‘Everything happens for a reason’ they say. God is love and never gives us more than we can handle. God has His hand in everything. No matter what we are going through, He is there. He can do miracles. Nothing is impossible with God.

Here’s a story that you may or may not have heard before. It’s the story of Kelly Anne Bates via wikipedia:

On 17 April 1996 Smith presented at a police station and said that he had accidentally killed his girlfriend during an argument in the bath, claiming that she had inhaled bathwater and died despite his attempts to resuscitate her. Police attended Smith’s address and found Bates’ naked body in a bedroom. Bates’ blood was found in every room of the house, and a post-mortem examination revealed over 150 separate injuries on her body. During the last month of her life she had been kept bound in the house, sometimes tied by her hair to radiators or chairs, and at other times with a ligature around her neck.[1][2] William Lawler, the Home Office pathologist who examined her body, said: “In my career, I have examined almost 600 victims of homicide but I have never come across injuries so extensive.”[3] The injuries included:[1][2][3]

  • scalding to her buttocks and left leg;
  • burns on her thigh caused by the application of a hot iron;
  • a fractured arm;
  • multiple stab wounds caused by knives, forks and scissors;
  • stab wounds inside her mouth;
  • crush injuries to both hands;
  • mutilation of her ears, nose, eyebrows, mouth, lips and genitalia;
  • wounds caused by a spade and pruning shears;
  • both eyes gouged out;
  • later stab wounds to the empty eye sockets;
  • partial scalping.

The pathologist determined that her eyes had been removed “not less than five days and not more than three weeks before her death”.[3] She had been starved, losing around 20 kg in weight, and had not received water for several days before her death. Peter Openshaw, the prosecutor in Smith’s trial, said: “It was as if he deliberately disfigured her, causing her the utmost pain, distress and degradation … The injuries were not the result of one sudden eruption of violence, they must have been caused over a long period [and] were so extensive and so terrible that the defendant must have deliberately and systematically tortured the girl.”[1] The cause of death was drowning, immediately prior to which she had been beaten about the head with a shower head.[3] Openshaw said: “Her death must have been a merciful end to her torment”.[7]

The problem of suffering is one of the most common arguments against God. But it’s still one of the most devastating. Here is why:

God is omnipotent according to Christianity. This means he has all power. No force can stop him. What he wants to do, he can do without any hesitation. Whether Satan is at work or not, God ultimately is in charge and in control.

God is also the creator of all things according to Christianity. He designed our bodies. This means every nerve that sends pain signals to our brains was created by him. Psychopathic people were born that way because God allowed them to be, or created them that way. Torture techniques are only effective because God allows the pain.

I want you to think about Bates’ suffering. Her pain and agony. Picture yourself as a father or mother, watching this happen. Picture yourself having the power to stop it, and not doing anything.

If everything happens for a reason, why would I ever want to find out the reason for this, or live with the Being whose purpose and plan it was? Who’s really in charge here?

A popular argument to explain suffering and evil goes something like this: ‘true love cannot exist without free will, and free will cannot exist without evil, therefore God is good because He created free will’. The premise of the argument is built on the hypothesis that evil is necessary for free will to exist, and that God is limited by this fact. But if this were true, God would not be all-powerful, since the assumption is that He could not have created free will without evil being a necessary side effect. But an omnipotent God most certainly could have created free will without evil, unless we are willing to deem Him subservient to a hypothetical external law.

The only way to rationalize the existence of suffering is to conclude that God wanted it to exist. Anything less would make Him an impotent divine consequentialist. This is why I don’t believe I could ever again call God ‘good’, since he must have wanted rape, murder and torture to exist for the sake of rape, murder, and torture. An omnipotent God cannot claim that it is the ‘lesser evil’ when He sets the rules to begin with. He could’ve created a better world right here, without suffering, and still allowed free will and true love, because nothing is impossible for him. To say he couldn’t would be an insult to his omnipotence.

A common response is that God did create a place like that called Heaven, but that does not eliminate the fact that God still wanted this type of suffering to exist, even temporarily. Add Hell on top of that, and you’ve got a God with a serious sadistic streak. If Kelly Anne Bates did not accept Christ, then she is in Hell, where she will burn forever according to Christianity. What good father would knowingly let their child be blinded, scalded, tortured, stabbed and drowned, then throw them in fire where they would burn forever?

