Is "Original Sin" true? What are your verses for and or against it?

Bible Highlighter · Jul 19, 2018

Everyone:

Please take a moment and pray for Hazelelponi's doctor appointment in the quietness of your room. Please pray for a good and quick recovery in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

GingerBeer · Jul 19, 2018

Jason0047 said:
Well, the added part about Jesus Christ is not how I would define "Original Sin." I just added that part because it is really important to me. I see my belief about Jesus and obedience to Him as being tied to the "Substitutionary Atonement" and it is paralleled with "Original Sin."

I currently believe "Original Sin" is that "sin" of Adam (Along with his "sin nature") is passed down upon all his descendants (i.e. all of humanity) by the male seed. Do you believe this, or something similar?

Note: Jesus was born of a virgin woman (and not of the male seed), so Adam's sin was not passed down upon him.

Anyways, I am open to other viewpoints in regards to "Original Sin" if they have a good biblical case for it.

The "Original Sin" viewpoint that says that only death (spiritual death, and physical death) was passed down only upon mankind is an appealing viewpoint. They say that because one abides in spiritual death, this makes man inclined to towards having a sin nature.

This appears to fit what Romans 5:12 says.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Romans 5:12).

I definitely do not believe we are born innocent, that's for sure.
That viewpoint is clearly not Biblical.

"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians 2:3).

"substitutionary atonement"? That isn't biblical is it? I can't recall that expression in the bible.

Hazelelponi · Jul 19, 2018

Jason0047 said:
Everyone:

Please take a moment and pray for Hazelelponi's doctor appointment in the quietness of your room. Please pray for a good and quick recovery in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you.. God Bless you...

I do have something to point out - what is generally translated as man means mankind, all of mankind.. men and women alike..

Presbyterian Continuist · Jul 19, 2018

συνείδησις said:
"Original sin" is the spiritual death that Adam passed on to all of his offspring. Through Adam's sin death passed to all men, and through death all men sin. All men being born spiritually dead (i.e., separated from GOD) are unable to know the perfect will of GOD, and thus all will eventually sin.

I think that is what Paul meant when he said in Romans, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses."

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jul 19, 2018

We are not guilty of Original sin in that we are not born in sin and therefore do not need to be baptized at birth, just as Adam and Eve were not Guilty of sin until they gained the Knowledge of Good and Evil(Gen 3:3-11, 16-17) by breaking the Lord's commandment. Today we are not born in sin but born with the Penalty of sin which is death(Genesis 2:17). Children are not born with the Knowledge of good and evil(Deut 1:39) and a son shall not bear the iniquity of his Father(Ezekiel 18:20-24; Deut 24:16), only those who know good and evil are guilty of sin(James 4:17; John 9:41). God is just(Deut 32:4; Psalm 9:7-8) that every man is to be judged only by his own works(Revelation 20:12-13; Col 3:24-25; Peter 1:17; Romans 3:4; Acts 17:31).

Bobber · Jul 19, 2018

javascript:void(null);Kerensa said:
I'm no expert on this topic and don't want to get into lengthy debates, but I read this pair of articles a while ago and found them very helpful in clarifying why the concept of "original sin", as traditionally understood, isn't actually supported by the Bible...

5 Old Testament Reasons Why Original Sin Doesn't Work

Was There a "Fall" or Did Augustine Really Screw Everything Up?

Read both articles. Interesting. But I tend to think we do see indications of the fallen nature of man as inferred in Genesis 3:16-17

It states seeing the fall occurred we know the curse came upon the Earth. Now there were weeds. So the nature of physical life changed but now to the nature of man. God told Eve, "You will long for your husband And he will rule over you!" I tend to think it's not that God put a fallen nature in man. It's rather when a spirit degenerates the inferior wrong nature is the end result.

You will long for your husband.
And he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

It talks prior about pain in child birth and and weeds developing in vegetation. Was that God that put it on them in our usual way of thinking or could it mean by God's allowance things can be considered to come from him. We know when spiritual death entered the universe it is a source of power. It's like the perversion of life. When Adam & Eve sinned we know the physical creation was effected.

