Religion
Questions 91-100
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next
10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
RE100: Whenever I tell a Catholic I am an atheist, I get told
"You're too young to have made that decision." How can anyone say
this, knowing that the standard age for confirmation is about 13?
POSTED SEPT. 30, 1998
Stef, female, 19
<Sidhe_devil@hotmail.com>,
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
ANSWER 1:
My friend told his parents at age 12 that he was no longer
going to church because he did not believe there was a God. He is now
27 and still believes the same thing, although he lives a life of
helping and loving others.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Craig, 35, Christian
<cmorris@loft.org>,
Minneapolis MN
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE99: To Jewish people: For Christians, Jesus was the final
blood sacrifice for salvation, ending the need for burnt offerings on
the altar for purification. This being rejected by Jews, why don't
they continue the sacrifice of livestock/harvest as the Old Testament
illustrated and commanded?
POSTED SEPT. 28, 1998
Tobie H., 42 Christian, Oakland, CA
ANSWER 1:
To my knowledge, when the Temple in Jerusalem was
destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., the records of who was a Levite
(able to render sacrifices) and who wasn't were lost. Now, no Jew
knows if he/she is descended from a Levite or not. I may be wrong,
but I think this may be the case.
POSTED OCT. 26, 1998
Brian R., Bible student
<MARQUIS111@AOL.COM>,
FL
FURTHER NOTICE:
It's not quite as specific as that. With the destruction
of the second temple, the Jews' place of worship was destroyed and
the vast majority were exiled until the late 19th century. In the
6th-7th century BC a directive was issued by the priests that animal
sacrifices could only be made in the temple in Jerusalem - this
directive was aimed at stopping the assimilation of foreign cultures
and customs into the Jewish worship in the regions removed from
Jerusalem. (And remember, back then, a distance a 20 or 30 kilometres
could be a completely different world.) It was at about this time
(even before the destruction of the second temple) that the synagogue
was invented - prayer replacing sacrifice. The Jewish worship now
consists mainly of prayer with some rituals - lighting candles on
Friday night, building a tabernacle on Succot, etc. Nowadays, Jews
are no longer interested in sacrificing animals to their God; the
ritual is no longer considered acceptable. Although extremely
orthodox Jews will tell you this is because the third temple has not
yet been built, the majority of practicing Jews consider ritual
sacrifice abhorent and unsuitable for today's religion. This happens.
Religions change, they grow. They do this at a crawl and with no
small resistance, but it happens. Catholics don't say mass in Latin
anymore, Europeans have stopped burning witches and Jews don't feel
the need for animal sacrifice. P.S. We do have a pretty good idea of
who the descendants of the priests and Levites are today.
POSTED NOV. 27, 1998
Abigail N., 17, Jewish female, Israel
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE98: I go to a Baptist school but am Lutheran. I get
insulted, beat up on, picked on and hated. I have no friends, only
enemies. I get made fun of because Lutherans drink real wine at
communion and they (Baptists) use grape juice. Is it wrong to use
wine? They say that if Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper, he would
have broken his Nazarite vow and sinned.
POSTED SEPT. 27, 1998
13, Lutheran, Texas
(DIRECTOR'S NOTE: Upon receiving this question, Y? received an
e-mail from the boy's father saying he and his wife had not known of
their son's problem until he posted to Y?, and that they would
appreciate any advice from users on how to handle the situation.)
ANSWER 1:
Wine was used frequently in Biblical times because safe
drinking water was hard to come by. Yes, it had less alcohol than
today's commercial wine, but it did contain alcohol. A Nazarene is a
person from Nazareth. Jesus was a Nazarene. A Nazarite is a member of
a religious sect that did abstain from wine. John the Baptist was a
Nazarite, but there is no evidence that Jesus was. Disagreements like
this are nothing new to the church. Read Romans 14 to see what Paul
said about things like this. And remember the words of Romans 12:18,
"Whenever possible, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with
all people." To the parents, speak to your school administrators
immediately. It's bad enough that abuse like this happens in public
school, but in a so-called Christian school, it is inexcusable! My
prayers are with you all.
