Hey Guys.......I Think I've Finally ... 
loquat1
7 y
1,762
† Cross †
OK guys & gals, over here now please, and I think I managed to read the last few posts in the end. You have certainly been busy lately, haven't ya?
@ refreshed - To conclude re. Hosea & Gomer, my pastor is also a 'Finalist' (I know, pick y/self up off the floor, right?), and he has this to say on the subject:
Thank you for the question! I have struggled with this one, and people in church history have taken different views on it. On balance I think that he really was asked to marry her. There is no hint in the text that it is just a metaphor; it’s recounted as an event. The names given to the children are highly symbolic. It’s been suggested that they are part of what is an allegory. But many names in the OT are given to be symbolic, including in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 7).
It is possible that Gomer was not unfaithful at the point of marriage, but that the statement “Go and take to yourself an adulterous wife" is spoken after she has committed adultery, and is taken to play to the whole marriage. BUT, I think the LORD does ask him to marry an untrustworthy woman. Hosea wasn’t just going to learn to think of Israel’s sin against God as adultery against him. He was going to feel what God felt like: the betrayal, the anger, the jealousy and the undying love. (It is similar to the emotional intensity of Ezekiel’s prophetic loss of his wife in Ez. 24).
So as you can see, my dear friends, it is simply not the case that Finalists 'spiritualize' everything out of existence on a mere whim. We also accept what the Bible says at face value, but if that's all we did, we would miss out on so much.
Case in point: For the record, I also believe that Jonah was historical. But don't forget it's deeper meaning - Mt 12:40. And without the benefit of Heb.7, who would have guessed the true significance of Gen. 14:17-20? Elijah was a real prophet, but he was also a prophecy (or perhaps slightly more accurately, a 'type') in his own right (Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6 and Mt 17:9-13). The list goes on, and these deeper meanings have filled entire volumes. E W Hengstenberg, arguably one of the greatest (if not the best) evangelical scholars of the 19thC, would not have been able to write his monumental 'Christology of the Old Testament' without these deeper meanings. If you ignore this aspect of revealed truth, you impoverish your own source of real spiritual food.
@ vektek - The thread was cross-posted on the Conspiracy forum coz, if you recall, the OP was about Prince Harry being identified as the antichrist. As this entails a certain level of 'conspiracy' to pull off, I though it only apropo to cross-post there as well. As it's now become almost exclusively a debate about interpretation, end-times, etc., I have now removed it from the Conspiracy Forum.
More
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,513
This is a reply to # 2,351,106Thanks Loquat for asking your Pastor. I'm sure there are Finalists that believe different things as well as Literalists do. But it's good that he agreed with what you believe. I just thought Alexander was over the top on that statement. Not sure if he was starting to lean a little to Full Preterist or not, since I have only read some of the things he has written.
Were you surprised that your Pastor was a Finalist? Because when we first started this debate you made it sound like the UK may be less for literal interpretation than the US is and I have just wondered about why there was a difference. For I noticed that most, if not all your favorite commentators were Brits.
So is the main difference between a Finalist and a Literalist, just the prophecies? I'm starting to wonder if the term "Literalist" is not completely accurate to describe either because the people I know "know" that there is a deeper message in most of scripture. Being Literal does not mean that the Beast rising out of the sea is an actual beast in the normal sense (a monster) yet is a descriptive word for a power system or powerful person...yet it is a Beast/Monster spiritually.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,575
This is a reply to # 2,351,114Loquat, gotcha on why we ended up in the Conspiracy forum. I had forgotten about that. Makes sense!
You said,
"Yeah, I know what ya mean, but I still think that agreement on the basics covers a multitude of sins. I also have a problem with their optimism. How dare they be so optimistic while I'm miserable all day long?!?"
I see the optimism based on blissful ignorance though and in a huge amount of cases, the result of following false prophets and apostles, such as those leading the NAR/Word of Faith groups. God, according to them, has appointed these apostles and prophets at this time to usher in major revival so they can conquer the world for Christ, with all their new revelations, signs and wonders, etc. and oh what a grand time it will be.
The seven mountains of society will be Christianized, and it will be a grand time of prosperity. There will be great unification, not all this division.
Just can't buy it myself, nope! Especially when I see how it's all supposedly being accomplished, by setting the true gospel aside while false gospels are embraced in the name of unity.
As for Pan-millennialism, I was just joking. I had a pastor that used to say he was a Pan-millennialist, meaning it was all going to pan-out one way or the other. :) God is going to be sovereign whether we get it all figured out or not. But the more truth we can learn, the better. It's good to study these things out, and pray for God to reveal the truth to us.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,562
This is a reply to # 2,351,159
@ Vekky - Ha!, yeah, forgot that joke. I used to know what pan-m meant, but that was a long time ago. Memory ain't what it used to be, but I think I do ok considering. Can't say I blame him tho. Many pastors will avoid the subject coz it's so controversial and potentially divisive. It doesn't need to be really - we still generally agree on the fundamentals.