Romans says the whole creation travails since that time. Rom 8:22 We know "death" released into the earth effected vegetation so why not other psychical things as in a woman's capacity to give birth. And we see, "You will long for your husband, and he will rule over you" Gen 3:16 Perhaps meaning because the male of the species is stronger, bigger and more aggressive the general thing will be woman treated more second rater simply for the reason that the male doesn't have the same capacity to love as he once did before.

One can see this obviously in culture. The more spiritual darkness in a land the less rights women have. The more light comes into a nation the less oppressed the females are. It's not that God wanted her to be oppressed and she isn't second rate. It's just the natural end result of living in a culture with humans with a fallen nature make it so.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 19, 2018

GingerBeer said:
"substitutionary atonement"? That isn't biblical is it? I can't recall that expression in the bible.

Think of it like how a father would push his son out of the way of a moving car (with him giving his own life) so as to save his son. It's giving your life for another. This is essentially the concept behind the: "Substitutionary Atonement." For do you not believe Jesus died for our sins?

Anyways, I see the Substitutionary Atonement in the following verses.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Peter 2:24).

4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."
(Isaiah 53:4-5).

"...For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29).

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45).

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11).

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21).

"...that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9).

"Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:25).

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son." (Genesis 22:13).

21 "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness."
(Leviticus 16:21-22).

Oh, and here is a beautiful animated music video that alludes to the Substitutionary Atonement.

I hope you like it.

:oldthumbsup:

May God bless you.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 19, 2018

Hazelelponi said:
Thank you.. God Bless you...

I do have something to point out - what is generally translated as man means mankind, all of mankind.. men and women alike..

I agree.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 19, 2018

Jesus's Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.
(So as to offer man the free gift of salvation)
(Man not yet saved personally - Man has to accept God's free gift by faith in order to be saved).

1. In Garden of Gethsemane - Jesus takes on the Sin of the World (By drinking the cup of sins that the Father gives to Him).

2. After his suffering: Judgment of Sin is laid upon the Son on the cross and His physical body dies. (Jesus pays the price for mankind's sin with his suffering and death).
(For Jesus was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities and by his stripes we are healed).

3. After 3 days and 3 nights: Jesus's physical body rises from the grave.
By doing this, Jesus conquers the punishment of sin, which is death so as to give us a new life in Him.

4. After Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him: Jesus shortly thereafter ascends to Heaven. Jesus then enters the Holy Temple in Heaven and goes before the Father so as to be our Mediator or Heavenly High Priest between God the Father and Man.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 19, 2018

Now, there is a connection the Lord showed for me personally between Joseph and Jesus one day.

What is that connection? Well, it has to do with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. For what was in the cup that made Jesus shrink, He had never recoiled before? For something clearly pressed in upon Him now that was something he had never faced before. What was it? What could bring the mighty, majestic Son of God to such depths of sorrow and agony? What force or power could wring such anguish sweat from His brow?

Isaiah 53:6 gives the answer when it simply states. “The Lord [God, the Father] laid on Him [Jesus Christ] the iniquity of us all.”

For by His stripes we are healed. He was crushed for our iniquities. He was wounded for our transgressions. All things that suggest that Jesus took upon the sin of the world at the Garden of Gethsemane and then was whipped and beaten for our transgressions before He went to the cross to complete out His sentence of torture and death. The “cup” was filled with the sin of the world. The guilt and pollution of all the world was there in that cup. Jesus saw the totality of sin – its length, its width, its depth – and He recoiled from it.

Just as Joseph had tested his brothers by putting a silver cup in Benjamin's sack (his youngest brother), he found out that Judah was willing to take his younger brother's place because of the guilt that was found with this cup (Genesis 44:6-13) (Genesis 44:18-34). For Judah no doubt bore the guilt of what he did to Joseph and did not want to see his father go thru any more suffering over yet another son of whom he loved very much. In other words, Judah did not want to bare all that guilt.

