Soul Vs. Spirit

soul vs spirit2

According to the collective consciousness (the world’s coagulum) of the earth, the concept of the word soul entails ideas like, psyche; inspiration; an immaterial energy (spirit), or ghost; conscience; the figurative heart (emotions); intelligence; essence; courage; and of course, consciousness.  When the concept of the word soul is referred to one in the same with the concept of the word spirit, this indicates that the soul is an immaterial immortal energy that’s probably somewhat tangible within the spirited realm, and departs at death—we have to then seriously and logically ask in our own minds that if our souls indeed is of the nature of spirit species, then the biblical account of the creation of the first man and woman may not have necessarily first began as human species; that perhaps we may actually be of both species in one (e.g., the human species solely involves mankind; in whereas the spirit species solely involves biblical angels, cherubim and seraphim kind:  And if humans are of celestial spirit origin, that may suggest that humans have first been created as a spirit, to then be infused within a human, that is if you actually believe that the concept of soul is one in the same with the concept of spirit).  But according to theocratic biblical accounts, the creation of the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) origin is purely terrestrial and not celestial—there’s no known account that the biblical God first created man and woman as spirit substances, to then secondly insert those spirit substances into the human substances that was formed from the dirt of the earth.  Furthermore, the biblical accounts indicate that God then breathed into the lungs of the first man, and that the first man then became a living soul (an animating living substance); in other words, the inanimate body that God created began to animate after God breathed into him the breath of life (air infused with divine energy: not a literal spirited soul, somehow infused within the newly created human body).  This “breath of life” capacity is the same as with resuscitating an inanimate man with your own breath to life—if you succeed with the resuscitation, then you basically given the inanimate man the breath of life (your energy infused with air) to reanimate the inanimate object—this simply does not mean that you gave the inanimate object a new soul (spirit); it only means that you’ve reanimated the inanimate object back to life in his/her natural state as a human, and not as a spirit:  The breath of life in these biblical accounts is what it is, just breath (air infused with either divine or human energy) to solely animate, or reanimate, the functions of the human lungs so that the “inanimate body” becomes then the “animate soul” to life.

Spirit or human, whether something can be seen or not, is still made of some sort of substance and energy—nothing just immaterially floats into existence made of nothing (e.g., a disembodied conscious; astral-projection; etc.).  As an actual invisible spirit, not immaterially, you as that kind of species would still have to be in possession of an animating embodied substance: that means, that as a spirit, you would still not be disembodied—spirit or human, you still need an animating body to live and function as the nature of your own species.  We simply then cannot be made of both human and spirit substances infused into one (two species in one); we either have a spirited animating body, or a human animating body.  Since it should be clear that our souls are nothing more but our own animating biological bodies, it then should also be understood that the spirit species are also in possession of their own souls that is also nothing else but their own animating spirited bodies: surely, we simply could not have simultaneously been created with two souls, infused into one transient embodiment, that then departs again at death.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, can exist in a disembodiment state—not even consciousness.  Energy (e.g., biological energy) can only continuously exist when it is “embodied” in some kind of substance that can contain all the elements that makes what your species are:  Without embodiment of any form or kind, your energy simply cannot, and will not exist—it will then only disperse into non-existence if it’s not contained (embodied).  According to the etymology of the word ‘soul,’ its’ root solely entails something that animates:  It comes from the Latin word, anima, which is used in words like in animal and animation—an indication that something, or someone, is just purely animating:  An inanimate object, however, is not a soul (e.g., the body of a tree or plant), nor does it also embody a soul within it; in other words, it does not animate—it’s not a life force substance, but only a biological energy substance that’s embodied inanimately—so not all embodiments animate—not all are then living: in other words, not all bodies are souls; only the ones that animate are souls:  So if you’re human, or an animal, your body then animates as a life force to live appropriately as intended; but if you’re other than human or animal, your body inanimately just exist as an impact force to sustain an environment appropriately as intended.  In this instance, it is then logically comprehensible that our souls, humans and all animals, are purely biological, made of nothing else but of muscles, tissues, organs, water, bones and blood; all contained appropriately as an organized embodied animating biological force.  Therefore, if an embodiment substance animates, that then is the literal soul in of itself:  So this indicates that whether you are human or an animal, you are then in possession of a literal perishable soul because all of what you are biologically made of, is the actual embodiment of you that animates—your physical soul is literally an animated living object—a living soul; and not just some inanimate existing object.  Your body animates and therefore, your body is the soul.  Nonetheless, in all of the global theocratic and “spiritual” collective consciousness, it is still figuratively felt (figured/believed) that the concept of the word soul is still metaphorically one in the same with the concept of the word spirit; and yes, even with the concept of ghost.  It has then been disambiguated that soul and spirit are not at all one in the same; however, metaphorically speaking, it is believed that it is so.  So when this topic of soul vs. spirit is thus disputed figuratively, to then debate it literally, would absolutely be futile.  Debating anything in a figurative and metaphorical manner is a whole disputed dimension all on its’ own, and should absolutely never be integrated with a debate that is purely literal and logical.  Hence, in a literal and logical comprehension, when soul is described all-together with the words like spirit and ghost, that then becomes phenomenal, an irrational feeling (irrational, in the sense of being the opposite of rationale, and not in the sense of being something that is negative); an exclusive language of the figurative heart that The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”), for most of people in that kind of collective belief(s), itself possesses.

