Religion 101: My Lunacy is Better than Your Lunacy

The thing about arguing religion is that sooner or later it comes down to my lunacy is better than your lunacy. If you can’t intellectually concede this simple truth, then you’re not just religious, you’re dangerously fanatical. Religion is based upon faith. If it were based on demonstrable fact, it would be science, or history. But then again, those are also based mostly on faith these days.

Mormonism didn’t crawl out of a grove of trees from the misty the blue in upstate New York spontaneously onPuritan%20stocks its own. Joseph Smith was the product of American frontier Christianity. American Christianity has its own unique flavor, a distinctly woodsier, smokier tang that cuts the faith down to a couple of essential boasts and then beats you over the head with them. In 1820 or so Joseph Smith’s head was indeed being slapped around by American Christian proponents from within and without his family. First from his parents, and then his girlfriend, fiancé, and finally wife, Emma Hale/Smith and her family. 

When Joseph Smith was 12 or so, encouraged by his parents to investigate Christianity and come to Jesus in his own way, he went into the woods to pray about it. As they say, the rest is history. But you can’t understand that history unless you literally know where Joseph Smith was coming from.

Christianity is not one history, it is many histories. There is no Catholic and Universal Church and never was. It was never all that cut, dried, clear and easy to see. Even Jesus of Nazareth, whom many of us consider to be their Savior and Messiah, responded to the criticism of his disciples by telling them to leave alone the several other itinerant preachers that were springing up in the wake of His mission: “He That Is Not against Us Is for Us ” He advised.

The most obviously false myth in American Christianity, if not Christianity in general, is that there is one, most-correct, undisputed Holy Bible written and preserved by the Hand of God and translated perfectly into our modern language. There never has been anything of the kind. Never. And this isn’t even disputable in an educated, historical sense within the Church itself. There is no Divine Providence that purely preserved just the exact scriptures in just the right order. That’s not a fact. That’s not provable. That’s a very convoluted issue of faith. There are no factually provable faithful survivors from the original saints who passed their wisdom down unbroken to one particular sect in God Bless America who now have an inerrant, infallible, literal instruction book from God and an exclusive lock on Light, Truth, Knowledge.

christian-preacherThe doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, if not invented in the wild frontiers of a young United States, was certainly set up as a brick-and-mortar Christian institution there. But it is a fairly recent notion. It is also a notion set in concrete only after American frontier preachers ended up with the American version of the King James English “Authorized” Bible through two-thousand years of translating, interpreting, scrounging, adding, subtracting, approving and disapproving of its final contents by scores of so-called “authorities” and “scholars” in as many countries and Christian sects and denominations as there ever were on the planet. Oddly enough, while condemning these selfsame ancient Church fathers and scholars and Biblical researchers as completely errant, and describing their primary religious tradition, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, as the Whore of Babylon, at the same time they worship the final product of their study and labor, as completely inerrant and the pure, literal, untarnished Word of God.

The Puritans who founded the United States indeed were kicked out of England for being far too annoying and fixated on their “purified” interpretations of the Bible. And they didn’t really flee to America for religious freedom, except for their own freedom that is, to enforce their own Biblical codes upon everyone within their jurisdiction. America’s Christian founding fathers shunned out slackers and backsliders and fornicators or adulterers or users of profane language into the wilderness to die. They put people in stocks in public squares to be mocked and spit upon for missing church services. They hung witches too by the way. Several of them. It was very popular at one time in early Christian America to stage their own little inquisitions and Church-State show trials, ironically, just like the ones they fled in Europe. Only now they got to run them.

One of the latest revised American notions in Christian political activist circles is the reinvention or reassertion that America is by Constitutional mandate an exclusively Christian nation.WhiteAmerica-e Close to this bold assertion is the contention that our laws and Constitution are based upon a mythical “Judeo-Christian heritage” combining the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. But, as Dr. A.H. Barton, of the “Christian Jew Hour,” a national radio program once said: “If all you’ve got is the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments, you’ve got nothing.”

