Skip to content

The Irrefutable Mirage (part one)

February 5, 2015

There is only one thing more painful than learning from experience and that is not learning from experience.

Archibald MacLeish


*I found MacLeish’s quote printed on the underside of my Honest T (Mango White Tea) cap.





Man depends on God for all things: God depends on man for one. Without man’s love God does not exist as God, only as creator, and love is the one thing no one, not even God himself, can command. It is a free gift or it is nothing. And it is most itself, most free, when it is offered in spite of suffering, of injustice, and of death . . . The justification of the injustice of the universe is not our blind acceptance of God’s inexplicable will, nor our trust in God’s love, his dark and incomprehensible love, for us, but our human love, notwithstanding anything, for him.”
― Archibald MacLeish


The two quotes are quite exceptional. The first is obvious in metamorphic relevance; the second, a sequestering presentation regarding personal reflection. MacLeish envisions himself God. Why not? To put self in this position arouses three possible journeys: hate, love or indifference through primal defense. Alone, man concludes his paradox through one, two or three ways. In sectors, or within groups, man prods.


If we look at the first from the experience of the believer of Spirit, we have a partnering. The partnering is Spirit/spirit (Spirit+ and spirit-). For one believing in Christ, there is the belief that a Comforter (Holy) is sent.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;


Man as believer can acquiesce Spirit through what? According to Holy Scripture, Father can only be reached through … I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.


*I wonder how many going to confession have asked themselves “who” their father is  (and what he has been up to when not in parish garb) … and I wonder how many “fathers” ask whether or not their laity and ‘their’ confessors are being honest about their daily diatribe.


As Jesus is the Author of JOHN 14.6, one understands that no one comest to the Father through one but Him who is understood as the Father’s Son, and the Father’s Son also said that He would send an Advocate, a Comforter. Why? Because He left the physical world of the flesh. He is no longer “in the flesh”. He is in SPIRIT, which is God. God is Spirit … (John 4).

Okay … so, what is of Spirit that can be acquiesced in life that one might “experience” in a way that allows for movement in the coming to Father where Son can also be found? What might “Jesus” (Savior, Deliverer, Rescuer) be? while still keeping in mind the greatest covenant:

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Okay …

WE will stop here and look at this from an Atheist’s viewpoint (based on what we have read from Atheists). No God, no Spirit … no Jesus (as Savior, Deliverer, Rescuer, no Prophet on Truth) … no Father to Son, no Son of the Father … no Word of God … no Advocate—no Comforter … no Angels of God … no Demons of Satan … no Maker/Creator of Good … no Satan of Evil  because Self/Man is Creator of both good and evil.

So, where are the words (language) that demonstrate what is good and what is evil for the Atheist—and I am referring to the Atheist from the beginning of Man (according to evidence that an Atheist accepts as true)? At what point did Man realize that killing for food or for woman or for land was not wise? At what point did Man understand the need for language (symbol) to communicate something beyond his physical movement and vocal utterances—that reality the Atheists rely on—you know, only those things seen, proven according their mode of understanding, and experienced by them and them alone (without a Supreme Being)?


Take the January Edition of National Geographic …


The First Artists. Artists sculpting and painting what they saw and experienced. Why did these artists do this? What motivated them to create the drawings inside the caves … to carve sculptures … to decorate and design? What purpose did this serve in their lives? What of the paintings/sculptures not real according to what is seen by the ‘normal’ eye? Where did they come up with the ideas for this—the drawings, paintings, carvings that did not represent the nature of Mankind?

Dreams? Visions? If so, where did these dreams and visions come from?

Remember, in the mind of the Atheist, there is NO Supreme Being—–no one higher or above him in the Living—–therefore all visuals are born from self by self and through no other means, good and evil … which makes good and evil equal in theory. How? First, do not go by what you already know about good and evil; go by the first Man. Without a Supreme Being, evil and good are the same. With nothing of Spirit, he is alone in his understanding of good and evil. What activates realization within Man that there is good and that there is bad? An experience Man has—right? He may not call it good. He may not call it bad, but he does record this. At some point he records his experiences, both good and not good. He records life—his life.