Indubitably, a human soul is then just an embodiment of substances that animates with awareness and automatons, or both depending what species we are referring to: as long as it animates, it is still a soul in its making; in other words, flesh too is a soul.  Soul does not equal to spirit as is accordingly to the figurative and metaphorical etymology of both concepts of soul and spirit.  Even the biblical spirit species, such as angels, cherubim and seraphim, are also living souls because they animate in their spirited embodiment bodies.  Unlike the human species, although spirit species don’t need to eat organic foods to sustain their souls, they still have to somehow “absorb” some kind of energy to sustain their own, simply because they’re not immortal; in other words, just like there are mortal humans, so there are also mortal spirits even though they possess everlasting life:  Yes!  Even with everlasting life you can still be mortal:  Why?  Simply because if humans were to find a way to possess everlasting life, they would still have to eat to sustain their souls:  If you don’t eat, even with everlasting life, what would happen to your biological animating body if you do not ever feed its’ stomach?  Better yet, what would happen to you, even with everlasting life, if you’re in a plane that accidently falls into an active lava volcano: would you still survive it?  Of course not.  The concept of everlasting life is not one in the same with the concept of immortality.  For any living sentient biological or spirited matter to exist as immortal, an infallible self-sustaining of embodiment substances must first be exchanged with the current fallible one; from one animating body and into the other one: in other words, taking all of what your memories are, along with what your exclusive experiences are, out of your own current mortal animating embodiment and into another new immortal animating embodiment.  So, realistically, as the flesh that we are, even if we could somehow attain everlasting life, we would never attain immortality: even an actual immortal God cannot give us immortality in the animating flesh, nor in an animating spirit that still needs to absorb energy to survive.  This immortal biblical God would have to give us an appropriate self-sustaining animating embodiment that does not ever need to feed to survive, nor could ever be killed by any other forces that exists, not even by the forces of the very immortal biblical God itself:  So most of the human species need to forget about dreaming (fantasizing) about ever attaining immortality for their biological souls, because even with everlasting life, one is still mortal because one is still susceptible to definitive death.

Back to the issue of soul vs. spirit: just as the human species are separate from the animal species, spirit species too are separate from any terrestrial species of the earth: spirit is a species all on its’ own class and creation; it’s not something that the human species are in possession of; hence, as humans, we are not two species in one.  So when we die, as humans, we die with our souls; and so do all the animals.  The figurative and metaphorical soul is purely then just a state-of-mind, a belief that’s believed to be a belief; and that’s all to it, just a belief.  Logically speaking, there is then literally no spirit within us, that then departs from our expired bodies, as a disembodied conscious at death; and our souls are not spirits either.


The souls of the spirit species are invisible to our naked eyes, but not among them, to each other; and it’s probably not made with biogenic assembled contents and substances—so it won’t even look like anything that is human at all.  Their animate souls (spirited animating bodies) are still tangible although invisible, but not immaterial; that might be made with certain specific invisible energies (e.g., radiation, protons, neutrons, and other invisible and gaseous contents that are non-biogenic assemblages) that we cannot see: a much greater force than our very own biogenic forces; and it probably could be dangerous, even lethal and possibly fatal if they were to come into direct contact with our souls; hence, direct contact with a spirit’s soul could be harmful to a human’s soul—that is why, according to biblical accounts, angels that came to visit certain humans had to take on human forms (biological embodiment forms) in order to prevent any serious harm to them: in other words, spirits and humans in direct contact with each other is not a safe close encounter after all.  So what exactly is then the origin of fleshly souls?