Not one I would ever want to have a personal relationship with.

Image by freeparking via Flickr.com. Used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License.

Thank you for reading. I’d love to hear from you in the comments.

38 thoughts on “Everything Happens For A Reason”

  1. Our minds think alike. I used to think of situations like this even as a believer and it was hard to reconcile with a loving God. I used to imagine what it must have been like to be a Jew in 1940. To be tortured to death only to find a worse fate with the most wrathful being one could imagine. Good stuff

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thanks man. I agree we do think alike. To remain in the faith and reconcile suffering someone must appeal to ‘mystery’ or accept a sadistic God. There are too many ‘mysteries’ in Xianity that are just plain contradictions.

      Like

      Reply

  2. I ranted about the notion that evil somehow makes God better at one point. The way it gets used is quite infuriating. What gets me the most is how people can say, “Evil makes God love us more” with a straight face and not hear themselves sounding like completely hateful people trying to excuse abusive behavior.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. This is an ancient, important, and valid question. I wish I had a better answer. But what I have is this: I have held parents in my arms as they watch the death of their baby. I’ve worked with refugees who had been forced to watch their loved ones shot in the face. Suffering is not a philosophical syllogistic exercise for me. I can’t explain where the suffering comes from (certainly not enough to satisfy your arguments). But I do believe in a God who comforts, heals, redeems. At the moments of worst pains are when I need a comfort bigger than the pain. This is emotional reasoning, I understand. But it is also from many years of being with sufferers. I don’t have the answers, but philosophical arguments do not comfort the downtrodden.

    As always, your arguments are cogent and well written. I simply cannot believe in the God you are choosing to reject.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thanks for your comment Mark. I have tremendous respect for anyone who has been on the front lines, and witnessed firsthand the suffering, as you have. I personally have not witnessed too much suffering in my life (although my life hasn’t exactly been easy either), and have not had much opportunity to help others’ through that. I think quite simply that to live well is still better than to theorize well. So while I present my philosophical ramblings on an issue like this, there is a twofold nature to suffering. One is what we think of it, and the other is what we do about it.

      Since you have done much about it, and have sought to ease the suffering of others, I see that as more valuable than our theories behind it. Some people reflect a very godly nature, which almost seems above the God of theory. But I will say that beyond the theory the God you worship is a God who hates suffering if He moves you to alleviate suffering.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thank you, TA, for your kind words. My perspective comes from Terrance Fretheim (Suffering of God) who envisions YHWH grieving along side us even as he is working toward a more whole end. This is a Sovereign God. And this is a compassionate God. My life is in the tension between those two completely incompatible things both being true.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Very good post and well reasoned. I wrote a full novel demonstrating society’s complete disconnect between its current view of justice and mercy, and what it believes about the justice and mercy of the god of the Bible.

    Did you ever watch the BBC/WGBH Boston production, “God On Trial?” It is a very good film for the deeper thinker.

    The story is about a group of Jews, imprisoned at Auschwitz, a Nazi death camp, holding court and trying God in absentia. The charge was that God broke His covenant in allowing Hitler to commit genocide against them. In testimony, they deal with questions of justice and purpose (e.g., if God is just, then why does He allow, not just suffering, but also suffering on a scale such as the inhuman savagery of the Holocaust?).

    Thanks again. We are brothers in reason!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. I’ve added it, but I’m still trying to figure out how to add the blogroll to my page. Followed the instructions, but the terms it used didn’t show up for my theme. I’m still working on it.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. This is just another example of why we are VERY critical of belief in divine providence in Epicureanism. There’s absolutely no reason to believe in it. Natural laws neatly explain the nature of things without supernatural agency.

    Thanks for subscribing to my blog! I’m sharing this on the Society of Epicurus twitter and tumblr feeds!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you! I very much appreciate the share. I had scheduled one of your blogs to my Twitter feed on Taoism yesterday as well.

