1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Salvation

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by No*s, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    All right, I told Melody that I was going to post what I thought about salvation. Alas, the forum requires me to be brief.

    I do not mean sin as some sort of guilt to be forgiven, so I must define my term, because many people on this list will not understand what I mean otherwise. Sin is imperfection. If I shoot an arrow and miss, I sin then I would translate that into Greek with the verb for sin (amartanw). Sin is, thus, an imperfection or missing of the mark.

    From this imperfection, we fall out of union with God. From this fall, we suffer from death (Ro. 6.23). Naturally, since each child is born in the image of their parents, and those from their parents, and so on all the way back to Adam and Eve's flawed image of God, this problem persists from generation to generation.

    On account of this, we cannot stand the presence of God. Our imperfection and corruption makes it impossible. Rather than experiencing God as the Divine Love that He is, we experience Him as a burning fire. Sin cannot stand in the presence of God. However, we cannot ascend and participate in God's life, because the image is broken, and if the image is broken, then we don't even have the capacity to be like God. God, therefore, cast us out of Eden lest we eat from the Tree of Life (Christ) and live.

    It is for this reason that humanity is broken. God could not, however, allow humanity to perish and the Slanderer to destroy His creation. In order to restore the Image of God, God became man (John 1). Christ lived a human life, grew up, and then died. In so doing, He met humanity in Hades/Sheol where they were being held. Hades, however, could not contain Him, and He burst loose and broke the bonds of Death in the process. As a consequence, the souls of the dead burst forth from the tombs and walked among men

    There ends, though, my definitions and my common ground. Here is where things become different.

    In II Peter 1.4-5, we learn that Christians are "participents in the Divine Nature" and that we are called "unto His own glory and power" while "fleeing from the corruption of the world." Compare this with Christ's promise, which He repeatedly promises to give His followers the power to become "Sons of God." I do not believe this refers to just "adoption," but literally becoming.

    Another, more potent, passage is John 20.34ff, in which we read Christ responding to accusations of blasphemy by saying, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, ``You are gods''? If He called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God?'"

    Compare this to the axiom repeated in the Early Church: "God became man so that men might become gods." This teaching didn't belong to the lunatic fringe, but to mainstream teachers. St. Athanasius taught it. Augustine taught it. Clement of Alexandria taught it. Many others taught it. Do not be suprised by it either. The very word "Christian" means "little Christ." People are called to be "godlike." We all use these terms, but few of us take them seriously.

    Famous teacher C.S. Lewis even wrote:

    Obviously, this is not an isolated teaching.

    Now, also consider the number of people called "Christ" in the Old Testament. They range from David to the pagan king Cyrus. Just as Jesus referred to people being called "gods," so to do we have people being called "christs," or "annointed ones."

    This is the promise of God. Paul admonished us that we should that we should not "be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of" our minds. Paul tells us that we view "as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory" (2 Co. 3.18, emphasis mine). We are to look at ourselves in this process by looking in a mirror, and over time, we are to transformed into the very image of Christ.

    The same Christ who said in John 10.30 "I and my Father are one" and "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father," also said prayed that members of His body may be one even as He and the Father are one Jn. 17.11. He even asserts in 17.22 that He is giving His glory to His Body (compare this with 2 Pet. 1.4-5).

    In this way, the Church is literally the Body of Christ, and Christ can ask the persecutor of His people, Paul, why he was persecuting Him, not the Church (Acts 9.4). The Church is the very Temple of God (hence not only was the divider in the Holy of Holies torn down, but the very Temple itself was destroyed).

    Christ promised in Jn. 6 that we needed to ingest His Body and His Blood to receive eternal life, and He didn't say "the bread and wine symbolizing My Body and Blood." He promised that whoever didn't wouldn't inherit Everlasting Life. That, in turn, is administered by the Church. St. Ignatius, the disciple of the Apostle John, taught clearly that it must be administered by a Bishop of the Church (so if somebody isn't a part of the original Church, they are not receiving the life-saving sacraments).