According to both theocratic and evolutionary accounts, the human species origin is from our very own terrestrial planet, the Earth:  We are then not of spirit origin.  Hence, our physical animating embodiments are indeed solely of biological forces:  The human and animal animating physical body does not need some kind of an external invisible life-force, to then inhabit it in order to then make it animate:  The human and animal animating biological body animates all on its’ own, is an automaton animating bio-force, a soul all on its’ own: an energy that we can see: a force visible to our eyes as we gaze in awe at our own makeup of our souls.  The soul is then what it is, an embodiment of substances that’s organized and capacitated with animating abilities, fleshly or spirited.


Now that we know that everything that animates, other than just something that moves, is the literal soul: one can then ask if every soul is then sentient.  Before that question is answered, let us first consider that a soul can actually be simulated: but how, one may ask?  Well, remembering that everything and everybody that animates is a soul in of its making, one who is then in the profession of technology can also simulate a soul that animates (e.g., an advanced mechanical animating soul robot):  Take for example the Honda’s humanoid robot, known as ASIMO (Advanced Step in Innovative MObility), that looks like an astronaut, complete with a helmet and backpack, is a robotic project that has been in a long extended research and through many evolved developments, for about a total of 25 Gregorian years.  This humanoid robot has been through an extensive evolutionary process with improved agility in animation, and also with improved mechanical automaton conscious of intelligence that the best technology can offer (the term “conscious” used here is not being referred to as a conscious that produces “awareness,” but more like a conscious that actuates itself like an automaton engine that produces automaton thoughts without awareness, without the-Mind).  Just like ASIMO, all the animal species are just as the same, biological automaton robots, that functions with automaton instinctual intelligence, even without single ounce of sentience (e.g., elephants are known to have excellent memories, even better than the human memories; however, unlike the human species, the elephants don’t have a mind (awareness) to intently manipulate and manage their automaton memories at will; therefore, their automaton excellent cerebral memories are then solely dependent to be automatically stimulated by their physical senses when need be to survive as their own species); indeed, a cerebral brain can also function very well without awareness (without the-Mind):  There is, after all, such a thing as a mindless brain; not every brain is mindful:  Only the human species are in possession of mindful brains; the brains without a mind are known as automaton instinctual brains.  With this in mind, it is therefore comprehensible that not every physical animating soul is sentient.  The sole function of the automaton instinctual brain is to survive, and to maintain a natural environment fitting for the human species:  The sole function of an intently and willful mindful brain is to, not only survive, but to live in sentience, and cultivate a cynreality world that can only exist within human awareness.  Indeed, now that we have learned that a soul is nothing more than an animating physical body, and that not every soul needs to be sentient for it to be a bona-fide soul, a soul can then be simulated.  And just because the ASIMO soul doesn’t eat food like the human and animal species do, it still needs to refuel with energy for its battery.  So we all eat, in many forms, to sustain our souls; biologically or mechanically, we all need to refuel in some way or another.  The animating sentient and non-sentient physical souls live, in whereas, an inanimate body only exists and not live:  In other words, you solely live if you have a soul to animate as such:  If you don’t have a soul, you cannot live as one, you can then only exist.  Therefore, it is then understood that if the thing that exists does not animate, it is then not of life form, but just an energy form to sustain our lives in of themselves:  Keep in mind that just because something moves, that doesn’t necessarily mean that that something is the same as animating (e.g., the earth moves as it itself rotates upon its axis, but it doesn’t animate: flowers moves toward sunlight, but they don’t animate towards it).  When something just moves, it only exists to move: when something animates, it only lives to create of what it can create from itself, with sentience or just automatons, or both:  An automaton instinctual brain lives solely to impact, in whereas, an intently and willful mindful brain lives impact and also to influence.  Influencing anything or anyone is a willful manifestation and behavior, and therefore, in need of a mind (awareness); hence, the popular global phrase that the moon influences the earth is inappropriate because the moon itself is mindless: it can then only impact the earth, not influence it.  Hence, the sentient human soul can influence, in whereas, all non-sentient animal souls can solely impact.  Not every soul, therefore, can influence intently and willfully; so not every soul is sentient.

