Notes on the Problem of Evil

Okay, first we need a definition of evil that we can all agree upon, so how about:

 

Intentionally acting in such a way as to increase harm and suffering without remorse

I’m pretty sure most people can agree upon that. Next we need to define the kinds of entities that are capable of committing evil. Moral awareness is an important prerequisite. We cannot classify a lion as evil for killing other animals at any given opportunity because they have no sense of right and wrong. So in order to be able to do evil you need the capacity to be aware of your actions, their consequences and how they affect others. As far as we know humans are the only beings possessing of these traits.

So in order for something to be evil it needs to be carried out by a morally aware being. An event which causes suffering and harm repeatedly, but is not down to the actions and intentions of a morally aware being cannot be classified as evil. This means that natural disasters and diseases etc. are not evil. So far so good.

However, when you throw and all-powerful deity into the mix this is when things get difficult (for the theist at least). God fulfils the requirement of being a morally aware entity, most theists will state that God is the source of moral truth, so clearly such an entity is very aware of their actions and the consequences of them.

The attribute of omnipotence creates a problem which is famously termed ‘the problem of evil’. Let me explain it using malaria as an example; malaria kills thousands of children every single day so there is no doubt that such a thing increases suffering and causes harm to others, however without God malaria is not evil because it is not caused by the actions and decisions of a morally aware entity. On theism this is different.

The theist has two choices when it comes to malaria; either God created it himself, or allowed it to happen. Either way this removes malaria from the context of having not been caused by the actions and intentions of a morally aware entity to one in which it is very much in the hands of a morally aware entity.

If God created malaria then he is evil because he intentionally created something that causes large amounts of pain and suffering, apparently with no remorse. If God allows malaria then this creates problems also; because if God cares about our suffering and wants to relieve it then he should want to use his power to prevent malaria, this gives rise to a contradiction because it’s very apparent that God has done nothing to prevent malaria, so either God does not care about our suffering, or God does care about it, but can do nothing (thus meaning God is not omnipotent).

The problem of evil arises because positing the existence of an omnipotent God removes disasters, diseases and famines etc. from the context of being events with no moral agent behind them, to being ones that do. So the theist must then explain the contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence that arises in this situation. This is, in my opinion, the heart of the problem of evil.

Advertisements

38 Comments

Filed under Religion

38 responses to “Notes on the Problem of Evil

  1. So based on your definition, self-defense would be considered evil. Why is this a reasonable definition?

  2. Doctor Bad Sign

    Well remorse usually prevents you from continually doing something. I would not continually kick a mugger after I’d already subdued them, one has to wonder why God continually allows babies to die for no apparent reason.

  3. Doctor Bad Sign

    If I was omnipotent and omnibenevolent I would not for one second allow 3000 innocent children to die every day.

    I’d say that being omnipotent by definition means that you cannot have a good reason for allowing thousands of people to die, why? Because being able to do anything means that you can achieve your aims without killing anyone. If God has a reason to allow children to die, some aim in mind that it is leading towards, why can’t God achieve that aim without killing the children, he can do anything right?

    • That’s your subjective opinion. Unfortunately, that means you’re only judging God based on your opinion, not the merits of the argument.

      You also confuse God’s omnipotence with being able to do anything. The two aren’t the same.

      • Doctor Bad Sign

        Ok so lets imagine a scenario. God allows children to die from malaria because in the future it causes people to turn to Christianity.

        1. Why wouldn’t it be possible to achieve this without killing anyone? So now not only is God’s omnipotence limited to that which is logically consistent, it is also limited to ‘God cannot achieve his plan for the greater good without killing or harming anyone’ – to me that just sounds like you’re imposing limits on God’s omnipotence out of convenience rather than anything else.

        2. Why doesn’t God let his plans be known? If I have to hurt my child by giving them an injection, I don’t just take them to the doctors, let them have it without explaining anything or comforting them. The compassionate thing to do is to tell your child why you’re allowing them to be hurt, that it is for the greater good. If God loves us why does he not explain why he allows suffering?

      • 1. Because it’s either a perpetual intervention in nature or a perpetual intervention in the actions people take. Either way free will is limited, and we cannot make a judgment about whether a world like that would be better because of all the repercussions from such an effect.

