//an afternoon discussion about psychopathy, Paul, spiritual enlightenment, divine intervention, and other things.

Partially out of preparation for my upcoming psycho-thriller Nihilum and partially out of sheer curiosity, I recently acquired the book ‘The Wisdom of Psychopaths’ by Kevin Dutton. In his book, Kevin, a research psychologist at Oxford, delves into psychopathy and the positives of such a state, as well as the negatives. As soon as I finished the book today, I immediately snagged Arielle for a two-hour discussion, because when it comes to discussing mental disorders, there’s nobody better. (Take that as you will.)

The following discussion was so good, and gave us so much to think about, that at the end of it I asked if she’d mind if I turned it into a blog post. She said she didn’t mind at all, and so I present, in raw form, the conversation we held.


Arielle: FIRE AWAY.

Me: OKAY. THE SPECULATION IS THIS: Paul the Apostle was a psychopath. That’s his speculation. He lists how Paul’s behavior lines up. For example:(also realize this is near the end of an extremely informative, intense and educational book so there’s a ton of information/knowledge already had by this point, but bear with) Paul had a predilection both on the open road and within seething inner cities for dangerous, inhospitable areas that put him at risk of random, violent assault. Add to that the fact he was shipwrecked a grand total of three times, on one occasion spending 24 hours adrift in the open sea. A picture begins to emerge, Dutton says, of a man with little or no concern for his own safety.

Me: THEN there’s the habitual lawbreaker who seems incapable of learning the error of his ways, or just didn’t care. He was imprisoned multiple times during his ministry, spending a total of six years behind bars; he was brutally flogged (five times receiving the maximum thirty-nine lashes), was beaten with rods on three occasions, and was once stoned so violently that he was given up for dead and dragged outside the city. Then he got up and went back /inside/ the city.

THEN there’s the peripatetic drifter part of him, who was continually on the move due to threats against his life. When the governor of Damascus placed a cordon around the city to arrest him, he made his escape in a basket through a gap in the city walls.

THEN there’s the cold, calculating, political mover and shaker, unafraid to tread on the feelings and sensibilities of others, no matter how important or personally loyal they were (i.e. his bust-up with Peter in Antioch, when he accused Peter of being a hypocrite to his face and in front of a crowd).

THEN, there’s the ‘remorseless, unblinking maneuvering of the shadowy psychological cat burglar. The silky-smooth self-presentation skills of the expert manipulator.’ (i.e. 1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

ALSO. Before his conversion on the road to Damascus, he was a mass murderer. Under the dictates of the Geneva Convention today, he would have been indicted on charges of genocide.

SO. Dutton puts forth the idea that ‘spiritual enlightenment’ is actually very closely akin with a psychopath. In a Venn diagram, look.

Psychopathic traits:

natrcissism, impulsivity, lack of conscience, manipulativeness, pathological lying, coldheartedness.

Spiritual traits:

love, compassion, gentleness, humility, faithfulness, trustworthiness.

HOWEVER, in the middle, they meet with:

stoicism, mindfulness, fearlessness, mental toughness, openness to experience, utilitarianism, focus/altered state of consciousness, energy, creativity, and non-attachment.

Dutton puts forth the idea that psychopathy, or as the term is used, ‘functional psychopathy’ or ‘positive psychopathy’ actually has many excellent uses (and gosh I get to go so in-depth on these things with NIHILUM I’m thrILLED) is often an extremely helpful, almost existential thing. After all, it enables focus, heightened empathy (psychopaths are actually /more/ empathic than the average non-psychopath) and clear-sightedness. It enables people to get tough things done.

HOWEVER. Dutton is a Darwinian, and not a theist of any kind. /SO/. He’s taking an actual God out of the equation, and stating that Paul was a psychopath.


Was Paul a psychopath, or does the spiritual peace of God actually give us many traits that meet in the middle between psychopathy and spiritual aid?

OR BOTH, even. Paul was literally a genocidal maniac before his conversion – it’s very possible that God actually redeemed a serial-killing psychopath, who then went on to write most of the New Testament.

(I’VE BEEN SO ENJOYING MULLING THIS OVER but the minute this question hit me I wanted to hash it out with you)

[We then took a moment so Arielle could process everything I’d just thrown at her.]

