Category Archives: Christian life

Is it wrong to ask God to provide financial gain?

Jesus made it clear that the measure of a person’s value has nothing to do with their material possessions. In fact, He declared that “mammon” (Syriac for wealth or riches) is one of the most common obstacles to having a right relationship with God (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:9-13).

If we pray for improvements in our finances, we are like a child asking his father for a new bicycle. There is nothing wrong with asking, as long as we are willing to accept “no” as a possible response.

Just as a father may realize that his child isn’t mature enough to ride a bicycle on busy streets, God may realize that we aren’t ready for a financial windfall. He may know that we still need to learn discipline and self-control in order to achieve financial gain and handle it when we have achieved it. Or he may know that would be better for the development of our character if we never gained it.

If we pray for financial gain, it should be worded something like this:

“Heavenly Father, if it is Your will for me at this time, please help me financially. I have (list them) serious concerns, and don’t know how to deal with them. Please give me guidance and wisdom.”



Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Why did God Give our Pets Such Short Life Spans?

Although land tortoises can live over 150 years and parrots sometimes live as long as people, most pets have short life spans Perhaps the Lord gave our pets short life spans to keep us from getting more attached to them than to our fellow human beings. Since the love of some intelligent pets for their human masters is remarkably unconditional, they often establish a deep emotional connection with us. In fact, we sometimes find it easier to love them unconditionally than each other.

The emotional impact of the death of a family’s pet is like the loss of any family member, though on a lesser scale. It offers opportunities for learning important lessons in preparation for future losses that will be worse. The grief at a pet’s death can bring an awareness of our need for deeper relationships with the people in our lives.


Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (11 votes, average: 3.27 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Is Deep Sorrow Necessary to be Saved?

The term repentance in Hebrew means “to turn or return and is applied to turning from sin to God” (The New Bible Dictionary). In the New Testament, the term repent has the meaning of “a change of mind.” Repentance involves grief for sin and a willingness to set one’s priorities aright in faithfulness to the gospel message.

Jesus Himself linked repentance with conversion (Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:3; 17:3). A person can’t willfully continue in conscious sin and assume that God will automatically forgive him should he die before he can change his ways.

Genuine repentance always involves genuine fear (See the ATQ article, Is Fear Ever an Appropriate Motivation for Conversion?) and genuine sorrow. However, salvation is entirely a gift of God’s grace. It isn’t our sorrow or the extent of our sorrow that saves us. We can’t earn salvation by means of our sorrow or anything else we do.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

“So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Romans 9:16 ).

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

Repentance is necessary for conversion. But if we think our sorrow over sin must reach a certain “depth” before we can be saved, we are making our salvation dependent on something we do.

Genuine sorrow is always present with sincere repentance. However, just as repentance and godly sorrow for past sins don’t “earn” God’s forgiveness and grace, repentance and sorrow don’t end after we become Christians. They will continue throughout the rest of our life as the supernatural process of sanctification makes us increasingly aware of our personal corruption and sin (2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 13:20-21). With spiritual growth comes sensitivity to the sins we committed in the past. Our sorrow for those mistakes—and our desire to avoid repeating them—is an essential part of our becoming new creatures in Christ. We will experience deep sorrow as part of the process, although deepest sorrow never occurs at the beginning. In fact, it is impossible for us to sorrow as deeply for our sins when we begin our relationship with Jesus Christ as we will when He enters deeply into our lives and consciousness.

The sweet comfort that God provides to us in times of godly sorrow is also deeply affirming to our faith in Him.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (7 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Should I Believe in the Doctrine of Eternal Security?

Many Bible passages emphasize the reality of our security as believers in Jesus Christ: John 10:27-30; 13:1; Romans 8:29-39; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; Jude 1:24.

But even genuine believers can backslide and lose the joy of their salvation. The New Testament gives many examples of believers who drew back from their fellowship with Jesus Christ: the disciples (Matthew 26:56); Peter (26:69-75); the Christians in Corinth (2 Corinthians 12:20-21); and the Asian churches (Revelation 2:4,14-15,20).

