Hello everyone, I know its been a while since I have posted anything, but hopefully I will be able to share some good things with you all. This post is about Worldviews.
What is a worldview?
To put it simply, a worldview is a person's philosophy of life. It is how they view the world and come to make decisions regarding what they believe about life, death, morality, knowledge, and a variety of other philosophical topics. Whether you are a church laymen, or just a casual philosopher, it is very important that you understand the various worldviews that many people have. Why? Well, because by understanding the system that a person interprets the world through, you can better be prepared to debate, or talk, to that person.
Worldview Thinking
Believer it or not, everybody has a worldview. You, the reader, have a worldview, as do I, the writer. Our worldviews affect the way we think about life. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever debated an issue with somebody and found that you both had very different ideas on the subject? A great example of this is abortion. Lets say that you have an atheist and a christian arguing about abortion. Both sides might appeal to different scientific evidences to support their sides, but both sides may also appeal to other things. For example, the atheist, who does not believe in God, may be pro choice since they do not believe that humans are made in God's image, and therefore do no believe that we have an obligation to God to preserve the life of a child (this is not necessarily why an atheist would be pro choice, but it is a possible reason). On the other hand, the Christian, who believes that everyone is made in God's image, may be pro life because they believe that human life is sacred (since we are made in God's image). See the conflict of ideas? Take note of how both sides have different assumptions that affect the answer they give to the question of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. These assumptions, in a way, make up part of their different worldviews.
How We Come to Have a Worldview
There can be a variety of reasons why we come to have the worldview that we do. Personal experience and logical reasoning are two of the big reasons. Everything from the environment we grow up in, to our personality type can play a role. However, it is important to note that the decision to call yourself the member of a particular worldview (i.e. a Christian, an Atheist, an Existentialist, etc.) is a very big decision. Make sure that you, now being informed through this blog, take the time to really consider your beliefs. You don't simply have to believe what you were told growing up. Rather, take your worldview seriously, think it through, and make it personal. After all, it is the way you view the world. Make sure your glasses aren't cracked.
In Closing
Hopefully you can see the importance of understanding different worldviews. I will be posting some more blogs that go into more detail about different worldivews. I also would like to point out that the example above is simply an example using possible reasons that could arrived at by people holding those two worldviews. That being said, not every atheist is pro choice, and not every christian is necessarily pro life.
God bless and Jesus loves you!
- Jon
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
Understanding the Ontological Argument (Part 2): God's Attributes
In the last blog, I went over the argument in some detail, explaining how it works, and why it ultimately fails to prove its point. However, we must bear in mind that the Ontological argument has a unique purpose. It is basically meant to be a master argument, by which several other arguments about God can be proven. So, instead of needing to have several arguments that aim to define the nature of God, we can use one argument to prove all that needs to be proven (or at least thats the idea). The reason that this is able to work is because of Anselm's definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought." If God is truly the greatest thing that can be thought, then God will always be that which it is greater to be. For how can "that than which nothing greater can be thought" ever be in any way the lesser of two things? If God is God, according to Anselm's defintion, He must always be whatever it is better to be. Does this mean that God is conditional? That is to say, that in any given situation He chooses to be what it is better to be given the current circumstances? No, what this actually means is that God is, eternally, that which it is better to be. An example of this can be found in the idea of the doctrine of immutability, which states that God cannot undergo any kind of "real or intrinsic change in any respect." (thanks to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/ for the definition). If Anselm's definition and argument are to be true regarding God's nature, then God must be immutable, rather than changing. The reason for this is as follows.
1. God is a perfect and eternal being.
2. If God is able to change, then He cannot be perfect. Since a perfect entity cannot undergo any sort of change (for if God were able to become greater than He already is, He would not be perfect. Likewise, if He were able to become worse, He would not be perfect.)
3. Also, if God were able to undergo change, this would seem to undermine His eternal existence. Since change requires time (this means that if God were able to change, He would have to be affected by time).