Arielle: Okay. So. Paul. The New Oxford American Dictionary (it’s on my computer- I tend to use it more often than Webster’s) defines psychopathy as: ‘a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.’ I’d say that fits pre-conversion Paul to a T. Serial killer also, YES. He even had an MO of sorts. He aided and abetted in murder, he became more violent as time went on and he was animated by a fanatic fervor – all hallmarks of psychopathy.

Me: NOT TO MENTION, he never had guilt for it because he always believed he was doing the right thing. He regretted it, but he wasn’t /guilt-ridden/ over it.

Arielle: Exactly. So I think definitely pre-conversion he was a psychopath. Which brings us to the question: did the saving grace of Jesus change THAT part of him, or was it his core personality and it was merely redeemed/purified? Which is complicated by the term: disorder. Psychopathy is considered a DISORDER. SO. I would ask… at what point is psychopathy the way people view a particular personality as it is evidenced by one particular person… and at what point is it a disorder that is a negative thing?

Me: WELL. *rubs hands together* HERE’S SOMETHING I FOUND FASCINATING (if very condensed). mOST PEOPLE view psychopathy as a disorder. As a kind of insanity. HOWEVER. Think of psychopathy as a sound board. You can mix it however you want to. Turn up the bass, turn up the treble, make it heavier on the string, etc. etc. Some people have different levels turned up more than others. VERY RARELY does anyone have /everything turned up to the max/. That’s where we get our horrible serial killers and such.

HOWEVER, There are /many/ psychopaths doing very well in the world today. They’re brilliant CEOS or neurosurgeons or lawyers or special ops. They’re doing the necessary, hardcore, nitty-gritty things, and they’re doing them VERY FREAKING WELL. In fact, in the case of ‘functioning psychopaths,’ rather than insanity, it could easily be considered /supersanity/.

Arielle: Okay, where does highly functioning/highly intelligent personality leave off and psychopathy begin? IS there a line? Because… I think there has to be.

Me: That’s the thing. There isn’t a ‘line.’ It’s not ‘either you’re a psychopath or you aren’t.’ It’s a mixing board. There are way more psychopaths out there than we think. They’re in very successful places doing very successful things. HOWEVER, there are differences between a highly functioning, intelligent individual and a psychopath. For example, psychopaths don’t register fear. It’s not that their bodies don’t register it – rather, they’re so intensely focused, and so intensely confident, that they never pay attention to it. It doesn’t register for them. Also, they don’t feel guilty. They can’t. It’s not how they’re wired. One psychopath said he had many affairs outside of his relationship, but he always came home at the end of the day, and ‘what more do they want?’ That’s how a psychopath is wired. They can view emotions like guilt, remorse, and sympathy from the outside, but they can’t /feel/ them. Basically, they do life by numbers. If they see a way to come out on top, they will. It doesn’t matter who they step on or who gets hurt.

Arielle: *thinking* It’s been a while since I read all of the Pauline epistles straight through.

Me: The fun thing is, I’ve been reading through them recently.

Arielle: Okay. Obviously, based on your description of psychopaths, it really IS a disorder and IT. IS. A. PROBLEM.

Me:  I think Paul actually had many psychopathic traits. BUT, factoring God into the equation, I think what happened was: the Holy Ghost entered Paul and made him able to see what he couldn’t see before. I think that’s it, plain and simple, now that I think about it.

Arielle: EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Me: BUT it’s only /technically/ a problem if the psychopath acts out illegal, criminal, immoral acts. WHICH MANY NEVER DO. Granted, I wouldn’t want to live with one; but it’s not always actually a problem.

Arielle: I think that BEFORE he was converted, he was a serial killing psychopath. Plain and simple. I think after his conversion, he was truly redeemed, but that many of the psychopathic traits it took him years to finally overcome- if he did it at all. I mean, we all have our faults, we all have things we struggle with all our lives. I think perhaps his inability to feel fear or guilt IF IN FACT HE WAS UNABLE TO FEEL THEM //could have been// something he fought to overcome…And as far as /technically/ a problem or not-Well, what POV are we considering that from? From a legal, justice system POV, I agree.

