what is Sin in Christianity ?

oh really now . . . isn't the "idea" of Sin an emotional weapon of guilt used to control Sheeple?

Your Sins are my Pleasures!
 
NiceCupOfTea said:
so what is it ?

i have realised I dont know.
Click to expand...
For a ballpark idea, I think there are two kinds of sin: 1 sins that are fairly simple to atone for and 2 sins that are much worse, like murder. Most sins are of the simple easy kind: As people get older they learn more about how to live. Learning the best way, they are also learning the wrong way -- so as to avoid it. At first understanding sin is very simple: don't kick the dog, don't hit your sister. Later its more complicated. The concept of sin changes while people get older and wiser. Analogously it can change for civilizations and groups of people.

  • Atonement
    What matters is atonement. God is perfect, but you are imperfect. What does God have to do with you, an imperfect being? The study of Atonement is the study of how relating to God (and other people) is possible, and a rough analogy of atonement is the relationship between parents and children. Children have very little to offer their parents, but the parents love the children and continue the relationship. The child's weakness and uselessness is atoned for/overlooked. Whatever the reason, your flawed nature and your mistakes will sometimes be overlooked by someone that is more perfect. Though you have nothing to offer at the time, they may seek you out as a potentially rewarding relation, just as your parents or guardians hopefully have done. In Christianity this is the model of the relationship between God and humankind.
  • Limits to Atonement?
    Very bad sins, such as murder, are not atoned for by the usual means if ever, and some things cannot be made right. Atonement only works if you sincerely want to treat others well and are trying to do right. If you don't give a care, then people are going to look at your faults. God will, too. That is the danger of having an attitude problem, because people and God start keeping a record of your faults. Bad sins have no representation in sacrifices, either. No Biblical sacrifices can be offered for a person who has, for example, taken the 'name of the LORD in vain'. That doesn't mean God can't forgive them, but it means that sacrifices have nothing to do with it. By extension, Jesus death upon the cross has nothing to do with it. This is why Hebrews says "...if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,..." Hebrews 10:26. As you can see, the word 'Sin' is flexible, sometimes referring to deliberate sins sometimes to accidental ones. That does not mean that they are the same thing.
  • Avon & Chet-Ta
    Sometimes there is more than one word for sin in the language of a source. For example, in the Pentateuch there is the word 'Avon' translated as iniquity, and there is the word 'Chet ta'. Chet ta seems to have the typical meaning of making a mistake, but avon seems to imply that sins were not atoned for and so are compounding in over time. When people have avon they are getting worse, not better, as if one were reading Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire . Rome's avon became greater & greater until it fell apart. The NT talks about atonement for sins without explaining that atonement is mostly for sins of ignorance, accidents, youth etc. The NT only has one word for sin, so therefore you probably won't get a firm concept of atonement and sin by reading it alone. Additionally if you look into the NT, there is no word for 'Avon' or any special notes about 'Chat ta'. A lot of people think all sins are the same because of that, but I feel that is a youthful oversight. There may be some truth in it, but there is always more to understand about these things. Not all sins are the same necessarily. Killing someone with a bat is much worse than accidentally hurting their feelings, isn't it? You can repent from both, but only the accidental sin is covered by Jesus sacrifice. The other one will require special dispensation by God and both may require forgiveness from people as well.
 
Etu Malku said:
oh really now . . . isn't the "idea" of Sin an emotional weapon of guilt used to control Sheeple?
Click to expand...
Politicians use that kind of thing. Sometimes parents use it. Its not necessarily a part of the Christian experience. The word 'Sin' is useful in a semantic way, because it can denote the debt aspect of wrongs that you've done. When you do something wrong there should be an awareness that you owe to try and undo damage. Its part of being a community.

Your Sins are my Pleasures!
Click to expand...
That is hyperbole. A sin can be pleasurable, but that doesn't mean all pleasure is sin. Its true some people ridiculously see sins everywhere but not most people. Also as people get older even those like myself without so much sense tend to mellow a little.
 