4. Therefore, if God is both perfect and eternal, He must be immutable.
Hopefully you can sort of see how Anselm's argument works. It allows us to, based on Anselm's defintion of God, prove several things about God that could otherwise require several different arguments and many different scripture references.
Whether or not you agree with Anselm's argument in this context or not, I think it can be safely said that this is, at the very least, an interesting argument.
-God bless and Jesus loves you!!
1. God is a perfect and eternal being.
2. If God is able to change, then He cannot be perfect. Since a perfect entity cannot undergo any sort of change (for if God were able to become greater than He already is, He would not be perfect. Likewise, if He were able to become worse, He would not be perfect.)
3. Also, if God were able to undergo change, this would seem to undermine His eternal existence. Since change requires time (this means that if God were able to change, He would have to be affected by time).
4. Therefore, if God is both perfect and eternal, He must be immutable.
Hopefully you can sort of see how Anselm's argument works. It allows us to, based on Anselm's defintion of God, prove several things about God that could otherwise require several different arguments and many different scripture references.
Whether or not you agree with Anselm's argument in this context or not, I think it can be safely said that this is, at the very least, an interesting argument.
-God bless and Jesus loves you!!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Understanding the Ontological Argument (Part 1): The Argument Itself
What if I told you that the existence of God could be proven simply through reason alone? Does this sound like a nearly impossible claim? Well, there exists an argument, or rather, a group of arguments, that attempt to do this very thing. An ontological argument attempts to prove the existence of God a priori, or through reason alone, without reference to experience. The most well known ontological argument is the one put forward by St. Anselm of Canterbury. The argument goes as follows (thanks go to the 'Handbook of Christian Apologetics' for the format):
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "That than which nothing greater can be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
Lets take a closer look at the terms and premises of the argument.
First, when the argument says "greater", as in "it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone", we must keep in mind that this is in reference to metaphysical substance. For instance, I can imagine a big fire breathing dragon attacking a medevil village. In my mind he is setting houses on fire and causing all sorts of trouble for the villagers. However, this imaginary dragon has no real metaphysical substance, seeing as how it exists simply as a thought in my mind, but a real fire breathing dragon exists independently of my mind. It has the ability to breathe real fire, and cause real damage to real houses and cause real trouble for real people. So, in this sense, the real dragon is greater than the imaginary dragon because he actually exists. That is what the argument is getting at when it speaks of something being "greater."
Secondly, the argument hinges upon Anselm's definition of God as being "that than which nothing greater can be thought." This description of God is actually very good, but we will explore why later. For now, just know that this definition is crucial to the argument, since the premises assume that it is true (obviously, if the defintion of God that the premises are built upon is false, then the argument is false). But what exactly does the definition mean? Well, by saying that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought", Anselm is saying at least two things. First, that we cannot imagine a greater being than God, because no such being can possibly exist. Again, this conclusion assumes that Anselm's definition of God is true. Secondly, it shows us that whatever God is, He is always what it is better to be (we will get into this further in Part 2).
Thirdly, I would like to take a look at the reasoning of the argument. Essentially, what Anselm is saying through this argument is that since God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" He must actually exist, but why is this? Well, because according to God's very defintion, as given by Anselm, nothing can exist that is greater than God. However, if God doesn't actually exist, then I can imagine a being that is just like God, and I can take it a step further by imagining that this being actually exists. In doing this, I will have thought of a being that is greater than God, since this being is thought of as actually existing . Yet, this would contradict the idea of God. So Anselm concludes that God must actually exist.
Lastly, I would like to address the conclusion. Does it actually follow from the argument that God must exist? Truthfully, no it does not.
Two Famous Critics
The argument has seen at least two famous critics. The first of which was a monk named Gaunillo, who lived at the same time as Anselm. Gaunillo wrote a response to Anselm's argument in which lies his famous "Gaunillo's Island" refutation of the argument. Anselm himself replied to Gaunilo, but his response hasn't left too much of an impression.
(Note: I might do a blog further exploring Guanillo's response and Anselm's reply).