There is a stark difference between backsliding and apostasy—a permanent departure from the faith. A true Christian can backslide, be chastened, and then repent and return (Hebrews 12:6; Revelation 2:5). A person who has merely professed faith without a genuine encounter with Christ may depart, prosper outwardly, and never return. The apostle John said that some who had left the fellowship of believers and were now teaching false doctrine showed by their actions that they never really belonged (1 John 2:19).

The doctrine of eternal security is taught in Scripture, but it is intended to comfort true Christians who are earnestly concerned with living faithfully for Jesus Christ. People who once professed faith and are now living sinfully without remorse should not be comforted by assurances that their profession of faith guarantees their salvation. We gain nothing by examining the nature of the “decision” they made. We need to point out to them that their present lifestyle is out of keeping with their profession by showing them Scriptures such as 1 John 3:4-9. They must be led to self-examination. If they are genuinely saved, God will chasten them (Hebrews 12:6). They will repent and return.

It may be impossible for us to make a judgment as to whether a person is a backsliding Christian or an impostor. Sometimes only time will tell.


Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

How Can We Love our Neighbor as Our Self, as Jesus Commanded?

Loving other people as oneself is a difficult goal. But Jesus clearly made it fundamental to Christian living. On one occasion, an expert in the Jewish law challenged Jesus with the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Luke 10:27 NKJV).

Although the goal of loving one’s neighbor as oneself is difficult, it isn’t impossible.  In Luke 6:36-38, Jesus gives some basic principles that help us understand what it involves:

Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you (NKJV).

This passage contains two principles. One principle is that our expectations of our neighbors are directly related to the expectations that will be placed on us. As Jesus said, “With the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” The expectations we have of others will be required by them (and God) of us. But even subjectively, we already love—or hate—our neighbors as ourselves. We subconsciously project our own attitudes and values upon other people, expecting them to perceive us as we perceive them. If we are impatient and judgmental towards others, we assume others will be impatient and judgmental towards us. If we are compassionate and patient towards others, we won’t have to deal with the pressures that come from assuming that others view us with hostility and impatience. Love or hatred directed outwards is always matched by love or hatred directed inwards.

The second principle is that love for one’s neighbor should never be confused with indulgence. A father who gives his children anything they want spoils them. If we love our neighbor as our self, we must be as careful in setting standards and goals for him as we do for ourselves. If God were a genie in a lamp who gave us anything we wanted, would we ever be satisfied? Of course not! Love for our neighbor involves the same principle. While love always seeks to promote the other person’s well-being, at times it is manifested in acts of charity and at other times in firm confrontation.

Our neighbor is just like us. At times he needs mercy, at times he needs correction, but he always needs our love.


Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Should Christians Trust What They Read on the Internet?

Lots of Christians question the Internet as a source of reliable information, but an historical perspective can help us understand its potential.

In biblical times, lots of people had rudimentary reading ability, but only a small portion of the population could read and write well. These were the priests, scribes, educators, historians, and lawyers—the ruling class in general. One of the reasons most people couldn’t write well was the relative scarcity of writing materials. Documents were handwritten on parchment made from animal skins, in soft clay or wax tablets, or on paper (made from papyrus in the Mediterranean world). If someone wrote something important, the only way it could be propagated was by painstaking hand-copying.

This was the state of the ancient “media”: People relied on what they heard by word of mouth, and their worldview was shaped by religious, political, and family leaders who were ultimately dependent on a small number of handwritten sources. Until the invention of the printing press, the consensus reality of the masses was based on a small group of scholars and scribes with access to hand-copied documents.

Even though many other significant social, cultural, and technological changes occurred by the 15th century, there was no important advance in “media” technology. False reports and mistaken viewpoints from respected sources still had tremendous influence. Although millions of people had been exposed to the gospel, under medieval conditions the gospel was badly distorted and corrupted.

The Gutenberg printing press (1440) confronted the ignorance and corruption of the political and religious hierarchy with printed books that a much larger portion of the population could afford. With relatively inexpensive printed material available in unprecedented quantities,1 important new ideas spread rapidly. Of course, just because something was printed in a book didn’t mean it could be trusted. Pamphlets and books were circulated by wild-eyed fanatics as well as by conscientious thinkers, and even conscientious thinkers made mistakes. Nevertheless, the overall impact of printing technology was an advance in knowledge. It is hard to see how the Enlightenment or the development of modern science could have occurred without this means of rapidly disseminating (and comparing) ideas.

