Then why call him God?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? 
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Comments

Acts 17:31When they all call him God31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.

 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.Acts17:31

defaithed's picture

Well that certainly didn't answer Epicurus' quiz. Then again, to be honest, he did ask a whole bunch of questions at once, which isn't good interviewer technique.

So, if you're interested in answering, we could reduce Epicurus' words into a single, simple question:

Assuming some God creature exists, is he/she/it: (a) willing to prevent evil, but not able; (b) able to prevent evil, but not willing; or (c) both able and willing to prevent evil?

Or if a (d) choice is needed, speak up – though I think (a) to (c) really cover the possibilities. What do you say?

haha i actually thought they might mke an honest attempt a answering. instead you just get biblical threats. how stereotypical.

defaithed's picture

And what's more, it's some nonsense about "God will set a judge". Big deal; humans have been appointing judges for millennia. God is slow!

Christians believe that god exists, yet chooses not (rarely) interfere.  He leaves us to our own devices and allows us free will.  For our choices we will be judged.I'm not a christian but that answers the question.  He's not malevolent.  He just chooses not to interfere because death isn't really the end and he sees the bigger picture.

defaithed's picture

Millions of Christians would disagree with you: the ones who fervently believe that God actively intervenes in lives... that he "answers" prayers... that he works "miracles" for survivors of accidents while "taking" the victims... even that he smites people with hurricanes and earthquakes because somebody was acting all gay or otherwise "immoral".

You'll have to work out the clash between your claim vs the claims of those millions of Christians who say you're wrong. That sounds like an incredibly difficult job, and I sympathize – honest, no sarcasm! – with you on the hugeness of that challenge. For every religious claim you make, there are millions of believers who say you're wrong or lying, or using the wrong scripture or wrong interpretation, or believing in the wrong god, and/or are blaspheming and heading for divine punishment. What methods does religion offer for you all to determine which of you is right? I have no idea, and am genuinely curious as to what means you'll use to resolve your disagreement with each other. 

In any case, even if Christians can't agree on whether or not God interferes today, they should have no disagreement regarding the past. The Bible offers a stunning record of God destroying armies, slaying firstborn babies, sending animals to butcher children, and even drowning nearly every man, woman, child, baby, and fetus on Earth in one incident of divine mass-slaughter. That's interference on a global scale, with God allowing utterly no choice or free will for the children, babies, and fetuses he murdered.

It would seem even the Bible doesn't agree with your claim about non-interference and allowing free will to make choices. I'm curious: On what basis do you make the claim that the Bible is wrong and you're right on this point?

You are wondering by what means will be used to resolve this disagreement? Try reading the book of revelation.

defaithed's picture

Try reading the book of Revelations, you say? Which translation, and through the lens of what interpretation? Or shouldn't I be getting my answer from the Koran instead? The Torah? Buddhist sutras? Hindu texts? L Ron Hubbard?

How to resolve this disagreement? The question stands.

No, he did not say that.  Read more carefully next time.

defaithed's picture

No, he did not say that.

Who did not say what?

In order for love to be gratifying and true one must love freely. Creating beings with free will to love God, was to risk that there would be those that choose to reject him. Imagine a parent offeringa child a cookie and the child says I love you. The love feels empty, interferred with. They want the reward. But what reward comes to you, when the child freely and unprovoked rushes up and embraces their parent, to tell them how much they are loved cookie or no cookie. Which would be more gratifying as a parent. In much the same way, God the Father wants us to choose to love him. In order to create the opportunity for choice, he had to allow for us the possibility we would choose wrong.  Then again, is it not selfish of God to need to be loved, at the expense of the human experience? Why are we created to serve as an answer to his cosmic social experiment?

defaithed's picture

Your last couple of sentences provide the main answer to the preceding parts. You're right: How is it good and just that people are puppets at the mercy of some cosmic nutcase who craves fearful worship?

But there are many other ways to address the "God loves us and so He lets us all choose good or bad" nonsense. For starters, I might point out to anyone making such claims that human experience and scripture alike make clear that God doesn't let all of us make such choices.

What about the stillborn, the short-lived, those born with mental defects and unable to comprehend such high-flying discussions of morality? How is God letting them make life's choices? Where's their chance to "love freely"?