The second critic of Anselm's argument, and arguably the one who settled the matter, was the german philosopher Immanuel Kant, who interestingly enough, is the one who actually labeled Anselm's argument the "ontological argument." Kan'ts criticism consists of pointing out that Anselm treats existence as a further property that something can posses, when in reality, existence is the state of having any properties at all, and is not itself simply another property.
Is the Argument of Any Use to Us?
It might at first seem that since the argument has been refuted, it cannot be of much use to us. However, I would like to point out that the argument wasn't made for the sake of reaching the nonbeliever. Rather, the argument was made in an attempt to create a master argument by which several other arguments about God could be proven. In other words, Anselm wanted to create an argument that proved a bunch of other arguments in and of itself. On this ground, the argument is actually very useful. We will explore this application of the argument further in Part 2.
- God bless and Jesus loves you!!
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "That than which nothing greater can be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
Lets take a closer look at the terms and premises of the argument.
First, when the argument says "greater", as in "it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone", we must keep in mind that this is in reference to metaphysical substance. For instance, I can imagine a big fire breathing dragon attacking a medevil village. In my mind he is setting houses on fire and causing all sorts of trouble for the villagers. However, this imaginary dragon has no real metaphysical substance, seeing as how it exists simply as a thought in my mind, but a real fire breathing dragon exists independently of my mind. It has the ability to breathe real fire, and cause real damage to real houses and cause real trouble for real people. So, in this sense, the real dragon is greater than the imaginary dragon because he actually exists. That is what the argument is getting at when it speaks of something being "greater."
Secondly, the argument hinges upon Anselm's definition of God as being "that than which nothing greater can be thought." This description of God is actually very good, but we will explore why later. For now, just know that this definition is crucial to the argument, since the premises assume that it is true (obviously, if the defintion of God that the premises are built upon is false, then the argument is false). But what exactly does the definition mean? Well, by saying that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought", Anselm is saying at least two things. First, that we cannot imagine a greater being than God, because no such being can possibly exist. Again, this conclusion assumes that Anselm's definition of God is true. Secondly, it shows us that whatever God is, He is always what it is better to be (we will get into this further in Part 2).
Thirdly, I would like to take a look at the reasoning of the argument. Essentially, what Anselm is saying through this argument is that since God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" He must actually exist, but why is this? Well, because according to God's very defintion, as given by Anselm, nothing can exist that is greater than God. However, if God doesn't actually exist, then I can imagine a being that is just like God, and I can take it a step further by imagining that this being actually exists. In doing this, I will have thought of a being that is greater than God, since this being is thought of as actually existing . Yet, this would contradict the idea of God. So Anselm concludes that God must actually exist.
Lastly, I would like to address the conclusion. Does it actually follow from the argument that God must exist? Truthfully, no it does not.
Two Famous Critics
The argument has seen at least two famous critics. The first of which was a monk named Gaunillo, who lived at the same time as Anselm. Gaunillo wrote a response to Anselm's argument in which lies his famous "Gaunillo's Island" refutation of the argument. Anselm himself replied to Gaunilo, but his response hasn't left too much of an impression.
(Note: I might do a blog further exploring Guanillo's response and Anselm's reply).
The second critic of Anselm's argument, and arguably the one who settled the matter, was the german philosopher Immanuel Kant, who interestingly enough, is the one who actually labeled Anselm's argument the "ontological argument." Kan'ts criticism consists of pointing out that Anselm treats existence as a further property that something can posses, when in reality, existence is the state of having any properties at all, and is not itself simply another property.
Is the Argument of Any Use to Us?
It might at first seem that since the argument has been refuted, it cannot be of much use to us. However, I would like to point out that the argument wasn't made for the sake of reaching the nonbeliever. Rather, the argument was made in an attempt to create a master argument by which several other arguments about God could be proven. In other words, Anselm wanted to create an argument that proved a bunch of other arguments in and of itself. On this ground, the argument is actually very useful. We will explore this application of the argument further in Part 2.