In the centuries following the Reformation, pamphlets, broadsides, and books became commonplace, along with tremendously popular new forms of literature (the novel, the newspaper, the magazine, etc.), and most people in countries under the influence of Western civilization learned to read and look to printed material as a main source of information about reality. The effects of the Gutenberg press traveled around the world.

In recent history, 20th-century technological progress introduced other new forms of media, including recordings, motion pictures, radio, and television. In the midst of world wars and tumultuous cultural changes, these forms of media also began to shape the worldview of a now mostly literate population.

Because of the importance of printed material as a source of information, most people consider freedom of the press and related media an essential foundation for a healthy society. In some countries, freedom of speech and press are constitutionally protected.2 But the scale of society is much greater today than in the early years of representative democracy. Even though freedom of expression still exists and offers some residual cultural and political protection, it has diminishing influence as mass communication has become monopolized. The costs of producing and distributing ideas through the mainstream media are now much too high for most individuals and groups to compete. Corporations, governments, and other groups with very deep pockets control much of what the masses (i.e., you, me, and other evangelical Christians) are permitted to know.

The control of today’s “principalities and powers” over information is similar to the power the ruling elite held over information in the 15th century, but the means of control and manipulation today are more sophisticated and done on a much larger scale. In fact, the control of information is so extensive that we are generally unaware of how much our worldview is shaped and how badly our consensus view of reality has been distorted. We have been trained to rely on “experts” to tell us what is “true” (or socially acceptable) to the degree that we have almost forgotten that the “experts” promoted in the mass media have been selected on the basis of their willingness to tell us what the “principalities and powers” (Ephesians 6:12) want us to hear.

This is why the Internet is so important. It is the Gutenberg press of the 21st century. It offers the potential for true and unbiased information to be propagated to an ultimately limitless audience without the backing of great wealth and power, and it gives conscientious people and truth seekers the opportunity to network directly with each other without elite control or censorship. At the same time, like other forms of media, it can be used to corrupt and mislead as well as to educate and edify.

Christians should “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21; Romans 12:2). Evangelicals today need to be just as skeptical about the consensus reality propagated by the mainstream media as the Reformers, Christian humanists, and scientists of the 15th century were about the worldview and “consensus reality” dictated by the ruling elite of their day. The kingdom of God is just as revolutionary today as it was when Jesus proclaimed it to the multitudes in Galilee and Jerusalem.

  1. There were possibly “upward of 10,000 titles” published in pamphlet (Flugschrift) form during the first half of the 16th century (Kenneth E. Strand, “A Note on Reformation-Era Flugschriften”).Back To Article
  2. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) guarantees freedom of the press, along with other basic rights pertaining to freedom of expression and association, to United States citizens. Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Does Deuteronomy 22:5 Imply that Women Should Not Wear Pants But Only Skirts?

Neither men nor women wore pants in Bible times. Men and women both wore tunics, which were very similar in their design. (The woman’s outer tunic descended to her feet, while the man’s descended only approximately to the level of the knees.) The Ryrie Study Bible note on this verse states:

In that society male and female dress were similar, making distinctive styles for the sexes especially important.

The New International Study Bible makes the following observations:

Probably intended to prohibit such perversions as transvestism and homosexuality, especially under religious auspices. The God-created differences between men and women are not to be disregarded (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13).

Obviously, God was not requiring women to dress in a radically different manner from men. If that were the case, the Jewish people would have been required to have a clear distinction between the clothing worn by men and the clothing worn by women. (For example, if a drastic difference were required, Hebrew men would have worn pants as men do in our society, and women would have worn dresses.) However, since both men and women wore tunics, it is apparent that what God was concerned with was the conscious imitation of male clothing styles on the part of a woman or female clothing styles on the part of a man. Since our culture has long considered the wearing of slacks to be acceptable feminine attire, we don’t believe that the commandment in Deuteronomy 22:5 would in any way forbid it.