How about the game God and Satan played with Job? Yes, he was being offered choice in the way addressed by apologetics, but how about his family and slaves, whom God allowed to be murdered as part of the game? Where was their "choice" in all this? They were disposable toys to God.

Sick stuff. Fortunately, there's not a single reason to think any of it's true!

Thanks for the thoughts!

So, he has put together a system where people can apparently choose against his wishes and face damnation as a result, given a choice, and no solid evidence on what to really believe, so we're born here lost and confused... So that he can feel like he's genuinely loved? sounds a bit bipolar to me. and why if he's the alpha omega, does he care about our love anyway? If he wanted us to love him genuinely without incentive, he could have designed human beings that way, he didn't, ergo, he doesn't exist. It's like me inventing a toaster to cook a turkey. Also, Christian kids don't get to play with dinosaurs D:<

defaithed's picture

Hey, I was a JW kid, and I got to play with dinosaurs! I had dinos galore. Heck, more and more Christian kids are now getting the chance to ride dinos, just like Adam and Eve did! (Well, I don't know about Eve. As Adam's inferior, subservient half, she may not have been allowed.)

But I recall that my kiddie questions about where dinosaurs fit into Bible history/genealogy were met with a foggy sort of "don't think about it too hard" and a changing of the topic. (Hmm, it'd be interesting to do a survey of what various religions and sects come up with as explanations for dinosaur fossils and the place of dinos in creation stories. Should be an entertaining hotchpotch of utterly contradictory claims!)

your god sounds incredibly insecure for an all knowing, all powerful overlord

defaithed's picture

Indeed. Keeping in mind that claims of gods and what not are never proven to be false, we have to always admit the possibility that the Abrahamic God does indeed exist – and that he's every bit as insecure, incompetent, and evil as his followers paint him to be.

It's a scary thought; I'm sure glad it seems so unlikely!

The Bible says God can do anything (omnipotence).  The Bible also says God is good.However, the Bible also talks about people suffering in Hell for eternity. Christians have told us that the choice to turn from the road to heaven must be available so that people can have free will.  Why doesn't God make it so everyone has free will AND everyone chooses, of their own free will, the path which will lead them to heaven? If he can’t do this, then he’s not omnipotent. If he can and doesn’t, then he must want some people to suffer in hell for eternity, meaning he’s evil.

defaithed's picture

Indeed. Christianity (and Islam) claim that their god has properties of omnipotence and love and this, that, and the other, but then go on to describe a god that's entirely different (in very bad ways).

The curtains don't match the drapes. (Or something like that.)

"In order to create the oppurtunity for choice, he had to allow for us the possibility we would choose wrong."You assume here that it is only right to choose to love God. Your Christian God.Are you saying, then, that all Buddhists, Confucianists, Hindus, and every other believer in a God other than your own is inherentely wrong?If God is conducting a cosmic social experiment, then there must be other omnipresent beings with whom to share the experiment, right? If there is experimenting to me done, then God doesn't know everything about the universe. Even if He (She?) is conducting an experiment, experiments are based off of the scientific method. God adheres, then, to the human created scientific method?Also, how do you know what God wants? Isn't the whole idea that He (She?) is greater than you?

defaithed's picture

He? She? Or maybe It? Or They? 

I know They hasn't been in favor for some millennia (well, at least in the mono-god parts of the world), but let's not forget the possibility of Gods! Big, holy bunches of Them! 

God IS offering his creation a cookie. How many religious people would still claim to love their God(s), if not for the fear of punishment or hope of reward?

I pass two Baptist churches on my way to school each day. These churches routinely change the arrangeable signs on their grounds. They rarely stress religion as a foundation for philosophy or instructive principles. Instead, they focus on religion as a means by which to escape damnation and receive paradise. If a parent tells their child to love them, and threatens to submit them to the most heinous torture if they refuse, so the child obeys the parent out of feaf, is the love gratifying? Is it empty and interferred with?