    However, God is not limited by these norms. Baptism is normally a necessary part of salvation, but the thief on the cross got a special priveledge. God often works through exceptions and odd events. So also, God's grace is not limited. Jesus is the divine Logos, and every society has a portion of the Logos -- it literally means anything from "reason" to "word" to "story" to "argument." He is literally the Truth.

    All peoples have a portion of it, but not the whole. I will not limit where God's grace is functioning. I will say where it is, though. Paul quoted from the Stoics, sometimes almost verbatim. The Zoroastrians have truth. The Greek philosophers also foreshadowed parts of Christianity. Christ is revealed everywhere truth is present, and those are numerous. However, there is only one place where we know He is incarnated: the Church. The rest of the world is perishing where some may or may not survive on account of Christ's sacrifice and their portion of the Truth. I cannot say how many, if any, will survive. I can only point to His Body.

    Melody, I hope this clarifies things a bit *big grin*.
     
  2. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +559
    Oh yeah :bonk:

    I'm going to have to think about this one for a bit and get back to you. Lots to think about!

    Melody
     
  3. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    OK. Enjoy your thoughts.

    Here's a good document about this view of salvation:

    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ontheincarnation.html

    St. Athanasius is a bit wordy, but he's also one of the greatest defenders of the Trinity in the fourth century against the Arians, and this includes some of his reasoning (he is obviously far beyond meager little No*s).
     
  4. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Is there perchance, a biblical reference that their "image" was flawed?
     
  5. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    I can't think of a direct one, but I can look. I can support it in a "round-robin" type of way, though. If I can't find a direct reference, I'll put up a r-r answer tomorrow (I'm a little tired tonight and will get off as soon as my download is done).
     
  6. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    At the very least, we agree that Adam and Eve were created incorrupt and not subject to death, but everything about them was twisted with the entrance of sin, and through it death. If the Image of God is the capacity to be like God, which is a pretty reasonable assertion, then this is certainly affected by the Fall.

    Wis. 2.23-24 (I know you probably don't accept it):

    I know you probably don't accept Wisdom as Scripture, but it forms a pretty direct reference for me. It also happens to be part of my Bible.

    However, that's all I'm doing tonight. Have a good evening.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    My, my, isn't that what the serpent said? I am not sure I would say the serpent was being "reasonable".

    The fall was inevietable... it came from free choice and the desire "to be like God". EVERYONE makes the same mistake at some time in their life.

    BTW, is it possible the death that was "introduced" was spiritual in nature? IOW, Adam and Eve died spiritually RIGHT THERE. Death didn't come years later with their physical demise.

    But then, it's our nature to overlook the spiritual implications of our actions.
     
  8. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    Most lies work because there is at least a kernel of truth to them. I have the quotes on the matter above, and God's words, "Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness."

    If you want to make the case that we can't have the likeness of God (by the very definition of the term "likeness," being like God), then do so. A simple "the Devil used it" won't help, because the Devil also quotes Scripture, and has been known to tell the truth to deceive.

    Funny, I never said that death wasn't also spiritual. After all, in my arguments on Hell, I've made just that argument. If you seriously believe that the Fall didn't result in physical death as well, would you be so kind as to make a case for it? I have the traditional view of the Fall on my side, both Western and Eastern.

    Now, I must busy responding to other posts, and after that, make a case for a broken image.
     
  9. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    You missed the point...

    My picture has a likeness of me, but it will never BE me.

    We are made in God's likeness, but we will never BE God.

    The serpent promised to make them equal to God.

    The tower of Babel was a try for equality with God.

    The creation can never match it's creator.

    As for it NOT being a physical death that was introduced... that is simple.

    They did not physically die at the time "death was introduced".

    It is quite common for man to place more emphasis on the physical than on the spiritual. That comes from man dying spiritually. Do not be amazed when the Bible says "You must be born again". For when YOU sin, then YOU die spiritually.

    John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
     
  10. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    And you missed the point as well. You'll see several things you assert in here are things I did not say. I can understand the knee-jerk reaction, but it is still responding to something I didn't say.

    I never said you would be God. In fact, I said the following.