From a Biblical/Christian perspective, I disagree.

Me: I AGREE. /MOSTLY/. However, there are many traits psychopaths have that are actually positive, helpful traits. Confidence, charm, charisma, focus, intensity, discernment – there are many positive aspects. In fact, psychopaths, on personal levels, have been shown to display more altruism than non-psychopaths.

Arielle: It IS a problem in God’s eyes to never be able to feel guilt if you’ve done something wrong. And it //might// be a problem in His eyes to not be able to feel fear- we’re told to fear him. This one is more of a grey area so I’m going to leave it alone for now. ALL OF WHICH begs the question… since they have those positive traits too… is it to ‘counteract’ the effects of the negative things? The huge problem that they can’t feel guilt? Because if you can’t feel guilt, it’s likely (not 100% but definitely likely) that you won’t be as sensitized to right/wrong. If you can’t feel guilt over something you’ve don THAT WAS WRONG… then it doesn’t really matter to you whether it was right or wrong, does it?

And it also begs the question: How. What happened. Because I highly doubt God would have intentionally created psychopaths. Like, I doubt it’s a personality He would have wanted. SO. Is it because of the Curse? Did those elements become available to humans because of the Curse. AND IF SO… is that why it can only affect certain types of people? Because only those kinds of people (those with certain mental abilities) also carry the abilities to balance those negatives- like confidence, focus, intensity, etc?

Me: WELL HERE’S THE THING: I don’t believe God makes people who can’t be Christians. He just doesn’t do that. Even psychopaths can be converted, although I think it happens VERY rarely, and Paul was an incredible case. A functional psychopath is one of the most useful people in existence. They get things DONE. A Christian psychopath – the idea just FASCINATES me because aside from Paul, I can’t think of an instance of one. HOWEVER, psychopaths have the ability to reason, judge, and discern even better than non-psychopaths, so I think it’s fully within their ability to /become/ Christians – but I imagine it must be ten thousand times more difficult if your abilities to feel guilt or remorse are practically nonexistent. IT’S SUCH AN INTERESTING THING TO THINK ABOUT.

Arielle: IT IS, GOSH. This also brings the question: CAN God change that part of them? CAN HE- omnipotent as He is- CAN HE actually sensitize them to guilt or remorse or fear? Is it possible? [gosh, this is such a heckuva great discussion and I’M LOVING IT. It’s deeeeep and intense but we’re not just doing it to do it- WE’RE SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS.]

Me: When it comes to God, I think the question ‘can he’ is already answered. He’s God, he’s omnipotent, and he can do anything (as evidenced by Paul) AND I’M LOVING IT TOO.

Arielle: I would agree. Which brings us to…. the fact that very probably, those VERY RARE psychopaths that DO convert, He’s working on them in those areas, just as He works on us in OTHER areas. You know? So: Conclusion #1: we think Paul was definitely a psychopath and was living evidence that God CAN and DOES change people/that disorder to bring Glory to Him….?

Me: YES. That. Also, he retained many psychopathic traits, although the Holy Spirit gave him spiritual sensitivity he didn’t have before.

Arielle: EXACTLY. And the question of how people GET that way… IS the central question of the monster trifecta. ‘are they BORN or MADE?’

Me: Well, this book actually pretty much answers the question: psychopaths are born. monsters are made. psychopaths do not necessarily have to be monsters, and monsters are not always psychopaths.

Arielle: So then… psychopathy entered the world through twisting of Melkor? (Silmarillion reference, for you non-Tolkienites. Although I don’t think any of you are non-Tolkienites. But anyway, just in case.) I mean… y’know, Satan. BUT IN THE VEIN OF, think of Melkor. He could TWIST what Eru made, and it was held as his WORST SIN-above everything else… but he couldn’t MAKE- he couldn’t create life- not even twisted, perverted life. He could only take what Eru had already made and twist it. Soooo…is that what happened?

Me: I THINK IT IS, but get this: Satan himself is not a psychopath. He has many components of one, but he’s missing the biggest criteria: he experiences fear. In fact, Satan is perpetually terrified. He’s not a psychopath.

Arielle: *nodding* Which actually makes it fascinating that he could ‘enable’ that to enter the world. He’s not one, but he can and does use them. But they are what he cannot be.