        2. God does let it be known to some extent. Romans 8:28 gives us a look into that. That message is interwoven throughout the entire Bible. But honestly, do you explain to your child the reason for every action you take? Or do you tell them on a “need to know” basis? I’m guessing the latter. But then why do you, as the child in this instance, get to decide what needs to be known? It’s an unfair comparison.

  4. Doctor Bad Sign

    1. I think that’s a false dichotomy. Why should it necessarily be either an intervention in nature or an intervention in the actions people take? Couldn’t it be an intervention in nature in a different way? Say, for example setting up circumstances in such a way that those children didn’t die, but people were still ‘saved’. I’m sure, being all powerful, God could do so without limiting free will.

    2. If I had to harm my child physically or cause suffering in any way, I would most certainly tell them each time. I’m just pointing out that the universe doesn’t look like a place that is presided over by an all loving, all powerful God, perhaps the reason why pointless suffering exists is because there is no one there looking out for us?

    Occaim’s razor works its magic nicely on this one. Here we have a universe filled with seemingly pointless suffering, on the one hand we have the explanation that there is no God and things are the way they are, as unfortunate as that sounds, or on the other hand we have the explanation that there is a loving God presiding over everything, but he allows suffering for some unknown purpose, without using his omnipotence to relieve us of it, or to achieve his aims without causing suffering, so that it looks exactly how you’d expect it would if he wasn’t there. The simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions in this case is atheism.

    • 1. And how would God be able to “set up circumstances” without violating free will, either in nature or in people? That’s still forced freedom.

      2. Again, your opinion on the universe is your subjective opinion, and has no basis in judging God on the merits of the argument. Your view of Occam’s Razor is, again, your subjective opinion.

      • Doctor Bad Sign

        1. Your argument was that God might have sufficient reasons for allowing suffering to happen, reasons which are beyond the limited scope of our understanding. So this implies that God has some plan, of which this suffering is a part, and some goal in mind, yet now you assert that God cannot set up circumstances without violating free will. So how can you claim that he has sufficient reasons for allowing suffering, when now it seems as though you’re saying he has no choice? You can’t claim that there might be some divine plan at work which is why God allows suffering, and then say that God cannot intervene in the lives of people or nature. Either he can or he can’t surely? So either God has no plan because he has no control over our freedom, or he does have a plan, and control and can thus presumably act out his plan differently if he wanted.

        2. I’m not going by my subjective opinion, I’m going by what things like ‘loving’ and ‘omnipotent’ mean. We can expect a person who has the attribute of ‘loving’ or ‘kindness’ to behave in a certain way, so you need to explain why a loving being doesn’t behave in the way that we’d expect, and why we should still view this being as being loving. You’d need to do a lot of explaining to convince me that a father who allowed his children to be savagely beaten every day at school without taking any action was a ‘loving’ person. Just as you’d need to do a lot of explaining to convince me that an all-powerful being who allows viruses, diseases and parasites to infect and kill tiny babies can also be considered ‘all-loving’. If God is all loving then where is his love for those children who die of malaria, or those who plea to him each day for something to eat and some clean disease free water? Am I really supposed to think there is someone loving watching these things happen, doing nothing despite the fact that they can supposedly do anything?

      • 1. I never made that claim. And your statement about “control over our freedom” is exactly what I mean by forced freedom. It’s a logical contradiction. You’re going about your attack with a false set of pretenses.

        2. Again, you’re giving your opinion about what you expect love to look like. It’s a subjective opinion. And you’re still confusing omnipotence with the ability to do anything.

  5. Doctor Bad Sign

    1. So you admit that God has no control over our lives and actions? Which would negate an ‘ultimate plan’.

    2. I’m going by what we define love to look like and how we expect loving people to act. If you want to call someone that habitually harms people ‘loving’ you have to explain how that fits into generally held notions of what loving means. Also your apologetics seem to be narrowing the definition of omnipotence to essentially mean nothing; omni means all, or universally, potent means powerful, you’re now saying that God cannot control the actions and lives of people and cannot act to prevent natural disasters and diseases etc. Well, if that is the case then God clearly is not omnipotent, if that word is to have any real meaning then you have to concede that it no longer applies to the God you are positing.

