Archive for the ‘Biblical exegesis’ Category

slaveryindexHow is slavery defined in the Bible? A good place to start is the book of Exodus, where we can establish how Yahweh defines slavery and why the Hebrews bondage/slavery to the Egyptians was deemed as “Bad” by him. Exodus tells us that the Egyptians were harsh taskmasters and caused the Hebrews to serve with “rigour”, while keeping them in cruel bondage. The story goes on to say that the Lord heard the cries of the Hebrews and saw their affliction and oppression and told them he would free them from the yoke of their bondage and execute judgment upon the Egyptians.


The whole story of the Passover and the Exodus is about Yahweh freeing the children of Israel from the bondage/slavery of Egypt. Not only does the story tell us how Yahweh parted the Red Sea to free the Hebrews, but it also goes into great detail about how the Egyptians were punished by Yahweh through plagues, death of the first born sons and drowning in the Red Sea. All these judgments were inflicted upon the Egyptians because the Pharaoh would not allow his Hebrew slaves to go free. Yahweh clearly had a problem with slavery when it came to the hard bondage of his chosen people, the Hebrews by the Egyptians, yet he seemed to have no such problem with the Hebrews keeping non-Hebrews in bondage in perpetuity and passing down their children as an inheritance (in fact the Bible states that he gave laws to accommodate the Hebrews in taking slaves). To this day the Jews celebrate the biblical feast of Passover in commemoration of how Yahweh broke their yoke of slavery to the Egyptians and set them free from their captivity. Read the rest of this entry »

An interesting thought to contemplate and question to ask of the Biblegod, is why does an all knowing god allow evil people like Hitler to be born, when he knows that they will do nothing but perpetrate tremendous suffering upon humanity? We know from the Bible that its god has no problem with withholding conception and shutting up a woman’s womb for his own purposes.


Gen.30:2 And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?


1Sam.1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb. Read the rest of this entry »

Matt.19:3-12 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


A careful reading of the above discourse by Jesus on the unity of marriage will disclose a theme that is not only out of character with Jewish thought in the Old Testament, but also contrary to the actions of the God inspired patriarchs. Starting with Abraham who took Hagar as his second wife it becomes a common occurrence throughout the Old Testament for men to have multiple wives, which is totally at odds with the idea of becoming one flesh, as presented in Genesis and reiterated by Jesus. Also the phrase “the twain shall become one” only occurs once in the entire Old Testament. Polygamy is never frowned upon by the biblegod, but rather encouraged as in the case of Jacob with his four wives from whom the twelve tribes of Israel were born…conflicting greatly with the idea of one man, one woman equals one flesh. Anyone who is familiar with Scripture knows the account of Yahweh giving the wives of King Saul to David (2Sam.12:7-11) and then giving those same wives of David to his son Absalom to rape as punishment for David’s sins (2Sam.16:21-22), clearly showing Yahweh had no problem with multiple wives, adultery, or rape.


Another out of character theme touched upon by Jesus is the answer given to the query of the disciples “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” to which Jesus responded “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Implying that the best way for man is to be a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, which again is contrary to the proclamation in Genesis 1 “Be fruitful and multiply”. Nowhere throughout the Old Testament is celibacy encouraged, even the priests were expected to marry, albeit within their own tribe. So, where did this idea of celibacy, and monogamy which was also promoted by Paul, enter into the biblical picture?


This passage in Matthew also conflates the idea of God creating male and female (chapter 1) with the reason that a man leaves his father and mother is to cleave to his wife (chapter 2). First off, the idea of God creating male and female in his image comes from Genesis 1:27 and says nothing of man and woman being joined together as one flesh in marriage which doesn’t occur until Genesis 2:24. Why Jesus conflated the two concepts and spoke of them as being one idea when it directly conflicts with the explicit biblical approval of polygamy I don’t know. Obviously it was news to the Pharisees who queried Jesus on the matter.


Another matter that comes to mind is that of divorce, in the same passage Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart. The reality of the matter is that in Deuteronomy it says that God gave Moses all the laws including the one on divorce, so it wasn’t Moses who allowed divorce it was God who gave Moses that law. If that is the case then the claim by Jesus which says not one jot or tittle shall be changed from the law is also false, because Jesus changed the law on divorce from that of being acceptable to that of causing one to commit adultery. Did the biblegod whom Jesus claimed was his father, change his mind from that of permitting and encouraging multiple wives and divorce, to forbidding it lest you be called an adulterer? Just another point in my long list of reasons that show why the god of the bible cannot be who he is claimed to be.