Since now we’ve learned that the soul and the mind are also two different things, and that the soul and the spirit are also two different things, anything then that does not animate is not a life substance but just an energy substance that exists, biologically or not.  Since vegetation, trees, flowers, grasses, and all the other inanimate existing biological substances do not animate, they are then not of life substances as some scientist have presumed them to be, only then to support an evolutionary lineage that can theoretically explain the origin of the human species, in virtuality that is.  So even if scientists have found an extraterrestrial planet with vegetation in it, that still does not mean that they’ve discovered life-forms in it.  Unless something or someone animates, other than just moves, that would then be an actual indication of discovering life in another planet.  So an inanimate biological body is an embodiment of just energy and nutrients; in whereas, an animating biological body is an embodiment of energy, nutrients and life.  If something is then not a life form, then it is not a soul in its making: and if it’s not a soul, then it is not a life form in of itself at all.


With all these comprehensions in mind that we’ve learned from above this paragraph, there is then also, in all actualities, such a thing as “microbial souls” that animates (e.g., a unicellular or multicellular microorganisms that strive and survive in the most extreme environments—they’re termed as microbial life in the “organism” category—whether a soul is constructed with multi/unicellular structure on a microscopic level, or greater, should make all the differences if the very microbial things/lives, that’s used in what’s constructed them, is an animal or not: in other words, no matter how small or tiny a thing exists, if it animates, eats and can instinctively sense danger, it is then a soul of its own making:  Just because a soul is on a microscopic level, it doesn’t mean that it itself is not an animal (it’s just a microscopic animal).  The general scientific term for “microbial life,” however, is too broad to tell the differences between an microscopic animal, as opposed to just an microscopic organ—in actuality, even in microscopic size, if a unicellular or multicellular animates all on its own, other than just moving, and somehow it itself can eat and instinctively sense danger, it is then indeed an official animal species, but in a microscopic level, that is:  Hence, it would be appropriate to then label them as “microscopic animals,” and they should be distinctively demarcated from inanimate microorganisms, and thus be separated from the broad and general category of just the plain ‘ole “organisms”—these microscopic animals are indeed microbial souls, a different kind of species of the animal kingdom; they’re still souls and not just plain ‘ole organisms.  The term “microbial life” is then an existing fact and reality when solely pertaining to microbial souls.  When evolutionist scientists categorize animating microscopic animals with inanimate microscopic organisms, together in just one whole “organism” group, they do this with the intention to solely explain the building blocks of evolutionary life concerning the virtual theory of evolution itself.   Most every evolutionist scientists uses this term broadly, without demarcations, to convince of themselves, as well as others, that evolution does exist and that somehow, life have evolved from all organisms when in fact, life may have originated from life itself.  Inanimate objects can only beget inanimate objects—and animate objects can only beget animate objects—a soul originated from a soul, and therefore, it will end as a soul.  By keeping the term “microbial life” broadened with inanimate microorganisms and animate microscopic animals together, most and every evolutionist scientists can somehow convince others that all microorganisms, animate or inanimate, are altogether of the building blocks of evolutionary life, that they all have stemmed from one organism itself:  The animating microscopic animals do not stem from inanimate microorganisms—they’re both entirely different even though the animating microscopic animals could made of the inanimate microorganisms; they just don’t work together building something else (e.g., we, as human species, may be biologically constructed with both multicellular and unicellular microorganisms, but not together with microscopic animals): the animating microscopic animals are of their own creation, separate from us, living in their own microscopic environments, maintaining all that needs to be microscopically maintained: they don’t work together with inanimate microorganisms to build and evolve a new creation; and they themselves have not evolved in of themselves either.  A microscopic animal remains as such: so an animating microscopic animal is indeed an actual microscopic soul, and therefore, they should be solely appropriately grouped as “microbial life;” that is, apart from just inanimate multi/unicellular microorganisms, in which they are definitely of microbial organisms, but not of microbial life.  Indeed, even a soul can be microscopic.  Therefore, an actual inanimate microorganism is not a life form but only a plain ‘ole organism.  An inanimate micro-organism is just a functional basic cell-unit, the building blocks of all organic substances that are animate or inanimate in the making of a whole:  And basically, there are also specific micro-organisms assigned to specific building blocks, according to their kinds, that are of specific degrees although they appear the same in appearances:  In other words, for an inanimate biological construct (e.g., vegetation), there are specific microorganisms assigned to manifest specific organic substances that cannot be used to develop animate constructs (e.g., humans, animals), and vice-versa.  Just as there are specific species according to their kinds, there are also specific microorganisms according to their kinds:  A micro-organism that’s specifically assigned to become a building block of an inanimate organic substance cannot, and will not be used to become a building block for an animate organic substance.  Hence, since the building blocks of microorganisms are also solely of their own kinds, how can anything then be an origin of a processed gradual evolution if the smallest micro fabric of the making is also specifically of its’ own kind?  Therefore, on a microscopic level, an inanimate organism is not a life form; it is not of “microbial life:” that’s a category that should solely be assigned to animating microscopic animals, not to inanimate microscopic organisms.  So if astronomers were to ever discover a planet filled with vegetation and trees (inanimate organic substances), even without a single microscopic animal, that definitely would not even be close to finding life at all in that discovered planet, not even “microbial life.”  A plant is not an organic life form, it’s just an organic thing form.  Therefore, the evolutionary process that starts from inanimate organic “thing” substances – to – animate organic “life” substances, is just a virtual scientific theory (belief).  Any kind of a biological embodiment that animates, and is not human, it is then an animal, even on a microscopic level; nothing more, nothing less.  Hence, when evolutionist scientists combine specific inanimate microorganisms, that are solely assigned to become the building blocks of all inanimate organic substances, along with specific inanimate microorganisms, that are solely assigned to become the building blocks of all animate life substances, along also with animate microscopic animals (microbial-animals), into a one simple integrated category of “microorganisms,” this is then just an attempt, or an effort for to support their scientific theory of evolution.