    I quoted II Peter 1.4-5 to say we were participants of the Divine Nature. You cannot be a participent of a thing and still be that thing. It implies a difference.

    I quoted Christ's statements in Jn. 10. He used the fact that men were called gods, and made the point that their being such was dependent on the Logos, the Son of God. There is no equality there: the creature is dependant on the creation.

    I used the terms "godlike" or "like God," but this doesn't imply equality. It implies there is a differance.

    I said that we are to be transformed into the "same image" as Christ (quoting Paul, using his terminology there). What image is that? The restored humanity.

    To put it bluntly, the finite will never be infinite. The creature can never be the creator. We can never be equal to God, because He is infinitely far beyond us.

    There were Fathers who likened this process to iron. Normally, it is dull, but when placed in the fire, it glows brightly with the fires heat. The heat is always the fire's, and it only participates in it. If it doesn't have the fire, it grows dull and gray again. So it is for the Christian. As they become like God, they take on many of the attributes of God. However, if they are separated they revert to being dull and lifeless.

    Calling people "gods" or "christs" isn't exactly something I made up. That very language is used in the Bible. It was continued in the Fathers. It continues in my Church to this day.

    I hope that clears it up. I never asserted any of the things you said, and in fact, I wouldn't be accepted by the Church if I had. I can see where the confusion comes in, because theosis is not exactly taught in the West.

    So, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still have died physically? That isn't something I find in Scripture, the Fathers, or the Church's teachings.

    If, however, that is not what you're asserting, then there is a direct connection between physical and spiritual, and this hard division is most unhealthy.
     
  11. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    You did not imply that you disagreed with any of this. If you disagree with the tenets herein, then why bring them up without a caveat? That only confuses.

    There is no evidence either way, now is there? However, since they had to leave the presense of God, then we know that spiritually they had died. Usually, when I don't find something in scripture, I try not to teach it as if it were.

    I have been created in God's image.

    Obviously this image is "spiritual" in nature, or we would ALL look alike.

    My sin is my own... I cannot shift blame to Adam and Eve.

    I do not inherit the sins of my father. Nor he, his.
     
  12. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    Now, for the Image.

    The Apostle Paul makes a hard division between the image humanity has, and the image humanity is being transformed into.

    He writes:

    In 1 Cor. 15, Paul talks about the nature of the future body. He teaches that "All flesh is not the same" in v. 39. After giving several examples of different types, he writes "So is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

    Paul then goes on to juxtapose the "natural image" we inherited from Adam with the "spiritual image" Christ gives. He culminates this part of the argument in v. 49 where he plainly states, "And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

    Compare that with Paul's promise in 2 Cor. 3.18, he asserts what I quoted in the opening of this thread, "we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." Here is where Paul teaches that we will have the "same image" as Christ...referring to His humanity, as it has been divinized.
    In Colossians, he makes similar assertians. He teaches that Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (1.15). In the very passage where Paul admonishes us to "put on the new man," he tells us that this "new man...is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created Him." Here, the image of the new man is associated with a "renewal" and the "image" of the Creator. It is also asserted we are renewed into that image. This is, of course, our final goal, as God had chosen beforehand that His people "be conformed to the image of His Son" (Ro. 8.29).

    We know that humanity is made in the image of God. How could this image of God be transformed into the image of God, or be renewed into it, unless something were broken? Paul seems to agree quite profusely.

    What of the Old Testament?

    Well, we know that God used it as a reason for not shedding blood. In Gen. 9.6, we read "He that sheds man's blood instead of that blood shall his own be shed, for in the image of God I made man." Clearly it isn't destroyed, but is inherited. It is also not right.

    However, the inherited image isn't just God's, it is man's. Read also "Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot a son after his own form and after his own image." Each generation receives their humanity from their predecessors, so if something is wrong there, it is wrong here. After all, God created living things to bear offspring each "according to its likeness." The image is inherited.

    So, we have from the NT a clear teaching that the image must be fixed, and that humanity will assume the Image of Christ. We know from the Old Testament, that the image of God wasn't utterly destroyed. We also know that it is inherited. I have limited myself to passages where "image" is mentioned so that there is no real room to wiggle. After all, I could always cite passages on death, sin, the flesh, and the like. However, passages mentioning "image" are sufficient.
     