In fact, there are times; I’m sure when some of us had bore the guilt or were oppressed by the weight of even our own sin. But, think the weight of the sins of the whole world that pressed down upon Christ’s soul, until He sinks lower and lower, and cries out, “Oh, Father, is there any other way, must I drink this cup of iniquity?”

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

1 Peter 2:24 - "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

fat wee robin · Jul 19, 2018

Oscarr said:
This is what modernist theologians believe - that Yeshua was not an historical person. Man has tried to find the historical Yeshua and has failed. Albert Schweitzer summarised the quest and failure to find the historical Yeshua in his book "Quest for the Historical Jesus." So, to settle the debate, modernists decided to believe in "the Christ of faith".

But you are correct. If there is no historical Yeshua, there was no ministry on earth, no healings, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no Holy Spirit coming to the Church, and the Bible is just the product of ancient myth and folklore, instead of a real God telling Moses what to write in the first five books of the Bible. If none of these things are true and accurate, then there can be no salvation. Paul said that if there is no resurrection then we are wasting our time being Christian. We might as well go back into the world and live any way we like, because we are still dead in our sins, and with no hope or future. Those who hold to Bishop Spong's modernist theology have no future or hope, but the tragedy is that they are blind to it.

Bishop Spong is a man of 'flesh ' without the benefit of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit , so he is lost, , in fact .

dreadnought · Jul 19, 2018

Apologetic_Warrior said:
I first learned about it in a philosophy course, here's a helpful wiki page about it: tabula rasa I would argue that all human beings, as being made in the image of God, have an innate kind of knowledge of the basic laws of logic, not in a formal sense, but in an informal sense. I would argue this works in conjunction with sensory experience and interaction with external phenomena. In layman's terms, a baby knows the difference between a mother's nipple, and non-mother's nipple.

I think learning has to start from scratch. Perhaps it begins when we are in the mother's womb, but I don't think we have a cache of knowledge from the instance we are created. I think everything has to be learned. But then, the Lord is a fabulous teacher.

GingerBeer · Jul 19, 2018

Jason0047 said:
Think of it like how a father would push his son out of the way of a moving car (with him giving his own life) so as to save his son. It's giving your life for another. This is essentially the concept behind the: "Substitutionary Atonement." For do you not believe Jesus died for our sins?

Anyways, I see the Substitutionary Atonement in the following verses.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Peter 2:24).

4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."
(Isaiah 53:4-5).

"...For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29).

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45).

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11).

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21).

"...that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9).

"Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:25).

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son." (Genesis 22:13).

21 "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness."
(Leviticus 16:21-22).

Oh, and here is a beautiful animated music video that alludes to the Substitutionary Atonement.

I hope you like it.

May God bless you.

Nevertheless "substitutionary atonement" is not biblical. The passages you quoted do not teach that Jesus substitutes for you. There's a significant difference between the concepts expressed in words like "bearing our sins" and "by his stripes we are healed" and the concept of substituting for another person to receive the punishment that they were sentenced to receive by a justly called and executed process of judgement.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 19, 2018

GingerBeer said:
Nevertheless "substitutionary atonement" is not biblical. The passages you quoted do not teach that Jesus substitutes for you. There's a significant difference between the concepts expressed in words like "bearing our sins" and "by his stripes we are healed" and the concept of substituting for another person to receive the punishment that they were sentenced to receive by a justly called and executed process of judgement.

I am not here to convince you of obvious things in the Bible. If you do not believe or understand the verses I showed to you on the "Substitutionary Atonement," that is on you. I am here to explore the different viewpoints of Original Sin and I am looking for Scripture to back up those viewpoints. While I did bring up the Substitutionary Atonement, it is technically not the major topic of discussion and nor was it meant to be a huge discussion within this thread. If you want to heavily discuss that topic, start another thread, my friend.

jamesbond007 · Jul 20, 2018

Jason0047 said:
Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

I'd be afraid saying something like that. The same as questioning God's Word.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." John 1:8-10

One of the very interesting stories in the Bible is Adam and Eve and it makes you wonder why they didn't remain in paradise for very long (Less than a week? Less than a day?) as they were perfect humans. I'm imperfect and think I'd last about two years until I was tricked or fell for some huge lie.

bling · Jul 20, 2018

In your previous post to me:

You need to break out your questions and comments into smaller bites, because I would have to write a book of answers to address some of the wrong conclusions your author has drawn.

Jason0047 said:
This may be the case for some believers, but not for me. I believe we sinned in Adam because we were a part of Adam genetically. Levi paid tithes in Abraham (Hebrews 7:9-10). Besides, I know I am not off the hook. For we are ultimately going to be held accountable by our works, too; For man will be judged by his works (Romans 2:6) (Revelation 20:12).

Why did God not just start over instead of making all humans “sinners” at conception?

God is just and this would not be just, so is God unjust in doing this?

The “Federal Headship” theory has this passing down of something extremely bad to generations who are totally unaware and uninvolved with the head except for the fact they are way down the line descendants. Why are not the sins of all my ancestors past down to me? The Jews had a lot of wonder stuff passed down to them form Abrahams wonderful relationship with God including the paying of a tithe to Melchizedek. The describing of Levi as being not yet a descendant of Abraham is very poetic, but that does not mean Abrahams sins were also past down to Levi.

Sin is not something physical that can be past down (like a gene).

Jason0047 said:
I am also open to hearing different viewpoints on this issue besides the view that says we were born 100% innocent. For if we were born 100% innocent, then somebody (Besides Jesus) would have lived a sinless life by pure mathematical probability. Also, the story of the fall of Adam and Eve would not really mean that much, either. The "Fall" really wouldn't be the "Fall" of man.

This is totally not true of mature adults: “…if we were born 100% innocent, then by sheer mathematical probability, at least one person in the human history would have not sinned”

When Christ asked in the Garden for another-way besides Him having to go to the cross, God could have looked down the corridor of time and if God had seen one mature adult fulfilling his earthly objective without sinning there would have been another way. All sin.

The Bible does not call Adam’s first sin a “fall”.

I see it like when my children first sinned: “A transition into a new phase in their life”. The garden was a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective, but outside the garden: with death looming, limited resources, the need for forgiveness, and many more ways to sin, humbling one’s self to the point of being willing to accept undeserved pure charity in the form of forgiveness is made easy.

twin.spin · Jul 20, 2018

Jason0047 said:
Are you sure you have the right verse?

Acts of the Apostles 20:30 simply says this.

"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts of the Apostles 20:30).

I do not see anything mentioned here in Acts saying,

"And if your church does not have a denominational name, you are accursed."

On the contrary, I see Scripture condemning the idea that we should be a follower of a particular believer's name.

3 "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
(1 Corinthians 3:3-4).

Are you not saying you are of Luther when you say you are a Lutheran?

The two questions you asked:
Q: Are you sure you have the right verse? (Acts 20:30)
A: Yes

Q: Are you not saying you are of Luther when you say you are a Lutheran?
A: No.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 20, 2018

twin.spin said:
The two questions you asked:
Q: Are you sure you have the right verse? (Acts 20:30)
A: Yes

Q: Are you not saying you are of Luther when you say you are a Lutheran?
A: No.

Explain the verses how you are right and I am wrong. If not, you are just saying you are correct without the Bible actually backing up what you are saying. I mean, why wouldn’t you explain your reasoning even now?

Dorothy Mae · Jul 20, 2018

Oscarr said:
It doesn't really bother me at all. What I like about these threads is the stimulating and healthy debate from all sorts of people with different view points. I don't force my views on anyone, but I will state my case for people's information.

Basically, my view is that the Bible is accurate in its history and science. But it is not an exhaustive text book on history or science. There is enough information in the Bible to show us who God really is, and who we really are. It also shows us God's plan of salvation, and that it is the only plan for which anyone can be saved.

There are some who believe in the "young earth" theory. I am not one of them. God could quite easily have taken billions of our years to create the universe and the world we live in. After all, because He lives outside of the limits of our time frame, He can take as long as He likes to create something. There is a statement in Genesis that the earth was "without form and void" before the plants and animals were created. This suggests to me that God created the universe and our world over billions of years, but took six days to turn a planet without form and void into the environment we see now.

Also, it is interesting that God said, "Let there be light" before the sun was set alight which happened a couple of days after He made that first statement. So where did the light come from? It could not have come from the sun because the sun was not set alight yet. The sun and the moon were there of course but remained darkened until He set fire to the sun. So the question is, where did the original light come from when God said, "let there be light?" Interesting question...

So, the geology of the earth might not be inconsistent with God creating it. Also, as one philosopher maintained that there had to be something or someone to start the whole universe off, it is quite conceivable that God created the stars, galaxies and planets out of nothing, and set off the big bang that caused the expansion of the universe. Science tells us that the universe is expanding, and scientists believe that the universe started from one central point. That would not be inconsistent with the Bible - it is just that we are not given that specific information - because it was not the purpose of the Bible to give us comprehensive information about the formation of the universe. But what He has given us is totally accurate.

Scientists are now discovering that mankind originates from one genetic pair. The theory that mankind has been on earth only 6,000 years is disproved by anthropology, because it has been proved that people migrated from Eastern Russia to North America as far back as 20,000 years ago. Some have tried to form a geneology from the Bible, but they have misunderstood the way the Bible has described its geneology. It does not describe generations of actual individuals, but of cultural groups, with great gaps between them; so it is quite believable that human beings have been on earth more than 20,000 years. Yet the geneology of the Bible is accurate if we understand how it is compiled.

So, when we think about all these things, we discover that there is nothing in science or history that actually disproved the accuracy of the Bible in what it does tell us. What science has done is to fill in some of the details that the Bible has not told us, and none of that has been inconsistent with the Biblical record.

It is not a matter of what I believe. This is a characteristic of humanist thought: "You can believe what you want and what works for you, and I can believe what I want and what works for me". This means that one person's moral code can include kindness toward others, and another's (example Adolf Hitler) moral code can include incredible cruelty because that worked for him. Because man is just a machine (according to modernist theology) there is no difference between kindness and cruelty - it all depends on what an individual believes. This is because the basis of people's moral code comes from within themselves, and not from a common moral code from outside of them (such as the Ten Commandments).

So I have no problem with what you believe because you sincerely believe it works for you and it brings a level of peace and hope for you. Good luck on that.

I don’t recall that telling yourself you sincerely believe a lie is Ok for God. Jesus said there’s those who sincerely think they’re doing God’s work by killing some who actually are his servants. The impression is not one of God having no problem with that because they were sincere.

Dorothy Mae · Jul 20, 2018

thesunisout said:
Genesis 3:6-7

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

This verse does not establish sin nature and, in fact, shows why we sin and that is because we desire something we do not and cannot have when we want it. It really shows the opposite of the sin nature doctrine. Adam and Eve sinned and were not created with a sin nature.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

First, sin entered the world, not Adam. Second, death comes to all because all sin, not because they were born with a sin nature. This too, is the opposite of inborn sin nature or "original sin" as it is deceivingly called.

Original sin is a loaded phrase because it is connected to Catholicism.

Well, it is true that Augustine thought it up.

The idea of it is true, which is that the first sin corrupted the entire human race and we became a race of sinners.

Augustine's words, not those of the Bible as we see in the verses above. No sin nature, no sin passed from father to offspring. We sin because we want and do not have.

Human beings are evil from our youth and slaves of the devil according to scripture.

No, it is the accuser of the Brethren who say human beings are evil. God said that we are sinful from the time of teenage years (youth) and up.

This is why Jesus had to come, to deliver us from bondage to sin and death and reconcile back to God.

He didn't have to come. He came because He loved us, not because He had to do so.

Is "Original Sin" true? What are your verses for and or against it?

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

:sighing:

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

Lip service isn't really service.

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads