doubted her salvation is because it may be she relied on her own works and not God's grace.
I don't believe everyone should doubt their salvation. By doubting your salvation you are doubting God.
Ephesians 1:13-14 "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (14) who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."
If one does not believe the bible to be the inspired word of God, there is generally no starting point to discussion. Of course it was written by man, but divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. And the question has to be asked, why would someone believe in Christ, if he does not believe in the Word that He so often quoted. The new testament is full of Christ quoting scripture. Is He too just depending on man made words and revelations.
Secondly, I challenge anyone to show me in the bible where there is a parallel path to heaven. People don't like Christianity because of the fact Jesus said the path to the Father has to come through Him. Other religions don't.
It is a pretty simple choice. We live in such a politically correct world of let everyone do their own thing, don't be judgemental, that we don't want to believe the hard truth of the word. Jesus said the path is narrow, but we want to widen it to include things not to be included.
While many good points were brought up, we still have some unreconciled gaps.
1) Genesis didn't rip off just a flood from the Gilgamesh. Read the epic, it's short, and it predates the earliest Jewish scriptures. I'm not attacking the OT, but I'm pointing out it isn't flawless. Diaspora isn't a bad thing, it is just how culture spreads. If you heard a story from me, and I hear it from Tom, that's not three accounts of the story. It's two copies of one account.
2) If it is flawless, why are we eating pork? And shellfish? These are off limits.
3) Men weren't more advanced by the time of Christ, at least not in any real way. I'd argue we aren't much more advanced now, and our nature certainly hasn't changed. The killing of women and children in the OT occurs after leaving Egypt, so we know the Egyptian Empire was already of a level that it could easily enslave an entire people. Christ was born in the very early Roman Empire. Rome was just not that much more civilized than Egypt, especially as the Senate had lost most of its power. We are still terrible as a species. And we can't defend the purposeful targeting of civilians in any situation. It is what separates us as civilized from barbaric.
4) "Don't be judgmental" is a good thing, not a bad one. Christ told us "Judge not less ye be judged."
5) I'm not saying the Catholics are perfect, obviously. I'm not saying they are better because they are older. But they have had hundreds and thousands of scholars with literally thousands of years to examine every speck of every text in any way associated with the Bible. I didn't say you were naive or prideful, I said to automatically assume the Catholics just misinterpreted something was one of those or the either. I may not agree with everything the Pope says, but I can't assume I know the Book or God better than he does.
5) We can assume the Bible is inspired by God, but it isn't 100% accurate or literal. 40 days and nights never meant exactly 40 days. It means a long time. Part of the beauty of the bible is the symbolism, and it is very inviting to immerse yourself in. But the Book is flawed, because men are flawed. If it was perfectly inspired by God, as, say, the Koran claims to be, then God is flawed. And I don't believe He is imperfect.
Kinggame,
Nice points.
Anything to add, McQ?
God must be pretty cramped in the tiny box you put Him in.
Interesting discussion of literal vs not-so literal view on the Bible. I have some food for thought.
Where does literal interpretation start and where does it end? Who decides what is literal and what is a metaphor? Does 'interpretation' go from finding an alternative meaning of a story or does it also change the literal facts of the story? If it isn't a stretch to believe in the literal resurrection of Christ, than why is it a stretch to believe in the literal events of all the other stories? Doesn't that defy 'faith'?
Further, who determines if it is accurate or not? What would not be accurate in the Bible and what is that based on? If it is the inspired word of God, than the accuracy should not be in question, and at most the 'interpretation."
After interpreting the Bible and evaluating it's accuracy, when does faith kick in? Simply in the belief of God and Jesus? Shouldn't faith include all the evidence God has left behind also?
My point is, why believe, if you don't believe it all?
Enjoy. Ps. McQ, post another one!