In 1 Peter 3:3-6, women are encouraged to seek the beauty that comes from within (“the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit”). Women should seek to dress in a manner that honors their femininity but is at the same time tasteful and modest. It is important that a woman place her main emphasis not on her exterior beauty but on the things of the Spirit—her spiritual beauty.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (14 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Can We Rely on the “Mainstream Media” as a Source of Information?

Compared to past generations, 21st-century people have access to an unprecedented amount of news. We see live coverage of disasters and conflicts in distant places and are flooded with information and commentary on thousands of subjects, from politics and social problems to religion and popular science.

Much of the news we get from mainstream media is based on real events and reliable reporting. But most of us also know that political parties, corporations, and nations at war often contribute large amounts of spin, selective reporting, and even disinformation.

Interestingly, another reason for wondering about the reliability of mainstream media comes from the pages of the Bible. The New Testament describes the kingdoms of the world as being under the control of an evil spirit that is deceptive by nature (Luke 4:5-6; John 8:44; 14:30; 2 Corinthians 4:4). The author of 1 John declares: “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (5:19 nkjv).

In spite of these scriptural warnings, we often overlook the ways that governments, political parties, and ruling classes of every age try to shape the news in ways favorable to their interests. In modern times, these efforts to shape the news are called “propaganda.” 1

Propaganda was first used in a systematic, scientific way in the early 20th century in association with WWI. Most historians now realize that the First World War began as the result of reckless military alliances and unanticipated events. Many people in the United States sensed that the war was a dreadful tragedy with no clear heroes or villains, and a large majority was not interested in getting drawn into European bloodshed. President Woodrow Wilson campaigned as a peace candidate in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.”

Although President Wilson publicly maintained a neutral posture, he and most other powerful US political leaders lent support to the English war effort in ways that inevitably drew the United States into the war. After entering the war, President Wilson created a commission to win the support of the American people. The President’s Committee on Public Information, launched a giant propaganda campaign utilizing all of the new media technologies.

The Committee on Public Information (also known as the Creel Commission) was successful beyond its organizers’ highest expectations. It portrayed a complex and tragic European conflict as a stark struggle between good and evil. Violations of international law by Britain and its allies were overlooked, while Germans were portrayed as Huns, rapists, and baby killers. Within 6 months, most US citizens were supporters of the war. Hatred towards all things German reached such a peak that orchestras no longer played music by German composers; German names for cities, towns, and streets were replaced; and the German language was no longer taught in schools. Congress passed legislation (Espionage Act 1917; Sedition Act 1918) that threatened dissenters with prosecution and imprisonment. Prominent critics of the war were thrown into prison.

One of the key members of the Committee on Public Information was Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays was to become known as the “father of modern public relations.” In his 1928 book, Propaganda, he acknowledged propaganda’s crucial role in fostering popular support for WWI:

It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind (p. 54).

He explained why and how the ruling class should continue to use propaganda to control the thinking of the masses:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind (p. 37).

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it (p. 71).

In place of thoughts [the group mind] has impulses, habits, and emotions. In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader (p. 73).

Edward Bernays’ principles have been accepted and applied by government and corporations ever since WWI. The public relations industry is based on them. As a result, modern mainstream media does more than provide the public with objective information about current events. Powerful interests continue to use the media to manage and shape public opinion. This doesn’t mean that journalists and editors are conscious liars who conspire to conceal the truth. Actually, if journalists were conscious conspirators and liars, the media would have less influence, as journalists would be struggling against their own consciences and be much less believable. Media misinformation and propaganda are more insidious. Most media spokespeople are probably unaware of their biases or the way they “spin” the news. They rise to the top of their professions by being outstanding representatives of the interests that pay their salaries and grant their promotions. They soon discover the themes and subjects that are taboo.

The reality and effects of government and corporate propaganda have been extensively documented. One example is a 1980s study of media coverage of the Vietnam War. Based on a painstaking analysis of the news coverage of the period, the authors showed that the mainstream media 2 “inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda” of the ruling class by “selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone” and “keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises.” 3

Today a handful of large corporations control television and cable news networks. Such corporations are not altruistic, but present the news in ways that promote their agendas and protect their profit margins.

Sensing that corporate news sources are superficial and biased, many people have turned to “talk radio” commentators who seem more reflective of their concerns. Unfortunately, such “independent” talk show stars are usually less concerned with conscientious commentary on the news than they are in generating good ratings and relationships with networks and sponsors.

Many today are awakening to the fact that mainstream media have long been misleading us about some of the most important events, issues, and facts of our time. Our struggle is truly not “against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12 nkjv).

  1. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of propaganda is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” and “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also a public action having such an effect.” Back To Article
  2. Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels, which therefore represent what the majority of media consumers are likely to encounter (Wikipedia). Back To Article
  3. Here’s a quotation from the study’s conclusion:

    In contrast to the standard conception of the media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and their independence of authority, we have spelled out and applied a propaganda model that indeed sees the media as serving a “societal purpose,” but not that of enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities. On the contrary, a propaganda model suggests that the “societal purpose” of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises. We have sought to show that the expectations of this model are realized, and often considerably surpassed, in the actual practice of the media in a range of crucial cases. We quite agree with Chief Justice Hughes, whom Lewis also cites, on “the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press” if democratic processes are to function in a meaningful way. But the evidence we have reviewed indicates that this need is not met or even weakly approximated in actual practice. (Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, p. 298). Back To Article

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Are the Ten Commandments for Christians?

The Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, was given to the people of Israel (Exodus 20:1-17), not Gentiles. It included both moral principles and ceremonial laws and regulations. It was intended to bring awareness of sin and guilt (Romans 3:19-20; 7:7-13; 1 Timothy 1:7-11), not to be a way of earning salvation. (Hebrews 11 explains how Abraham was saved by faith long before the law was given through Moses.)

The Jews referred to the Ten Commandments as “the ten words” (Deuteronomy 4:13). They were the basis of the entire Mosaic system, and as such they contain principles that remain the foundation of Christian ethics.

Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law (Romans 5:5; 8:1-4), so that Christians are no longer under the external Law of Moses (Galatians 3:1-14; Colossians 2:8-17). The Ten Commandments contain elements of ceremonial law. Christians aren’t required to follow these. Yet, when obedient to the Holy Spirit, Christians manifest God’s love and righteousness in harmony with the Ten Commandments’ moral principles (Romans 13:8-10).1

  1. The works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit listed by the apostle Paul in Galatians 5 demonstrate clearly how impossible it would be to live a Spirit-filled life while violating the moral principles within the Ten Commandments. Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (7 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Does the Bible Permit Women to Run for High Political Office?

The Bible was written at a time when women were not allowed prominent positions in society. The structure of ancient culture denied women many of the opportunities they rightfully enjoy today. However, in spite of the fact that women were suppressed by culture, the Bible contains many examples of influential women. In the Old Testament, for example, women served as prophetesses (Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1-2; Judges 4:4; 2 Chronicles 34:22), and judges (Judges 4–5).

Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and founder of the Christian faith, accepted women as equals in an age when women were regarded as inferior. He recognized no authority besides that of the leader who takes the role of a servant. He defied many of the customs of His day that tended to keep women secluded and in subjugation.

In the New Testament, Priscilla instructed the famous preacher Apollos (Acts 18:26). In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul seems to be assuming that women will be speaking openly in mixed church gatherings. Earlier we learn that women had the authority to preach in the apostolic church (Acts 21:8-9). There are many passages in the New Testament that describe the important role played by women, a role they held in spite of many severe, culturally imposed limitations. A significant number of women were included in Paul’s list of valued coworkers in Romans 16.

In general, Scripture clearly portrays the equality of the sexes before God (Genesis 1:27; Acts 10:34; 1 Corinthians 11:11-12; Galatians 3:28). The prophet Joel spoke, after all, of both men and women prophesying (“your sons and daughters will prophesy,” 2:28), and when the gifts of the Spirit are listed and described in the New Testament (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4:7-16) no distinctions are made on the basis of sex.

Although there is some controversy over the specific roles women should play in church leadership, there is no reasonable scriptural basis for believing that women should not serve in secular leadership roles, including top political roles such as United States Senator or President. Candidates running for such important roles should be selected on the basis of their character and wisdom, not because of their race, sex, or any other nonessential criteria.


Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...