  13. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    No. I imply that you are making them say something they didn't say. In not one place do I, or any of these men, teach that men become equal with God.

    Sure there is. There is a multiplicity of references in the NT to "the grave" as an enemy of Christ. Paul doesn't make a hard distinction between physical and spiritual deaths as if they are two unrelated items. Jesus had to become flesh to solve the problem, so it clearly isn't limited to the spiritual there. There is an emphasis on Christ's conquering corruption and decay, and never is this narrowed down to just spiritual corruption.

    There is some truth to this, but man is not just spiritual. We are material and spiritual. When the "spiritual" part falls, so does the material. You do, after all, receive your image from your father and mother.

    Nope, you don't inherit guilt from their sins. You do inherit a broken image. There's a big difference, and a mistranslation of Ro. 5.12 is what ultimately led to the pen-sub model of atonement. The mistranslation made it where "we all sinned in Adam," whereas the proper reading was "because we all sinned." Augustine placed a heavy emphasis on inherited guilt from this, and later, Anslem made it a dominant analogy.

    For an analogy of what I'm saying in regard to sin, suppose a rich father squanders his family fortune and places his family in abject poverty. The children are not guilty of their father's actions, but the consequences of the actions carry on from generation to generation. It's an analogy, and it's flawed like all analogies, but I think it explains the distinction between consequences and guilt just fine.
     
  14. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Note the separation of "form" and "image".

    Is it the separation of the physical and the spiritual?

    As for "original sin"... there is no basis for that in any scripture. You can not blame Adam or me for your sin. That is man's general nature... right from Adam till the present:

    Genesis 3:12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

    So it is that Adam blamed eve just as you are blaming Adam. When will the blame shifting stop?

    Ezekial 18:1. The word of the LORD came to me:
    2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.


    If you don't sin, then you won't die. Only one person has achieved this in their life time.

    Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

    No one needed to inherit sin... we are all quite capable on our own. That is the curse that is "free choice" and also the only way for us to really love God as well.
     
  15. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    I would be hesitant to say so for obvious reasons, but I'd have to check other things (like the Fathers).

    I think I'm going to have to avoid using the term "sin" at all so that I can get my point across.

    I don't blame Adam for my wrongs. He didn't choose my sins. I did. I don't think I inherited guilt for his transgression. He transgressed, and he suffered consequences for that.

    What I said I got from him was corruption. When he transgressed, what he was changed into something different. Every generation inherits not his first nature, but his fallen nature. This is passed down from generation to generation.

    The guilt or responsibility for his transgression is not passed down. I am responsible solely for my own actions, but I am subject to the consequences of my predecessors' actions.

    After all, the children of the rich father in my example aren't guilty of their father's squandering of wealth, but they will grow up in poverty nonetheless.

    NetDoc,

    When did I say, "Adam made me sin" or "Look God, this forefather You made for me, he made me sin?" Since I said no such thing, and since I say the guilt of my actions are my own, this is a little misplaced. In fact, I said that earlier in this thread.

    Here we heavily disagree. I separate sin as in corruption or imperfection (amartia) and sin as in transgression (amartima). It's true that the former can mean the latter, but the latter can never assume the meaning of the former.

    I think we have a problem of talking past each other, because I make this distinction, and you apparently don't. Evidently I hadn't explained this sufficiently.

    As for people having to actively transgress before they die, let us remember that Christ died. Newborn infants die. How could they have sinned? Infants in their mothers die, both from natural causes and abortion. How could a child sin while still in the belly of his/her mother?

    Death takes people of all ages, and it makes no discrimination. I have an answer: everyone has sin. We are born in corruption, our minds are imperfect, and we live in it. We inherit this from our parents. It causes death, and this death takes infants, unborn children, children, mothers, fathers, everybody.

    This isn't guilt. Guilt only comes as a result of our transgressing or acting imperfectly as a result. It is simply what we are. It doesn't help that it makes sin well-nigh unavoidable (not unavoidable) either.