Interesting conversation. A lot of interesting ground here so I reckon I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I tend to believe that there are literal and historical books of the Bible, but Genesis is not one of them. As I've written before, I have a hard time believing that the author of that book ever thought his readers would believe that there was a time when snakes talked to naked people in the garden. But whether the story is literal or not doesn't matter in the end. Like Jesus' parables, the story's lessons are clear whether it actually happened that way or not. The same is true of the flood, the tower of Babel and a host of other tales. It is their power in teaching us about our place in the world and our relationship to God that matters.
As for the Catholic church, there is no doubt that Rome created the basis for the canon (though they use the Greek Septuigent and it's additional content for the OT while protestants recognize only the Hebrew scriptures). However, the authority of the church runs into complications when you start to look at apostolic succession and the Pope. Matt 16:18 has multiple interpretations which become muddy when we see St. Paul correcting the supposed Pope Peter's theology and find James, not Peter, presiding and making the final decision at the Jerusalem council. And let's not even talk about the "2nd Pope" who was supposed to be on the seat while St. John was alive and writing, but never gets a nod from John.
As for the initial point of the post, I agree that works won't bring redemption, but I just believe that there must be other ways to find salvation in God beyond Jesus Christ. I can't find this in the scriptures, I just believe it must be true. I mean, we know of at least one group that can make it without Christ -- the Jews. God said that they would always be his people, so if they can't reach eternal peace with God he ever lied or changed his mind and I don't like either option. Beyond that, there are scores of folk who are unlikely to find Christ because of the happenstance of their birth. I can't imagine the God we see through the person of Christ denying them access to redemption because of where they were born.
My 2 cents
I think it all depends on if you believe that what Jesus said in the gospels was actually said by him. "Nobody comes to the Father but through the Son". Do you believe Jesus said this? If you do believe he said it, but believe he is wrong, you're basically saying Jesus lied. If you don't believe He said it, you believe the bible is a lie. Seems like an extreme point of view, but either you think it's fact or fiction. If you think it's fact and choose not to believe it by saying there are other ways than what Jesus told us, you know the ways of God better than He knows Himself.
Jesus also said "I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,
you don't have life in yourselves.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him up at the last day." Does that mean a Eucharist with the "real presence" is the only way to eternal life? I don't think so.
We also know that the OT is filled with examples of God's people who had no knowledge of Christ and yet would reach his eternal kingdom. And then there is God's promise to the Jews which reverberates from Genesis through Revelation.
I believe Christ's words but wonder if we understand them. As I said, I have no solid scriptural defense for my belief, just a belief that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels would not eternally damn the thousands of Native Americans who live and died never knowing his name because they had the misfortune of being born before the first Christian missionaries made their way to the new country.
The person of Christ is a prism through which we can interprete all of the Bible. And I just can't imagine that person turning his back on millions who never had a chance.
The second is I dont tell a soul what is on the tape,when the boss comes back I tell him the detective didnt find outanything was wrong. I wish I could tell you whats going on, but you wouldntunderstand.
first time glory hole stories
step mother fuck stories
free same sex stories
bbw aunty sex stories post
sex sluts erotic stories
The second is I dont tell a soul what is on the tape,when the boss comes back I tell him the detective didnt find outanything was wrong. I wish I could tell you whats going on, but you wouldntunderstand.
Now. Angela out all hours of the night.
ebony bondage stories
fiction incest sex stories
beastiality stories askjolene
sex stories to tell your boyfriend
lesbian sex stories free
Now. Angela out all hours of the night.
Greetings,
Thanks for sharing the link - but unfortunately it seems to be down? Does anybody here at thingsunconsidered.blogspot.com have a mirror or another source?
Thanks,
Peter
A shared spider's web hosting advantage or essential hosting worship army or derive publican refers to a net hosting waiting where various websites reside on anyone net server connected to the Internet. Each placement "sits" on its own break-up, or section/place on the server, to keep it detach from other sites. This is customarily the most thrifty privilege owing hosting, as uncountable people apportionment the entire cost of server maintenance.
[url=http://hostinghouse.pl]hosting[/url]
Post a Comment