Even then, if we pretend America is and always was a Christian nation, what does a “Christian nation” mean in the minds and hearts of those making the claim? The Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments are not the central doctrines or documents of Christianity and never have been. That’s just a theocratic selling point. The Decalogue and the Beatitudes ( Be-Happy Attitudes ) remain almost entirely superfluous to Christian salvation. What Christianity is about, and has been about in America and around the world since the original saints were slaughtered or died out, is a collection of other beliefs entirely that take precedent over those simple concepts. In fact, the American evangelical movement–starting in Joseph Smith’s time–continues to try its best to clarify just what American Christian orthodoxy is supposed to be with only partial success. It certainly isn’t going to have anything to do with Old World Catholic/Protestant authority issues. Those are both out the window. It’s down to the Bible and a call from God. Or a Doctorate of Divinity from an accredited institution of higher learning. Preferably both.

But what does God really have to say to us here in America? Is the American Christian hung up on proving he’s in the line of authority to speak for God or interpret the Bible? Not really. That’s an Old World battle for the professional clergy to slog through.

crazy-preacher American Christianity has evolved so far away from even caring about proving unique claims to priesthood authority or even insights into the purest Biblical injunction, that there is a movement now calling themselves “Red Letter Christians” who consider only the words of Christ Himself, highlighted in red letters in some Bible editions, to be absolutely reliable doctrine.

Unfortunately, Jesus never wrote a word of the Bible. Neither did any of the apostles or disciples or prophets supposedly narrating it. There isn’t a single existing “original autograph” as they call them in the business—an original letter of any sort signed even allegedly by Paul or Mark or Mathew or any of them. The first retellings of these “Gospels” and other stories started appearing lifetimes after the death of these alleged authors. The Old Testament was thousands or tens of thousands of years beyond its original alleged events before it began appearing in written form by anonymous penman or authors or journalists or whoever they may have been. We don’t know who wrote the Bible or when they wrote it and nobody ever did, including the Church Fathers who voted to canonize the stuff anyway because they decided it supported doctrines they already believed in so they had no problem crediting it to a prophet or apostle or even Jesus Christ. It’s material they figured sounded pretty reliable whoever wrote it.

In short, some three hundred and more years after the death of Jesus and his followers, there were a number of big committees the surviving saints put together and everyone just voted on what they thought sounded most likely out of all the hundreds and hundreds of stories and scraps and scribblings and tablets and scrolls that had been anonymously passing around the Church. The most popular or widely accepted were bound together into a single collection which we now call the “Bible,” which is really short for the “Holy Bible” which really only means “Holy Book.” The Book. It only means A book but it has come to mean The Book. Originally, there was a center section of this great volume called the “Apocrypha” which means, not “unreliable,” but for “further study or enlightenment.” Today we think of apocryphal as meaning, unreliable or rumor-like, but what it literally means is that the  Church Fathers thought it to be very very important, something very vital to the history and doctrine of the Church, but not entirely clear or perhaps open to interpretation or discussion.

bennyHinn2_1494818c The important thing abut the Bible in America, is that most of the people who burned out Mormons and killed Joseph Smith had parsed Christianity out to an inerrant Bible being the absolute authority of God on earth. There was no further revelation, no further enlightenment. There was no tradition of a clergy or one true Church and priesthood that remained untainted through the generations: it came down to whatever the King James Bible said and whoever could argue it best from a local pulpit or off the top of a tree stump in a public square if it came to that. American Christianity in essence, skips the millennia and a half or so that led up to adopting, translating, and editing the King James Bible.

But the truth is, at the completion of Our Lord’s earthly ministry there was essentially no written or formally adopted creeds, codes, or documents explaining exactly how Jesus Himself would have proceeded. Or at least, certainly, there are no surviving evidences that this was true. The first serious attempts to reconstruct something like an operations manual began at the death of the original apostles and disciples some seventy years after Christ and later. By the third century after Jesus’ death, Christianity had started an open war upon itself within at least two worldwide clergies, both using and interpreting historical writings designed to forcibly pretend there was never any doubt what Jesus would have done or taught about anything. It was only then that our so-called “Bible” began to be scrapped and cobbled together to back-engineer proof of doctrines and priestly authoritative claims already being made for some three centuries.

joseph-smith Joseph Smith wrote in his now famous Wentworth Letter: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly” but even he missed the real point. Even Joseph Smith never understood, never questioned the notion that what he had been told was the Holy Bible, the Word of God, was really just a collection of very loosely documented stories already filtered and screened and inserted or deleted by a millennia and a half’s worth of human willfulness.  It isn’t a matter of translation. It’s a question of what got decided to be canon in the first place, and who it was who decided it should be included. And beyond that, it’s an even bigger question of what was not decided to be canon, or even available to be considered for canonization.