POSTED SEPT. 29, 1998
Stacee, 30, Christian, former Baptist, Houston, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
I was raised Baptist, attended a Baptist school and went
to a Baptist University. The apostle Paul tells us to drink a little
wine for the stomach's sake. Baptists will say this was unfermented
wine and therefore grape juice, but Paul also says "be not drunk with
wine, but be filled with the Spirit," so this would strongly imply
that he was not referring to grape juice, unless one can get drunk on
Welches! Don't let a few sour grapes spoil you on your quest for
spiritual truth. Good luck to you.
POSTED SEPT. 29, 1998
Steve N.
<blaster7@hotmail.xom>,
Dallas, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
This is an issue I think you should discuss with your
parents, and if I were your parent, I would discuss it with school
officials. I would guess that your parents, although Lutherans, do
not hold ill feelings toward Baptists or they wouldn't send you to
that school. It doesn't seem that your folks want you to learn to use
religion as a "cover" for acting badly, as your schoolmates seem to
be doing. Letters, stories and teachings that were written a few
thousand years ago (at some point becoming what we call the Bible)
can be translated and interpreted in many ways, and they certainly
have been. Those writings have been used by many people for many
purposes. It would be nice to think that they were used only for
good, but they have been used as excuses for wars, teaching prejudice
and denying peoples' rights. I can't and won't tell you what to
believe, but I don't believe the basis for any true faith is to make
anyone feel bad. What you believe and what you practice are for you
to decide, and as long as you're not harming anyone or anything in
the process, you should not feel that your way is "wrong." I wish you
peace and harmony.
POSTED SEPT. 29, 1998
Darbma, 44, no exclusive religion
<darbymom@hotmail.com>,
New York , NY
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Your parents should tell the school authorities of the
continuous torture you seem to be going through in school. Kids
generally enjoy harrassing kids who are a bit different, and they
continue until there is a new/weak kid on the block. Hopefully, when
your parents talk to the school authorities, the torture will stop,
or at least subside. Have you considered changing to another school??
That may be a good idea.
POSTED SEPT. 29, 1998
Ify
<ifebigh77@hotmail.com>,
Miami FL
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Part of your situation has less to do with religon than it
does with being different. In life you'll meet people who think
different equals wrong. As an overweight child, I received similar
abuse at my own Baptist church. The hardest thing I had to learn at
13 was that different was not bad. Different is Different, and it is
our differences that make us special. People want to belong, and
sometimes they feel that striking out at those who are different will
make them seem more a part of the group. I can't tell you whether
drinking wine is wrong. That's something you have to work out for
yourself, but I can tell you that just because someone else thinks
it's wrong, it doesn't mean that it is. Follow your heart and respect
the differences and opinions of others without allowing them to be
forced upon you.
POSTED SEPT. 29, 1998
Brianna A., 20, Ex-Baptist,
<helsie@geocities.com>,
Houston, TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE97: What is the true meaning of B.C. and A.D. in terms of
time?
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
John, 25,
<JOHN.BARDUCA@SECLP.COM>,
Pinckney, MI
ANSWER 1:
As far as I know, B.C. stands for "Before Christ," or that
time prior to the birth of Jesus. A.D. stands for "Anno Domini,"
which is Latin for "Year of our Lord."
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Stephen S., 31, Catholic/Episcopalian, San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Other terms in use to denote the same thing are "BCE"
(Before Current Era) and "CE" (Current Era), counting, of course from
the same supposed date. That date was set several hundred years after
the alleged events took place. Recently I read of a Jewish judge in
Miami who instructed lawyers he would no longer sign anything
with"A.D." on it, for obvious reasons. I would support such a
decision, and believe we should move to the terms described above,
which don't denote anyone's "lord."
POSTED MARCH 23, 1999
Ed H., white male, 57, atheist
<EdHam0132@aol.com>,
Silver Springs, FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE96: I would like to know from Catholics who have "converted"
to other denominations such as Baptist, Lutheran, etc., what kind of
effect the change has had on your spiritual life. Do you feel closer
to God, have a better understanding of Heaven, etc.?