The experience … the one that showed him that evil and good are not the same—where did it come from? If Evil (Satan) does not exist, where did the understanding that there is evil come from? He assumes good if he feels good, but what if something happens to him that he does not like? And what of his neighbor? Let’s say a rain storm washed out the Atheist’s garden, but it cleared an area for the neighbor to begin his garden. What is bad to the Atheist is good for the neighbor. How does the Atheist having lost his garden feel about his neighbor; how and where does he gather information that tells him what is the wise thing to do after having lost his garden? He could react as some have done, possibly the early settlers of Man by doing the Cain and Abel thing, or he could give up something—maybe a wife, a child, maybe even himself— for a plate of chow because he is hungry. He might look at the stars (Stephen’s Theory) and try to understand what is the best course of action, which may tell him to travel to another place, but what if he had no food for the road? And what if he had a woman and she had given birth to several children and he felt these as his own … what then? He had traveled and found it difficult alone, and his reason for settling in and starting to grow food was because it made sense. It was warmer and safer to have shelter, more comfortable with a wife and children, and it provided him a place to hunt/gather and to focus on things like making tools that could be used to help in the day to day activities.

Many questions involving the “conscience” of Man. Many “feelings” through experience in this.

Now … through evolution of Man began societal malady. THROUGH VARIOUS ACTS some gained more than others. Some gained and used this for his own family and interests. Some got rich; some remained tired and hungry and ended up working for those who had material wealth, prestige and … soon, some ruled through these gains (money, housing, land, business, politics, titles, religion …). Where in Society was there “common agreement” of the distribution of wealth? Where in the evolution of Man was there the understanding that one should love his neighbor as himself to make sure that there would be no imbalance in society that caused some to starve and some to sit at the finest tables and eat like kings? Malady persisted and overwhelmed in areas where population increased. Man saw opportunity, seized it and became rich, and in doing so, caused others to suffer—allowed others to suffer—and placed stumbling blocks before the people … causing envy, greed, theft … dishonesty.

Where was there an agreement that showed Man how to act in accordance with truth in mercy, love, kindness, and just behavior?




Is an Atheist born fair? Born more fair than a believer in God? Some militant Atheists behave and speak as if they invented the idea of justice, fairness, honesty, goodness and intelligence. These think of themselves as Humanists and often disparage others not like them—do not think like them, may not look like them, act like them and experience like them. For an Atheist, or anyone, to condemn a believer of Spirit (God) simply because he is a believer of God, accusing him of injustice, racism, bigotry, selfishness, idolatry, hate, lack of wisdom and indecent acts, including torture and murder is criminal. An Atheist claiming a believer’s Spirit—God—of these same crimes is blasphemy. An Atheist cannot blame what he does not see—right? Where is his “proof” that a believer in Spirit created evil, having done evil? Fact: he cannot prove what he cannot see. He cannot accuse what he says he does not experience. The Atheist cannot accuse something he does not believe in and still have credible witness because he cannot see it—does not see it … which leaves the believer within his Faith, and an Atheist cannot judge “Faith”, as Faith is an intangible element of something such as belief for the partnering in experience. It is only through acts can Man see evidence of something he believes is good or evil, and if the acts are done in the name of “something” within “something” … then it is possible that Man is addressing something apart from his own experiences and belief system.

Which brings us back to the question: Where was there an agreement that showed Man how to act in accordance with truth in mercy, love, kindness, and just behavior?


*who might be blamed at the confession booth, and pastoring—the father, his confessor, or both … should ‘acts’ be deemed an accessory to evil? (and one must consider the clergy sexual abuse in this, for what comes on the abuses is going to rock the nations, and trying to doll face and pretty up the images of things are not going to save anyone from anything regarding these abuses).