Not familiar with those WCC-type groups, so can't really comment. If they preach Christ and Him crucified, then I'm with Paul:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
Philippians 1:15-18
But if they preach 'another gospel..............' Need I say more?
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,481
This is a reply to # 2,351,379Loquat, I agree, a differing eschatological view should never divide, as long as the fundamental essential beliefs are agreed upon.
When you get time some day, do some research on the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and the Word of Faith movement. Every Christian should know about these movements because they are huge and growing like mad and very dangerous. You can decide if they teach the true gospel or not. My conclusion is that just like many other satanic deceptions, they appear on the surface to teach some biblical truths, but dig a little deeper, test the spirits, and what's revealed in a massive deception rooted in New Ageism, and a grand plan to join with other religions, especially Catholicism, but also any other religion too as long as it brings numbers and power. Now what I just said is highly controversial, even on here, but it's what I see. I've been following all this for many years now, and have no doubts about it. But massive amounts of people think it's an awesome move of God that's going to change the face of Christianity in a phenomenal way. Another name I have for it is "Counter-Reformation".
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,558
This is a reply to # 2,351,382
@ vekky - So I wasn't far off with my WCC comparison then. Yes, I'll do some background on them when I have a bit more time on my hands. A bit tied up @ the moment with tax returns, etc.
Well, we were warned about this, weren't we?:
.......so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Eph4:14
Without putting a date on it, I consider it one of the main 'signs of the times'. When the world is arraigned in united opposition to the faithful under the banner of a single religion, the great deception will be complete. It fits in perfectly with the scenario depicted in Ezek. 38-39, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, 2 Pet. 3:1-13 and, of course, Rev. 20:7-10. Therein lies one of the most powerful clues as to the correct interpretation of vv 1-6.
Are you paying attention refreshed? Good.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,422
This is a reply to # 2,351,399No Loquat, you were not far off in your comparison of the NAR/Word of Faith movement to the WCC. And yes, we were warned about this.
"When the world is arraigned in united opposition to the faithful under the banner of a single religion, the great deception will be complete."
I think so too!
Here's another sign:
2 Tim. 4:3-4
3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
2,122
This is a reply to # 2,351,481
@ vekky - Exactly. Scripture consistently depicts the period immediately preceding the second advent as one of great peril to Christians who refuse to compromise their faith. That leaves no room for the postmillennial dream that things can only get better. It is much harder to conceive of an end-time rebellion if virtually the entire world has been evangelised, whereas it fits in perfectly with the way the world has been going for the last 100 years or so.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,416
This is a reply to # 2,351,514Right on Loquat! I just can't wrap my head around the post-millennial view. What scriptures are they reading?
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,548
This is a reply to # 2,351,541
How about:
For the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.Habakkuk 2:14
???
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,432
This is a reply to # 2,351,573Sure Loquat!
Here's another one:
"You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.... And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth’ (Dan. 2:34-35)...."
I'm sure there are many many more. And for the Post-reformation Puritans, etc. the Post-Millennial view (as Refreshed brought up) probably made a lot of sense. I just don't think it does now.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,432
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,429
This is a reply to # 2,351,541I'm not sure if this has already been discussed or not but the Puritans believed in a Revivalist postmillennialism. Which is a little different for they believed that the non-governmental people (the little guy) would be the one's who brought about the change, where as the Post-millennial view you are speaking of is where the people want representatives high in the government to cause the changes in people's hearts.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,545
This is a reply to # 2,351,584
No, I don't think I've ever discussed postmil. in those terms. I seriously doubt that govt. dictat can ever have much impact on personal faith. I've always thought of postmils in terms of an optimistic belief in the success of the gospel - ie on a much grander scale than it presently enjoys.
Beyond the dubious grounds for such optimism:
...when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?
Lk 18:8
...I've always thought their eschatology was otherwise fundamentally sound. That's why I'm more than happy to count them as fellow 'Finalists'.
As for any efforts by man to bring about a secular equivalent through social progress, etc.- they are ultimately doomed to fail, coz they have a flawed grasp of humanity's intrinsic nature. For example, almost every communist experiment or revolution starts out with the highest humanitarian ideals, but very quickly degenerates into a 'reign of terror' or even worst injustices than existed previously.