Dream said:
Politicians use that kind of thing. Sometimes parents use it. Its not necessarily a part of the Christian experience. The word 'Sin' is useful in a semantic way, because it can denote the debt aspect of wrongs that you've done. When you do something wrong there should be an awareness that you owe to try and undo damage. Its part of being a community.

That is hyperbole. A sin can be pleasurable, but that doesn't mean all pleasure is sin. A lot of youths find pleasure in joining the military, but some find that they have made a big mistake.
Click to expand...
Parents? Not this parent ;) Perhaps "Christian" parents use the weapons they have been afforded, but real parents don't need such weapons.

Christianity has its adherents born into this imaginary debt to pay for an imaginary Sin, without remorse this Cult immediately chains its Sheeple into submission, subservience, and guilt.


The Original Sin as the tradition of the Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetypal structure embedded deep within our unconsciousness. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic.

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'.The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

- from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER - First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London
Click to expand...
 
Parents? Not this parent ;) Perhaps "Christian" parents use the weapons they have been afforded, but real parents don't need such weapons.
Click to expand...
Not christian parents, just parents in general. It happens naturally.

Christianity has its adherents born into this imaginary debt to pay for an imaginary Sin, without remorse this Cult immediately chains its Sheeple into submission, subservience, and guilt.
Click to expand...
Everyone starts out closed minded, not open minded. I understand that miscreants have taken advantage of some sheeple by taking over churches; but christianity doesn't create sheeple. It humanizes sheeple into people. Christianity can take 'Sheeple' and humanize them which is its real calling.

Christianity can stimulate thought, teach the subjective nature of knowledge and organize people outside the government's control, and it speaks out against evil. That helps everyone. What governments do is to try and subvert it, but it can resist government subversion. It needs a little bit of help sometimes.
 
Dream said:
Not christian parents, just parents in general. It happens naturally.

Everyone starts out closed minded, not open minded. I understand that miscreants have taken advantage of some sheeple by taking over churches; but christianity doesn't create sheeple. It humanizes sheeple into people. Christianity can take 'Sheeple' and humanize them which is its real calling.

Christianity can stimulate thought, teach the subjective nature of knowledge and organize people outside the government's control, and it speaks out against evil. That helps everyone. What governments do is to try and subvert it, but it can resist government subversion. It needs a little bit of help sometimes.
Click to expand...
No one starts out 'closed minded' this is something introduced to you at an early age from backwards religions such as Christianity, it's called Indoctrination.

I disagree that it humanizes anyone, rather just the opposite, it dehumanizes Mankind and creates delusion and false ideals.
Evil is a subjective idea, it doesn't really exist, it must be defined first and those faiths that define it will only do so towards their survival.
 
When an animal performs the act of a mortal sin ...Do you know what happens to that animal? . . . the animal gets "put Down".

Yes, the animal may be un-informed or ignorant of the Human species' codes & regulations . . . but when the dog bites the child ... the animal gets "put Down". Same for bears etc. A posse is sent out to exterminate the beast.

Sin is "ACTS" that accrue un-preferred "re-actions".

The scriptures compassionately inform us of this.

::::::::::::::::::::::::
Just for the record:

1. “You shall have no other gods before Me.</SPAN>
2. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
3. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. “Honor your father and your mother.
6. “You shall not murder.
7. “You shall not commit adultery.
8. “You shall not steal.
9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. “You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor’s.”










:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Why do I think there will be agreement about the following?:

The resident souls of Hell do not reside in Heaven, and,
The resident souls of Heaven do not reside in Hell.

Ironically, we all have the freewill to decide our own fate.
 
Etu Malku said:
Parents? Not this parent ;) Perhaps "Christian" parents use the weapons they have been afforded, but real parents don't need such weapons.