Atheism is a Religion when claiming self as Atheist as this is an absolute in belief. There is no way around this fact, as it becomes a title with understanding of “something” for “something”, particularly if vocalized and used in the public arena for a purpose, especially when used AGAINST those of Religious Attribute and … believers of Spirit without Religious alignment. Atheism has its own system of belief—which is to believe Religious are ________ , and to believe those believing in Spirit (God) are _______ (some might see this as a form of RACISM—depending on the militancy of the acts—the aggressiveness, whether the words and actions incite violence … ). The Atheist acts according to his faith, which can be faith in his own opinion and opinion of those like him, whereas the believer in Spirit has FAITH in God (Spirit) and its Advocacy, which the Atheist claims he does not see or experience, and cannot judge.

The Atheist has his own beliefs, which is to be supreme being of his own actions-beliefs, and he may or may not use government, or some form of vocational enterprise to align with in his belief system. Sometimes he swears oaths to this vocational enterprise, and he becomes a servant of this “institution”, which he may do to continue within his belief system; also to ensure that his beliefs are exercised and heard. This is much like titles with Religious vows, btw … which makes us wonder … will the Atheists having made vows in a church while marrying, choose to have this annexed or removed from their records now that they have joined Atheism? It would seem to go against their belief system—their faith—their ideals? Maybe they should invite all FAMILY and friends to this momentous event and de-vow themselves from their Religious marriage … or, live a lie? AND … they should not attend ANY marriages or funerals that involve PRIESTS, PASTORS, churches, and any place that says God, Spirit, Jesus, Christ … or be a hypocrite, one who lives a lie (this last addressing the more vigilant Atheist).


Again, where was there an agreement that showed Man how to act in accordance with truth in mercy, love, kindness, and just behavior? What the Atheist may have sworn an oath to for his vocational enterprise—was it born from any form of agreement?


*For those insisting that Government saves from Religious adversity, we ask, is this your Savior? Will Government save you from whatever you deem evil?





Recently, I heard, all souls go to heaven. Now, this caused me to marvel, but I gave it some thought in Spirit, and what I saw was this:

And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all. 


If one has a soul ( and we are of the understanding that this is a manifestation of where and how a believer believes according to God’s Word … and that elemental command on LOVE, which is not of a partial venture), and this, of course, would be something worthy of consideration, one requiring serious discernment, especially if the commandment of Light is honored as it should be … but where one enters heaven would be where Spirit can engage in some manner (unceasing prayer? but what of neighbor if not seen while praying in a cell?)—to demonstrate something of concern or importance, and to teach, and share Spiritual Life, as well as to call one to something of Spiritual Gifting. This could very likely happen in dreams.

Do Atheists dream? I would imagine they do, because one cannot control his thoughts and actions while asleep—right? But, oh my! Imagine if it becomes a fact that Spirit/spirit enters the dream state of the living. What will the Atheists do? Never sleep? 😀


Such exciting things to consider … and won’t the people marvel.




Let’s look at Gregory Palamas in The Philokalia, Volume Four, Text 27 …

To know that we have been created in God’s image prevents us from deifying even the noetic world. ‘Image’ here refers not to the body but to the nature of the intellect. Nothing in nature is superior to the intellect, for if there were then it would constitute the divine image.

Before one can understand what this is saying, one needs to understand what Palamas means by “intellect”. The following is from an interview with Bishop Ware (link provided).

In an interview, Bishop Kallistos Ware offered the following definition of nous or intellect: ‘Nous, in particular, is a very difficult word to translated. If you just say ‘mind’, that is far too vague. In our translation of the Philokalia, we, with some hesitations, opted for the word intellect, emphasizing that it does not mean primarily the rational faculties. The nous is the spiritual vision that we all possess, though many of us have not discovered it. The nous implies a direct, intuitive appreciation of truth, where we apprehend the truth not simply as the conclusion of a reasoned argument, but we simply see that something is so. The nous is cultivated certainly through study, through training our faculties, but also it is developed through prayer, through fasting, through the whole range of the Christian life. This is what we need to develop most of all . . ., something higher than the reasoning brain and deeper than the emotions.’


We will get into the text by Palamas in more detail in Part Two, along with the rest of Text 27, but what we are looking at in this expression is elemental to Spiritual Conscience. Without understanding of this “form” of intellect, there is no God, no experience, no light, no treaty.





Peace and Love




From RNS article:

Atheist Max February 4, 2015 at 7:01 pm


“believing in no god …is no protection against human nature”

That is why we have the US Constitution
and the Separation of Church and State.
Religion only adds misery.