The topic I would like to explore in this article is the biblical method of capital punishment by stoning. In the Old Testament and into the New the method of punishment for a crime decreed worthy of death by Yahweh was stoning… this method was never condemned by Jesus. The first point I want to raise about stoning is one of causing people excessive suffering, when there are more humane ways of carrying out a punishment. The method of stoning a person to death is an extremely painful and slow process of death, yet this was the decreed method given by Yahweh…a good example in the New Testament is the stoning of Stephen carried out by the Jews. Why would Yahweh wish to submit people to such a gruesome method of death when there were much more humane ways of dealing with a capital crime, like the sword for example? So, the question must be asked, is it immoral to kill a person in a tortuous, barbaric manner for purposes of punishment when other methods would be more humane? Do we today consider it immoral and uncivilized to stone people to death as is spoken of in the Bible (and is still done in Muslim countries)? Of course we do! So, if it’s not acceptable now, why is it acceptable in the Bible?


Secondly, the crimes that were considered capital offenses by Yahweh worthy of stoning were things like picking up sticks on the Sabbath and adultery. Can you imagine stoning someone for picking up sticks, or adultery, what kind of a god would decree a punishment like that? Not a loving god that’s for sure. Imagine stoning your child for picking up a toy that you told him not to!


In the New Testament we see Jesus intervening in the case of “stoning of the women caught in adultery,” which according to the laws of Yahweh was perfectly legitimate. So, did Jesus consider stoning to be an immoral act? It appears that he did not approve of it or else he would not have prevented it from happening by saying “he that is without sin cast the first stone,” and “go and sin no more”. So was Jesus going against the laws of his father, Yahweh? It appears so. According to the laws Yahweh gave in the Torah, if a person was caught in adultery the punishment was death by stoning and it matters not whether the people throwing the stones were sinful because they were carrying out Yahweh’s decree.


It’s time to speak out about the things the Bible contains that are immoral, and if those acts of immorality fall at the feet of Yahweh, so be it. Stoning a person is immoral, and wrong for any reason!



Have you ever noticed how it is always women who are barren in Scripture, not once in the entire Bible is infertility ever attributed to the male? It’s a proven fact that up to 50% of infertility is attributed to the male, so if Yahweh created humans then he was well aware of this fact, yet why is it in the Bible that infertility is always laid at the feet of the woman? Even if primitive man believed that all infertility was because a woman was barren it does not mean Yahweh should have agreed with them and supported the idea. Yahweh could have easily informed ignorant humans on the nature of reproduction, instead he led men to believe that they were the carriers of little Homunculus (sperm containing a complete individual human) in their loins, which directly led to the belief that women were only the soil which grew the Homunculus.


Gen.46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six;

Exo.1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.

2Chron.6:9 Notwithstanding thou shalt not build the house; but thy son which shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house for my name.

Heb.7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb.7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.


According to the Bible it is Yahweh who causes women to be barren, and it is Yahweh who opens their wombs when he so desires to show his power. It seems that Yahweh is solely the cause of a woman’s infertility and it never has anything to do with a man. When Yahweh decides to open a woman’s womb she gets pregnant with the Homunculus from the man, otherwise she remains barren.


Gen. 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Gen.21:1-2 And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.

Gen.20:18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.

Gen. 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

Gen.29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Gen.30:22 And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb.

1Sam.1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb. And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb…11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

Judges 13:2-3 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

Isaiah 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

Hosea 9:14-16 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts…Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

Luke 1:7 & 36 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years…And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

In the story of the Garden, Adam and Eve’s innocence as to knowing “Good and Evil” is established by the fact that God forbid them to eat of the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” lest they die. Every other desire they had was granted fulfillment if they wished, there would have been no guilt for enjoying any pleasure imaginable within their framework of desire. Obviously one of the desires innate within Eve was for wisdom – knowledge – that is why the serpent could tempt her with the “fruit of knowledge”. The forbidden tree manifested all the innate desires already present within her such as “good for food”, “pleasant to the eyes”, and “wisdom”, which immediately evokes the question: “Why would God place a desire for wisdom in Eve, if it was something innately bad?”


If God is God, why create humans with a desire for something that is innately bad and will ultimately cause their demise?


Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


The woman’s eyes were not yet “opened” when the serpent tempted her, but she still saw that the tree was desirable to make her wise, which again seems to imply that the desire for wisdom was innate within her…otherwise it would not have been there. Eve could not have known what wisdom was unless the knowledge of it was already present within her.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.


Matt.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.



Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Isa. 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


Rev. 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;


Looking at the above verses we see that “Knowledge is the Key” that is being spoken of. The Pharisee’s took away the Jew’s freedom to seek knowledge, thus they shut up the kingdom of heaven from man, meaning they took away the people’s ability to know the kingdom of heaven.


Jesus said he has the “Key of the House of David” and that no man can shut what he has opened. The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is the “Key” that Jesus imparted to mankind, whoever receives his Key of Knowledge will never lack understanding the truth. Once knowledge is received it can never be taken away.


Knowledge is the Key to the universe!


Once knowledge is received it can never be taken away, that is why religious fanatics like the Pharisee’s sought to keep knowledge from the people, thus keeping them in bondage.


Hos.4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Knowledge leads to truth…the Key IS Knowledge.

The account listed below is found in the book of Genesis, it perfectly depicts the status of women as property. The first story takes place in the infamous city of Sodom where the nephew of Abraham, Lot is residing. He is entertaining two “messengers” in his home; the men of the city begin to bang on his door demanding that he send out the “messengers”, so that they can sodomize them. Lot pleads with them not to harm to the “messengers” that are abiding under his roof, so he offers instead for these wild men to take his two daughters and do with them as they see right. If you have not already fallen off your seat, I don’t understand why not. Can any human with a conscience imagine offering ones own daughters to wild men to be raped in lieu of giving them the men they asked for? And to make matters worse, Lot was not reprimanded for his egregious actions. But, we already know the reason for that…women were considered no more than a mans property, whereas the value of a man was not property, but honor.


Gen.19:4-8 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.


I consider the following account of abuse to be the most horrendous in the entire Bible, and if it doesn’t make you scream at the top of your lungs MALE BIAS, I fear there is no hope anything will.


The story begins with a man who has taken a male guest into his house. Shortly after a group of men bang on his door demanding the householder send out this male guest so that they may sodomize him. The householder pleads with the men to not abuse his male guest, but instead to take either his daughter or concubine and rape them instead. Where this case differs from the previous one in Sodom is that the master of the house actually does give his concubine over to the men who repeatedly rape and abuse the woman all night long till morning when they let her go. This poor woman barely has enough strength to crawl up to the door of her master’s house where she dies on his steps. Her master then proceeds to cut his concubine into twelve pieces and sends her body parts to all the coasts of Israel.


Judges 19:22-29 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.


This story is so despicable, horrendous, and revolting it should make anyone who reads it want to puke, but, do we hear one word of rebuke for the actions of the householder? NO! And why not? Because women were considered property and a man could do with them as he wished…and this idea is in keeping with the laws given by the biblical god Yahweh. According to the god presented in the Bible, a man’s worth was of a much greater value then that of a woman. That is why we see in the two cases of men who had the choice of either giving over their male guests to be sodomized or giving over their women, the choice is always to give the woman, because handing over the man would have been dishonorable.

Part 11:

Many more examples of male bias could be shown, but I think the idea has been presented with crystal clarity. The Bible is a book written from the minds of men, who were part of a society that was structured on the Dominator model. It was part of their culture to view women as inferior, thus the image of “God” they created would be a superior masculine god, whose rules would be structured on the system of male dominance and female inferiority. The hierarchal order that the Bible displays is exactly what one would expect if the assumption is made from the onset that it was written by men. It is only when one assumes that that the Bible was written from men who received inspiration from the one true god that a multitude of conflicting problems arise.


The creator god of the Bible is portrayed as the omnipotent designer of the whole cosmos, which was quite different from the pantheistic belief that was prevalent at the time of the biblical narrative. This concept of one god being the creator of all and having no beginning was a novel idea for the people of that time. The norm was that of a pantheon of gods who were always vying for power, warring with each other, and creating new gods, or parts of the cosmos from a defeated god. When the archetypal idea of one god arose in the minds of the early Hebrews they needed a system to base this concept on. Of course, the first thing is to draw from those customs and beliefs they came out of, and since there was only one god its gender needed to be male, whereas in the pantheon of gods there was male gods and female goddesses. This male god would then order his creation the way a male perceives the proper system to be structured, thus we have the male hierarchal order of the Bible. Consequently, only men received direct instructions from “God” on what the composition of his laws were to be…so, it is no wondered they are skewed towards male dominance.