But what of the figurative feeling (belief) of a “disembodied consciousness” that many claim to be the very soul itself; that “consciousness” (the mental experiences of one’s own memories) that floats and becomes one with the One collective consciousness of the universe?  Is it real: is it an actuality?  Can it be that our “consciousness” departs from our physical dimensions at death?

the plug

To answer those questions one must keep in mind that “consciousness” and the “soul” are two separate elements, they’re both are not one in the same at all:  For one thing, we have already learned that a “soul” is nothing more but the actual animating physical body, and that “consciousness,” well, it really isn’t that clear or definitively defined as to what it really is.  Some say that consciousness is sentience itself; that consciousness is the phenomenal mechanism that produces for us all “awareness.”  Some say that if a brain can think in terms of processing, manipulating and determining information, that there then proof that a thought is in process, and that with every thought there has to be some sense of sentience.  The matter of the fact is that just because a thought is in process, that doesn’t necessarily mean that with every thought in process produces awareness.  A thought itself, depending upon the kind of species we’re talking about, is also an automaton instinct that can function in the absence of sentience (e.g., all animal species) for the purpose that all animal species can automatically survive in most many natural environment(s):  Therefore, “consciousness” is nothing more but the very mechanism of automaton thought process:  Consciousness is then in no need of sentient personal experiences to function adequately at its literal mindless limited capacity.  The sole actual element that does produces “awareness” is no other than the-Mind itself because the very facility of “sentience” itself is a distinct capacity of the-Mind: and since sentience is accompanied with experience, the facility of “experience” is then also a distinct capacity of the-Mind.  Absolutely nothing in this earth, and within the entire finite universe, can experience anything else, or even itself:  The sun can’t experience itself: our trees can’t experience themselves: and neither can our physical brains can experience themselves:  Only the-Mind can facilitate us with the distinct capacity to experience anything internally and externally, because only the-Mind can experience the-Mind itself; nothing else besides the-Mind can experience itself.  Further, anything to be sustained and maintained must be contained: in other words, for any kind of energy and element to exist, inanimate or animate, it must be embodied to remain intact and in existence.  Nothing, absolutely nothing can exist without it being contained (encompassed) somehow: if something is then disembodied, that something cannot then exist; and since everything that exist is in some form of an energy, even to the smallest tiny atom, if disembodied, it will disperse and not exist any longer:  So a floating disembodied automaton thought process is not possible to manifest   Therefore, the figurative feel (belief) that a disembodied conscious separates itself at death is not the literal physical soul: it is neither any kind of soul at all:  That is the logic of any and all existences.  Without an embodiment of any kind, a so-called disembodied conscious cannot exist.  Whether anyone can identify souls as being one in the same with concepts like, inspirations, essences, breaths, spirits, consciousness, emotions, or even the-Mind itself, you still need to be embodied (contained) in something for any of them to exist—even the biblical God itself is embodied somehow, for even that God too is made of energy as is read in the scriptures themselves; otherwise, that God’s power(s) too will disperse into non-existence: hence, a disembodied conscious of any kind is nothing more but an allegorical feeling, a belief, that many dreams in their minds, and also during at occasions when “near death experiences” are dreamt.  The popular global description of near death experiences are actually nothing more but near death dreams—it’s all in the-Mind, because solely in the-Mind, it is where we can experience things and build new internalized memories, from an immaterial source that’s independent of our physical material senses.  