Jesus did not sit down and write out the Holy Bible as a personal guidebook to His will for all mankind. Jesus Christ did not sit down and write out anything. None of His apostles or prophets did either. The only claim to any such manual even made by the Bible itself is the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, and again, we only have the word of a lot of anonymous, generations-late human relays trying to remember what was said and who said it.

And even given the ruling Christian belief that as raggedy a process as assembling and preserving it has been, the Holy Bible still constitutes “All We Got, “ or “The Best We Can Figure” by the magical grace of some guiding hand of Divine Providence, it’s patently obvious that it just hasn’t been clear enough to prevent the Body of Christ from cutting itself off bit by bit and all the little parts running off to bleed and complain about the amputation process by themselves over the ages.

buddy-jesus1 It is inconceivable to most Christians that Jesus Christ never scribbled out a single note saying, “My name is Jesus, I’m your savior, here’s what I want you folks to do after I die for your sins…” That fact remains that Jesus apparently made no such effort to record or even dictate a specific, orderly set of instructions, rules, and organizational principles. None of them did. Not Jesus. Not Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John. Not Peter. Even the Words of Christ we have from the Gospels were remembered and recorded much later, and probably a hundred and more years later by people who may have copied notes before them or just winged it together from memories of people who were remembering retold memories of other people.

American Christianity in particular insists that the Holy The Bible is a how-to manual. Historically, this is clearly not the case. It is at best a study resource. This was its original intent, and the clergies who put it together insisted that one of their big jobs was to help the layman interpret it and put its stories and teachings into the full historical and cultural context—in short, the Bible was always intended to be dependent upon external supplements to help analyze it. Even Joseph Smith was saying the preacher-460x360same thing—only in his case he was saying it needed a modern prophet or two to speak authoritatively on its content rather than relying on a Church tradition or priesthood history. But those who formed the emerging orthodoxy of American Christianity in Joseph Smith’s day believed if you studied the Bible exclusively and dug out strictly its internally evidenced concepts and values, that alone was the real secret to getting to God’s True Will for mankind, and the only valid authority to speak for God on earth.

Oddly enough, even accepting the sole authority of strictly internal Biblical evidences as the most valid approach to understanding what Christianity should be about—just for the sake of argument–nobody can still agree on what it has to say about anything. Christians no sooner got over killing each other over claims to priesthood authority, than they started killing each other simply because the Bible told them to.


About lrwhitney

American Saint but not Utah product.
This entry was posted in 3 Religion 101 and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Religion 101: My Lunacy is Better than Your Lunacy