POSTED SEPT. 22, 1998
Suzanne, 29, non-denominational, Redmond, WA
ANSWER 1:
Having changed from a Catholic background to a Baptist
style, I found the following differences: Spiritually, evangelicals
(Baptists) study the Bible together and try to understand why
something is right or wrong. Each congregation is autonomous
(separately governed), and so no huge Church can dictate morals.
Socially, I feel people are much more supportive in the evangelical
churches. When I attended the Catholic church, after service I went
home. Where I am now, after service, people visit. There is support
for those needing support, be it friendship or prayer. Prayerwise,
prayer is much more personal. I speak to Jesus as my friend, not as
an Almighty God (who He is) who doesn't care about us mere mortals.
Doctrinally, the Baptist and other evangelical churches are simpler.
Basic beliefs number about 7 to 10. Roman Catholic canon laws number
more than 1,000. If it isn't in the Bible, it isn't important for
evangelicals.
POSTED SEPT. 24, 1998
A. Urbonas
<urbonas@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE95: Do Jewish people prefer to be called "Jewish" or "Jews"?
To me the word "Jew" just sounds derogatory, and I prefer to call
Jewish people Jewish.
POSTED SEPT. 7, 1998
Whitney T., 19, black female
<wkthomps@olemiss.edu>,
Oxford, MS
ANSWER 1:
Considering some of the less-attractive alternatives, I
don't have a problem with either of the choices. It's really more of
a grammatical issue -- "Jew'' is a noun and "Jewish'' is an
adjective.
POSTED SEPT. 9, 1998
Andrew, 34, Jewish (or a Jew, take your pick)
<ziptron@hotmail.com>,
Huntington, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
I feel Jew sounds derogatory and Jewish people does not. I
am Jewish and have often lived and worked among non-Jewish people.
The word Jew always sends chills up my spine. Why? I'm not sure. It's
a gut reaction. I think if I have to analyze my feeling further, I'd
say it's because all the derogatory adjectives precede the term Jew
and not Jewish person. Dirty Jew is impersonal. If you said "You're a
dirty Jewish person," it would sound silly or too personal, and you
just wouldn't say it.
POSTED OCT. 13, 1998
Lorie, Jewish female whose mother was born Christian Scientist, New
York, NY
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Strictly speaking, I don't think the word "Jew" is
inherently derogatory. What matters, of course, is the context the
word is placed in. That being said, I would echo the previous
comment. I also have this "gut" feeling the word "Jew," especially
when used alone without any adjectives, at least "sounds" potentially
sinister. For example, the sentence "Jeff is Jewish" seems much more
pleasant to me than the more ominous sounding "Jeff is a Jew" (at
least it sounds ominous to me). On the other hand, a sentence like
"Jeff is an Orthodox Jew" seems perfectly all right with me because
there is a benign adjective (besides, you can't say "Orthodox
Jewish"). Again, I think it's important to focus on the context. I
believe the concern over the use of the word "Jew" has more to do
with the historical context it's been used in and the tone that has
often gone along with its utterance, rather than the word itself.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25
<mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie,
IL
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Jew or Jewish works for me. I have no problem saying with
pride that I am a Jew or that I am a Jewish American. I wouldn't say
I'm a Jew-American. (I might say I'm an American Jew, however). In
Israel, I've heard people greet each other on the street "Hey Jew!"
It is not derogatory - it's sort of a reaction to make it a
legitimate greeting. (Like "Hey, man"!) Of course, the context and
intonation matter as with any word. I dont like "Jew" used as a verb,
i.e. "I "jewed" him down,"etc. I think that is just downright nasty.
It is an unfounded, false expletive.
POSTED NOV. 23, 1998
Mark, Jew/Jewish, San Francisco Bay Area, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE94: I am an outsider trying to understand Christianity. Was
Jesus Christ supposed to be a mortal son of God, an immortal son of
God, or actually God Himself in human form?