- God bless and Jesus loves you!!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Outlive Your Life by Max Lucado
It seems like every time I go to the Christian literature section of a bookstore, the name “Max Lucado” lights up the shelves as if I’d miss it if it wasn’t there. So, admittedly, I began reading “Outlive your Life” with a fair amount of curiosity (I wanted to see what all the fuss was about). What I found was a book that was partly a study of the book of Acts, partly a collection of warm hearted sermons (short and to the point), and partly a collection of inspiring, and sometimes humorous, stories intended to illustrate the simple truths of living for God (which are often the hardest ones to grasp). To put it simply, it is a book about living the authentic Christian life, written for the Christian who wants to make the most of their years; for the Christian who wants to outlive their life.
Personally, I liked the book and I think that it does very well as a devotional, since it has short and to the point chapters, a personal narration style (as if Max is talking to you), and a good questions section in the back to help you get the most out of each chapter. The book also avoids deep theological waters and focuses instead on the practical aspects of Christianity, which helps make the book very accessible to everyone from the layman to the theologian.
Overall, I recommend this book to anyone looking for a simple to read devotional that will convict, inspire, and challenge them to take things to the next level.
Friday, October 15, 2010
God and Nonsense
To say of the impossible, "pft, God can do that," is quite a statement to make. Yet, I do not doubt it, for to say God can do the impossible is to say that God knows all possibilities, and that He has the power to actualize any of them as He sees fit. Therefore, all things are possible with God. However, this is not the same thing as saying that God can do nonsense, which I think some Christians believe is included in the claim that He can do anything. But CS Lewis adaquetly points out that nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense because you put God's name in front of it. Not even God can make 2 + 2 = 5...Does this mean that God is not all powerful? Not at all. It is ridiculous to say that since God can't do the ridiculous, that He is less of a divine being. You see, God is a logical being. The laws of logic even apply to God, but before you accuse me of heresy, let me show you why:
The Three Laws of Logic (Aristolean)
1. Law of Identity (A is A)
2. Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not not A)
3. Law of the Excluded Middle (A either is or isnt, there is no other option)
All three of those principles apply to God Himself, and to everything that exists. We must get past this idea that to say God is logical is to say that He is not divine. So seeing as how God is logical by nature (although, on a much higher level than us), we can see that He doesn't do nonsense. Some of you may say, "Well, what about miracles then?" My answer is simply, "What about them?" Miracles aren't nonsense. Rather, they are God acting on the world He has created. For us, we see something that seems to go against everything we know that can happen. For God, He is simply doing what He is able to do.
The reason for me posting this blog is simply to address the idea that God can do anything (even nonsense) because He is God. God can do anything, but He doesn't do nonsense. Arguably, He may be able to even do nonsense in terms of having the power to do it, but the fact that He is a consistant and logical being would prevent Him from doing it. Thus, 2 + 2 remains four if for no other reason than that God is a logical being.
Note: I can already see this objection coming. "What about God multiplying food?" This is not the same thing as God changing the mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4. That is an instance of God acting on the world in such a way as to make a small amount big. I don't claim to understand how it works, I marvel at it just as anybody who dares to believe that five thousand were fed with enough food to feed a family at lunch time. I just wanted to put this out there to avoid this seemingly obvious objection.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
The Three Laws of Logic (Aristolean)
1. Law of Identity (A is A)
2. Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not not A)
3. Law of the Excluded Middle (A either is or isnt, there is no other option)
All three of those principles apply to God Himself, and to everything that exists. We must get past this idea that to say God is logical is to say that He is not divine. So seeing as how God is logical by nature (although, on a much higher level than us), we can see that He doesn't do nonsense. Some of you may say, "Well, what about miracles then?" My answer is simply, "What about them?" Miracles aren't nonsense. Rather, they are God acting on the world He has created. For us, we see something that seems to go against everything we know that can happen. For God, He is simply doing what He is able to do.
The reason for me posting this blog is simply to address the idea that God can do anything (even nonsense) because He is God. God can do anything, but He doesn't do nonsense. Arguably, He may be able to even do nonsense in terms of having the power to do it, but the fact that He is a consistant and logical being would prevent Him from doing it. Thus, 2 + 2 remains four if for no other reason than that God is a logical being.