It is solely our minds that can give us immaterial experiences that’s enhoused within our material brains.  During our sleeping stage of non-sentient hours/spans, our dreams can give us internal, not external, immaterial experiences that are independent from our physical senses—does that then mean that every dream is then an actual disembodied experience?  No, nothing leaves the actual physical soul when we sleep in our unawareness slumber stages; or when we finally die as well.  All the essences, memories and experiences that is embodied in the souls of the human species, at the time/span of his/her death, all too will then die with its’ dying soul—nothing, absolutely nothing can become into a state of a disembodiment existence after a total expiration of its own physical soul embodiment because logically speaking, nothing can exist without at least some form of embodiment:  So, in all reality and cynreality, the term “disembody” is then total “annihilation.”  It would be more logical to assume that there is a possibility that other life forms (souls) are out there in the universe, in another extraterrestrial planet residing therein, then for something to exist in a total disembodiment state (e.g., a disembodied conscious/energy).  However, in a mental state-of-mind, “immaterial experiences” are possible, but only through dreams (e.g., you might dream that you had a delicious piece of pie; so that when you’re fully awake, you can then can recall how delicious that piece of pie was even though physically, you never really ate that piece of pie at all—but that’s not to say that you had a temporary out of body experience that allowed you to go to somebody else’s house and had a piece of their own pie instead: how could you, in a disembodiment manifestation, you would have no mouth to have eaten that piece of pie, nor a tongue to taste it anyway).  There is then, after all, a difference between a disembodied experience as opposed to an actual immaterial experience.  An immaterial experience is solely experienced through dreams that are independent of the physical material senses (e.g., sight, hearing, touching, taste and smell): a disembodied experience, however, does not logically exist (e.g., astral-projection/astral-consciousness), which is then nothing more than a dream that is misunderstood as an out of body experience.  Therefore, a disembodied conscious is no conscious at all.  In addition, the figurative feel (belief) of still-living dead ancestors, in some spirit forms, is then also just a metaphorical heart condition that allows one to deny death, but to still keep on functioning in a sanely manner.  The figurative faith that the dead keeps living as sentient disembodied souls is a psychological indication of total denial in definitive human expiration at its best—and the figurative feel (belief) that the entire universe is purely consciousness (e.g., astral-consciousness) is outrageously illogical.

Our souls are then purely physical, and therefore, also definitively perishable—the idea of the immortality of the soul, which departs at death, is purely allegorical.

In conclusion, the figurative feel (belief) that a soul is one in the same with a spirit; or that man is in possession of a spirited soul, or of spirituality; or that man is a spirit in its origin; or that consciousness and the figurative heart is the soul itself; or that even the-Mind in of itself is a soul, is very much part of the metaphorical language; a figurative sense that can’t be explained logically, but can be solely figured out, figuratively.  It is then logical and reasonable to actually concede that a metaphorical soul, in all discretion, that’s figuratively figured out to be a spirit is purely parabolical; nothing more, nothing less:  Purely emblematical in the absolute term.  In all reality, as well as in cynreality, our souls are our own actual animating physical bodies, and the concept of a spirit, in all actualities, is a species (a spirit species) that is not of our own human species.


[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Trispace, Carpercycle 27, 9 R.M. E.C. (Solar East)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

0 votes

Leave a Reply