    If God can create a universe, why can’t he make malaria extinct?

    • 1. No, I mean God does not execute control over our actions, because to do so would negate our freedom, and we would essentially be robots.

      2. And who is this “we” that gets to define what love looks like and the expectations therein? And who is to say God can’t make malaria extinct? The better question is: why doesn’t He? Can you answer that question with 100% certainty? If not, you’re in no position to make value judgments about God.

  6. Doctor Bad Sign

    1. Which would exclude any notions of a divine plan for humanity, William Lane Craig often defends the problem of evil by stating that we cannot possibly know why God allows evil, and that it might be to achieve some plan for the greater good. He even goes so far as to doubt that gratuitous evil exists (I have a blog post on this, I you want references as to where he said these things). Now your statement that God does not execute control over our actions would contradict these notions that God allows evil as a part of a greater plan. You cannot really claim that God allowed Hitler to murder so many people as part of some plan for the greater God, if you grant that God has no control over people’s actions. Why? Because it’s not really a ‘divine plan’ if God has no choice but to allow it, being part of a plan implies that God can either allow it or not allow it, I’d say that the notion of there being such a plan goes out of the window if you posit that God could do nothing to stop Hitler. So do you disagree with W.L. Craig on this one? Your apologetics seem to contradict his.

    2. Well most people would generally agree that in order to be described as loving one would have to fulfil certain criteria. Most people would agree that someone who tortures people does not fulfil these criteria for example, there might be areas of ambiguity but most would say that in order to be loving one must act compassionately, care about the welfare of others and so on. Now, I think most people would also agree that ordering babies and children to be slaughtered (as in the verse I quoted in your comments section) is not a loving thing to do. So I think I’m quite justified in asking; how can a being who orders infanticide be considered loving?

    Well my answer is simple, there is no omnipotent being who is able to prevent the existence of malaria.

    • 1. There’s a difference between allowing something and having no choice to allow it. Could God intervene? Yes. Does He? No, because He allows us to have freedom. When God intervenes, there is no free will within that singular event. But in order to eliminate something like malaria that persists, God would have to continually intervene in addition to not having sufficient reasons for malaria to exist. You have to be able to show that both are impossible, which you can’t based on a limited scope of finitude.

      2. Most people? So truth is determined by a majority vote now?

  7. Doctor Bad Sign

    So are you saying most of the time God doesn’t intervene, but sometimes he does?

    Yes of course, most people define love in a certain way, if I chose to define love as cutting babies heads off you could quite rightly say that my definition was wrong going by how love is generally defined by most people. You seem to have become adept at avoiding questions (one can only wonder why): how can a being who orders infanticide be considered loving?

    • I’m saying God has the capacity to intervene when and if He chooses, but when He doesn’t intervene we have no way to know if He has sufficient reasons for not doing so. We’re simply not in a position to make such a value judgment.

      So just because most people define something as a particular way, that makes it true? I guess because most people in Nazi Germany defined exterminating the Jews as beneficial, that’s true. Truth is not determined by a majority vote. So regardless of whether my opinion on love matches yours or not, they are both just that: opinions. And opinions cannot be used to make truth determinations.

      • Doctor Bad Sign

        I didn’t say it was true of everything, I was speaking in terms of words. The reason language works is because a majority of people can agree on the meaning of particular words. If no one can agree on what a particular word means then that word has no real meaning. Your example is misconstruing the meaning of a word with it’s application, most people have an idea of what the word ‘beneficial’ means (ignoring the context of its usage) now if I decided that I was going to define beneficial as ‘red squirrel’ then you could say that my definition was wrong because most people define it as ‘being of use or of help to people’, however if most people agreed that beneficial meant ‘red squirrel’ then I’d be justified. I wonder how else you thing words get their definition if not by a majority accepting and agreeing to them?

        So in light of that lets give some definitions of ‘loving’:

        “Feeling or showing love or great care.”