POSTED SEPT. 4, 1998
Joshua, 20, agnostic, male
<schnids@bigfoot.com>,
Pittsburgh, PA
ANSWER 1:
I believe your answer lies in the question. Jesus Christ
was all of those things: A mortal (meaning "of the flesh"). Jesus
cried, felt pain, required food, etc. We are shown just how mortal He
was when He was in the garden of Gethsemene, praying before he was
captured and taken to be crucifed. He prayed for God to "remove this
cup from me" (meaning the crucifixion). If at all possible, Jesus
didn't want to go through the agony of crucifixion but nevertheless,
he prayed "not my will Father, but yours be done." He was/is immortal
in that He is alive today, He was raised from the dead and is seated
at the right hand of the Father. And Jesus was God incarnate on Earth
(hence the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost). The book of Genesis in
the first chapter gives a good explanation of the trinity of God and
the existence of God in trinity.
POSTED SEPT. 5, 1998
Nikole, 25, Southern Baptist, Birmingham, AL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE93: Do some Christians, Baptists, etc. believe in evolution?
And why do most creationists (mainly fundamentalists) close their
ears to the idea of evolution? Can they not accept it as God's
way?
POSTED SEPT. 3, 1998
J.Williams, Quaker
<1krazykat@widowmaker.com>,
Williamsburg, VA
ANSWER 1:
Having grown up a child of science, I used to believe in
evolution, tacitly. Over the years, science has proven itself less
reliable; the Bible more so. At some point, I decided to trust the
Bible with greater conviction than I trusted science. The Bible says
God created the heavens, the earth, the animals and man. Evolution
says man got here through a series of unguided, unintelligent
processes and mutations of primitive organisms. Even modifying the
standard scientific definition of evolution to allow a "God-guided"
process, I refute that on the basis of the trustworthiness of the
Bible. If that is what happened, that's what the Bible would say.
Furthermore, my God is big enough to create man out of dust. He
doesn't need an intermediate process to do it. If He did and
documented otherwise in the Bible, that makes God out to be a liar
and not worthy of our worship or trust.
POSTED SEPT. 7, 1998
Dario I., 34, Christian
<ballpeen@mailexcite.com>,
San Carlos, CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I think the reason is that they are fundamentalists. I
believe that they tend to interpret the Bible literally. When the
book of Genesis says that God created man in seven days, they would
interpret that as our current seven days. I always wonder what,
during that prehistoric time, was the definition of a "day"? Was
there a concept of what is now "day"?
POSTED SEPT. 10, 1998
P.H., 32, St Paul, MN
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Here is something for everyone to think about. What we
call "Creationism," or the belief that the events and details given
in the Bible are an actual, exact account of the creation and history
of the world, has only been around a few hundred years. Many of the
groups that believed in that came to that belief because of the deep
differences between the rising scientific theories and the accepted
Church "truth." A great example is Galileo - executed by the Church
for daring to say the Earth went around the Sun, against the doctrine
of the Church. Most of the groups that fled Europe, many of them
extremists within their own religions, came to America and spread
Creationist beliefs. That is why this viewpoint is so prevalent in
our country. Even the Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang as part of
Creation (or so the Pope told British physicist Stephen Hawking some
years ago). The point is that the Bible, especially the Old
Testament, was always meant to be a mixture of history and allegory.
The vast majority of Jews will agree that the story of Creation is
not meant to be taken literally. To make the point further, consider
that in the New Testament, Jesus uses parables to make his point
clear, not actual, literal events. The story of the prodigal son is
not meant to be seen as a real and historical event ... the story was
told to make a philosophical point, to drive home a moral tenet ...
and the Bible as a whole should be seen the same way. For more
information, read A History of God by Karen Armstrong, or
other books on the same subject.
POSTED SEPT. 10, 1998
John K., straight Irish-American male, 25
<the-macs@geocities.com>,
Cranford, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
As a Christian I believe in both the creation and
evolution theories. God has no use for "time." What is a second to
Him may be days to humans. In the creation story it took God six
"days" to create and get Earth going. On the seventh day He rested.