With all these examples of male bias given the verdict is clear and precise…from its conception the Bible was formed and created from the minds of ancient man, depicting a god whom they created in their male image and after their likeness. My whole premise is grounded on facts that the Bible reveals in a very lucid way. There is no need for speculation or presumptions; the biblical authors are not trying to hide their intent, but rather they promote this inequality as being the true hierarchical order of the cosmos. This of course does not mean that the Bible does not contain wisdom, and truth…which I most certainly think it does, rather it declares the Bible to be amazing work of ancient literature, thus freeing the mind to explore its ideas…instead of trapping the unsuspecting soul in a prison that stifles the imagination.

The fundamental doctrine of the New Testament is the hierarchical order of: God the father, over Jesus the husband, over the Church as the bride. Its sub-category is the make-up of the Church, which includes the headship of the male/husband, and the subordination of the woman/wife.


Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.


This is in keeping with all the Dominator societies existing since ancient times where male ruler-ship was based solely on the fact of the aggression of the man…NOT because a woman needed to have a ruler over her. So, to say that this hierarchal order is ordained by the creator god, is saying that by the way “God” naturally ordered life; a female needs to be ruled over by a male, yet if this is the case why do we not see this structure in the animal kingdom?


When one blows away all the fundamentalist noise of the Bible being the revelation of the one true god, we can see what’s left is an ordered structure built solely from the Dominator system of rule, created from the mind of the aggressively natured male. The fact of the matter is that a woman does not need a man to rule over her any more than a man would need a woman to rule over him. Both sexes are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves…the only time a problem arises is when human males turn on the females of their species in aggression. That is where men should protect the woman from other men, NOT turn on the woman and try to dominate her…they got it backwards. The man and woman are supposed to work together in partnership for the betterment of the whole; no good comes from domination.


So, exactly how is this biblical hierarchal system of order where the male is put in the position of ruling over the women supposed to benefit the woman? The typical results that one sees in these Dominator systems is where the man keeps the woman from fulfilling her full potential, like:

1. Not allowing woman to be educated.

2. Not allowing women to hold positions of leadership.

3. Not allowing a woman to speak in Church.

All we find are restrictions of what a woman cannot do, that a man is allowed to do; whereas men are allowed to do many things that a woman is not allowed to do merely because she is female.

The Apostle Peter seems to share the same understanding of a woman’s place being under the authority of a man, as Paul. Even though both men supposedly were following the teachings of Jesus – who never spoke of a man’s headship over a woman – they chose to incorporate the customs of their male Dominator society into the teachings of Jesus.


Peter clearly states that a woman is to be in subjection to her husband; bringing up the account of Sarah’s subservience to Abraham, calling him lord. One of Peter’s reasons is that through a woman’s fearful conduct and behavior in submission she will win her husband over, but is that really the best way to influence others? Isn’t that just reinforcing the idea of men ruling over women? If both sexes are truly equal as Jesus taught, why does the male need to rule over the female based solely on the fact of gender? Men and women can each fulfill the roles they have the expertise for, or are best suited for without one party ruling over the other. It is ridiculous to compare the equality of men and women with parents ruling over children! Children need to be taught and guided to grow into maturity, but that is not the case with mature men and women who are both equal in intellect, capability to care for oneself, and raise children. If a woman can raise a child to maturity, why would she need a man to be in headship over her? The obvious answer: she doesn’t!


1Peter 3:1-7 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation (conduct, behavior) coupled with fear (phobos: fear, terror, dread). Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge (intelligence), giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker (asthenes: weak, sick, feeble, impotent) vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.


Peter goes on to say that men should dwell with their wives through intelligence…reasoning that because they are weaker it is needful that men have the position of rulership over them. What is so grievous about this idea of a hierarchical order based on strength is that it reinforces a flawed concept of authority. Instead of a man using his strength and more aggression nature to protect his family from enemies, it is turned against the one who supposedly needs the protecting, thus the man turns from a protector into a dominator. This very idea is reinforced over, and over again throughout the Bible, starting in Genesis when man is given flat-out rulership over the woman and ending in the New Testament.


When we compare the Partnership model with the Dominator model, we can see where the Partnership model wins hands-down…drawing on the strengths of both sexes to benefit the whole, thus instead of one gender ruling over the other, both work together to achieve a common goal, which is quite the opposite of the arbitrary reason for male headship that the Bible promotes.

Ads by Google
March 2019
« Oct    
Ads by Google

Designed by Gadgets, In collaboration with  Health Advisor, web hosting, and Webhosting Philippines .