      Anthropomorphism leads to a rather cruel picture of a being when that being’s attributes are meant to reflect nature. I agree with you that natural laws explain things much better.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. “‘Everything happens for a reason’ they say. God is love and never gives us more than we can handle. God has His hand in everything. No matter what we are going through, He is there. He can do miracles. Nothing is impossible with God.”

      Nothing happens FOR a reason, but everything is an effect of an antecedent cause, and all effects experienced and acted upon now are the the cause of the future.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. It must get old beating up on poor, defenseless Christianity. Never mind that I do it all the time myself. Christianity has no clue about creation or the Creator, assuming one exists. Their holy book is a mess of contradictions and in some cases doesn’t support their own theology, although I’m never sure which of the various Christian theologies I should choose from. The thing is, though, that a Creator doesn’t have to look anything like the Christian creator. After all, what do they know? We presumably live in a free will universe and so man, himself, is responsible for his own actions. Both atheists and deists alike want to blame a Creator for their own problems. The world would be a much better if man just accepted responsibility for his own actions and left poor ol’ God out of it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting! 🙂

      “atheists and deists alike want to blame a Creator for their own problems”

      Since atheists don’t believe in God, it’s not God that we are blaming. When I wrote this, I was writing about the philosophical conundrum of theodicy. I think it’s fair to say that some bad things happen because of our choices. However, it would be ridiculous to say that it was Kelly Anne Bates’ fault that she was tortured and killed the way she was.

      I think we’re on the same page for the most part though. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thank you for your comments. Of course, atheists don’t believe in God but in stating their argument they say, “if there is a god as the deists say who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then we have to blame man’s problems(evil) on the creator”. Don’t you agree?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, it’s a way of framing the philosophical argument. I do think that we, as atheists/humanists need to focus more on the positives of our worldview, which may be what you are getting at as well. I have been attempting to move in that direction as of late.

        Like

  9. This thought is one of the reasons I started to doubt there is the Christian God. If i knew that Kelly Anne Bates was next door being tortured, I would do everything that I could to save her, even at the risk of my own life!! I’m just a mere woman and i can’t stand the thought of knowing a complete stranger is being hurt and do nothing. So, how does an all powerful all knowing God do nothing? Wouldn’t that rip his heart out knowing and seeing that happen to her whether she was a believer or not??!! And after she was killed, if she wasn’t a believer, she’s in hell!!

    I’m not atheist, I’m in the agnostic corner. If there is a God, he’s not this loving wanting a personal relationship God. Because if he was, he wouldn’t let things like Ms. Bates occur. And if this all is happening for free will, I would give up my free will to end all torture.

    We are told that all things glorify God and we can’t know His way…. I find that to be bullshit!!

    Sorry for my anger, that story hurt my heart so much just thinking that she was alone hoping to be saved.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yes, I agree completely. I’m having a discussion with a friend on Facebook about this topic right now actually and used this example.

      There is no excuse. It’s a glaring problem, and one that is essentially trying to cover for the fact that God, if He exists, is a douche. My main argument is that all suffering must be a reflection of God’s character anyway, since there is no good reason it should exist.

      These stories haunt me. God or no God, life is cruel. I prefer not to put a cosmic face to it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. “God is omnipotent according to Christianity. This means he has all power. No force can stop him. What he wants to do, he can do without any hesitation. Whether Satan is at work or not, God ultimately is in charge and in control.”

    Not the sort of guy (oops, Guy) you’d want to get on the wrong side of. But logically, having set it up to run in auto, there’s nothing that even the Omnipotent could/can ever do to stop any of it.

    Being omniscient, of course He (She, It) knew eternities in advance of The Creation exactly what He’d doomed to happen.
    Being all-loving, all-merciful (etc ad nauseam) He/They (three of Him, remember) let it run. Actually—no alternative.

    But worse, for Him, is that being omnipresent He was in that house all the time and watching every moment …

    No contradictions there at all, you can beam me up now Scottie. Scottie? Hey, Scottie, wake up, dammit, the natives are growing a wee bit restless down here …

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well put Argus. There is no logical escape from the contradictions in the arguments for omnibenelovence. And as someone pointed out omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible, since seeing the future is contingent on what actually happens, and therefore a omniscient God could not change the future, with the corollary that he is impotent.