    I don't need to cite much Scripture here. The death of infants, the inherited mortality (death reigning from Adam on, as Paul put it in Ro. 5), the indiscriminate nature of it, all should gravitate pretty heavily against what you say. Infants and unborn children, who have not yet even had an oppertunity to sin, both die.

    Your interpretationof the Bible, "If you don't sin, you don't die" breaks down when we look at that. If you disagree that infants and the unborn sinned, then you'll have to tell me how they sinned. Death sure seems to take them.

    Evidently we do inherit some corruption. Infants and the unborn have no will or choice we can think of to sin with, but they die, and they most certainly are human.

    As for Romans, Paul spoke about the Gentiles in the beginning. Then he shifted to the Jews. In both spots, he's talking collectively. Then in chapter 3, he starts speaking about "all." Maybe he's referring to all groups of people. After all, he'd covered both Jew and Gentile. I don't know any other classifications in that vein. In fact, in 3.9 he states that rather expressly.

    I've already given plenty of Scripture earlier in the thread, and I don't need to again, unless said Scripture is disproven.
     
  16. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Again you revert to the physical to explain the spiritual.

    Physical death need only be feared if you have already died spiritually.

    Babies have no need to fear death and need no redemption.

    Jesus, while he did not sin, BECAME sin, and also died spiritually... "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani!" Ever wondered why the disciples didn't dare to translate that except as an afterthought?

    Stop worrying about physical death, and start worrying about spiritual rebirth.
     
  17. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    I believe the physical and the spiritual are intimately connected, with some of the reasons explained in this thread, and I see no reason not to view it that way.

    Alas, we've reached the point where each of us will go "uh-uh" and the other "uh-uh."

    At least we seem to agree on politics lol.
     
  18. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    Let me just address one part of your lesson for now. Jesus wanted his followers to be one with him (Jesus),just as Jesus and the father were one (John 17:20- 23). Jesus was refering to speaking the same thing (1Cor.1:8-10) (1Peter 4:1) (Phlil.2:5). Earlier in (John 17:8) Jesus has recorded for us all to realize that the doctrine for the church was actually coming from God the Father,down to and through Jesus to His apostles.Of course Jesus did send the Comforter
    (The Holy Spirit) to bring to their rememberance all things he had said to them while on the earth according to (John 14:26 ; 16:13). It was in this manner that the message was protected from any error. The POWER of the Holy Spirit helped to preserve all doctrine Jesus had taught the apostles. Thus everyone can and should be teaching what the bible says,but because of personal choice in the matter some have chose to reject parts or all of Gods word.That is why we have many diffierent religions,because people wanted a buffet style religion rather than following and listening to Jesus like (John 10:27) says to do. This is what the bible was talking about when it spoke of the falling away. So the being one in (John 17) is not a literal physical body but being one in spirit and doctrine and words (Acts 11:14). If those words we tell people do not harmonize with the words of Jesus those words have no saving power (GAl.1:6-9) (John 12:48). --in love Baerly
     
  19. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    My understanding of being made in the image of God means that we have a soul that will live on forever just like God.

    Babies are not born into this world into sin. They are born innocent. If I understood the person who started this thread he thought all men were born sinful and passed it onto others through birth. (Ezekiel 18:20) teaches us otherwise,the son shall not bear the iniquitiues of the father,neither shall the father bear the iniquities of the son. The soul that sinneth it shall die. in love Baerly
     
  20. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Baerly, You may not understand this but the Christian church has always taught the concept of orignal sin. Hence, Adam and Eve sinned and all humanity shares in this sinful nature. Babies can not commit personal sin, but they all have recieved the plague of orignal sin due to our first parents. One of the results from our Inheritance of original sin is bodily death. Infants can die. Therfore they are under the curse of orignal sin. (Romans 5:12-14) is clearly teaches orignal sin. Sorry you misunderstood. Also another result from original sin we have from our first parents Adam and Eve is Pains during childbirth(Gen 3:16)! All women have them! Hence all women have inherited orignal sin.
     
Loading...