Me: Exactly. And after reading this book, I actually can only think of three realistic psychopaths in fiction: Hannibal Lector, Do Young (Liar Game), and Fly (White Christmas).



In ways that A LOT of westerners do NOT. Oh, some do. They definitely do.

But not as many.

At this point, I told her the conversation was so interesting, I wanted to post it verbatim on my blog, and she readily agreed. So here you have it – a somewhat typical conversation between Arielle and myself, about all and sundry. Maybe this gives you some interesting thoughts to think, or maybe you’ll just find it entertaining to read – either way, there you have it.

[At any rate, I have a lot of writing fodder.]






18 thoughts on “//an afternoon discussion about psychopathy, Paul, spiritual enlightenment, divine intervention, and other things.”

  1. This is good. Normally I don’t think about psychopaths, but now I’m interested.
    You’ll have more on the subject, perhaps?
    I’m not thoroughly convinced, though. I always assumed Paul’s drive was ‘merely’ religious zeal. After all, he’d have to be amazingly dedicated if he was a Pharisee taught by the renowned Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and he certainly wasn’t the only one willing to speak out boldly or risk life and limb for his faith.
    But before I make any conclusions, I suppose I’d have to read Dutton’s book.

    On a different note… ‘Begging the question’ doesn’t actually mean raising a question (there’s blood on the floor, where did it come from? Why?). It’s asking a question with an unfounded assumption (to whom is the bachelor married?). I’m sorry, I realize I’m nitpicking, but I feel as if this is important for writers and debaters.


  2. I don’t think that Paul was a psychopath. We don’t have a whole lot of information to go on in Scripture but we do have some.

    Paul was a “pharisee’s pharisee” (pharisees were the Moderate/Conservatives of the day)
    He was a student of Gamaliel and well respected within his own community, thought of as pious, and fearing the LORD. (Acts 22 is where he shares this)

    Now in the culture of the day, a psychopath may have been able to hide their true nature for some of the time, but not all of it. They would have so closely lived in community to the point where the underlying weakness/sickness would have been revealed. The inability to have compassion would have come up over and over again as would their confusion over right and wrong. And Paul/Saul clearly understands right and wrong from the get go.

    He believes that it is RIGHTEOUS to stone Stephen to death. Stephen in his eyes is committing the most horrible form of sin, Blasphemy Acts 7:59 shows him there ”approving” of what is being done. When Saul is breathing out “murderous threats” and having men, women, and children condemned to horrible deaths he honestly believes he is doing the “right” thing. This Blasphemy has to be stopped or more people will be led astray and lose their salvation. This is no light thing. It is a Holy Crusade.

    There’s another clue that he’s not a psychopath too. And that clue comes from Christ himself. On the road to Damascus when Christ stops Saul He says: Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me” but He also says “how hard it is for you to kick against the goads” which Paul shares in Acts 26, you won’t find it in Acts 9 at least not in my ESV you won’t.


    This phrase “kick against the goads” is very telling. Ox goads are the goads in question, and an ox goad was a long wooden stick usually with a pointed metal head. You tapped the goad against the oxen’s side to get the animal to move where you wanted it to (Shamgar uses one of these to kill 600 Philistines when the LORD raises him up as a Judge in the book of Judges) and the implication with Christ talking to Paul about this ‘goad’ and how hard it was for Paul to kick against it implies very mightily that PAUL KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT THAT HE WAS UNDER CONVICTION THAT IT WAS WRONG.

    *SNIFFLE* Poor Paul. I’ve been there buddy, and it’s not fun.

    So here’s poor Paul, not a believer yet, and we’re outright told that the Spiritu Santu (I love saying Holy Spirit in Spanish. SPIRITU SANTU it just sounds so cool ANYWAY again, moving ON) is bringing conviction to him before he’s a believer. Meaning he can have conviction and he’s not sanctified, not yet. He’s not a believer yet at all. That comes later. So this really tells me Paul is not a psychopath. Christ, who knows all things, is treating him like someone who not only 1.) can tell the difference between right and wrong but 2.) is struggling against the LORD and fighting against the knowledge that he is wrong.