  1. opheliart permalink

    Added from the RNS article posted today, Feb. 5, 2015

    Stephen Lewis February 4, 2015 at 6:10 pm
    One of the big reasons I am a Christian is due to the fact, historical fact, that belief in Christ can change human behavior in men, mellowing them out, down-grading their needs for aggressive territorial behavior carried over from animal days and built into our genes and brains. There is a phenomena that happens in social animals where the herd or flock gets all twitchy and nervous when there’s doubt about the alpha male’s leadership. We Americans saw this phenomena happen when Gore and Bush were tied for the Presidency for a month and it made everyone nervous. When the issue is decided, by male combat determining either the old bull stays or he’s ousted by a new bull, the whole group breathes easier, the alpha male is chosen. Jesus Christ played an interesting challenge as the highest alpha male to go up against alpha male Pilate representing Rome’s interest, the alpha males Sanhedrin of the Jewish community. Instead of fighting for his life, he deliberately folds the game and “loses”, but did he? Three hundred years later there is no Sanhedrin and the whole Roman Empire is owned by Jesus Christ people. In his way, Jesus toppled not only the existing alpha male dominators but the whole alpha male system by refusing to play the game. And this is exactly what needs to be done each generation of men. Each generation must learn how to Sacrifice Power over people, for Love of People, and Jesus Christ provides the world’s most pschologically powerful icon of self-sacrifice, it can literally change human behavior, especially in men, to know and understand this religious sacrifice of ego and self to empower the Meek in all of us, which not weak but the need to bring protection against male aggression to human rights of free peoples, without this change of the Meek inheriting the earth, the unmeek men will and are destroying it.

    Atheist Max February 4, 2015 at 7:02 pm
    “Christ can change human behavior in men, mellowing them out”

    You obviously have no experience with Buddha.

    Stephen Lewis February 4, 2015 at 10:54 pm
    Buddha was second rate sacrifice of self that really was never unselfish as it was always aimed at SELF enlightenment. And now, thanks to brain science and scans of meditating Buddhist monks we know Buddha’s one trick pony for getting to “enlightenment”. Instead of using drugs to tranquilize the brain, use intense meditation. That’s what “enlightenment” turns out to be, tranquilizing, completely shutting down the human brain’s sense of self center located near the parietal region that regulates our sense of self in time and space and seems to be a center for ego awareness. Shutting it down creates the oceanic egoless sensation. Shunting brain energy towards the frontal lobes then creates higher consciousness and when frontal lobe pleasure centers fire, one can have pleasurable egoless consciousness, this is “Buddha Mind” and you can have it. It’s severe brain manipulation to get high. And nobody could see inside a human brain before so Buddhism spreads around the world as a “pure” path to higher consciousness while all the time it was a fraud. This is why Buddha never found God. He wasn’t worthy with his man-made ideas about reality all stemming from creating an artificial hole in his head where the normal brain sense of self should be functioning. We need whole brain consciousness to deal effectively with reality and not a deliberate lessening of our brains to achieve escape from psychic pain. For heaven’s sake, smoke a joint instead..


    • opheliart permalink


      Tis true on the SELF-centering of the Buddhist ideal. PURPOSE unto GOD is not realized in SELF ENTITY, it is understood THROUGH self-sacrifice FOR UNITY—Peace, which is Eternal Understanding—an ongoing Light on Truth. This for ALL Life …

      Peace and Love

  2. opheliart permalink

    Someone said to me recently that Religion will eventually die off. No, Religion will continue, but the landscape of this will change. Anything can be Religion—acting Religiously. If Atheism can be Religion, so too can Humanism, and yes, this will become Religious. Some claiming themselves Humanitarian will go through heartache as they see (in their day) this happening. Why? Because what they will experience is the “rules of the game” —what is–what is not … Take for instance the Folk Movement, even this became Religion when those coming in brought the electric guitar, the Folkies said, no, that is against our rules 😀

    Now you see why gnosis remains —–it is and always will be without Religious Attribute. To be gnostic is to be. But one may say, Hey, you use what you call Holy Scripture! So you use and follow rules! Holy Scripture is not rules … there is a command: LOVE through various Gifts, but the Gifts are realized through gnosis. This is an ongoing partnering and cannot be confined by Man’s rules of limited understanding. And … Holy Scripture has yet to be recognized in its fuller Paradox on Love. Man refuses to let go of childish things that he might grow and come into the Spiritual Language inherent in what is Holy. He cannot fathom that LIFE exists outside his own vision—his way of thinking.
    Seeing is of the Mind; Hearing id of the Heart.