Note: I can already see this objection coming. "What about God multiplying food?" This is not the same thing as God changing the mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4. That is an instance of God acting on the world in such a way as to make a small amount big. I don't claim to understand how it works, I marvel at it just as anybody who dares to believe that five thousand were fed with enough food to feed a family at lunch time. I just wanted to put this out there to avoid this seemingly obvious objection.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Insight into Faith and Pain
Perhaps one of the most practical, yet most overlooked, theological questions is simply, "Why does God not reveal Himself to us?" That is to say, why does God seem to work behind the scenes and away from our inquisitive eyes? I believe that at least part of the answer to this question is shared by part of the answer to the Problem of Evil.
The Proud Man and the Loving God
CS Lewis, in his book, 'The Problem of Pain', goes over the fall of man and says, I feel very accurately, that the first sin man committed was to take his eyes off of God and put them on himself. In other words, Adam put himself above God, thereby distorting the natural order of creation (at least to an extent). CS Lewis tells us in the same book that pain is God's "megaphone" to rouse a dead world. God allows, at least some, suffering for the purpose of showing us that something isn't quite right with the world. It is a way in which he is able to take our eyes off of ourselves long enough to cast them upon Him. So in other words, pain is a sort of humility that occurs. It makes us realize that we are not perfect, and that the world around us is also lacking. Lets not forget that the men and women in the Bible who were closest to God were the ones who seemed to suffer most. Yet, I would dare say that they gladly chose their suffering, because in their suffering they found God. Blessed are those who mourn...
How Faith Ties In
Since man has become a rather proud beast, he has come to find himself to be very clever. It forgets that the high sciences it has aspired to are like pre-school lessons for God. Science is simply the study of how God's creation works. A study which we have yet to finish!! Yet, even though man is far inferior to God, we are still proud. So how does God humble us? Through pain He shows us that the world isn't what it should be (or once was...), and through faith He shows us that we are not as smart as we would like to believe. In other words, Faith knocks us down and causes us to look up and see God. However, just as it is the case with pain, faith can also push people away. Some people suffer and they respond by building walls and shutting out not only the world, but God. With faith, some people hear about this almighty God who is invisible, and they laugh at the idea. Others, as Kierkegaard points out, are offended by the idea that we are told we must believe in a man who claimed to be God. So we see that both suffering and faith, which are excellent tools for producing the good, may also cause some people to further separate themselves from God. That is one of the miracles of free will, that you can choose to respond to the world as you wish to. God will honor your response, even if it means being separated from Him for all of eternity....the doors of Hell are, as CS Lewis says, locked from the inside.
In Closing
I hope that this has been of help to you. I do not claim to have given all the possible answers to these two theological problems. I have simply shared with you CS Lewis' ideas coupled with my own insight.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
The Proud Man and the Loving God
CS Lewis, in his book, 'The Problem of Pain', goes over the fall of man and says, I feel very accurately, that the first sin man committed was to take his eyes off of God and put them on himself. In other words, Adam put himself above God, thereby distorting the natural order of creation (at least to an extent). CS Lewis tells us in the same book that pain is God's "megaphone" to rouse a dead world. God allows, at least some, suffering for the purpose of showing us that something isn't quite right with the world. It is a way in which he is able to take our eyes off of ourselves long enough to cast them upon Him. So in other words, pain is a sort of humility that occurs. It makes us realize that we are not perfect, and that the world around us is also lacking. Lets not forget that the men and women in the Bible who were closest to God were the ones who seemed to suffer most. Yet, I would dare say that they gladly chose their suffering, because in their suffering they found God. Blessed are those who mourn...