  1. Paul Preus says:

    Hi again. Forgive my intrusion yet again. I have to comment again because of this statement of yours: “Unfortunately, Jesus never wrote a word of the Bible. Neither did any of the apostles or disciples or prophets supposedly narrating it. There isn’t a single existing “original autograph” as they call them in the business—an original letter of any sort signed even allegedly by Paul or Mark or Mathew or any of them. The first retellings of these “Gospels” and other stories started appearing lifetimes after the death of these alleged authors. The Old Testament was thousands or tens of thousands of years beyond its original alleged events before it began appearing in written form by anonymous penman or authors or journalists or whoever they may have been. We don’t know who wrote the Bible or when they wrote it and nobody ever did, including the Church Fathers who voted to canonize the stuff anyway because they decided it supported doctrines they already believed in so they had no problem crediting it to a prophet or apostle or even Jesus Christ. It’s material they figured sounded pretty reliable whoever wrote it.”
    Much of what you say here simply doesn’t agree with history. To say that the apostles or disciples or prophets did not write certain books of the Bible is simply a false statement. There continue to be debates on the authorship of many books of the Bible, but to say that for example Galations,, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. are not Pauline, or that the Gospels were not written until “lifetimes after the death of these alleged authors.” is simply not true. Even the atheist biblical scholars do not make this claim when it comes to many New Testament documents. For example, documents containing large portions of Galatians, Romans, have been found to date back as early as 100 AD not later than 200 (Manuscript P46).Not to mention, the writings of Clement, Irenaeus, even the heretic Marcion (2nd century), quote from Paul’s epistles and accredit Paul as the author. Also, Origen (3rd century) referred to the writings Paul. The list goes on and on in regard to those who clearly attributed Paul as the author of his many epistles years before the books of the new testament were canonized in the early 5th century.
    In regards to the Gospels, the Shepard of Hermas (1st/2nd century) has direct quotes from the Gospel of Matthew, as do Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. Very few, if any credible scholars, even atheist biblical scholars make this claim. The argument is based on the faulty scholarship of The School of Religions, David Strauss, and Rudolph Bultmann, which has since been completely discredited according to the clear evidence of history.
    The Gospel of Matthew, for example; (it is a consensus among scholars), was written as early as 50AD and as late as 100AD (Jesus’ prediction regarding the fall of Jersulem (70AD) has caused most scholars to date Matthew after 70AD). At the latest, Matthew was written 67 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. In regards to authorship, Papias of Hierapolis (100-140AD) claimed Matthew as the author. Comparing this to other manuscripts of antiquity Matthew, not to mention all the Canonical books of the New Testament were written down quite early after the death and resurrection of Jesus. An example, the earliest documentation regarding Alexander the Great doesn’t appear until over 400 years later, and in regards to Homer there is a gap of 500 years. Another example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000AD. No honest or credible scholar claims that we do not have Caesar’s record of the Gallic Wars, Alexander the Great’s conquests, or Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey.
    Do we have the “original autographs”? No. But we can, through historical investigation, be quite certain about authorship and originality. There are many variants in ancient biblical texts, but most are simply an addition of a word here and there, a change in grammar, having no bearing on the theological integrity of the text. The only significant variants are the last versus of Mark 16 and the placement of the story of the Adulterous women in the Gospel of John, which again, if we were to eliminate these two variants would have no bearing on the theological integrity of Scripture.
    One more point, when the New Testament was “canonized” in the early fifth century, they didn’t simply dismiss those books that disagreed with “their doctrine.” It had mostly to do with what books could be proven to be written by an apostle or under the direction of an apostle(Matthew,Mark, Luke), therefore the many gnostic gospels, written primarily in the 3rd and fourth century were thrown out. There was unanimous agreement on the homologouma books (those excepted by all) and there remained some disagreement regarding antilegomena (spoken against) books. The gnostic gospels and the Pseudepigrapha books were unanimously rejected as canonical. This is why in my other post I advised you to investigate the difference between homologouma and antilegomena…it is a very important distinction and has a bearing on your argument.
    I’m sorry, but I had comment. I cannot prove to you the inerrancy of Scripture (you correctly say it is faith which believes this), but I certainly can defend from history the integrity of the biblical texts. You can continue to make your critique regarding inerrancy, but this part of your argument does not hold much water.

    • lrwhitney says:

      Thanks again for helping promote thoughtful criticism and research of American religion and religion in general. You hang a lot of your arguments on Paul, and of course he is the basis for most of the Protestant movement. I’m afraid you’re not quite clear on your facts in a few other cases. You are certainly mistaken in one matter concerning the Gnostic gospels, and that is time frame. Some of them were used for up to 8 centuries quite commonly in then “orthodox” Christian tradition. Then “orthodoxy” changed, and stopped including them. There are many very ancient Biblical manuscripts, but no Original Autographs and the oldest Biblical manuscript is a scrap from the 2nd century AD.

      “There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament, as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps 500 other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the Patristic writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures.

      Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, which includes two other books[19] not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
      The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.[20] According to Bart Ehrman,[21]”

      There is old, and then there is OLD. Several books now in the canon were never used or widely known in the early Church. When you cite sources attributing Paul as an author of such and such scripture, you seem to keep doing so in the 2nd and 3d centuries, as I say, decades and sometimes hundreds of years later. But that in any case is Paul claiming to be Paul, or at least somebody claiming to be Paul, or somebody writing for Paul claiming to be Paul. It’s not always that clear:

      “Up to the fourth century the Epistle of James was not included in the canon by many Christian leaders, and earlier writers did not quote from it. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 25.” [28]

      “In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author (died ca. 339) writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.” … Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3). …. Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status….”. [29]

      Likewise the Gospel of John:

      “The gospel was not widely quoted until late in the 2nd century.[19] Justin Martyr is probably the first Church Father to quote John’s gospel.[20] Some scholars conclude that in antiquity John was probably considered less important than the synoptics.”

      The Gospel of John in particular, was clearly composed in three phases and evolved to its final form over a lengthy time. While remaining in the canon, authorship of all the Johannine works are growing more disputed:

      “John the Apostle is most clearly identified as John the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman. He has also been identified in Christian tradition as the author of all of the New Testament works in which “John” appears in the title. However, in modern times several different authors are often suggested for these works.

      The creator of the Gospel of John is usually known as John the Evangelist, John the Theologian, or John the Divine. This text contains references to the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” traditionally taken as a self-reference by the author, and therefore a reference to John the Apostle.
      The writer(s) of the epistles of John calls himself simply the presbyter (elder), and numerous theories have been suggested about the relationship of these letters to the Gospel of John and to each other.

      The Book of Revelation is the only one of the texts which actually claims to have been written by a person named John. This author is usually known as John of Patmos or John the Revelator. As his writing style differs greatly from the other Johannine literature, it is debated whether or not he is the same person who wrote the Gospel and epistle of John.

      The apocryphal second-century Gnostic text called the Secret Book of John was also attributed to John, though not by the orthodox Christian traditions.”

      Two important works of the New Testament Apocrypha are directly connected to John: the Acts of John and the Apocryphon of John. The former is known through several fragmentary texts that have survived, while the Apocryphon of John had been lost until its rediscovery at Nag Hammadi in the mid-twentieth century.

      Although the Acts of John was condemned and destroyed because it contained several clearly Gnostic chapters, much of its content is related to the aforementioned traditions regarding John’s two journeys to Ephesus. Among other acts, John converts the believers in the goddess Artemis after destroying her temple and performs several resurrections.

      The Apocryphon of John (Secret Book of John) was an important Gnostic work reportedly conveying the contents of a revelation of the resurrection to John the Apostle. It offers one of the clearest descriptions of a Gnostic myth of humanity’s creation, fall, and salvation. It survived as an actively used scripture until at least the eighth century.

      John is traditionally held to be the author of five books of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John. Modern experts, however, usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness from as late as the early second century. While the Church Fathers agree that John was its author, Epiphanius takes note of an early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic teacher.

      Like the Gospel writer, the author of the epistles of John does not give his name, but refers to himself as the Presbyter (Elder). Eusebius, (Hist. eccl., III, xxxix, 4), relying on an account of Papias, makes a distinction between this Presbyter (John) and the Apostle John, and this distinction was also accepted by Saint Jerome. Nevertheless, there are clear literary connections between the Gospel and the epistles of John, leading some to conclude that there existed a “Johannine” Christian community which produced this literature.

      The Book of Revelation’s writing style is very different from any of the above-mentioned works. Moreover grammatical errors lead scholars to believe it was written by a non-Greek (a Jewish Christian), whereas the other Johannine literature shows an excellent command of written Greek. Few critical scholars hold that John of Patmos and the author of the other Johannine literature can be the same person.

      Indeed, it wasn’t only Luther who questioned just who this John was and who had actually written the works Church tradition alone had assigned to his authorship. But more to your point:

      “Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of ‘disputed books’ are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.

      Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”

      Luther’s criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther’s German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the ‘disputed books’ became necessary.

      If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times.”

      I won’t get into 2 Peter, because two-thousand years of Biblical debates can’t be condensed to a few clear paragraphs. However, Luther and then Calvin and the Protestants came to reject the Apocrypha for instance, because among other idealogical disagreements, it originated in Greek and never existed in the Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language that could have been used by the alleged authors. In light of there not being a single “Original Autograph” of any of the New Testament writers, one could make the same argument against all of them, and particularly those noted as having been not used and appearing hundreds of years after the death of the authors, as well as those known early but highly disputed and now included in the canon. The difference my friend, is what fit Church “tradition,” best regardless of actual authorship. That was the criteria for inclusion in the canon. “Orthodoxy” was certainly a combination not just of what the existing writings alleged to be from the original Apostles said, but what the so-called “Apostolic Fathers,” remembered, or thought they remembered of their presumed direct contact with the original Apostles.

      Having said this, while the New Testament began primarily with the gathering of Paul’s writings and adding to that the other gospels and so forth, dropping some and adding others, the OLd Testament canon still isn’t uniform amongst Christian churches worldwide.

  2. Don’t try to say to yourself that your pain is silly and just sweep it away.

    In addition, you should be focusing on yourself during the no contact period.
    Regular web page update will not only satisfy your customers, it will
    also score you points with the search engines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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