Do you call your father GOD? ,yet he created your body, if it wasn't for earth, you wouldn't exist, yet people pray to God. If someone gave you food would you thank him, or would you thank god. If god is a good father, he would let you be, he would ask for no reward, yet he would communicate with you, because there is no way to separate from him. Is this a God over you, or is he just a part of you. Isn't God an outdated term? Whether there is one or not, many people believed that God was violent and needed to punish the heathens, and thence went and killed everyone, but we are the ones with the power. We are the ones that can choose to act or not, it is not just because of God, nor do I owe God anything.  Nor do I need his power to create what I wish in life, because I am a spark of life too, and I have the power to believe in anything that I wish for myself and others. If god is my father, why do I have to go and kiss his ass all the time? He would be much more satisfied if I learned to express myself and be a good man on my own. Isn't that what fathers want, for their child to be INDEPENDENT?

defaithed's picture

And the other big oddity about this Father: A real father is tangible and demonstrable. The theist father is intangible and undemonstrated as Santa Claus.  

oh ang sad quotes!\ 

God is not great. Think about the fact that since god is all-knowing and created the universe, he had an infinite amount of options to chose from. He chose the one were we all suffer. Think about the fact that since he is all knowing and created the universe, he is responsible for everything anyone has ever done. And yet he punishes us. For something he made us do.

defaithed's picture

To paraphrase the iPhone ads: "There's an apologetic for that."

I don't know the list of specific apologetics to "rebut" your point, but I'm sure there's something in there about it all being our fault anyway, because, uh... free will, and a Devil, and Eve was bad, and then there's some other stuff. Whatever the details, the outcome is a given: God gets cleared of charges and remains Mr Love and Mercy.

Nonsense. You've got it right. Christopher Hitchens frames the issue most eloquently (though my clumsy paraphrasing won't do him any favors): "God creates us sick, and then, on pain of death or torment, commands us to get well." 

this is crazy. have you no faith? your terrible. I hope god has mercy on your soul.

Why is this terrible? If you believe god is omnipotent, then you MUST conclude god controls everything that has and ever will happen.

Why would god need a starship?

I guess that means God did 9/11

In point of fact...it was done in the name of God, or the Muslim perception of their god and his needs or demands. The God of Islam which is one of 3 "Abrahamic" religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism...all of which claim to have been derived from the same source, When your children grow to adults, you still want to protect them and take care of them but they are adults and they must make their own way...you do not punish them if their way differs from your own. When will "god" allow us to grow up and not punish us for standing on our own and making our own way. Your children are given guidelines while you rais them and are punished for breaking the rules but we do not condemn them eternally when they do. 

i just stumbled upon this blog and in response to your epicurus' quiz, i offer an example from my life as a parent. There are times that i am indeed wiling to prevent my child from encountering evil/danger/suffering and times when I am able - and given the circumstances, I may choose to intervene or I may choose to let natural consequences to occur.  I may rescue my child from falling off his bike or require that he wear a helmet when riding, but other times his choice is to defy me and I may allow his choice and any subsequent calamity, because I believe the consequence outweighs the pain. The consequence teaches him to trust the wisdom I have at this time, more than his own limited understanding. Does this then move me from a "good parent" to an "evil parent"?While I want to ultimately raise a responsible, kind and mature child, I do not want my child to grow entirely independent of our relationship but instead mature from complete dependence into interdependence where, as a family unit, we rely on one another. And in a very miniscule way, I believe God is similarly characterized. 

Except, of course, there is a limit to the pain you would allow your child to experience, while there seems to be no limit to the tortures god allows.Also, I have never seen any evidence that god is trying to develop humans into creatures independent of himself; instead, it seems his ultimate wish is for us to spend eternity doing nothing but praising him - or, if we won't do that, suffering unimaginable torture. I don't believe you would set your child on fire - even temporarily, much less for eternity - if he decided to abandon you. Or would you?

defaithed's picture

Well said. What's interesting is that, as Christians are fond of noting, the majority of holy horrors in the Bible are to be found in the Old Testament, and not in the words and actions of Jesus. Yet the eternal torment you mention – as sickening a concept as we can imagine – doesn't come from some bloodthirsty Old Testamant prophet. It was Jesus' own original addition to the growing list of God's evils.

Gee. Thanks a lot, Jesus. : /

defaithed's picture

I fully understand the arguments in favor of a parent allowing a child to suffer some hard educational knocks, as a way to teach the child the consequences of making choices. But... that has nothing to do with the matter of God allowing (or causing) evil.