Christianity has its adherents born into this imaginary debt to pay for an imaginary Sin, without remorse this Cult immediately chains its Sheeple into submission, subservience, and guilt.
The Original Sin as the tradition of the Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetypal structure embedded deep within our unconsciousness. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic.

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'.The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

- from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER - First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you can believe in the archetypes of the collective unconscious, specifically the shadow, (aka Khaibit of Egyptian system, similar to the preta, or "hungry ghost" in Buddhism,) but not the concept of sin. Like these other archetypes, within the Judao-Christian system, "sin" is also represented as "hungry," and "craving." This craving and addictive behaviour can become detrimental to the mind if you feed it with the wrong stuff--resulting in what I call "the way of the junkie." The more you feed it the wrong stuff, the bigger and hungrier it becomes, until it devours the person's very being like the monster Ammit that sits beneath the scales in the Hall of Ma'at. (It's interesting how you posted an excerpt from a talk regarding predatory and cannibalistic behaviour in regard to this.)

I could go on and on about this symbolism in different belief systems, but will stick to Christianity as this is the Christianity forum.

So how do you cure this addiction and craving according to Christianity?

John 6:

26 Jesus answered, “I assure you: You are looking for Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him.”
28 “What can we do to perform the works of God?” they asked.
29 Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the One He has sent.”
30 “What sign then are You going to do so we may see and believe You?” they asked. “What are You going to perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
32 Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Moses didn’t give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the real bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the One who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said, “Sir, give us this bread always!”
35 “I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again. 36 But as I told you, you’ve seen Me, and yet you do not believe. 37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 Therefore the Jews started complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can He now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.
47 “I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52 At that, the Jews argued among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. 54 Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, 55 because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink. 56 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the manna your fathers ate—and they died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”​
Eat the flesh and drink the blood of a divine being? Gee where have we heard this before? ;)


Jesus later explains what this means to his disciples in a private ritual involving eating bread and wine, representing his flash and blood, in remembrance of him. So you feast on his teachings! This provides the cure for the "junkie shadow" described in John 14-16, when the "comforter" (paraclete, spirit of truth) comes to remind you of the things you have learned.

I started a thread here if anyone wants to follow this derail.
 
It is a fascinating question, whether closed-minded people were born that way or were trained as small children to be closed-minded. I have noticed how small children think in very monolithic, black or white ways, without considering that there may be shades of grey in between. Perhaps this overly-simple way a child thinks leads naturally to a state of closed-mindedness.

But of course a young child is greatly influenced by their parents and teachers. When these parents and teachers are closed-minded and squawsh the natural tendency of children to question, it must be quite normal even for some open-minded children to become closed-minded as a result.
 
Shadow" has a slightly different connotation within Quakerism. Since "The Light Within" or "the Seed of Truth" is the Sp!rit or Chr!st, the Shadow is just the lack of the same. This coincept really influenced Jung's work (Quakers were at XIXth century movement for humane treatment of the mentally ill). So his archetype is very similar.

What it amounts to is that unless we recognize the "Voice Within" as the Sp!rit or Chr!st or G!d itself, we lose out. The Shadow clouds out vision (like Maya pulls the wool over our eyes).

"Sin" would then be really just "straying from the path" (not paying attention to the Light Within"). Very close, if not identical to (in my opinion) to the original Hebrew use of the term).

We are flawed in that Sh! gave us the free will to ignore H!r word. That is (imho) the essence of both sin and the shadow.
 
BrotherMichaelSky said:
wouldn't we first have to define "Christianity"?

seems otherwise there will be differing thoughts....
Click to expand...

I agree with you Brother Mike. Christianity was a group of tens of different Jesus Cults in the first two centuries CE. It was not even called Christianity in the First Century.

How can I define it? I am giving an opinion. Many different cults arose after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Most regarded him as a prophet, a messiah, a king in the Davidian Lineage, a created God (Arianism), and little known mystery cults mixed with Mithraism, Olympianism, and Roman Pagan beliefs.