      Thanks for reading.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  12. Wow~! The human ability to rationalise … there seemed a hint of desperation in parts of Mark’s comments, above~?

    For Mark may I add a quote:

    “Contradictions do not (can not) exist. Wherever you find an apparent contradiction, look to the premises because one of them at least is wrong”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. Hello Zach,

    I am finally getting to answer this post. It will, of course, be totally unsatisfactory to a committed humanist, but alas, I have no remedy for this. Still, I want to try my best.

    If I may summarize your points:
    God could still allow free will, but only give good options.
    Since he allows bad options, he wants evil to exist.
    Since God wants evil to exist, he is a sadist.
    Kelly Anne Bates is a perfect example of why we should all burn our Bibles and ignore/disbelieve/rebel against God.

    First two definitions:

    Good: Something or someone that acts according to God’s design.
    Evil: Something or someone that acts contrary to God’s design.

    It’s important that we work from these two definitions, for they are part of the framework of scripture. If we define good and evil by humanist standards, then there’s no point in talking about Scripture. It’s like someone insisting that “Deck the Halls” promotes homosexuality because it uses the word ‘gay’.

    Onward:
    Immediately it’s clear that the premise that God can allow two “good” options and no “evil” option is not possible. It’s contradictory. For example, God designed the universe with the property of gravity. Therefore, gravity is good in that it acts according to God’s design. We as humans can work with gravity or against it. If you insist on jumping from the 33rd floor, do you blame gravity when you crash into the sidewalk below? Do we then ask, “Why doesn’t gravity allow me to float like a feather down to the earth?” No, we don’t ask such an unrealistic question, because we know that ignoring the law of gravity has consequences. Gravity didn’t make you jump from the 33rd window. You did. It’s the same with God’s commandments for this age. If you live by them, you will live. If you ignore them or insist that your laws are superior, you are already dead. You just haven’t hit the sidewalk yet. It is a mistake to separate physical reality from moral reality, as they are both “built into” the system. Of course, this is the first thing that atheists and humanists do. they separate moral/spiritual laws and physical laws, assigning one to the realm of reality and the other to the realm of fantasy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    This brings us to the next question. Does God want evil to exist? I don’t know of a Scripture that says he wants evil to exist. We know he hates evil actions, and we know He spends an inordinate amount of time begging Israel, through the prophets, to turn from their evil/contrary to His design ways and return to him. The better question is why did God allow evil? I don’t know. I can conjecture, but I’m not really comfortable second-guessing the mind of God. I object though that because we don’t know His reason that we can presume it’s because He’s sadistic. Another example. A father tells his son repeatedly not to play outside without shoes on. The boy ignores his father and steps on a rusty nail and develops a bad infection. The father takes him to the kitchen and cuts open the wound to allow it to drain. The boy doesn’t understand why his father has cut his foot, and so decides that his father is a sadistic torturer and even goes so far as to blame his father for stepping on the rusty nail. It’s bad logic due to lack of information. Lack of information causes bad conclusions.

    Why does God allow evil things to happen to people like Kelly Anne Bates instead of swooping in like Superman to save the day? I had written up a long answer, but I’m going to cut it short because the answer is simple. He did. The consequence of sin is death, and Christ came so that we might live. He even defied gravity! Humanists don’t like that answer because they don’t want to be responsible for their actions. They want to live like they want without consequences. It is illogical and unrealistic.

    Finally, I find it disturbingly and sadly ironic that those who would claim the moral high ground over God, even though they either don’t believe in absolute morals or can’t define them, are quite willing to disgrace this poor woman by trotting her horror out in front of the public because it suits their purposes. And if that’s not enough they have the audacity to complain about her dignity being violated. There is so much inconsistency and unreality in all this, that I find myself frustrated that the same ones who claim to be the realists are so lacking in any sense of it. You know, up is down, and down is up.