Who is to say that these "days" weren't really millions of years?
Where God is, in heaven, there is no day or night. How can one
determine the beginning or ending of a certain day? Still, I am also
skeptical of the evolution theory. Although I tend to accept it as
God's way of creating, I wonder if all the scientific evidence of
evolution was not placed there by Satan to confuse Christians.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
Courtney C., 18, Southern Baptist
<pixiesparkle@theglobe.com>,
Raleigh, NC
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
At the heart of the matter is a desire to see the universe
as an orderly place. Those who believe in a God as many Christians do
- a father figure who guides all aspects of human life - abhor
evolution not because it contradicts what they believe, which it
doesn't, but offends their sensibilities, their desire to have a
grand and wise father who doesn't have to resort to messy and
time-consuming processes to do his work. As a fallen Southern
Baptist, I have thought and talked about this a lot, and I believe
that what most offends many is not the theory of evolution but
science in general, which many believe (perhaps rightly) is taking
the place of religion in society. Therefore, they approach it with
mistrust in the first place. Those who adamantly oppose evolution are
revealing their own insecurity, in that they know, intellectually,
that the Bible (or their interpretation of it) cannot be factually
accurate, so they lash out doubly so at any interpretation that might
seem to water down that irrational belief. Those who prefer to rely
on an oft-edited, revised, often illogical and contradictory
complilation of stories and fables as a guideline for their
intellectual exploration (or lack thereof) feel threatened by
evolution because it's a theory they don't understand and one they
feel somehow drags man down to the level of animals. The more
intelligent who still refuse to look beyond the Bible for answers
resort to poking holes in what is, after all, a still-emerging
theory. The open-minded understand that there's plenty of room in
their faith (which can be a very good thing) to make room for
scientific inquiry and progress, and understand that evolution is as
miraculous a process in its way as God breathing life into earth to
create Adam.
POSTED DEC. 14, 1998
J. Wilkerson
<jwilker@ptd.net>,
Allentown, PA
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
Whether one believes life as we know it was created in the
Garden of Eden, or by some dust molecules coming together in some
sort of "big bang" event, I find it hard that anyone would deny that
evolution is an integral part of life on Earth. One only has to look
at the history of and at Life itself in the form of the changes
experienced by humankind and the floral and fauna on Earth to know
that evolution does happen. I feel there has to be some incredible
power, call it God or whatever, that had some influence on creation
and its evolution, moreso than just a couple of spacedust particles
coming together to form planets (where did the dust come from?), and
yet, at the same time, I find the story of Adam and Eve a bit too
simplistic for such an incredible event as the
creation/evolution/development of whole worlds.
POSTED DEC. 16, 1998
Paul D., 39, Christian and Earth inhabitant
<pdeeming@rnc.net>, Eagan
, MN
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
The story of creation states that God made the heavens and
the earth in seven days. Some people take this quite literally,
thinking God did this in what we consider a week. Well, who's to say
that a day for God is 24 hours? In my opinion, many stories in the
Bible are myths, such as the creation story and the story of Adam and
Eve. People throughout history have made up stories to explain the
world around them. Have you ever read Greek mythology? Fantastic
stories. I love them. We have four seasons because Persephone ate
some pommegranate seeds while she was in the Underworld. Naturally.
Storms are caused by Zeus throwing thunderbolts down to the earth. Of
course. Women have pain in childbirth because Eve ate some fruit. Is
this story any more plausible than the others? I think not. I am a
Christian, and I have a very strong belief in God and the Bible.
However, I feel people must be open-minded to science, not afraid of
it or of what we have to learn about our existence from it. Evolution
was God's idea, if you ask me.
POSTED DEC. 18, 1998
Shari D., 27, protestant Christian, Canton , MI
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE92: It seems to me that of all of the stereotypes I have
heard, the one that says Jewish people as a whole seem to be rather
thrifty is true. Is it, and if so, why?