The problem isn't the adult who (for example) selfishly ignores a holy prohibition against adultery and faces marital breakup (and a burning rash) as a result. The problem is children (real children, not figurative ones per your example) ravaged by cancer. Babies born with hideous deformities. People of every age – including faithful adult believers who've done their best to follow their God's commandments – wiped out in natural disasters. Accidents. Blindness. Parasites. Plagues. A thousand other calamaties we could name, which have nothing to do with the consequences of moral choices. Just horrible things that happen to everyone and anyone, utterly unrelated to matters of responsibility or independence or morality.

All while the Abrahamic God sits and does nothing.

Which is something to be thankful for, actually. According to that God's followers, once in a while he does get up off his holy butt – to slaughter firstborn babies in Egypt, to drown humanity in a flood, or to bombard cities with fire. Or, I guess when he's feeling a little hands-off and lazy, to send out an army of believers with direct commandments to dash infants' heads on rocks, butcher pregnant women with swords, rape captive virgins, and take other survivors as slaves, all in His holy name.

Sounds evil to me. How about you?

I look at it like this. What if a parent doesn't show their child love in order to test that child's love for the parent? How about if that parent makes that child suffer and has the power to alleviate the suffering, and while the child cries and begs for help, the parent just watches and does nothing? Is that really a bad parent if the parent claims to love the child but is just testing the child? All we have is that parents claim of love, no real evidence that he truly does love the child. Who would agree that the parent loves that child and not call child services on the parent even though the parent claims that he loves his child with all his heart. This is the situation we have with the people on earth and this idea of god. This god allows you to suffer in order to test your faith, to see if you'll stray from him, yet supposedly he loves you. He allows suffering, starvation, rapes, brutal murders, yet he loves you. Imagine a parent allowing these type of things to happen to their child. Would you be alright with that? So why are you alright with that for god?

defaithed's picture

Good points.

Naturally, theists may try to respond to those points. But if I may preemptively address two common attempts at replies:

1) Theists, you don't get to say that God's off the hook because his "children" are only experiencing the consequences of their own moral choices. The horrors that befall people include diseases, natural disasters, etc. that have nothing to do with moral choices. Moreover, victims include literal infants and children who have had no chance to make any moral choices (as well as good-hearted adults who have tried their best to make the right moral choices).

2) Theists, you also don't get to point at rapes, murder, war, etc. as proof that suffering is caused by people hurting people. Yes, bad people do create far too much human suffering, but the universe creates human suffering too – again, disease, earthquake, floods, you name it, all cause suffering and death. (Even worse, theists, your own holy books claim that God himself tormented and murdered men, women, children, infants, fetuses, and even animals, time and time again, on scales beyond measure.)

It's a strange religion that theists follow: Invent a God, call him the personification of ominipotence, perfection, love, and mercy, but then describe him as incompetent, indifferent, hateful, evil, or all of those. I don't get it.

Let me show you the flaw with your argument, you examined the quote with a microscope, go bigger picture here. If you could prevent your child from dying by giving them food and you had the power to, why wouldn't you? If God is omnipotent and omnicient, then he sees every single starving child and has the ability to conjure food as he did when he suppposedly turned 3 fish into 3000 (or something like that) and chooses not to help. What kind of cruel asshole would do that?Therefore, one can learn that there are two possibilities1. God is an asshole2. God does not exist

defaithed's picture

You put it well. As I keep repeating like a broken record, it's perhaps the strangest aspect of the Abrahamic religions: Invent a God, call him the personification of ominipotence, perfection, love, and mercy, but then describe him as incompetent, indifferent, hateful, evil, or all of those.

Believers, when the rude atheists call your God a bumbling, petty, hate-filled psychopath, that's not our personification we've made up. We're not calling Him that, pulling nasty names out of thin air; it's how you and your holy books consistently describe Him. What's the deal with that, dudes?

Here is what destroyes Epicurus' silly attempt at logic: To fully understand the validity of this argument, one must first understand the requirements for making such an argument, at least if one wants it to hold up beyond all attempts at refutation. The key is objectivity.Consider:1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? 1. An objective observation2. A subjective conclusion3. An objective deduction4. An objective conclusion The problem is 2. The subjectivity of 2 totally destroys the validity of the argument.

just want 2 thank HIM!

defaithed's picture

I agree – Epicurus deserves thanks for that awesome quote!