    So yes, just looking at Acts and the clues there I’m 100% certain Paul wasn’t a psychopath.

    However, you do bring up an interesting point about God never creating people who could not get saved. Can a psychopath become a Christian? Yes. Yes they can. Are they still a psychopath? Well, that is a whole other topic now isn’t it?


    1. VERY interesting points I definitely want to delve into, but as for the goads remark – the one thing that doesn’t line up is when Paul states explicitly that he always believed he was doing the /right/ thing before God. So was he lying, or are we misinterpreting ‘goads’?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Gosh, I don’t know where Paul says that he was always doing the right thing before God. And I’m pretty good on my Paul stuff. What book does he say that in? I know the ‘righteousness is as used menstrual cloth’ (you’re welcome) is Romans.


  3. Antone sugare of no country for old men is the most psychothic character found throughout the forms of media I have been exposed to. It’s shown when he speaks the line “you married into it” while interacting with the gas station attendant. Our view of you is shared in the sentiment he attaches to the line. Bafflement. Disgust. Essentially things that allow us to treat you as you do.

    Jesus was more psychopath then Paul, however to get all metaphysical you should realize what a psychopath follows as motivation. It’s a twisted logic but typically a sound logic. Essentially you are beneath us. Not because of us being awesome, but because you lower yourself below the line of even via irrational, feeling based decision which clouds your judgement.
    Now the Narcissm can actually override the psychothic and become the main motivation leading to a need to control ones image so as to he continually admired. Psychopathy in itself is motivated by controlling the situation to achieve actual goals. Your religious fanatics are more narcissistic then psychopathic. So, how is Jesus more of a psychopath? He completely dismisses the need for admiration while sacrificing EVERY emotion to achieve and end goal he deemed worthy. He went against society to create that which he could control. The most important part of this comes from his crucifixion. The line “forgive me father, for they know not what they do” gives it away. There is no reason for Jesus to address his father based on God’s abilities as well as Jesus’s understanding of God. So who was he speaking to?

    Gonna have to bring my man Carl Jung into the discussion here. He stated god created us in his image so as to consciously realize god so as to allow him to exist. On top of our sentience, our being made in God’s image indicates we are God. Being the only known cause of true change outside of the pre-existing systems found throughout the universe tends to back this up. So who was Jesus speaking to?
    All of us. In every instance. Everyone, including psychopaths acts towards that which they deem worthy. Meaning all it takes for a psychopath to become what he was meant to be (a leader), is acknowledgement of what he is by the rest of society. Superior. However your emotions prevent that because you “FEEL” insecurity. Jesus and god were psychopaths and not evil by any means.


    1. Hey, Jesse! Wow, thank you for stopping by and leaving your thoughts, but I have a few counter-thoughts. You say, ” Your religious fanatics are more narcissistic then psychopathic.” I’m neither religious nor a fanatic. I’m a Christian, which is different; but that’s another topic.
      “So, how is Jesus more of a psychopath? He completely dismisses the need for admiration while sacrificing EVERY emotion to achieve and end goal he deemed worthy. He went against society to create that which he could control. The most important part of this comes from his crucifixion. The line “forgive me father, for they know not what they do” gives it away. There is no reason for Jesus to address his father based on God’s abilities as well as Jesus’s understanding of God. So who was he speaking to?”
      God is made of three parts – God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. He’s one, but three. The way he works is pretty much beyond comprehension, but even so – you’ve never talked to yourself, even once?
      “Gonna have to bring my man Carl Jung into the discussion here. He stated god created us in his image so as to consciously realize god so as to allow him to exist. On top of our sentience, our being made in God’s image indicates we are God. Being the only known cause of true change outside of the pre-existing systems found throughout the universe tends to back this up. So who was Jesus speaking to?”
      Actually, the etymology in Genesis that states we were made in God’s image comes from ‘Imago Dei,’ which literally translates as ‘stewards.’ He put us here as stewards, to take care of his earthly kingdom, as it were. It doesn’t mean we /are/ God.
      “All of us. In every instance. Everyone, including psychopaths acts towards that which they deem worthy. Meaning all it takes for a psychopath to become what he was meant to be (a leader), is acknowledgement of what he is by the rest of society. Superior. However your emotions prevent that because you “FEEL” insecurity. Jesus and god were psychopaths and not evil by any means.”
      I believe most of this, except your case that God is a psychopath. God is /God/ and works by his own rules, but he does more than empathize – he sympathizes. He came to earth in human form, as a man, specifically so he could interact with us and share our humanity in a very personal way. God does not feel insecurity, no, but he doesn’t falsely ‘feel’ superior – he /is/ superior. I mean, he’s God. It’s hard to get more superior than that. He extends boundless grace and love and he understands all of us – the psychopaths and the empaths, to use your terminology. That’s not the behavior of a psychopath, that’s the behavior of a loving God.


      1. He enables us to reach our full potential.. as any alpha should. Hence the term god complex :)
        However I’m gonna have to call on Jung again to give you a response. Jung was a psychologist who helped over 500 people achieve spiritual fulfillment in whatever religion they felt themselves to belong to.. however Jung also experienced what he deemed as miraculous events. Without having experienced one of these as an individual, he found it impossible for people to achieve this spiritual fulfillment. Which is what God is. Purpose. His existence dictates our purpose. As a psychopath I’m left to choose between you being my purpose or myself being my purpose. I try to choose you but non psychopaths what psychopaths eliminated cause they “feel” like psychopaths are evil leaving the psychopath only to choose his or herself, except we have a tendency to hate ourselves lol.


        1. I don’t believe psychopaths are evil. They can CHOOSE to be, just like anyone, sure. But they aren’t inherently evil. But now I’m honestly curious as to why you say psychopaths have a tendency to hate themselves. This isn’t a flippant question, I really am interested to know.


          1. Also, I agree with your statement that God is Purpose, but I also believe he’s /more/ than that. He isn’t /merely/ Purpose, He /gives/ us our purpose. (Also, I’m always fascinated by Jung and agree with him far more than I agree with, say, Freud or Nietzsche, but he WAS a fallible human being, and not everything he says is fact.)


  4. Much of the psychopathy discussion here revolves around semantics and definitions. I wouldn’t get caught up or too fascinated with it. Keep your thoughts centered on the pure, noble etc. I can see you realize that the words of an unbeliever, no matter how educated, must be filtered through the truth of God’s word.


  5. Wow, this post gave me quite a lot to think about. I have always loved the Paul`s story, but never thought of him as a psychopath, makes sense though. God did such amazing things with Paul`s life.


  6. So is it possible Paul, being a psychopath, decided working for Rome was beneath him, and realized that this death of Jesus could be an opportunity for himself. TO take all of Jesus followers, and come up with this gospel to the gentiles to get even more followers, to eventually overthrow Rome? Like it was a epiphany: Jesus targeted jews…what a fool! He migyyt have been able to pull it off had he targeted textiles. Wait! That’s it! What f I come up with something that targets everyone, I’ll be able to do what this guy Jesus couldnt! Ill tell everyone what I believe is why I don’t have a conscienc: its not my fault….it is sins fault! I’m the victim here not the people I killed!! Etc, etc.


  7. I thought of some more…

    He be l ieved he was special, God’s ordained to the gentiles, taught his own philosophy that was better than everyone else’s, has a direct revelation for God, again imprisoned for going against Rome, obviously he had all those Christians killed, and didn’t want to take responsibility or feel guilt for killing people because he had no conscience at all and was just a con man fleecing churches and congregation for the narcissistic supply it got him, and money I’m sure, too. He realized the more churches He setup, the more supply He got. He was confrontational.

    It just didn’t work and Rome had him killed. This kind of seems obvious now. He wasn’t anything more than an every day psychopath that believed he spoke for God.


  8. Women shouldn’t talk in church (misogynistic), he was above the law: all things were lawful for him, but not necessarily expedient so pick which laws you want to break and make sure it’s worth it…like: he said he was a fool for (following?) Christ then says boasts about himself and his deeds, against Holy spirits will…brazen disobedience, then brags about it to his audience. Hypocrisy. Then, he lied: he says the men with him heard the voice, then the next time he tells the story they didn’t. And the light too. Seems cult-ish, narcissistic, and psychpathic/sociopathic. Wow.

    Sorry, this all just kinda hit me


talk to me

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s