Freewill and divine will


[A]s little as a ball on a billiard table can move before receiving an impact, so little can a man get up from his chair before being drawn or driven by a motive. But then his getting up is as necessary and inevitable as the rolling of a ball after the impact. And to expect that anyone will do something to which absolutely no interest impels them is the same as to expect that a piece of wood shall move toward me without being pulled by a string.

Arthur Schopenhauer

For clarity purposes, the following terms when used on this blog in discussions on freewill have the following limited meanings

determined -our actions are caused

freewill -our actions are uncaused

choice -awareness of alternatives

You may have other definitions, they are not relevant in this discussion.

The author of freewill vs divine will wishes to answer

Why must we answer for our sins, if God has already predestined them?

The post is by a creationist, believes Adam was the first man. Let this not distract you from the discussion.

The believer tells us god created Adam in paradise and banished them to earth after eating the fruit. Where is paradise? I would love to know the coördinates.

Religion is for the crazies. It creates a dilemma and then seeks to solve it. Here, the Muslim has imagined a god, a first man, eternal damnation, freewill and now tries to solve it.

She tells us

The first time I read the Quran, I was also puzzled as to why some verses indicate that Allah is able to guide those who are astray, but He chooses not to. So if some have strayed, why do they have to answer for their sins, if Allah is the one who has willed them to be astray?

and it leaves me puzzled why anyone with any common sense would continue to worship a god whose whims are so arbitrary. At least with a despot you know those whom he hates and his favourites. He condemns or saves arbitrarily. A god who would save but chooses not to so it can punish. What strange people, believers are!

We are given a few verses that show how irrational Allah is

6:35: If their spurning is hard on your mind, yet if you were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them a Sign – (what good?) If it were Allah’s Will, He could gather them together unto true guidance: so be not you amongst those who are swayed by ignorance (and impatience)!

6:39: Those who reject Our Signs are deaf and dumb – in the midst of darkness profound: whom Allah wills, He leaves to wander; whom He wills, He places on the way that is straight.

Why punish anyone for straying when it is Allah’s will they stray? Why oppose Allah?

In his price winning essay on the will, Schopenhauer wrote

Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants

which I agree with. The theist however tells us that people can will what they want and tells us the Koran has a verse that supports this view

18:29 “Say: “The truth is from your Lord.” Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it).”

and it is unfathomable to me how a mere mortal would have designs against plans of an omni- being. I need help comprehending how

God lays out the paths for you but you take the path based on your intention.

one would know what path has been laid by the deity and then how with this information go ahead and defy it. It is like being told 2+2=4 and refusing to believe it.

How does this

If it was already predestined that Adam eats the fruit, then why is he reprimanded for it? Yes, he was predestined to eat the fruit. But it was his intention that first started it. He was reprimanded for that intention.

make any sense to any rational person? Had the fruit not been there, would Adam have wanted to eat it? Would he have imagined eating a non existent fruit? The theist’s attempt to free their god from culpability falls flat any time. This god would have stored this fruit in its pocket for all eternity but chose to plant it in the garden and then make Adam, Eve and the serpent aware of its presence.

To excuse Allah, she tells us

But from the start, just like how God had predestined Adam to sin, God had also predestined that Iblis would rebel, and would be an enemy to humanity. This is for several reasons – the main one being that God wants to test humanity (through Iblis) to see who is worthy to enter His paradise.

and one must ask to what end? Why would an omniscient god test man. It would have been far better not to create those it knew would stray unless we accept this god has sadistic tendencies.

The rest of the post continues to absurdities that I will not bother with here.

I will close with a quote from Schopenhauer

I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

99 thoughts on “Freewill and divine will

  1. I love that last quote. Sums up the whole thing nicely. BTW, I got a used will yesterday at a local drug store for $4.97, cheapest I paid yet for a will. However, it sure as heck wasn’t free. Free wills don’t exist. 🙂

    Like

  2. foolsmusings says:

    I’m sure it’s only contradictory because you’re not God and don’t understand these things 😉

    Like

  3. pinkagendist says:

    This more assertive tone you’re using is brilliant.

    Like

  4. Tish Farrell says:

    “Where is paradise? I would love to know the coordinates”
    Nice one 😀

    Like

  5. john zande says:

    Islamic hermeneutics, apologetics, and theodocies are a special breed of crazy. It’s like they were invented by three-year-olds.

    Like

  6. A Guy Without Boxers says:

    The fact that the theists, of whatever belief, give as their source their deity always amazes me. How are they certain that their “deity” is not the evil being of another faith in disguise? Good post, my Nairobi brother! 🙂

    Like

    • basenjibrian says:

      I honestly find the Cathar/Gnostic heresy interesting-Yahweh as a flawed creator who created a flawed univere. Being a rather dour individual, I have no problem with the Christian “Fallen Universe” hyposthesis, which seems evident in how the universe works-nature ios not NICE by any human moral reckoning! But unlike Christians, I read this as being the fault of Yahweh, not a flawed, contingent and ultimately innocent “Adam”. (Omniscient and all that!)

      Thus, some Gnostic groups can be interpreted as believing that Yahweh is a if not THE “Devil”….the Demiurge. Gnosticism is full of dualistic myticism that assumes the physical universe is corrupt, hence they needed a corrupted creator entity. Yahweh seems to meet their definition rather well!

      All a mental exercise, but an interesting little “heresy” at that!

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        The Gnostics, I think saw the problem with making the OT part of the bible canon. So they had the god of the Jews as a flawed character and Jesus the good one. A nice solution but unfortunately they lost in the struggle

        Like

    • makagutu says:

      Good question which yours truly has no answer for

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Dear author,

    Hello! I am the one who wrote the post you referred to.

    Firstly, I would like say thank you for expressing your views in such a civil manner. We all subscribe to our own beliefs and I respect you for your belief; however at times I feel like some people automatically turn on their “hate-game” and say nasty things to us simply for believing in our religion (without trying to understand our views.) Thank you for not being part of that hateful kind of community.

    Secondly, I come here not for the intention of preaching Islam. I found it apt to acknowledge that I have read your response to (portions of) my post.

    I have to apologize as my post was originally targeted at fellow Muslims struggling to grasp the idea of free will and divine will (just like how I struggled). As such, I may have utilized some concepts that may be foreign to non-Muslims, or non-practicing Muslims. I can see from your response that there were several issues that you found “unfathomable”, even “absurd.”

    You posed several questions. While reading your post (and the comments here) I did wish to answer your individual questions. However, I think you realize as well as I do: You have a set of deeply held beliefs and opinions, as do I. No amount of debate can sway us from our own set of beliefs, and I do not have the intention of even trying to sway anyone from their beliefs.

    Therefore engaging in debate over each individual question you have raised would serve no purpose – except to maybe trigger feelings of animosity. This is the last thing I want.

    So, thank you for your response to my post. Thank you to the community here who engage in intellectual discussions to express your views, instead of adding to the violent hate against my religion these days.

    May peace be upon all of you and I hope you all have a nice day.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Hello and hope you are well.
      Thanks for taking time to read and respond. I would not have a problem with you responding to the questions I ask.
      Two, if it is any help. I am open to persuasion. I could be wrong and the purpose of debate is to educate. I may be blind to some issues as such it would be a service to help me see the light.

      Like

      • Anon says:

        What would persuade you to consider such ideas plausible?

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          what ideas?

          Like

          • Anon says:

            The ideas that you mentioned above

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I don’t know which ideas you are referring to. In this thread I only said I am open to persuasion. Is it that you mean or do you mean the blog post?
            Are you the same anon or it is a different anon

            Like

          • Anon says:

            That there is such a thing as divine will and free will

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I don’t know. The proponents should be in a position to have reasonable arguments to support their theories.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            I am the same anon

            Like

          • Anon says:

            How is it that those arguements were not reasonable enough? When there already are preconceived notions that you harbour?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            What is reasonable to you might not be so to me. Do you have something to contribute?

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Exactly. What might be reasonable to you also may be unreasonable to me. My contribution is already based on asking these simple questions. That we should question our own understanding of things. Without ridicule of course

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            There is never nothing wrong with ridicule. What do I mean by reasonable? Something anyone properly constituted upstairs would find so without necessarily belonging to a particular group. In the above case, one has to be Muslim to make sense of it. That to me is anything but reasonable

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I see a valid objection can be made to my response above. Here we can take as an example rules governing a particular sport, to a non player, they may make no sense but still be reasonable. That way my demand for universal application can be challenged but it doesn’t advance the religious argument

            Like

          • Anon says:

            I don’t understand what you mean by never nothing wrong with ridicule. Do you mean by it is okay to ridicule? Or do you mean it is not okay to ridicule? The analogy you gave about a sports is fine. But it does not necessarily mean that a non player cannot make sense of the rules or the gameplay. If I were to say that a person who has never played chess before and sees 2 people playing, he cannot understand the gameplay even after he has read up extensively about its rules? What about the players themselves? Do they know the best strategies at hand during the game?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            It is ok to use ridicule on beliefs or ideas. It is a legitimate way of criticism.
            My game example was a response in an anticipation of a challenge to the demand for universality. And I am agreement it is possible for a non player to make sense of the rules.
            Is knowing all moves about the game about reasonableness? I doubt it

            Like

          • Anon says:

            And saying that one has to be Muslim in order to make sense of it is quite a sweeping statement, I’m sorry to say. We aren’t all lawyers or judges but we have a sense of understand of the law as a layperson. Yes it true that your demand for universal application is there but it should not be on a standard based on our human standards as we both know moral and philosophical relativism has always existed in history. Just examine the changes and universal application there is hard to substantiate.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            There is no other standard we can use. All standards are human.
            It isn’t a sweeping statement. Often, whenever criticism is made on Islam or Koran, there is the charge that one should read the Koran in Arabic and or read the various apologies/ hadiths written to explain what to any person of sense would seem absurd.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            I mean no disrespect to you or your opinions at all my brother nor did i even intend to. I apologize in advance if i seem to come off offensive. But i do have to ask what is your current stance or your understanding about existence? I also need to understand where your coming from. Thank you my brother

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You’d not be apologising if you didn’t think you have been rude. Since I haven’t complained, I don’t think so far you have been.
            My stance in what sense. The question isn’t clear to me.
            I am irreligious. An equal opportunity disbeliever

            Like

          • Anon says:

            I’m sorry my brother but ridiculing ideas or belief is not a legitimate way of criticism . It is a way of criticism but not the best way. And I hope so far that i have not ridiculed your ideas in any way. Actually i did not state that knowing all the moves in chess is about reasonableness but it was an analogy to rebutt your analogy about sports. Neither did i state knowing all the moves. In that example i was trying to convey how if a person outside of a situation they saw may see it as unreasonable at first, and through gaining more knowledge about what they saw it can be make sense to them reasonably to a degree.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I didn’t say best. I said it is legitimate. Sometimes through ridicule one could be persuaded to see that an idea they hold is stupid or silly.
            You are free to ridicule any ideas I hold, I will not take offense. If the criticism is legitimate, I will adjust my ideas.
            I don’t see how it rebutted my analogy. If anything, the bigger question should be whether my demand for universality is valid. Because if it is, I can drop the sport analogy and nothing will have been lost from my argument.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            I apologise not because i think i was rude but to be courteous and respectful in this discussion. And I’m glad you brought up the topic about reading in Arabic. We both can agree that some meanings get lost in translation. And what’s worse is that we can translate a certain phrase more than one way. If we do not really understand a language, can we truly say that we get the absolute meaning in translation?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I can have civil discussions without being rude. So you need not worry about that. What I can’t promise is that I would not ridicule.
            Oh yes, some meanings get lost in translation and sometimes.
            And again I answer to the affirmative to your question. And I add that any god concerned with sending a message to humans would do so in a language all of them would understand without need for translation

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Just like how the old testament was written in aramaic or the hindu scriptures are written in hindu, can we say for sure that what is translated into English is absolutely the correct meaning? And i do not understand the term equal opportunity disbeliever. Can you kindly elaborate?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I think your first question is duplicated and I answered it in the last comment.
            Name any deity, I lack a belief in one and all. That is equal opportunity. It is metaphor

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Okay then if that’s the case then god either had to create a common language that all humans speak or he had to send his message through all languages? Is that a reasonable proposition?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I think it would only be reasonable if a god existed and was interested in our affairs that would be the least of the things it would do

            Like

          • Anon says:

            And my examples were to show that its not we learn through translation, its that we learn the meaning through the languages themselves

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You have lost me

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Okay brother i told you that ridicule is not a legitimate way of criticism. And that it is better to criticize without ridiculing. Which i will not do so to you even if you have already gave the option. Why do you demand for universality in the first place?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            It was in my first response.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            I also agree with you that if god existed and the least interested thing he would do is be concerned with our affairs. Probably because he has other things to deal with

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Oh okay my brother, i got lost about if universality is valid, then you can drop the sports analogy and nothing would have been lost from your argument

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You were critiquing my sports analogy. I said my sports analogy was an anticipation of a challenge to the demand that if something is to be reasonable, than anyone properly constituted would make sense of it without finding it absurd. The OP was about divine will. The post I referenced would only seem reasonable to a Muslim or a believer but not to a person of common sense. I hope that is clear now.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            If i understand correctly, if universality is valid then the analogy is not needed. But if universality is invalid then the analogy is needed? Am i right in my understanding?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No. You misunderstand me. If universality is valid, the sports challenge does nothing to weaken it. On the other hand, if it isn’t, the sports example should demonstrate its weakness

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Okay my brother, i showed you in my analogy that you don’t need to be in a particular group to find what that particular group is advocating is reasonable of not. On the contrary, being a religious and having common sense does not necessarily mean they are separate

            Like

          • Anon says:

            And i noticed that your arguments are usually towards the negative or null

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Mainly because I like to build by substraction

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Could you possibly think of an analogy that would demonstrate its strength?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Why would I need an analogy to demonstrate its strength. All you could do is show that it is not valid.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            How do you build by subtraction? It does not seem reasonable

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            As a sculptor. You haven’t seen a sculptor work? They subtract what they don’t need to come up with a composition.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            But the block they sculp out of was already a composition in itself. How can you build a house subtracting layers?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Now you are becoming interesting. I didn’t say building houses. Just said building. And that was a metaphor. It is enough to show an argument is flawed without putting something in its place

            Like

          • Anon says:

            If you can show an analogy that demonstrates its strength then you can show that it is possibly valid

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I can give an example to show that this requirement is not a must. You don’t need an analogy to demonstrate 2+2=4

            Like

          • Anon says:

            So in that case there is mo need for a counter argument?

            Like

          • Anon says:

            U just showed me using those mathematical symbols as analogy that 2+2=4

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            not every example is an analogy

            Like

          • Anon says:

            And that is an example of addition not subtraction

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Let is cut the chase. Where is this going?

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Nowhere apparently

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I had that feeling. I will go through the comments later to see what I missed or what I didn’t make clear and do so later.
            Have a good time wherever you are.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Anyway my brother I deeply appreciate your time and effort in discussing these issues with me. What a kind heart you have my brother.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            It can never be so serious, life, that is.

            Like

          • Anon says:

            Maybe not for you. But we need to be serious in life sometimes

            Like

      • Thank you for your kind words. I, too, cherish debate for the purpose of learning. It is rare to find people who are genuine in their desire to seek knowledge about Islam (without the intention to straight-up bash out views) and hence at this point I am doubtful – however, here I will practice the Islamic practice of Husnuzon, which means having positive thoughts towards others’ intentions.

        If at any time while reading my response you start feeling any sense of animosity then I suggest you stop. You are not under any obligation to read my response or reply to them – we have free will (;

        “Where is paradise? I would love to know the coordinates.” And your comment related to this: “I have a feeling it might be boring there. Imagine no work to do, no gardening, nothing to look forward to. I would be quick to advice (sic) them to live fully here”

        – Paradise is not merely a place that we go to after we die and are resurrected – it is also a state of mind. You stated that in Paradise, there would be “nothing to look forward to”. To us Muslims, Paradise is ALL that we look forward to while we are in this life.

        “… and it leaves me puzzled why anyone with any common sense would continue to worship a god whose whims are so arbitrary.”

        – Yes, I was puzzled. But instead of shrugging it off and claiming that God’s whims are arbitrary, I sought knowledge. It is through seeking knowledge and understanding that knowledge that I continued to worship God.

        “A god who would save but chooses not to so it can punish.”

        – He punishes not based on His own divine will; He punishes based on OUR actions which are based on OUR intentions (Niyyat). I explained this concept in great depth in the later portion of my post which you have shrugged off as ‘absurd’; perhaps if you wish, you can re-read them once more and ask me a specific question on which portion you find hard to understand.

        “Why punish anyone for straying when it is Allah’s will they stray?”

        – Yes, it is Allah’s will they stray. But this will is based on our intention. Again, I direct you back to my post.

        “Why oppose Allah?”

        – That is the nature of this world (Dunya). We are often tempted to oppose Allah due to our own souls/ ego (Nafs) which are influenced by this Dunya. Some are tempted to sin by Shaytan (Satan).

        “It is unfathomable to me how a mere mortal would have designs against plans of an omni- being. I need help comprehending how one would know what path has been laid by the deity and then how with this information go ahead and defy it.”

        – “God wants for man only what man wants for himself.” The mortal’s designs and the deity’s designs are not contradictory. Several paths have been laid by God – we do not know the paths. But we will traverse one of the paths according to our intentions.

        “It is like being told 2+2=4 and refusing to believe it.”

        – God has laid out =4, =5, =6, etc. There are several paths and destinations for you that are predestined. Through your intention (the left hand side of that equation), God leads you to that destination.

        “Had the fruit not been there, would Adam have wanted to eat it?”

        – I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand your point here.

        “Why would an omniscient god test man.”

        – This Dunya is only temporary. We live for the Hereafter (Akhira). That is why He needs to test us – to see who deserves to enter His Paradise.

        “It would have been far better not to create those it knew would stray unless we accept this god has sadistic tendencies.”

        – For every person there are paths that lead him to stray – there are also paths that lead him onto the straight path. The path that he would end up traversing is based on his own free will and intention. This is why a core concept in Islam is repentance; we believe that there is hope in everyone – that everyone has a chance to traverse on a straight path.

        To end off, let me just state that there are things in Islam which nobody can fully explain and we do not know how God truly works. But this is fine because if we, as humans, claim to hold all knowledge in the universe, that would make us no different from God. Hence we believe it is impossible to fully fathom or explain everything – because only God deserves to be called Al-Aleem, or the All-Knowing.

        I hope my responses will be of some benefit to you. I apologize in advance if they cause more confusion or ill-feelings. If you feel dissatisfied with my explanations, I recommend that you turn to someone who is more highly educated in Islam than I am.

        Also, let me again re-iterate that I am in no way forcing my views upon you. I answer because you asked. Using the verse that you had quoted: 18:29 “Say: “The truth is from your Lord.” Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it).”Hence I have no qualms about you rejecting what I say.