How Faith Ties In
Since man has become a rather proud beast, he has come to find himself to be very clever. It forgets that the high sciences it has aspired to are like pre-school lessons for God. Science is simply the study of how God's creation works. A study which we have yet to finish!! Yet, even though man is far inferior to God, we are still proud. So how does God humble us? Through pain He shows us that the world isn't what it should be (or once was...), and through faith He shows us that we are not as smart as we would like to believe. In other words, Faith knocks us down and causes us to look up and see God. However, just as it is the case with pain, faith can also push people away. Some people suffer and they respond by building walls and shutting out not only the world, but God. With faith, some people hear about this almighty God who is invisible, and they laugh at the idea. Others, as Kierkegaard points out, are offended by the idea that we are told we must believe in a man who claimed to be God. So we see that both suffering and faith, which are excellent tools for producing the good, may also cause some people to further separate themselves from God. That is one of the miracles of free will, that you can choose to respond to the world as you wish to. God will honor your response, even if it means being separated from Him for all of eternity....the doors of Hell are, as CS Lewis says, locked from the inside.
In Closing
I hope that this has been of help to you. I do not claim to have given all the possible answers to these two theological problems. I have simply shared with you CS Lewis' ideas coupled with my own insight.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
Monday, October 4, 2010
Faith and Reason
I think that it is safe to say that many people have accepted the idea that faith and reason are these separate things that are in conflict with one another. The debate between scientific naturalists and some, not all, christians is evidence of this. However, I believe that this is a very mistaken position to take on. For in reality, faith is actually an act of reason.
Faith as an Act of Reason
What exactly happens when you believe something? Well, assuming your faith is intellectually honest, and therefore genuine, you at one point or another encountered evidence (such as a proof or an experience) that convinced you that something was true, or that it was likely to be possible. I do not believe that any human being can objectively prove God's existence, for this would, as C.S. Lewis points out, go against our free will. How can I freely choose to reject God if I am faced with the undeniable reality of His presence? For those of you who would disagree with me here, I simply ask you to consider why God requires faith. He could, theoretically, come down and prove Himself once and for all. Yet, He doesn't. Instead, He requires faith. Therefore, I do not believe God wants us to be able to say objectively that He is real or not. However, regardless of the lack of full proof demonstrative proofs for the existence of God, there are many arguments that together form a strong case for Christianity. I like to think of it as a trial. The only people who fully know the truth of what happened are the people who were there, yet they cannot just say, "I was there, this is how it happened." No, they must prove their case with evidence. From there the jury must look at the case presented by both sides and decide beyond a reasonable doubt which side seems more likely to be true. So they have faith based on the evidence presented. In other words, they use their reason to arrive at faith. It is the same way with Christianity. Faith is simply accepting with your reason something that you cannot fully prove, but that you can believe beyond a reasonable doubt. As humans we are naturally equipped for examining the world around us. We have our reason, our senses, and our experience. It is time we got to using them.
Hopefully this has been of some help to you.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
Faith as an Act of Reason
What exactly happens when you believe something? Well, assuming your faith is intellectually honest, and therefore genuine, you at one point or another encountered evidence (such as a proof or an experience) that convinced you that something was true, or that it was likely to be possible. I do not believe that any human being can objectively prove God's existence, for this would, as C.S. Lewis points out, go against our free will. How can I freely choose to reject God if I am faced with the undeniable reality of His presence? For those of you who would disagree with me here, I simply ask you to consider why God requires faith. He could, theoretically, come down and prove Himself once and for all. Yet, He doesn't. Instead, He requires faith. Therefore, I do not believe God wants us to be able to say objectively that He is real or not. However, regardless of the lack of full proof demonstrative proofs for the existence of God, there are many arguments that together form a strong case for Christianity. I like to think of it as a trial. The only people who fully know the truth of what happened are the people who were there, yet they cannot just say, "I was there, this is how it happened." No, they must prove their case with evidence. From there the jury must look at the case presented by both sides and decide beyond a reasonable doubt which side seems more likely to be true. So they have faith based on the evidence presented. In other words, they use their reason to arrive at faith. It is the same way with Christianity. Faith is simply accepting with your reason something that you cannot fully prove, but that you can believe beyond a reasonable doubt. As humans we are naturally equipped for examining the world around us. We have our reason, our senses, and our experience. It is time we got to using them.
Hopefully this has been of some help to you.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)