    • opheliart permalink

      When he says that Religion will die off, he “thinks” of only what he “sees” of this—what he understands is Religion. This is Catholic in mindset. This is how Catholic Mindset is garnered and acquiesced. Others come with their electric instruments (gifts) and say … no man, I am not like you.



  3. opheliart permalink

    To continue preaching the same old same old? The ritualistic dualistic practice of playing self as righteous kings and queens? Good grief! C’mon women … you can do better than this! You preach a PATRIARCHAL malady—go forth and BECOME!

    • opheliart permalink

      What of Christianity? Will it die off? As we have shared here in SPIR, the FACE of Christianity will change, but Christianity as MEDIATOR will only continue IF it finds its MASTER.

      Revelation of the Church of Ephesus teaches on this, but this is not saying Christianity is of this “church” … The Angels of the Churches of the Book of REVELATION signify what? Move beyond the Patriarchal mindset of Catholicism and reach between the spires of history …
      and HEAR—————————————————— GENERATIONS.


  4. opheliart permalink

    Was not sure where to put this, and we will include JB’s cooments in case they disappear … but … hmm … why would RNS delete his but not the militant Atheists who clearly speak with the intent of racist agenda, which includes anti-semitic language …
    does not seem fair—does it?

    • opheliart permalink

      Joe Blow February 7, 2015 at 8:28 am
      Ok, here it is happening right now on Religious News Service, censorship of religious news and censorship of Gnostic Christian theology. I can no longer post under my own name on RNS as my posts started disappearing trying to post them a few days ago and now all of them do. I tell it like it is and we see now that prophesy bearing always gets attacked by those protecting the powers that be from critical review. It is a shame you are being misled by RNS editors who I emailed yesterday and got my posts banned today. You know who I am by my celestial root Christianity theology. Which Pauline Christians at RNS I suspect are now censoring on this website comments.

      *from the article listed-see above.


      • opheliart permalink

        more thought on the inequality of the blame game …

        it has been obvious that militant atheist’s rants make the religious look good (several have already pointed this out in their comments) …

        now … if atheists really want to scare the hell out of religionists—go “gnosis”

        note: gnosticism is a religion. gnosis is a place of BEING—-just keep that in mind 😀

  5. opheliart permalink

    In an email Saturday, the group’s national director, David Clohessy, said that he wasn’t exactly sitting by the phone.

    “We’ve been around 25 years and can count on maybe two hands the number of Catholic officials who have asked to hear from us, so we’re not holding our breath waiting for a call from the Vatican,” Clohessy wrote.

    “For years and years, Catholic officials have almost universally shunned survivors or met only with a tiny handful of carefully chosen survivors in choreographed public relations events,” he said. “So the chance that we’ll be have any real chance to talk with or influence the church hierarchy seems slim.”

    In a related development on Saturday, Saunders and Collins also said the commission has a working group on corporal punishment and they chided Francis for his remarks earlier in the week that seemed to say it was okay for parents to spank their children.

    “One time, I heard a father say, ‘At times I have to hit my children a bit, but never in the face so as not to humiliate them,’” the pope said last Wednesday. “That’s great,” Francis continued. “He had a sense of dignity. He should punish, do the right thing, and then move on.”

    The comments prompted an intense debate, and Saunders said that while the remarks “just proved his humanity and his normalcy,” he wanted to have a chance to tell Francis how wrong he was.

    “I think we need to talk to the pope about this issue because there are millions of children around the world who are physically beaten on a daily basis,” Saunders said. “It might start out as a light tap but the whole idea of hitting a child is abut inflicting pain … Physical violence has no place in a modern day upbringing.”