POSTED AUG. 28, 1998
Chris, white
<CASaquanut@aol.com>,
Venice, FL
ANSWER 1:
There are so many misconceptions about this it is
unbelieveable. Right in Tampa you have the Glazers, who have spent a
large sum of money to buy the Tampa Bay Bucs. I have had people say
"Jewed him down" to my face, thinking I was Italian. Yet I work in
retail and I find everyone is looking for the best price. I have been
"Gentiled down," WASP'd down," Afro-American'd down," Chinese,
Japanese, English, German, etc. Maybe the Jews started thrifty, but
the myth has really caught on. The other misconception is that Jewish
people have all the money and run everything. Look to Fortune
Magazine for the richest Americans and if you are lucky somewhere in
the mid 100s you'll find your first Jewish name, usually Sy Sims and
his family, who own a chain of clothing stores. But out of the 500 or
so names listed maybe 5 percent are Jewish. No bank owners or radio
station owners or newspaper editors. For the most part it is all a
lie put out by those who want Jews to be persecuted more than they
already have.
POSTED AUG. 31, 1998
Ned
<bohica1111@aol.com>,
FL
FURTHER NOTICE:
Another angle to consider is that some people will
internalize a stereotype and accept it to such a strong extent that
no matter what a person of group "x" (in this case Jews) does, that
stereotype will still be mentally "applied" to that person. In other
words, if a person at a store's customer service desk has a
legitimate complaint about a product he bought, and that person
happens to be Jewish, an observor might still unfairly say to
himself, "Oh, look at that cheap Jew over there arguing senselessly
with the salesperson," when in fact a non-Jewish person might not
elicit that kind of internal reaction. In other words, the stereotype
is used to explain a certain behavior because of someone's ethnicity,
rather than taking the behavior at face value and as an individual
case independent of ethnicity. Relatedly, what is the standard for
being "thrifty"? Is it the case that a WASP person paying $30,000 for
a Mercedes is "getting a good deal," but a Jewish person paying the
same $30,000 for the same Mercedes is "thrifty"? Of course not; we
can't color the situation due to one's religion or ethnicity.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25
<mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie,
IL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE91: I would like to know more about the Unitarian
denomination. I understand it is sort of a mixture of all religions.
Does that mean all Christian religions, or all religions? If
all, how do Unitarians determine which "rules" to follow? How do they
determine which God to worship?
POSTED AUG. 27, 1998
Amy, 29, white, Yorktown , VA
ANSWER 1:
We believe that one has a responsibility to seek spiritual
growth, but should not be constrained by any given dogma or doctrine.
This imposes a responsibility to respect the many different ways
people approach spiritual growth, hence your misperception that we
are a mix of all religions. The Unitarian Universalist Church has a
home page at www.uua.org that goes into greater depth.
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Al, Unitarian
<alarose@ncwc.edu>, Rocky
Mount, NC
FURTHER NOTICE:
There are actually two meanings for "Unitarian." The first
in use was in reference to a Christian who believed in the Unity of
God (God/Jesus/Holy Spirit equals God the Father, Jesus the Son, who
came to teach us to worship His Father, and the Holy Spirit, a
relationship I don't entirely understand). This was in contrast to
the belief in the Trinitarian God (God/Jesus/Holy Spirit equals God).
That first usage fell out of favor (although there are many
Christians who are not Trinitarians who do not call themselves
Unitarian) in favor of the meaning most often found today in the
Unitarian Universalist Church. I understand it to mean that divine
wisdom is to be found in all the world's religions, that each of them
deserves study, consideration and a degree of reverence. I've also
found through the UU church that no one really decided to "worship"
one God or another, but they more often use (for instance) a Buddhist
teaching to approach a life problem one day, and an Islamic sentiment
for another, read a chapter of Plato on Sunday morning, then go
outside in the sunshine for a celebration of the turning of the
seasons.
POSTED NOV. 29, 1998
Shelly, multiracial female
<1derwhy@usa.net>
To respond
BACK TO TOP