Reminds me of an old joke:
Q. What's the difference between capitalism and communism? Give up?
A. Well, in capitalism, one group of people exploits another group of people, whereas in communism, it's the other way round.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,422
This is a reply to # 2,351,596I doubt that either one of these post-mill groups would actually say that the Holy Spirit was not involved with the heart change, but that "their" part was either bringing forward the gospel by way of the average person or by people promoting Christ in government as well as the average person. Which would be no different than the church sending out missionaries into all the world in their way of thinking.
My personal thought is that there is a rogue element of different ideas that has joined forces with some of these different groups.
I think if we were to think of this in secular terms, then we would have to say that liberals have a real Reconstructionist post-mill mindset because they believe in big government and a type of utopia.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,464
This is a reply to # 2,351,679Once you allow the state to meddle in church affairs, you invariably end up with a corrupt version of the Faith. If you want proof, look at what happened when Christianity was 'adopted' as the formal religion of the Roman Empire. We ended up with Roman Catholicism and (eventually) the Eastern Orthodox Church, both names in themselves contradictions in terms. Whilst they had a stranglehold, minority groups like the Waldensian and Albigensian Christians were either suppressed or massacred. How's that for brotherly love?
We had to have a Reformation to recover a semblance of the 'Faith of the Book', and even then it's doubtful it went far enough. The secular search for utopia, whether inspired by Christianity or not, invariably leads to dystopia. Big govt. should learn to keep its nose out of our affairs. It's none of their business. It's not even a guarantee that govt. will make the right decisions. Look what happened to Iraq when two world leaders, both ostensibly Christians, conspired to invade it. I can think of no better reason for the entire Muslim world to hate us with a vengeance, and they would have just cause. We created ISIS, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hizbut Tahrir, Jabhat al-nusra.......ad nauseum.
If the US spent just a fraction of the trillions it squanders on its obscene industrial-military complex building bridges to these countries instead of fomenting wars, this might be a much safer world. And a lot closer to utopia than what we have now.- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,422
This is a reply to # 2,351,699That is why we have the US Constitution to protect all American's no matter what faith they are.
Having military power, is not the same as using military power in my opinion.
How each person looks at eschatology, will determine whether they are expecting any form of utopia to occur before or after Jesus returns.- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,417
This is a reply to # 2,351,707
Despite what you think Rev. 20 teaches, the Bible makes no such promise of a utopia, either before or after Jesus' return. Rev. 20 does not follow Rev. 19, anymore than Rev. 12 follows Rev. 11. You would also need to look a little more closely at how it all ends before you recognise it for what it really is - a complete sham.
No, if anything, our lot is opposition & persecution right up to the point when that last trumpet sounds. I'll be addressing this subject at some length in a future post by way of reply to one of your earlier posts.
As for having military power but not using it, try telling that to all those innocents killed by your peace-loving, Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barak O Bummer.
Around 7:00 - 7:40 of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-_INi-TKoM&t=12s
Leaving the foul mouth aside, I expect you don't hear this kinda thing everyday from your corporate-owned lamestream media, but at least this guy tells it like it is.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,442
This is a reply to # 2,351,715I don't respect everything that RT/Russia Today believes any more than I do the BBC. So yeah, that kind of telling it like it is, is not what I'm use to. However, I don't watch/listen to lame stream media. My family can't even get me to listen to the weather forecast. lol I mostly listen to other alternative media.
I am military family, so I may look at the whole arming our nation or ourselves thing differently than a man who's country has gun control. The only mad dog is the man in charge of the white house, who gives the orders, which are given to him by an unknown, but spiritually known influence. I can only hope and pray that Trump does a better job of using this power justly.- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,533
This is a reply to # 2,351,729
As it happens, neither do I. For example, I don't trust them further than I can throw them about Syria, Georgia, Chechnya, the Crimea/Ukraine, the downing of MH17, the assassinations of Alexander Litvinienko, Boris Nemtsov & Anna Politkovskaya (among many others), systemic doping of their athletes........etc etc etc. I didn't come down with the last shower, so I know only too well how propaganda works.
But when it comes to the crimes commtted by western foreign policy (eg the sale of arms to obnoxious regimes like Saudi Arabia, who then use them to bomb the cr*p out of one of the poorest countries in the world), I know full well that I'm far more likely to get the truth from them than either the lamestream or (with a few notable exceptions) most 'alternative' media sources,
As for our gun control, I gotta say, it's a real drag living in a country that doesn't have a fraction of your murder rate.
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,468
This is a reply to # 2,351,739That may sound like a good reason not to carry guns, but there really is a whole different reason the US fights for this right.
This is written by Phyllis Schlafly, someone I respected as a constitutional lawyer. She just passed away last year.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms
By Phyllis Schlafly - The Schlafly Report June, 2000
* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."
* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
The chief reason America has remained a free country is the widespread private ownership of firearms. Individual ownership of guns made the American Revolution possible. The principal purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain our freedom from government. It is an insult to our heritage to imply that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment just to protect deer hunters.
My good friend, the late Reverend Stephen Dunker, C.M., was a missionary in China who was imprisoned by the Communists during the early 1950s. I heard him tell of his experiences many times. When the Communists first took over the area where he lived, they appeared to be good rulers. They established law and order and cleaned up the traffic in drugs and prostitutes. Then one day the Communist bosses announced, "You can see that we have established a good society and you have no need for your guns. Everyone must come in the night and dump all guns in the town square." The people believed and obeyed. The next day, the reign of terror began, with public executions and cruel imprisonments. Everyone accused of being a "landlord" was dragged through the streets and executed; a "landlord" was anyone who farmed his little plot of ground with two water buffalo instead of one.
Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left. This has already happened in England and Australia. After Great Britain banned most guns in 1997, making armed self-defense punishable as murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals know that law abiding citizens have been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10% in 1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black market in guns: "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style execution." There has been such a heavy increase in the use of knives for violent attacks that new laws have been passed giving police the power to search anyone for knives in designated areas.
In 1996 Australia banned 60% of all firearms and required registration of all guns and the licensing of gun owners. Police confiscated 640,381 firearms, going door to door without search warrants. Two years later, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that all crime had risen and armed robberies were up 44%.
Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., described his first-hand experience in Cuba. Before 1958, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista had all citizens register their firearms. After the revolution, Raul and Fidel Castro had their Communist thugs go door to door and, using the registration lists, confiscate all firearms. As soon as the Cubans were disarmed, that was the end of their freedom.
Tyrannical governments kill far more people than private criminals. The Nazis conducted a massive search-and-seizure operation in 1933 to disarm their political opponents, in 1938 to disarm the Jews, and when they occupied Europe in 1939-41 they proclaimed the death penalty for anyone who failed to surrender all guns within 24 hours.
The first line of safety has to be an ability to defend yourself. In some areas, a woman who is being stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to buy a gun, even if her life has been threatened. Some cities criminalize carrying guns for self-defense but make exceptions for people carrying money or jewels. Are money and jewels more important to protect than people's lives?
History teaches us that registration leads to the confiscation of guns and that is the goal of many gun control advocates. Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., told The New Yorker: "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
Atlanta public-safety commissioner George Napper told U.S News, "If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law." Like those who "enforced the law" at Waco? or at Ruby Ridge? or invading a Miami home to grab Elián Gonzalez?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Polls show that up to 80% of the public believe citizens have a constitutional right to own guns.
If the First Amendment read "A free press being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the freedom of speech, or of the press," nobody would argue that free speech belongs only to newspapers. Likewise, they should not argue that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to government agents.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), stated that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole. There is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments.
The claim that "militia" just refers to the National Guard is ridiculous. The same Congress that passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792 which defined militia as "each and every able-bodied male citizen" from age 18 to 45 (with some exceptions) and stated that each one shall "provide himself" with a gun, ammunition, and a bayonet.
The currently effective Militia Act substantially keeps the same language ("all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45"), and further defines militia as: "(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." (10 U.S.C. 311)
In recent years, a scholarly consensus has emerged across the political spectrum that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Between 1980 and 1995, of 39 law review articles, 35 noted the Supreme Court's prior acknowledgement of the individual right of the Second Amendment and only four claimed the right is a collective right of the states (and 3 of those 4 were authored or co-authored by persons connected with the gun-control lobby).
The Founding Fathers on the Right to Own Guns:
* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."
* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." * Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
_____ For more information: John Lott Jr., More Guns, Less Crime (2nd edition, 2000). Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., articles on England and Australia in the Medical Sentinel, May/June 2000, and letter on Cuba to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, December 28, 1999. Professor Sanford Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale Law Journal, 1989. Professor James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," The Public Interest, Spring 1988. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, Independent Institute, 1994, and the Wall Street Journal, June 4, 1999. Daniel D. Polsby, Firearms and Crime, Independent Institute, 1997. Joyce Lee Malcolm, lecture at the Independent Institute, September 21, 1999, http://www.independent.org/
For law review articles, gun court cases, and the 1982 Senate report, see http://www.2ndlawlib.org/.
Expand 26 messages, 21 to 46 of 46 loquat1
7 y
1,420
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,468
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,533
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,442
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,417
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,422
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,464
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,422
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,545
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,548
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,416
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
2,122
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,422
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,558
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,481
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... loquat1
7 y
1,562
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... vektek
7 y
1,575
- Re: Hey Guys.......I Think I've Fina... refreshed
7 y
1,513