        Lastly, really sorry for this long comment and I hope I won’t crash someone’s page with this long comment.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Thanks for your detailed response. And no, I have no ill feelings towards you. You haven’t offended me. I may disagree with most of what you say not just for argument’s sake but because, in my view, I find them unsatisfactory.
          And if it will give you peace, you can’t force your beliefs on me, neither me on you. You need not apologise for that.
          I will respond to one specific question that you have asked.
          You say Adam fell because he ate the fruit. Had there been no fruit in the garden to begin with or had god chose not to mention it, there would be no source of temptation to eat it. So I see no reason how it would be Adam’s fault alone and not god’s who put the fruit there in the first place. I hope that is clear now.

          Like

        • ejwinner says:

          Sorry, but your whole comment simply reeks with hatred, disgust, and despair for humanity. “We live for the hereafter.” So this life is pointless, a cruel joke? The people we love, the suffering we go through, the reasoning use to try to improve ourselves and make the world a little better than when we are born – just so much waste of time? – what a load to be flushed.

          “I recommend that you turn to someone who is more highly educated in Islam than I am.” – That would be pointless; ten centuries ago your ‘wisest’ Imams and Ayatollahs shut down philosophy, reasoning, possible doubt any hope for enlightenment that leads us out of the tribal darkness of superstition – and condemned all apostates to death, so that ‘reasonable disagreement’ cannot exist within your religion, which is why it is condemned to eternal factionalism and repeated episodes of violence and suppression.

          Your god acts entirely on whim – there is no way to excuse that, and it cannot be explained, because it is already an explanation for the evident irrationality that streams through your religion as its life-blood.

          Given that, your effort to argue that intentionality somehow compliments the pre-destination of god’s will is spurious and a puerile – which is why you can’t quite get Makagutu’s quite clear point that it makes no sense to assume believe in a god that creates us to punish us – since god is also the author of our intentionality as well as of the destiny such intentions lead us to.

          “To end off, let me just state that there are things in Islam which nobody can fully explain and we do not know how God truly works.” Then what is the point – to close our minds and stop asking questions? Submit to the will we cannot understand, regardless of how much suffering it causes us? To follow the directives of a nearly incoherent ancient text though it be to inflict violence and suffering on others or ourselves?

          During a year I spent among expatriate Jamaicans, I got to know some Rastafarians. Revisiting the old haunts I met one of my old Rasta friends, running a vegetarian restaurant. He admitted that he no longer believed that Haile Selassie was god, and didn’t pay attention to the old religion – “it was pretty confusing really,” He did admit to believing in “something out there,” as many non-religious believers do, but he was no longer concerned with what this ‘something’ might be anymore. “I don’t know what comes after life,” he told me, “but I now know how to live.” The threat of the ‘end times’ had been lifted from his mind, allowing him to concern himself with his own health and his family and friends. He was pretty happy with that. And I don’t see any reason why he should be.

          You religious believers do strike me as profoundly unhappy – and you want the rest of us to be, too. But that’s your problem, not ours. And you are welcome to keep it to yourselves; I’ll have none of it.

          Like

          • makagutu says:

            I couldn’t have said it any clearer

            Liked by 1 person

          • “And you are welcome to keep it to yourselves; I’ll have none of it.”

            Which is why I had originally refused to provide my response here.

            Anyone who is genuine in knowing my responses to the above comments can comment on my blog. I will not respond here as it has been explicitly stated that my views are not welcome here.

            Have a good day everyone. May peace be upon all of you.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            How do you determine genuine? My friend’s comment was genuine. Are you saying only those who agree with you are genuine? In that case I think you were never really interested in being understood but more likely you wanted to preach.
            It is fine if you don’t respond. That really is your discretion

            Like

  8. emmylgant says:

    Interesting post. Love the last quote.
    And your patience is admirable. Hugs
    🙂

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

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