Your question cannot be answered because it starts from the wrong place. God is not willing to do anything. God does not actually "act" in the sense we do. God doesn't mull over the choices and try his best, either. God is beyond having a will. We humans have a will, make decisions, and such. God has no will or decision-making. He is beyond that. If you know you don't have to make a decision. Knowledge is power. God does not decide. For if God has to make a decision that means God doesn't know to begin with. So God doesn't decide, or operate according to will. Again, those are human traits we assign to God because we can't understand what is beyond us. Except for one, and the vital feature of God: God is love. Love is the answer to suffering and we assume God is more like us. But by 'like us' we actually mean more like an animal. For we have the capacity to be more like God, but God is never more like us. And this is the story of the Christ, too. Evil is subjective. Suffering is real. Suffering is necessary because without it love is meaningless. Love is not always suffering, but there is no love, and hence no God, without the capacity to suffer. And capacities only exist where they are proven to exist by happening. All of us will die. Think of it as the ultimate evil. But of course it is the ultimate blessing at the same time. Just like the crucifixion; the ultimate evil act and the ultimate glorious act at the same time. - Our egos are mortal. Our individuality (is it a curse or blessing?) is mortal. The part of us that loves, is love, and expresses love belongs to a non-time reality. - We humans call God eternal, and think eternity consists of many, many, many seconds and minutes and hours one after the other ad inifinitum. Oh what a bore that would be! But modern science has proven that time is not a constant. If time is not a constant it is not the ultimate reality. Science, the supposed foe of God, claims that before the Big Bang was a reality outside of time. I call it non-time. Non-time is then, the ultimate reality, and that has always been God's realm. In the realm of non-time we are part of the love that the universe reflects. The universe is the time-bound flower of the God of Love, magnificent, awesome and finite, just like us. But we have a tough time allowing God to be so mysterious and we demand God fit our mold. - Any God that has to make decisions, and act upon His will-power is certainly not an all-powerful being, and not God. All Gods that can die must be killed. That will leave you with the God who can't be defined, except with your heart.

defaithed's picture

None can deny the passion that goes into a comment of that length, and I'm sure you mean well... but come on, that's a picture-perfect instance of what the wags call "word salad". A Chopra-esque mish-mash of assertions and platitudes that leaves huge questiions untouched: Why would anyone believe any of it? How do you know what's being claimed? What separates it from purely imagined fiction? What makes it any truer than the same text with every instance of "God" replaced by "Odin" or "The Olympian gods" or "the Mighty King Leprechaun"?

And even if one were to pretend that the existence of the Christian "God" could just be assumed in all of that, does it really make coherent sense? To pick out one theological problem: "Suffering is necessary because without it love is meaningless" – but doesn't that mean that in heaven, where there's allegedly no suffering, "love is meaningless"? Or, even if you feel that the whole is somehow coherent, we both know that any number of sects or even individual Christians will work your story differently: there's free will in there – no, there isn't free will; there's a Trinity in there – no, there isn't; God decides things – no, God doesn't decide things; ad infinitum. What possible reason would you give for saying that your take is right and all those other Christians are wrong?

But getting back to actual topic of the page: While your comment dances around Epicurus' statement a bit, it still doesn't address it. Forget the convoluted verbiage. The problem is really simple:

Today, in hospital wards around the world, children a step away from death are crying out to your God to heal their cancers and burns and whatever else afflicts them. Today, as every day, your God is going to do nothing, and many of those children will die horribly. And again the next day. And again the next. You KNOW this.

How is that God "love", as you claim? How is that God not powerless, or indescribably evil, or both? The world wants an answer, not obfuscating world salad!

The obvious conclusion is that God is either malevolent or not omnipotent for one set on believing in God. You cannot pick and choose what traits God has and cite it with "he is 'beyond us'." If he is beyond me, he is beyond you. Why do your traits hold more weight? If God is omnipotent, why can't he act in logical ways? Omnipotence is a pretty expansive ability. For God to even matter to us, he must interfere with us in some way. Therein lies the reasoning behind 'if he is neither willing nor able, why call him God'.