It was not Christianity as we know it, until the writings of Athanasius and Tertullian, later Augustine. What these Roman citizens did was create a new religion only nominally based on Jesus. It was a Trinitarian Religion, a variant mystery cult. Olympians, Illyrians, Celts, Teutons, Romans, and even Egyptians had their older Trinities.

Athanasian Christianity developed from a fusion (intentional or by unintentional diffusion) with those Pagan Trinity Religions of Europe, Africa, South Asia, and India. Tertullian was the designer of the Trinity accepted by the new religion. This paganised religion remotely based on Jesus' teachings spread rapidly, being second only to Arianism until Emperor Constantine forced the bishops at the synod in Nicaea 324 CE to accept it as the only "Christianity." All other Jesus followers were persecuted and forced to flee to Persia, German nations, convert, or be executed.

Emperors Theodosius I and Theodosius II further influenced this. The latter made it compulsory at the end of the 4th Century. Pagans were persecuted, executed, forced to flee, or simply convert to the new paganised Jesus religion. Constantine was a shrewd politician. He knew Athanasian Trinitarianism was so close to Mithraism, Druidism, Roman Paganism, Olympianism, and The Teutonic faiths that a grand merger could work and possibly save the empire.

There was a moral revision along with the Paganism merger to Christianity. Early Jesus followers won wide support among the poor, oppressed, and those admiring the high values of Jesus. Like many movements, it split into tens of variants. Constantine needed loyalty of the people to the Empire. He cared less about personal morality issues. He violated many of them.

The process continued to evolve. Jesus’ teachings became increasingly ignored and replaced by deification. He became a created god to Paul and Bishop Arius. Later he was part of the famous Trinity. Jesus became more an IDOL instead of a Moral Teacher.

Sin became a confusing issue. Trinitarianism misread Jesus as eliminating sin, forgiving sin, and eliminating Garden of Eden inherited sin by the death and resurrection myth about Jesus.

By the time of the Reformation, this trend reached its extreme under the infamous anti-Semite Martin Luther, and the mentally homicidal John Calvin. They made sin something easly erased by confession or accepting Jesus in some mysterious way...i.e. worshiping him as a God.

Modern Evangelical Christianity dismisses almost all sin as meaningless, easily dismissed by talking to Jesus. The only sins were sins of incorrect belief. Failure to worship Jesus as a God meant lost you salvation. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the other unforgivable sin. The Jews including Jesus did not believe in a Holy Spirit Being or Trinity.

Christianity became a cult centred on a false Jesus, a violent God instead of a kindly Jewish chap. No matter how many people one kills (thousands, millions, thousand millions) those are forgiven if they have faith in Jesus. It makes for a paradoxical morality, a meaningless morality because sins do not count. It had only the sin of politically incorrect belief.

Amergin
 
Amergin, right good matchbook review there! "Sin" should (I believe) be reduced to "straying from the path of G!d". Not doctrinally, but rather by "bad" behavior. The Traditionalist Christian version (Oriental Orthodox to Calvinists) is too focused on punishment. The Evangelical Christian version is nonsensical at best (if old Adolph has truly repented between pulling the trigger and dying, he would sit at G!d's side).

The Jewish version seems the most morally acceptable, even though I am relatively certain the brother of the Prodigal Son did not think so.
 
radarmark said:
Amergin, right good matchbook review there! "Sin" should (I believe) be reduced to "straying from the path of G!d".
Click to expand...
Question; Does this apply to those of us that don't accept the existence of an Abrahamic god?

Not doctrinally, but rather by "bad" behavior.
Click to expand...
"Good" "Bad", are both subjective and rely on period, culture, and society.
 
The whole idea about "G!d" is that one need not consider the Abrahamic definition binding. Kinda like "higher power", capice?