    ASK ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN ABUSED BY A PRIEST OR A PARENT OR BOTH AND THEY WILL TELL THE POPE AND HIS HENCHMEN (Whatever these may be——pope lovers?) WHERE THEY CAN TAKE THEIR ERRONEOUS BULL! These guys play with fire on the playgrounds of billions of lives where CHILDREN are present! One to two years? NO!!!! NOW!!! Yank them out of those fancy chairs and tell them ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    Catholics, priests——-ALL!!! GET MOVING! LIVES ARE AT STAKE!!!

  6. opheliart permalink

    Sometimes it is necessary to have records as HISTORY is a valuable lesson … if man learns from his experiences … and so, we post the following comment …

    (the commenter is a religionist—44 years in the Catholic Church).
    hmm … makes you wonder? how the mind works? he said he used to teach in the Catholic Church.

    WE do wonder what he knows of the CLERGY SEX ABUSE —THE CHILDREN … what might he be hiding that he should view scripture as he does … and show himself as such a predator on RNS.

    Do you think GOVERNMENT should be concerned regarding what the Catholic Church is teaching?

    Atheist Max February 9, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    “Same sex unions are an abomination.”

    Not true –

    Jesus accidentally stumbled into a sexual tryst between Peter and Jesus’ lover.
    “Then the disciple whom Jesus dearly loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water” (John 21:7)
    “And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.” (Mark 14:51-52)
    It is right there in plain view.

    • opheliart permalink

      Here another crusader commenter on RNS

      Verax February 9, 2015 at 5:29 pm
      Paul was a sick misogynist who had NO right to speak for Jesus whatsoever. It’s high to to throw off the yoke of Bronze Age superstition and join the 21st century.

      This is truly stunning. It is difficult to believe that these people have absolutely no sense of the Spiritual Language inherent in Paul’s words. Agl. Paul was gnostic and wrote on marriage much like you might find in Gnostic Literature—HIGHLY SYMBOLIC.
      It is a bit creepy when people are so full of venom for one they know nothing about.

      When the TRUTH comes out on the words Man will be wetting his pants … to be sure.


  7. opheliart permalink

    “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship,” President Barack Obama said Friday in Washington.
    —–President Obama

    maybe the pres should take a cruise through mr religion neighborhood online … he would get quite an eyeful
    he may have to DEFINE the word target

    *have any of you been targeted on a business site or gallery, wordpress … even at the house?
    shall we elaborate, or should we remain silent about what happened?

    we have

  8. opheliart permalink

    Something to discern in …

    Stephen Lewis February 21, 2015 at 9:00 am (@ RNS)
    Not your choice, Fran, as your choice involves using a fictitious foundation for your Christian belief system that historical discovery has debunked. You have placed blind faith in a paper and ink object and now pay the price for such spiritual error as that paper and ink object didn’t pass factual review and now the Hebrew writers of the Bible have been exposed as story-tellers par excellence but still only story-tellers, not reporters of historical facts. Paul, like you, like all Bible idol worshipers, believed every word of our ancient scribes and priests of Judah, but those words were not true words and have now fallen to truth. If your belief in God and Jesus Christ rests on lies what have you? You have only your ego telling you “no, don’t listen to him or any of those scholars who claim the Bible is not accurate at all in history of the ancient Hebrews.” So you run on empty words of ancient men instead of Spirit which you and all Evangelical Christians are afraid to face so you bury your heads in the paper and ink idol instead.

    Blind faith actually translates into you don’t trust God as a Spirit but do trust words of men written in books.

    We disagree with Stephen in his beliefs on what he says because he does not HEAR the PROPHET’s VOICE in those STORIES written! If he would take the time to discern in what has evolved, where and how, he would hear ‘it’s voice’. We agree that to be enslaved to dogma and ritual is not the WORTH of Spirit … to be in the Spirit, because God is not Religion, but UNDERSTANDING shows us why and how this was-is-and NOW … what will come forth. This all having much to do with BALANCE …
    He acts in fear in his posting of such opposition.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: