Well, alcohol! Strong drink can arouse strong passions! From CAMRA to (not) drinking and driving campaigns to general health, all sorts of people have all sorts of opinions about what is good or (generally) bad about alcohol.
And just as much strength of opinion in Christian circles. Mainly in America, it seems, but in other places too strong opinions can be found on the subject. A lot of them insisting that Christians should be teetotal, even to the extent of arguing that Jesus didn't create wine at the wedding in Cana. Which seems ridiculous, because it actually says that the steward called the bridegroom over and said 'everyone else serves the best wine first, and when the guests have had a lot to drink, bring out the cheaper wine; but you have saved the best for last', so, clearly, he knew that it was wine and good wine at that. Guests who had been drinking and had every expectation of continuing to do so would not have been happy to have grape juice.
So, what does the Bible actually say about drinking? Quite a lot, actually - there are over 200 references to wine in the NIV, for instance. A lot of them are actually about offering wine as sacrifices; so, the one thing you can take away from that is that God was quite happy to accept wine. There are also some commands not to drink when the Israelites are in the Tent of Meeting, and the description of the Nazirite vows - which did demand total abstention. Which clearly implies that, in general, the Israelites were allowed to drink. Sounds good to me.
It has been pointed out that there are stories of unsavoury behaviour connected to wine, usually involving nudity; but, in all these cases, it is actually due to drunkenness. One of the most striking stories involving wine is of a king who gets given some wine that hasn't matured properly, which tastes awful; so he has the containers marked 'poison'. And leaves them alone. A few years later, he gets bored with one of his wives, so she decides to commit suicide and finds the 'poison'. Which obviously doesn't kill her, but the wine has matured by now, and she regains her joie de vivre and he decides he likes her again. One of those stories that really makes you wonder why it's in the Bible; but the thing that stood out to me was that God seems to like wine more than some people do.
I'll just finish by pointing out that Ps 104, which is basically one of thanks and praise acknowledges God giving 'wine that gladdens the heart' (v15) among other things that He is worth being thanked and praised for. He made it, He likes it, so let's raise a glass.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Friday, 30 May 2014
Friday, 28 June 2013
Some Favourite Verses!
Well, you know, I've read this book a few times, and paid attention to at least some of it. And, at different times, some things have stood out to me. And kind of stuck. For varied reasons, and, sometimes, slightly surprising ones. But stuck they have. So I thought I would share some of them with you, to see what you think.
14 Amos answered Amaziah, “I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. 15 But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’
The book of Amos is one which is probably not that much read. I probably wouldn't know much about it myself if it wasn't for the fact that I had a module in it at Uni. I have no idea why I took it, I probably thought it would be interesting; and it was certainly that. It's full of powerful stuff, about God promising judgment on Israel and the surrounding nations for all the wrong they've done-which in Israel's case appears to involve a lot of social injustice and oppression of the poor. Anyone who thinks God isn't bothered by that sort of thing should definitely read this book. Or, indeed, most of the prophets in the Old Testament-it's one of the major concerns time and time again. Definitely a recurring theme. But for me, the verse over all that I keep thinking of is this one. The thing is, in OT times, prophecy was something that had more or less become sort of a family tradition-some people did, and most didn't. I say 'more or less', because here is one occasion where someone else did it. He makes it clear that this wasn't something that went on in his family; but God told him to do it, so he did. And things turned out the way he said they would. God can -and does- use anyone He chooses- and things work out the way He wants because He is in charge. Not us. So, what I remember from this, is that when God tells me to do something; it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what He does.
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.
Pretty self explanatory really. Although it has three things there, I'm pretty sure it is thinking of them as one. It doesn't really want you to look to do these, but as you spend time with Him, you will express them more and more.
10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
This passage contains one of the best known verses in the Bible-verse 11 is often quoted as a promise that God knows what He is doing and has (y)our best interests at heart. Which is true. I firmly believe this, and wouldn't want to detract from this in any way. The reason I put the verses around up here is that it is sometimes necessary to put things in context. it doesn't mean that whatever you do, things will always work out fine. That's not what it's saying. What it is saying is that things will first happen when God wants them to, and second, when we come to Him, seeking Him with all our heart. A change in perspective is pretty much always a prerequisite for a change in attitude.
The
wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell
where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born
of the Spirit.”[b]
Another well known passage here, which I like particularly, since I read an article by an Australian preacher called John Smith, who talked about how he'd seen that it didn't say what he'd always thought it said-which was exactly the same as I'd always heard. I'd always heard it talked about as it saying that the Spirit of God is like the wind; that He goes where He wants. But that isn't what it says, which is probably clearer with just this section shown. What is being compared to the wind isn't God, but Christians-those 'born of the Spirit'. What Jesus is saying is that people 'born of the Spirit' will come from surprising places and go to surprising places; and that this is 'normal'. Or surprising situations. Like churches around a notorious suicide spot running a nightly suicide watch-with counsellors and temporary accommodation. Or getting teens from different cultures learning comedy together. Or people from a church remortgaging their houses to buy accommodation for some vulnerable people. Or visiting brothels with cupcakes on a regular basis.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
And finally, my favourite verse in the whole Bible. And the only one I can generally remember off the top of my head. To me, this is what the whole Bible is about. Jesus came to give us nothing less than everything, and we can only get it through Him. I often think of it together with the verse from Micah 6:8 (the second one here), as another way of looking at it. Or getting to it.
So, that's some of my favourite verses, which may well give you some idea of how I think of the Bible. not all of them, but certainly ones which I think of fairly often. What do you think? Incidentally, all those examples above are genuine-and fairly recent.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Parabolic Parameters
Well, after the last two posts, I think it's fair to say that I haven't actually done that much so far this week, so I will write something else instead. So here is a post about some things Jesus said. Some of the more observant (and pedantic) among you may protest that they are not, strictly speaking, parables; but they are sort of wise sayings-and I just couldn't resist the title.
So, here are a couple of well known passages, the first from Matthew 5:-
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
This is often understood to mean that Jesus is saying that we should be weak, as it were, and there may be something in that. But when you look into it a bit more deeply, it begins to look (or sound) a bit different. Mainly because we don't understand the context-the people he's referring to here are all in situations where they are not equal to the other; they are definitely inferior. In such circumstances, they would have been forced to go along with it; or, they could have turned to violence, which would have definitely ended badly for them. Now Jesus is definitely going along the lines of violence not being the solution, but He isn't actually saying that they should give up. Actually something quite different.
Well, clearly, He seems to be against violence here, but He is not saying to give up. Remembering that the people He was speaking to were in a downtrodden position, we can look at what He is advising them to do. First, if someone was hitting someone (an inferior) on the cheek, it would be a backhanded blow, to emphasise not only that they are inferior, but so unimportant that they don't even want to look at them. If they then 'offer the other cheek'; this means that they are forced to not only acknowledge them, but acknowledge them as equal-at least in value, if not in status. Now you may think, but that still means you're letting them hit you again; but if so, you're missing the point. In this situation, the 'hitter', the 'superior' has nothing to stop them hitting you anyway, and they would. What you are, in effect, saying is that, although you can't stop them, you are not going to accept their decision as to your value as a person. You are valuable just because you are a person; and you will hold onto that. And it gets better. The second point, about offering someone your coat was something that wasn't allowed in the Law; or, if you did take someone's coat, you had to give it back every night so they would be warm. So, publicly, at least, they would have to refuse.
But He has left the best for last. It doesn't say here who the 'someone' is, but it refers to Roman soldiers. There was a law in place that stated that any Roman soldier could demand of any conquered citizen to carry his pack up to one mile. Hypothetically, that would mean any soldier could demand it of any citizen; of whatever status. But it was no more than a mile, the punishments were harsh for any soldier caught abusing their power; therefore, if you offered to take it another mile, he would not only have to refuse, but would likely not go anywhere near the mile limit in the first place. I now have this cartoon image in my head of a soldier and a citizen fighting over who gets to carry the pack. My guess is that if the practice became widespread, the soldiers would probably stop demanding in the first place, as that would be easier-or, at least, less likely to get them into trouble. Just imagine what would happen if this sort of behaviour became widespread. Where the oppressors keep having to back down due to potential consequences. From this, I get two main ideas about God-one, that He respects and values everyone: and two, that He has a sense of humour. A very dry sense of humour here, I think.
And here is the second passage:-
20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they began to argue among themselves.
This passage has often been used to support the idea that religion and politics should be kept separate; especially in America. But in context, it doesn't really mean that at all. The key to this is the answer to the question of what is on the denarius. Now obviously, it had a picture of Caesar-as it makes clear, it was his coin-but it's what the inscription is that makes the difference. The inscription decided on by Augustus declared him to be the 'Son of God', which basically meant he was claiming to be divine himself; which apparently even some Romans found difficult to take. So, for a loyal Jew, you can imagine what impression that left. Given that on showing Jesus the coin, they are looking at the inscription, they can't pretend they don't know what it is saying; and nor can they ignore the quite clear implication of what Jesus is telling them-if the LORD is God, then Caesar isn't. In which case, which claim are they going to support?
And, in our case, also a direct challenge-if we believe and proclaim that God is Lord of All, then that means He's Lord of, well, all. So, if we try to keep Him out of politics, who are we therefore saying is Lord of us:-our lives, our choices, our ideas? If not Him, then who? It's easy to think that Jesus is saying that religion and politics should be kept separate; we like that, as that means we get to make our own choices about a lot of things. But if He's actually saying the opposite, that God doesn't want to be left out of anything, and that He has the right to be in charge; then what? If actually, there is no difference between religion and politics, or rather that religion is one aspect of politics; in that politics includes every decision we make, and the reasons for them; then the question of 'who is God' becomes a whole lot more real. As the old hymn says, He 'demands my soul, my life my all'.
So, here are a couple of well known passages, the first from Matthew 5:-
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
This is often understood to mean that Jesus is saying that we should be weak, as it were, and there may be something in that. But when you look into it a bit more deeply, it begins to look (or sound) a bit different. Mainly because we don't understand the context-the people he's referring to here are all in situations where they are not equal to the other; they are definitely inferior. In such circumstances, they would have been forced to go along with it; or, they could have turned to violence, which would have definitely ended badly for them. Now Jesus is definitely going along the lines of violence not being the solution, but He isn't actually saying that they should give up. Actually something quite different.
Well, clearly, He seems to be against violence here, but He is not saying to give up. Remembering that the people He was speaking to were in a downtrodden position, we can look at what He is advising them to do. First, if someone was hitting someone (an inferior) on the cheek, it would be a backhanded blow, to emphasise not only that they are inferior, but so unimportant that they don't even want to look at them. If they then 'offer the other cheek'; this means that they are forced to not only acknowledge them, but acknowledge them as equal-at least in value, if not in status. Now you may think, but that still means you're letting them hit you again; but if so, you're missing the point. In this situation, the 'hitter', the 'superior' has nothing to stop them hitting you anyway, and they would. What you are, in effect, saying is that, although you can't stop them, you are not going to accept their decision as to your value as a person. You are valuable just because you are a person; and you will hold onto that. And it gets better. The second point, about offering someone your coat was something that wasn't allowed in the Law; or, if you did take someone's coat, you had to give it back every night so they would be warm. So, publicly, at least, they would have to refuse.
But He has left the best for last. It doesn't say here who the 'someone' is, but it refers to Roman soldiers. There was a law in place that stated that any Roman soldier could demand of any conquered citizen to carry his pack up to one mile. Hypothetically, that would mean any soldier could demand it of any citizen; of whatever status. But it was no more than a mile, the punishments were harsh for any soldier caught abusing their power; therefore, if you offered to take it another mile, he would not only have to refuse, but would likely not go anywhere near the mile limit in the first place. I now have this cartoon image in my head of a soldier and a citizen fighting over who gets to carry the pack. My guess is that if the practice became widespread, the soldiers would probably stop demanding in the first place, as that would be easier-or, at least, less likely to get them into trouble. Just imagine what would happen if this sort of behaviour became widespread. Where the oppressors keep having to back down due to potential consequences. From this, I get two main ideas about God-one, that He respects and values everyone: and two, that He has a sense of humour. A very dry sense of humour here, I think.
And here is the second passage:-
20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they began to argue among themselves.
This passage has often been used to support the idea that religion and politics should be kept separate; especially in America. But in context, it doesn't really mean that at all. The key to this is the answer to the question of what is on the denarius. Now obviously, it had a picture of Caesar-as it makes clear, it was his coin-but it's what the inscription is that makes the difference. The inscription decided on by Augustus declared him to be the 'Son of God', which basically meant he was claiming to be divine himself; which apparently even some Romans found difficult to take. So, for a loyal Jew, you can imagine what impression that left. Given that on showing Jesus the coin, they are looking at the inscription, they can't pretend they don't know what it is saying; and nor can they ignore the quite clear implication of what Jesus is telling them-if the LORD is God, then Caesar isn't. In which case, which claim are they going to support?
And, in our case, also a direct challenge-if we believe and proclaim that God is Lord of All, then that means He's Lord of, well, all. So, if we try to keep Him out of politics, who are we therefore saying is Lord of us:-our lives, our choices, our ideas? If not Him, then who? It's easy to think that Jesus is saying that religion and politics should be kept separate; we like that, as that means we get to make our own choices about a lot of things. But if He's actually saying the opposite, that God doesn't want to be left out of anything, and that He has the right to be in charge; then what? If actually, there is no difference between religion and politics, or rather that religion is one aspect of politics; in that politics includes every decision we make, and the reasons for them; then the question of 'who is God' becomes a whole lot more real. As the old hymn says, He 'demands my soul, my life my all'.
Friday, 12 October 2012
DESTRUCTION!!! Part 2:More than Destruction
And so I got to the meeting about 20 mins late, which you might have thought would be a bad thing. Not really the case, in this case. As any Christian knows, a meeting which is due to start at on the hour, can in reality start any time from quarter past. This one actually started at about 7:50, which meant I had plenty of time to get myself settled, have a cup of tea (of course), and chat to a few people before anything important happened. Loudly. Let me be absolutely clear that two guitars in a small space (one electric) will, without doubt, demand your attention. They used the same set-up for the church service on the Sunday, and the main difference between the two was that more happened in the church.
After starting by worshipping (loudly), we moved on to the main business of the evening-praying for people. It was originally supposed to be praying about what people are getting involved with back home where they are, but apparently God had other ideas. People came up to ask for prayer about what was going on in them, which was both powerful and moving-to know that they trusted people with what was going on with them, and that people obviously cared. I don't really want to go into any more detail, as I don't feel it would exactly be appropriate. It's not my things to share. And then more people arrived shortly before the end of the meeting, but to be fair, they had come from Chesterfield. A rapid tidy-up followed, and then we decamped to a pub-the one where the gig would be held the next evening. And then another. And much merriment followed.
The next day was very busy, but thankfully didn't start too early. I got up at about 9:30, which was actually a fair bit later than I would normally get up on a Saturday, so that was good, and I had a relatively leisurely journey to Islington where I was meeting a friend-and on the way discovered that my phone battery was almost dead. Which would make things tricky to keep in touch over the weekend if we separated. Oh well. The event we were attending during the day was a celebration of 30 years of Workshop. It was an interesting and fun day, but although for my friend it felt like coming home, I had a distinct feeling of not quite fitting. So, for that reason, I don't feel that I should really say more; as I definitely wouldn't do it justice. I enjoyed it, it was fun and interesting, and it was good to spend the day with him; we shall leave it at that. Apart from to say it gave both of us plenty to talk about later, and we are both fully agreed that Universalism is not true Biblically. And then we came to the evening, where we had a bit of a problem-there were two gigs to go to, D-Fest and a gig connected to the Workshop 30 day, and we both wanted to go to both. We decided to do a bit of travelling between venues, and see what we could see. So we missed the first bit of D-Fest and saw the first guy on, and I for one wished we hadn't. I fell asleep during his set. Let's say he was brilliant at what he does, it's just not for me. Or it could have been that I was really tired. Or maybe something else. Anyway, we got to D-Fest, and I was quite happy to stay where I was from that point, so I did. And definitely feel I made the right choice, if only for Seventh Angel-their first UK gig for 20 years. I thought they were brilliant; something I wasn't alone in thinking, I'm certain. I look forward to hearing more from them here....
And so, after finally getting to bed at some ridiculous hour (our hostel had a bar that stayed open until 3a.m.-though we weren't there quite that long), we had to be up and about in time to check out at 10. I'd discovered that didn't mean we actually had to leave the building, just hand over the keys, so I went to have a shower after that. And I felt so much better after that-almost awake, in fact. Anyway, we left and grabbed breakfast in a nearby pub, and then went to check out the British Library, cos we're cultured, like-and it was basically just across the road. I definitely recommend it-it's a striking maze of a building, and you never know what you might see around the corner. Or who. In this case, it was a fellow D-fest attendee, who we both knew. Which was nice. And we saw some very old Bibles. Which was interesting. And then it was time for us to leave and go back into the real world, as my friend had to catch a coach back to his life. I still had 1 1/2 hours before the D-Fest closing service, and once again, I managed to be late. Which appears to be a real skill I have. Anyway, I got there and celebrated with all. It was a very informal (and, obviously, loud) church service with people wandering in and out, and then people drifted around and chatted for a while-apparently a more or less typical Glorious Undead service, by all accounts. Which was generally just really relaxing and really nice, as well as worshipful-I will definitely remember it and the people for a long time to come (definitely the people, as I'm keeping in touch with several, so I won't be able to, even if I wanted to). And then I had to make my way home. I had thought that a 5:30 coach would be fine to catch, but as I didn't leave Camden Town until almost 4:50, the journey to Victoria was a bit fraught. Especially as I realised that my return ticket was on my phone, and I didn't know what the battery situation was like. Well, you'll be pleased to know that for basically the first time that weekend, I managed to get somewhere on time...
And so I caught the coach, and got home. And just generally relaxed after an absolutely stupendous weekend. I won't forget the people I met, and I look forward to meeting up with them again at some point. maybe the next D-Fest, whenever that may be, but hopefully sooner. Who knows what might happen..?
After starting by worshipping (loudly), we moved on to the main business of the evening-praying for people. It was originally supposed to be praying about what people are getting involved with back home where they are, but apparently God had other ideas. People came up to ask for prayer about what was going on in them, which was both powerful and moving-to know that they trusted people with what was going on with them, and that people obviously cared. I don't really want to go into any more detail, as I don't feel it would exactly be appropriate. It's not my things to share. And then more people arrived shortly before the end of the meeting, but to be fair, they had come from Chesterfield. A rapid tidy-up followed, and then we decamped to a pub-the one where the gig would be held the next evening. And then another. And much merriment followed.
The next day was very busy, but thankfully didn't start too early. I got up at about 9:30, which was actually a fair bit later than I would normally get up on a Saturday, so that was good, and I had a relatively leisurely journey to Islington where I was meeting a friend-and on the way discovered that my phone battery was almost dead. Which would make things tricky to keep in touch over the weekend if we separated. Oh well. The event we were attending during the day was a celebration of 30 years of Workshop. It was an interesting and fun day, but although for my friend it felt like coming home, I had a distinct feeling of not quite fitting. So, for that reason, I don't feel that I should really say more; as I definitely wouldn't do it justice. I enjoyed it, it was fun and interesting, and it was good to spend the day with him; we shall leave it at that. Apart from to say it gave both of us plenty to talk about later, and we are both fully agreed that Universalism is not true Biblically. And then we came to the evening, where we had a bit of a problem-there were two gigs to go to, D-Fest and a gig connected to the Workshop 30 day, and we both wanted to go to both. We decided to do a bit of travelling between venues, and see what we could see. So we missed the first bit of D-Fest and saw the first guy on, and I for one wished we hadn't. I fell asleep during his set. Let's say he was brilliant at what he does, it's just not for me. Or it could have been that I was really tired. Or maybe something else. Anyway, we got to D-Fest, and I was quite happy to stay where I was from that point, so I did. And definitely feel I made the right choice, if only for Seventh Angel-their first UK gig for 20 years. I thought they were brilliant; something I wasn't alone in thinking, I'm certain. I look forward to hearing more from them here....
And so, after finally getting to bed at some ridiculous hour (our hostel had a bar that stayed open until 3a.m.-though we weren't there quite that long), we had to be up and about in time to check out at 10. I'd discovered that didn't mean we actually had to leave the building, just hand over the keys, so I went to have a shower after that. And I felt so much better after that-almost awake, in fact. Anyway, we left and grabbed breakfast in a nearby pub, and then went to check out the British Library, cos we're cultured, like-and it was basically just across the road. I definitely recommend it-it's a striking maze of a building, and you never know what you might see around the corner. Or who. In this case, it was a fellow D-fest attendee, who we both knew. Which was nice. And we saw some very old Bibles. Which was interesting. And then it was time for us to leave and go back into the real world, as my friend had to catch a coach back to his life. I still had 1 1/2 hours before the D-Fest closing service, and once again, I managed to be late. Which appears to be a real skill I have. Anyway, I got there and celebrated with all. It was a very informal (and, obviously, loud) church service with people wandering in and out, and then people drifted around and chatted for a while-apparently a more or less typical Glorious Undead service, by all accounts. Which was generally just really relaxing and really nice, as well as worshipful-I will definitely remember it and the people for a long time to come (definitely the people, as I'm keeping in touch with several, so I won't be able to, even if I wanted to). And then I had to make my way home. I had thought that a 5:30 coach would be fine to catch, but as I didn't leave Camden Town until almost 4:50, the journey to Victoria was a bit fraught. Especially as I realised that my return ticket was on my phone, and I didn't know what the battery situation was like. Well, you'll be pleased to know that for basically the first time that weekend, I managed to get somewhere on time...
And so I caught the coach, and got home. And just generally relaxed after an absolutely stupendous weekend. I won't forget the people I met, and I look forward to meeting up with them again at some point. maybe the next D-Fest, whenever that may be, but hopefully sooner. Who knows what might happen..?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)