        Just to make that extremely clear lets define love and care:

        Love:
        1.
        a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
        2.
        a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

        Care:
        verb (used without object)
        7.
        to be concerned or solicitous; have thought or regard.
        8.
        to be concerned or have a special preference (usually used in negative constructions): I don’t care if I do.
        9.
        to make provision or look out (usually followed by for ): Will you care for the children while I am away?
        10.
        to have an inclination, liking, fondness, or affection (usually followed by for ): Would you care for dessert? I don’t care for him very much.

        Now can you, bearing in mind the above, explain to me how commanding the slaughter of innocent babies and children can fit in with a being who supposedly feels great love and shows great care?

      • But the difference here is we’re not referring to a word, we’re referring to an ideology. You’re making value judgments based on the idea of love, and so your ideology supersedes language in this case, making your initial argument invalid.

        I think I’m going to stick to not making any positive claims in my objections. I don’t need to, because I don’t have the burden of proof. But based on the definitions above that you listed and your posed question, I’d like to bring it back around full-circle. Under these definitions and your opinion/critique of God, if you acted in self-defense it would be unjustified because you’re showing love and care for certain people but not others. Therefore it is an evil act and you should be condemned. How is this sensible again?

  8. Doctor Bad Sign

    No, again I’m going by what the definition of loving is, which is why I quoted those definitions. Now given those definitions, is it, or is it not reasonable to expect a certain kind of behaviour from someone whom you define as loving? And is it or is it not reasonable to reject the application of a particular definition to a person if their behaviour does not fit into that definition?

    For instance would it be unreasonable for me to disagree with someone who claimed that Fred West (a notorious serial killer in case you’re unaware) a loving person, based upon what the word loving means? I think it would not, I’d be quite justified in saying ‘according to what loving means there is no way that you can apply that definition to someone who kills multiple people with no apparent remorse’.

    From this it follows that it would not be unreasonable for me to expect that when you posit the existence of a being who is all-loving there would be certain attributes and behaviours that this being would have in order for that definition to be applied coherently and correctly. If the attributes and behaviours of this being contradict the definition of ‘all-loving’ then one can quite reasonably say that this definition was misapplied.

    Now I posit that a being who orders the slaughter of babies and children, who encourages people to be execute others for petty things such as doing work on the sabbath, who demands execution for certain sexual preferences, who encourages men to view women as property alongside animals, who endorses slavery, who frequently commands genocide and who revels in bloodthirsty sacrifices does not have the attributes and behaviours that go with the definition of being loving, let alone all loving. If you’re going to posit that God is all loving then you’d have to explain to me how an ‘all-loving’ being (of whom we can expect a certain kind of behaviour if we want words to mean anything at all) can hold the attributes that I listed above.

    • I guess if you really want to take it that way, then it comes down to who is looking at the data. The way you perceive love (or “not love,” as the case may be) to be demonstrated and whether or not God fits that perception depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? I mean, what you perceive to be love another person could perceive as cruelty. Think about when you tell your kids they can’t play outside because they need to finish their homework. You’re enforcing that because you love them, but they might still see it as cruel because you’re hindering their desires.

      So ultimately, what we’re still left with is what your opinion of God’s behavior is. And as I’ve stated previously, truth is not determined by opinions or a majority vote. So you’re still in no position to make any judgments about God or His behavior except on a personal level. You may disagree with it, but that doesn’t make it objectively wrong or evil. Unfortunately, all we can glean from this is your opinion. And who is to say your opinion is more right than someone else’s?

  9. Doctor Bad Sign

    Whilst there is a certain amount of leeway with definitions, it only goes up to a point. Your homework example is not really a good comparison to the situation I’m describing. It’s not like God is saying ‘you can’t have your dessert until you’ve eaten your vegetables’ – if that were the case then you could quite reasonably say that he could say such a thing and still be considered loving.

    Definitions only stretch so far though. Now I defy you to say that someone who tortures a child is loving. This is a situation in which the action steps outside of the ‘leeway zone’ in terms of definitions and becomes quite contrary to the definition. You can’t say that this person is loving when they remorselessly torture children with no hint of regret.

    You would not hesitate to call a bigoted, slavery endorsing, genocidal, infanticidal, capricious, and bloody thirsty human anything but loving. Now there are plenty of examples in the Bible of God behaving in this exact way, so why should I accept the notion that this God is loving when his actions clearly go against everything most sane people would define as the actions of a loving being?