Perhaps one of the difficulties with the line of reasoning being followed here is the difference between suffering and evil. Evil can cause suffering but so can all those earthquakes and natural disasters being cited above. Yet suffering itself is not inherently evil. Evil itself implies some sort of conscious intent to cause harm.

My thought is, with this in mind, that God is omnipotent but does not choose to eliminate evil because doing so would also eliminate all humanity. And I say this because I believe that evil is inextricably linked with human behavior, human intent and human choices. God works on a different time table than people do and he is, perhaps, waiting for humanity to outgrow evil, much as toddlers outgrow their temper tantrums.

defaithed's picture

I'll have to disagree all around (although I do appreciate the thoughts): 

My thought is, with this in mind, that God is omnipotent but does not choose to eliminate evil because doing so would also eliminate all humanity. And I say this because I believe that evil is inextricably linked with human behavior, human intent and human choices.

So... in Christian heaven, there must be evil, because the lack of it would "eliminate all humanity"?

I don't think that's going to fly with the theologians, or even Ma and Pa Believer down the street. But the more important point:

Evil itself implies some sort of conscious intent to cause harm.

Causing harm isn't a requirement for evil; needlessly allowing harm also fits the bill. I think almost all people would agree that standing and watching a person suffer, consciously withholding aid that could be easily given, is also evil. Like quietly watching a drowning child from an arm's length away, withholding easy rescue.

Now multiply that sickening callousness a million times over, every day, with refusal to provide simple aid to people dying from floods and disease and earthquakes and accident and a host of mishaps. That, according to the believers, is God. Yet it's evil on a scale we can scarcely imagine. 

God works on a different time table than people do and he is, perhaps, waiting for humanity to outgrow evil.

A child dying now is not "humanity". That child, not humanity, needs immediate aid – aid that costs an omniscient being nothing. Aid that God refuses to offer. 

But still – could it be that, as you suggest, God is "waiting for humanity to outgrow evil"? Well, he can rest assured that we're slowly outgrowing some evils – including the evil that is the Abrahamic God.

In any case, I commend your spending time pondering that thorny "problem of evil". But I think the solution will come, as it always has come, in setting aside the superstition and magic, and working things out as people!

It seems to me as though you are disagreeing on religious context. there is some scientific backup for both theists and disbelievers; Pro-theist: molecules and atoms do not have inteligence of any kind. people have intelligence. therefore we must have been created by an all powerfull being. therefore god exists. Pro-nontheist OR maybe we don't exist at all and reality as we know it is the delusion of a nonliving intelligent object or being residing in an alternate dimension where reality gives a logical explaination for inteligent life.

defaithed's picture

there is some scientific backup for both theists and disbelievers; Pro-theist: molecules and atoms do not have inteligence of any kind. people have intelligence. therefore we must have been created by an all powerfull being. therefore god exists. 

That's a common argument and I understand its first-glance appeal, but a little examination shows it to be neither scientific nor tenable.

If the gist is simply "something exists; therefore it had to have been created by an intelligence", then I believe that's a perfect example of what the thinkers call "begging the question". It attempts to say "a cosmic intelligence must exist, because the existence of things requires a cosmic intelligence", without explaining why that must be so, or offering any evidence that suggests it's so.

What I think you're suggesting, though, is a more interesting variant: "intelligence exists, and must have been created by an intelligence". Again, I agree that the statement has a split-second appeal to it – before a thoughtful mind realizes, "Wait – whether a super-intelligence exists is the question; it can't just be assumed as the answer!" It's an undemonstrated assertion.

The reason for mentioning "molecules and atoms" isn't clear. I assume it's to suggest that intelligence can't be a property emerging from unintelligent components. Yet again, that doesn't hold up. Individual molecules and atoms don't have a phase (solid, liquid, gas), but phase as a property does emerge from collections of molecules. Molecules don't have feathers, but feathers are built from arrangements of molecules. And molecules don't have intelligence, but intelligence... can emerge from molecular structures/arrangements and their attendant reactions? Aye, there's the question! We'll have to answer it through evidence – and so far, no one is showing the evidence for a god or gods or leprechauns etc. behind it all.

Thanks for the comment!

Pages

Add new comment