We differ a little in our definitions of good and bad. They are subjective, certainly. That does not mean that we, as semi-civilized human beings, cannot sit down and use (for example) utilitarianism, utility theory, and bayesian analysis to explore the impact of an action. Then judge goodness or badness by the amount of suffering caused.

I am not calling for some "Father G!d" or some "eternal, universal ethics". I do not think that is ultimately decidable, even. Lord, if the issue of multiverses versus M-theory vs the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't decidable--how much more so these?

Just saying with a little effort and a little intersubjective calibrating we can give some pretty broad conclusions (even with a lot of assumptions). I am talking philosophy and science, not myth and ideology.


"Would measurable effects an act has upon your mind be objective or subjective?"

The act of taking a massive dose of an hallucinogen has pretty measureable effects. Getting mad does. Making decisions does (massive amounts of neuroscience on all three). Different parts of brain are effected and they correlate to what is happening in the mind. The hard question is why?
 
Etu Malku said:
Measurable? In what way?
Click to expand...

Let me give you an analogy: You believe that what is in your subjective mind has a manifest effect in the objective world, correct? Think this through backwards: toxic substances accumulate in the predators on the top of the food chain. Subjectively, wouldn't that indicate greater toxic waste, high voltage lines, etc, in the shadow side of the psyche (and hence, greater entropy feeding back?)

There is also plenty of research regarding the effects of the psychopathic mind out there to explore, as well.

Darkness doesn't necessarily mean twisted. It just means unknown, or hidden. The best use of darkness, imo, is to hide your good karma there, and bring the bad, twisted karma out into the light where you can work on untwisting it. JMHO. :)
 
seattlegal said:
Let me give you an analogy: You believe that what is in your subjective mind has a manifest effect in the objective world, correct? Think this through backwards: toxic substances accumulate in the predators on the top of the food chain. Subjectively, wouldn't that indicate greater toxic waste, high voltage lines, etc, in the shadow side of the psyche (and hence, greater entropy feeding back?)

There is also plenty of research regarding the effects of the psychopathic mind out there to explore, as well.

Darkness doesn't necessarily mean twisted. It just means unknown, or hidden. The best use of darkness, imo, is to hide your good karma there, and bring the bad, twisted karma out into the light where you can work on untwisting it. JMHO. :)
Click to expand...
Interesting, this again makes me think of the Qliphoth in regards to every Creation having its 'negative' energy, its shard, a Shadow aspect of itself.

Traditionally, the Qliphoth vampyrically feed off of negative energies and grow stronger from them, just as our Shadow Self would, just as the Khaibit would!

Entering the Qliphothic Tunnels of the Tree of Knowledge (Tree of Daath) and engaging these Dæmons, returning to the mundane world is associated with other traditions of decending into an Underworld, defeating a monster, gaining a magickal weapon, and returning to the normal world with new found powers!

Psychologically I see an alighment with all of this (Qliphoth, Khaibit, Underworld, etc.) with coming face to face with our Shadow Self and conquering it.

**Just a few crazy thoughts from a madman . . . ;)
 
Etu Malku said:
Interesting, this again makes me think of the Qliphoth in regards to every Creation having its 'negative' energy, its shard, a Shadow aspect of itself.

Traditionally, the Qliphoth vampyrically feed off of negative energies and grow stronger from them, just as our Shadow Self would, just as the Khaibit would!
Click to expand...
Khaibit as a killer t-cell in an immune system? Interesting.

Entering the Qliphothic Tunnels of the Tree of Knowledge (Tree of Daath) and engaging these Dæmons, returning to the mundane world is associated with other traditions of decending into an Underworld, defeating a monster, gaining a magickal weapon, and returning to the normal world with new found powers!

Psychologically I see an alighment with all of this (Qliphoth, Khaibit, Underworld, etc.) with coming face to face with our Shadow Self and conquering it.

**Just a few crazy thoughts from a madman . . . ;)
Click to expand...

Have you ever been a gate guardian in your own psychodrama?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top