    If words are to mean anything then it is not accurate or correct to apply the term loving to a being who endorses slavery and the killing of infants. Just as it is not accurate or correct to say that Hitler was a deeply sensitive man who had the utmost care for people of all ethnic backgrounds.

    I’m not using the definitions themselves to portray God how I wish, I am saying that the definitions I have, and that are generally accepted do not fit with the God described in the Bible.

    • Ah, but again, that is your OPINION on how you believe God to be acting based on how you read the Bible. It’s your interpretation–nothing more. So again we’re back to subjective opinion, which carries no weight when discussing the truthful merits of the argument.

      • Doctor Bad Sign

        Okay so you’re saying that God doesn’t say we should kill homosexuals and those who work on the Sabbath? You’re saying that God does not devote quite a lot of time explaining how we can and cannot treat our slaves (Exodus 21 I believe)? You’re saying that God does not list women along side animals and other possessions in the 10 Commandments? You’re saying that God does not describe himself as being pleased by bloody ritual sacrifice? You’re saying that God does not frequently command the Israelites to wipe out entire populations including livestock? You’re saying that God does not command the slaughter of the first born in Egypt? I’m just inventing all that stuff right?

        PLEASE explain how I misunderstood this stuff and somehow managed to read it all wrong, because I’d love to know.

      • You’re subjecting your opinion on to how those things are interpreted–loving or not, evil or not, etc. Still left with only your opinion.

      • Doctor Bad Sign

        Well perhaps you’d care to explain how I’m mistaken and why these things are not evil then?

        You haven’t done much to refute what I’ve said other than repeat a mantra of ‘that’s your opinion’ rather nauseatingly, well that’s as may be, but opinions can be right or wrong and you’ve done nothing to show why my opinion is wrong, you’ve just asserted that its an opinion.

        And it’s your opinion that God exists, so what? I’m sure you wouldn’t take ‘that’s just your opinion’ as a refutation for the claim that God exists would you? So why not offer up slightly more than that?

      • I keep saying, “That’s your opinion” because that’s all you’re offering. And I don’t need to show why your opinion is wrong, because the burden of proof isn’t on me to prove a negative.

        And it’s not just my opinion that God exists. There is evidence available that gives us excellent reasons to believe that God exists. And I’ve given that evidence both here and on my own blog. So it’s not subjective opinion; it’s objective evidence. That’s why the theist’s argument holds more weight–because it’s based on evidentiary discovery.

  10. Doctor Bad Sign

    The thing is that I did provide evidence in support of my opinion. I went to the dictionary to define loving – where better to go to get evidence of an accurate definition. I also demonstrated that it is logically sound to expect certain behaviour from someone whom you apply a certain definition like ‘loving’ to, and if they do not fit the bill for a loving person then it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss them as not being loving. You haven’t done anything to demonstrate that this is somehow logically flawed all you’ve done is asserted that it is my opinion.

    Are you saying then that the dictionary definition for loving is inaccurate, and that it is not reasonable to expect certain attributes of a person before you define them as being loving?

    I haven’t gone and got the exact quotes but if you really want me to I could find the specific parts of the Bible that I was talking about.

    Having given what I think to be good reasoning behind my argument, I’d expect more than just ‘that’s your opinion’ as a rebuttal. Can you show me were in that line of reasoning I’ve erred?

    My argument is simple:
    1. Words have certain meanings
    2. Those meanings when the word is attributed to someone or something give us an idea of how that thing should be, or behave etc. E.g when we describe someone as kind hearted we’d expect them to act a certain way.
    3. If that someone or something does not fit in with the way we should expect them to be or behave etc. based upon the definition of the word used to describe them, then we can conclude that it was wrong to attribute that word to them. E.g if someone is described as being kind hearted yet they threaten you and steal from you, then we can conclude that this person is in fact not kind hearted

    What is wrong with this logic?

    I’d add a further point to that, that if someone insists that someone is still kind hearted even after being shown that they have actually been threatening people and stealing, then that person has a burden of proof to fulfil to demonstrate why that definition is still applicable given the evidence against it. So it’s over to you.

    • What’s wrong with your logic is this:

      1. We’re talking about love as an ideology, not a word.
      2. Those expectations are personal and subjective.
      3. The perspective of fitting or not-fitting that ideology is also personal and subjective.

      • Doctor Bad Sign

        1. No I’m talking about love how its defined namely:

        Love:
        1.
        a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
        2.
        a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

        2. I’m talking about expectations based upon that definition, for example based on the above we can expect that love does not mean ‘passionate scorn and hatred of another person’.
        3. The perspective of fitting or not fitting that definition is based upon what the definition means.

        Its really not that hard to comprehend, you just can’t accept this simple logic because it would mean that by definition God is not all-loving.

      • 1. And why should we accept that definition? Seems to me 1 Corinthians 13 might be a better place to look for a definition of love.

        2. Just because you expect someone to act in a certain way, if they don’t it doesn’t mean they aren’t what the definition says. Special pleading.

        3. The perspective of fitting depends on how you perceive God’s actions. That’s subjective.

        What I’m saying still makes perfect sense. I’m comprehending it just fine.

  11. Doctor Bad Sign

    Also for the record, its your opinion that there is good evidence that God exists. As far as I’m concerned the evidence is weak at best, and mostly not really evidence.

  12. And that’s why we disagree. The facts within what I believe to be good evidence don’t change, but our opinion about how to interpret them can, which is why I think it’s good evidence and you don’t. And that’s your right to disagree.

  13. Doctor Bad Sign

    “1. And why should we accept that definition? Seems to me 1 Corinthians 13 might be a better place to look for a definition of love.”

    Well where do we go when we want an accurate definition of love? They make books that define words, and no it’s not the Bible, it’s the dictionary. I think its a perfectly legitimate source to go to. In fact I’d say it is far more reasonable to get a definition from the dictionary than to cherry pick one from the Bible.

    Regardless of that, the definition you gave isn’t too far from mine and I could still use it to make exactly the same argument.

    “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. ”

    I could go with that and make exactly the same argument, in fact it probably would make my argument easier; for example if love does not envy how does that fit with God openly proclaiming himself to be a jealous God? “for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” – Exodus 20:5

    “2. Just because you expect someone to act in a certain way, if they don’t it doesn’t mean they aren’t what the definition says. Special pleading.”

    But you have to maintain some meaning to words otherwise they become utterly useless. For example, I shall grant that you could call someone honest even if they had lied occasionally in the past, however, if words are to have any meaning at all then you could not reasonably call a compulsive liar an honest person. If you allow that then the whole purpose of language breaks down. Thus if I say that someone is ‘honest’ we can reasonably expect them not to be a compulsive liar, if they are a compulsive liar then we can reasonably say ‘this person, in actual fact is not honest’. Can you explain how this is not sound logic?

    Are you saying that if I just decide to define every single word to mean it’s opposite, no one has any right to say I’m wrong to do so?

    “3. The perspective of fitting depends on how you perceive God’s actions. That’s subjective.”

    Well it’s not my subjective opinion, for example that statement ‘Love does not envy’ means that it follows logically that being envious negates one from being loving. Now God openly proclaims to be a jealous God (envy means the same thing as jealousy) this means according to that definition God cannot be loving.

    Also it follows logically that in order to be loving one and for that definition to be accurate and meaningful one has to act accordingly, if one does not act accordingly then one can rightly say that the definition does not apply to that person. Otherwise you could not say that I’m wrong for saying that an ant is gigantic, and that a mountain is minuscule. When we apply certain words to things it negates them from being certain other things, and if those things are that which is negated by the word applied to them then it is perfectly sound and reasonable to state that the word is misapplied.

    A loving being who tortures people forever for not loving them back, who commands homosexuals to be killed, who endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide, who overtly favours men over women, who is satisfied by extremely bloody rituals and so on is a contradiction… Those things negate such a being from being loving. Now you’d agree with me if I was talking about Charles Manson, or Adolf Hitler, you’d say ‘yes you’re quite correct that these people’s actions negate them from being considered loving’ but because it’s your God you can’t allow that, yet the logic is exactly the same…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s