    Take care, Zach.
    Jen

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Actually, there are several references in the Bible that God is the source of evil (see Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38 and Isaiah 5:37). God created everything, including man and the serpent, so it think that it’s fair to assume that he created evil. in fact, given an omniscient God, how could it be otherwise? As to God’s motives, it is possible in a dualistic universe that evil is a necessity of Creation. That is, how would you know what good is unless you were also able to experience evil.
      As to why God doesn’t prevent bad things from happening to good people, keep in mind that it’s a free will universe. if God were to interfere, man would lose his free will. If you could, what would you choose, free will or to be reduced to a form of AI? There’s a final possibility for your consideration, one that is mentioned in other ancient texts. That is, the “god” of the Old Testament is not the Prime Creator. If there was an advanced life form running around in biblical times saying that he was God, how would man know, especially when such a lifeforms would seem to be as powerful as a god. So, the question of good and evil is far more complicated than we have been led to believe.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. Hello Jen. Thanks for replying to my post. Sorry for the late reply.

      In your summarization you assumed that one of my points was that “Kelly Anne Bates is a perfect example of why we should all burn our Bibles and ignore/disbelieve/rebel against God.”.

      That is not really my message. This post was me being dead honest about why I don’t believe in the existence of a benevolent God. I don’t assume that anyone else should necessarily agree with me and abandon their faith. I am actually a pretty soft atheist, in that I encourage people to find their own path spiritually or otherwise. Many of my closest friends and family are devoted Christians and I support them in their beliefs as much as I can. Over the last 6 months I have tried to shift my focus off of the religion debate and onto other matters.

      YOU: “I find it disturbingly and sadly ironic that those who would claim the moral high ground over God, even though they either don’t believe in absolute morals or can’t define them, are quite willing to disgrace this poor woman by trotting her horror out in front of the public because it suits their purposes.”.

      By your definition, any given news broadcast “disgraces” the victims of crime. And any crime documentary would be especially guilty of this. War correspondents and journalists, and every major news source that covers atrocities is “trotting out . . . horror . . . because it suits their purposes”. If you are going to be consistent I would hope you would also be just as offended at the coverage of the latest school shooting and the violence in Syria by corporate media which stands to make a profit off of such reporting. Whereas I had nothing to gain monetarily by writing my blog post.

      YOU: “Immediately it’s clear that the premise that God can allow two “good” options and no “evil” option is not possible. It’s contradictory.”

      I actually don’t see how it is contradictory. Couldn’t He have created the world like it will be in Heaven, just skipping the in-between state as it is now?

      YOU: “If you insist on jumping from the 33rd floor, do you blame gravity when you crash into the sidewalk below? . . . Gravity didn’t make you jump from the 33rd window. You did. It’s the same with God’s commandments for this age.”

      We don’t blame gravity for it’s effects because it is an impersonal force. If I were asked to have a personal relationship with gravity, and was told that gravity loves me intensely, I think it would be completely relevant to ask why it seems to act in an amoral manner, harming human bodies as a result of it’s effects. Why does gravity fracture skulls of those who slip and fall? Furthermore, the same argument you made, scaled down, could be used to absolve a totalitarian dictator of human rights violations, seeing as we don’t blame gravity we also cannot blame authorities for their actions. That is why it is inconsistent as a moral argument.

      YOU: “It is a mistake to separate physical reality from moral reality, as they are both “built into” the system. Of course, this is the first thing that atheists and humanists do. they separate moral/spiritual laws and physical laws, assigning one to the realm of reality and the other to the realm of fantasy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

      The point of a law is that it is absolutely consistent. There is no law of gravity if it can be violated. Yet it does not seem like “do not kill” could be a law of the universe if it is permissable for God to order genocide, permissable to kill in war, permissable for the ancient Jews to kill homosexuals, etc.

      So to say that there is a moral law of the universe seems to misunderstand the nature of moral inclinations, which, as shown bythe research of psychologist Jonathan Haidt and others, is largely irrational. Trying to treat morality as you would a natural law is bound to cause confusion. A philosopher will try to construct a moral theory which operates in a lawful manner, but none has been creating which satisfies everyone, or is completely applicable in everyday life.

      Furthermore, many aspects of morality are unmeasurable and/or unobservable. This makes it impossible to treat it as a science. Everything psychology has found regarding morality points to it being something internal to the human mind, not external to it.

      YOU: “I don’t know of a Scripture that says he wants evil to exist.”

      I agree with Chicagoja that the Bible does say that God creates “calamity”, some translations have translated it “evil”, specifically in Isaiah, and there are a few other verses he referenced.

      YOU: “Another example. A father tells his son repeatedly not to play outside without shoes on. The boy ignores his father and steps on a rusty nail and develops a bad infection. The father takes him to the kitchen and cuts open the wound to allow it to drain. The boy doesn’t understand why his father has cut his foot, and so decides that his father is a sadistic torturer and even goes so far as to blame his father for stepping on the rusty nail.”

      I will use a more accurate analogy which, for the sake of discussion, admits that God merely allows evil/suffering to occur. Let’s say there is a father who is watching his daughter be gang raped. The father is holding a loaded AK-47 and watches this crime occur without moving a muscle. Would you consider that man to be a good father? Would you approve of his inaction? Would his character seem benevolent to you?

      Seeing as we strongly disapprove of the father’s inaction, applying the same principles to God would lead to similar disapproval over His inaction, in fact much greater disapproval seeing as he had foreknowledge that the event would occur and created the rapists with the propensity to commit such a heinous act.

      Your response to this line of reasoning is typical: “I don’t know. I can conjecture, but I’m not really comfortable second-guessing the mind of God”. I personally prefer someone to embrace the mystery, much as Mark Parker does (see his comments on this thread), rather than make an argument with faulty logic.

      To be “Second-guessing God” would assume He exists, which is assuming the conclusion depending on how this discussion is framed. If I believed a God existed, I would also probably fear His wrath and would certainly be tempted to submit out of fear. But to argue that such a God is morally good would still only result in an appeal to force or “might makes right” argument, which all arguments in defense of God’s character ultimately boil down to once you dismantle the logical fallacies. Such an argument would need to center on evidence of God’s existence and completely remove morality from the discussion, since it is irrelevant.

      YOU: “It’s bad logic due to lack of information. Lack of information causes bad conclusions.”

      What I am actually doing is drawing conclusions based on certain information the Bible claims we DO have. If we know that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and we know that suffering occurs, then we know that God knows about the suffering which occurs and chooses not to stop it despite having all the power to do so. As mentioned in the post, any consequential argument [God needs X horrific event so that Y positive outcome can occur] assumes that God is impotent and must choose to allow a lesser evil because He needs it. That won’t do.

      YOU: “Why does God allow evil things to happen to people like Kelly Anne Bates instead of swooping in like Superman to save the day? I had written up a long answer, but I’m going to cut it short because the answer is simple. He did. The consequence of sin is death, and Christ came so that we might live. He even defied gravity! Humanists don’t like that answer because they don’t want to be responsible for their actions. They want to live like they want without consequences. It is illogical and unrealistic.”

      The consequence of sin is supposedly death only because God defined something as sin and then decided what the consequence would be for committing it. So essentially God created a problem and then proposed a solution. The definition of sin is so broad it would make the most brutal authoritarian dictator blush. ‘Death for looking at a woman (or man) with lust!’, ‘Death for wanting what someone else has! [coveting]’, ‘Death for having sex with someone you love in a committed homosexual or non-marital relationship!’. In fact, we are taught that we are born deserving eternal torture, so that there is no chance to escape a guilty verdict. There is a 1:1 rate of offense incurring eternal torture in this legal framework. So more than ‘death’ (a euphemism if there ever were one; according to traditionalists you never actually die), it is unending torture.

      Torture is a human rights violation. Absolving someone of such punishment for petty offenses would simply be a moral imperative. But according to the Bible, most people won’t be absolved.

      I see nothing inconsistent about using the same standards with God that we use with other rulers with regard to morality. Otherwise (Euthyphro’s dilemma again) we are not making moral arguments to begin with, since some semblance of a consistent standard is required.

      No offense. I’m just not pulling any punches here, as I can tell you are not either. It’s all just a logic issue for me, and I understand that some don’t need that in order to believe. But for me, the way to my heart is through my head.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment