The ‘F’ Word

Don Camp is defending Christians in the comments. They’re in the process of becoming ‘more like Jesus’, he says.

What does this even mean, Don? How can you know what Jesus was like when there are so many disparate versions of him in the Bible (as has been pointed out to you)? Does becoming more tempestuous, impatient, impossibly demanding and Jewish count? These are some of the traits his propagandists show him as having.

You then tell Jim not to measure Christians ‘by his (own) experience’. What other measure is there? Christians aggressively promote their beliefs on the internet, have infected politics and, at a lower level, are encountered as judgmental evangelicals and sanctimonious street preachers; these are the Christians of our experience and like it or not, the fragrance ain’ that sweet. As Jesus is supposed to have said, ‘by their fruits shall you know them’. We sure do.

Bottom line, Don: you Christians have had two thousand years now to make the world a better place by being ‘more like Jesus’. On balance, you’ve failed. Not surprising when Jesus himself failed even more. Where is he, Don? Following his ‘return’, the Righteous should have been living in peace and harmony for the past two millennia, tediously worshipping him and his Father in God’s Kingdom on Earth. They haven’t been, even though Jesus, Paul and several other NT writers said they would be ‘soon’, relative to their own lifetimes. 

Argue it how like, Don (and you will), Christianity merits one big ‘F‘.

43 thoughts on “The ‘F’ Word

  1. You then tell Jim not to measure Christians ‘by his (own) experience’. What other measure is there? Christians aggressively promote their beliefs on the internet, have infected politics and, at a lower level, are encountered as judgmental evangelicals and sanctimonious street preachers; these are the Christians of our experience and like it or not, the fragrance ain’ that sweet. As Jesus is supposed to have said, ‘by their fruits shall you know them’. We sure do.

    The problem with relying on experience is that people have vastly different experiences. Jim might rely on his experience, but I rely on mine, and Don on his. I’ve certainly had nasty experiences with Christians, but I’ve had many positive ones too.

    Also, everyone aggressively promotes their beliefs on the Internet! Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Vegans, gamers, philosophers, readers on book forums, etc. This doesn’t seem to be something particular to Christianity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So, if we’re not to use our experience, how are we to assess Christians and Christianity, which is what Don talks about doing? While you’ve had good experiences of Christians, many of us have had less pleasant ones. As Don also says (wrongly) Christians can be more like Jesus by pushing their faith onto others; some of us have had enough of being told we’re sinners destined for hell.

      Like

  2. Neil: “How can you know what Jesus was like when there are so many disparate versions of him in the Bible.”

    Don: Is it really that difficult? Yes, there are four different accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching. But I do not find four different Jesuses. They are the same. ( I wonder if you find the many different accounts of Winston Churchill’s life disparate? Aren’t they different portraits of one man?)

    Neil: “you Christians have had two thousand years now to make the world a better place by being ‘more like Jesus’. On balance, you’ve failed.”

    Don: That was never the mission given the disciples or the church. The inference after reading the whole NT is that the mission is to call out from the world and into the kingdom of God those who are willing to follow Jesus. That is what Jesus meant by the end of this age not coming until the good news of the gospel was preached in all the earth. And that is happening.

    And that BTW is why Christians have always hoped for a soon return of Christ but at the same time recognized that the mission he gave us would not be completed in a short time.

    The world (meaning the institutions and societies of the world) cannot be made better. They must be replaced by the kingdom of God. Until then Christians must live as strangers in a strange land being light and salt but not expecting to be welcomed by societies and cultures that are fundamentally anti-God.

    Like

    • Oh, Don….what a crock of nonsense. You have bought into the most successful Ponzi scheme ever invented by a long shot!

      I am so happy to hear that you have “read” the gospels but, apparently, you didn’t really grasp any of the content or you would certainly have seen that the “J” man is, in fact, different in at least 3 of the four books. He starts quite Jewish in Mark, and gets slightly more divine in Matthew and Luke, until he is off the charts god-like in John. Or, as I suspect, you actually haven’t read it but were spoon-fed this bullshit as most were (as I was) one line at a time and then told what each “meant” by the guy you were forking your money over to.

      Go back and read it again and pay particular attention to what the “J” man actually says; “Many of you here will not taste death until all these things come to pass” Jesus and Paul (the liar) BOTH expected the messiah to come IN THEIR LIFETIMES, not 2,000 years later. “J” knew he wasn’t the messiah as soon as he was arrested in Gethsemane and all his followers headed for the hills (or, stayed in Jerusalem, depending on which book you read….) He was nailed to the cross and left there to rot (and he did) until his bones fell off the cross and the Romans used it again, and again, and again.

      You get an “F” in reading comprehension but an “A” in gullibility. Bravo!

      Liked by 1 person

      • We all read through some lens. As I read Psalm 83 this morning I read it through the lens of my continuing interaction with you all. But it can and probably should be read through the lens of the first reader in the Davidic era. And you, no doubt, read it through a different lens altogether, perhaps one created for you by Israel Finkelstein or Richard Carrier. When we are looking for the historical Jesus WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE TEXT AS LITERATURE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN WITH THE AUDIENCE OF THE FIRST READERS IN VIEW. .

        In regard to the differences, that will help make sense of the differences you identify. Mark is often considered as the first written. The old first and second century men who mention Mark (Clement of Alexandria, for example) tell us that Mark was the teaching of Peter and was written for the Roman church when they asked for something permanent after Peter was gone. Looked at through that lens, it makes perfect sense. It is simple, as the language of Peter likely was, and direct. Not much embellishment, though the organization does indicate that it was originally composed as oral teaching. And it is designed for Roman readers. That is, it is emphasizes the actions of Jesus over the teaching. Jesus is Jewish, of course, but he is first of all a man among men.

        Matthew was recognized by the early church men as the first written. It was also recognized as directed to the Jews and intended to present Jesus as the Messiah. Now, the first version of Matthew, said to have been written in the language of the Jews, is not the version we have, but the character of the original remains. It is strongly Jewish adding many comments by the Jewish author to the connections of Jesus to the Old Testament prophecies. It is so Jewish in fact that today we miss many of the Jewish connections and the rabbinic style of the document. But Jesus is the same, just presented with a stronger Jewish flavor.

        John was written some years later and at a time when the nature of Jesus as God the Son was being challenged by divergent opinions. See 1 John for some of this background. John’s objective therefore was to reinforce that aspect of the person and nature of Jesus. That can be seen on virtually every page of the book. Yet, Jesus is the same person, just presented for a particular audience with emphasis on the nature of Jesus rather than on the activity of Jesus or on the Jewishness of Jesus.

        None of this should surprise us. We do the same with our biographies. Lincoln is presented in many different shades by his many biographers, yet he is one real person. So why the differences in his biographies? Why are some events in his life emphasized while others are neglected altogether? Why are some of his speeches or conversations highlighted while others are missing? Because of the purposes of the authors. In all however, Abraham Lincoln is still Abraham Lincoln. And so is Jesus. In all, he is still Jesus.

        I suggest the same method of reading when it comes to the passage you reference regarding Jesus’ statement that certain of his disciples would not see death before they saw him in his glory (Note that I am correcting your misquote of the passage.)

        Luke’s version: ” “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

        Matthew’s: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

        Mark’s: And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

        What did he mean? If you lift that statement out of its context, it might mean what you suggest. But that is really poor reading. READ IN CONTEXT. In each case that statement is followed immediately by the experience of the transfiguration in which Peter James and John DID see the kingdom of God displayed powerfully in the glorified Jesus. Don’t you think that might be the point the several authors were making?

        Suggestion: Read closely considering the context of the passage in history and as it is embedded in the text. In America that kind of reading is taught in school from first grade through high school, though it is not always caught by the student, sadly. It is part of the Common Core Standards that every English teacher follows. It is how every piece we read should be read if we are not to read into the piece our ideas.

        Like

      • Hmmm. I find it rather fascinating that it’s necessary to “explain” the bible and/or give lessons on “how” to read it. IF it were truly a missive from “God,” it seems its message would be clear to ALL.

        Like

      • It think the message is pretty clear to all who read it without presuppositions. It simply becomes richer as we apply good reading skills and as we realize that like any good literature there are multiple layers to the piece.

        Like

      • Am I remembering wrong? I thought you said you were literature savvy. You should know then that literature and the features that make good writing are not limited to fiction.

        Like

      • You really can’t have it that he is referring to the transfiguration. The context and other similar statements make it clear Jesus is being made to refer to the arrival of the Son of Man (which you say is Jesus himself) and the Kingdom of God on earth. See my post here: https://rejectingjesus.com/2017/06/06/making-excuses-for-jesus/
        You can’t have it both ways, Don: insisting we must read in context but then inventing an interpretation that ignores context.

        Like

      • Neil: “The context and other similar statements make it clear Jesus is being made to refer to the arrival of the Son of Man (which you say is Jesus himself) and the Kingdom of God on earth”

        Don: Really? I referenced the context, which is the same in each of the three Gospels.. If it were not for the later insertion of cha[ter divisions there would be no question that the authors thought he was referring to the transfiguration. Not only so but the transfiguration fits the prediction Jesus made. He said you will see the kingdom has come with power (Mark 9:1).

        “Has come” is a perfect participle active. That means the kingdom of God has already come. And that is a theme in Jesus’ teaching. In Matthew 12:28 Jesus says that with his command over the demons” the kingdom of God has come upon you”. It is present. It is present in the power Jesus had over the demons. THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT A FUTURE THING.

        The transfiguration was simply another example of the kingdom of God powerfully present. Of course, the arrival of the Son of man will also be a display of the kingdom of God powerfully come. But remember again that the kingdom of God is present as much as it is future.

        Like

    • There are more than four different Jesuses in the Bible as I suggested in my comment. Some are incompatible with others, for example John’s ethereal self-focused Jesus who speaks and acts entirely differently from the character in the synoptics. There, the various Jesuses are all about the arrival of the Kingdom. But you know this, Don. You are being disingenuous with your Churchill comparison: most biographies are based on evidence from a range of sources that anyone can check. None of them make Churchill out to be a supernatural being in disguise.
      And then you tell us that Christians are not called to make the world a better place. So I take it Jesus didn’t really mean it when he said to help the poor, the sick and the destitute? Nor, I’m guessing, should Christians be interfering in politics, education and social policy. (While we would all say ‘amen’ to that, the fact many Christians do tells us you’re out of step with your fellow-beievers when you say they are not expected to make the world a better place.) Of course all of this – Jesus’s commands to serve others – is in the context of a world about to end, as he, Paul and other NT figures believed.
      Oh, I forgot; we’re ignoring this particular context because it highlights how wrong they actually were.

      Like

      • Neil: “You are being disingenuous with your Churchill comparison:”

        Don: No I am not. I am simply making the point that one man may be described by biographers in many ways, each a bit different because they have a different point to make, but it is the same man.

        Neil: “So I take it Jesus didn’t really mean it when he said to help the poor, the sick and the destitute?”

        Don: No more than Jesus. Jesus came to tell us and show us what God is like. Hod is compassionate. Jesus was compassionate. And we as we take on the charachter of Jesus are compassionate. As a society is influenced by Christians, it will become more and more compassionate. But ther4e is no suggestion that Christians will turn the world into a compassionate world. The implication of the salt and light passage in Matthew 5 is that we will be influential by our example but not that we should change the world.

        Christians in politics, and otherwise living in a society, are to be influential by their lives. Of course, legislators legislate. Christian legislators legislate. The laws they propose and back are extensions of their values JUST AS THEY ARE FOR EVERY OTHER LEGISLATOR. The laws they propose and back are intended to be good for their societies JUST AS THEY ARE FOR EVERY OTHER LEGISLATOR.

        If you would have it otherwise, your beef is not with Christians but with the legislative process.

        Like

      • “The laws they legislate are extensions of their values…” What does that say about their values? And since our congress is overwhelmingly Christian, what does that say about Christians values? This is all such a crock, really. Humanity has had 2,000 years of Christian “compassion”, thank you very much. I’m not sure how much more of it we’re able to handle! Your theory of the compassion snowballing effect seems deeply overstated or imaginary at best. How long does this process take?

        Like

      • I would not say Congress is overwhelmingly Christian. Many pander to Christians, as Trump did, because in many places Christians are a majority voting block or large minority, but few in Congress live like Christians.

        Yes, we have had 2000 years of Christian compassion. We have built hospitals around the world. We have taught literacy and built universities.. We have fed the hungry and housed those without homes. We have worked to bring peace to our neighborhoods. We have dug wells and provided clean water where there was none. We have created homes for orphans. We are on the frontlines in every disaster relief effort. Yes. we have seen 2000 years of Christian compassion, and that is what it looks like

        Want to get rid of that?

        Like

      • Yes, I would dump that and fast! It isn’t altruism at all. You shouldn’t be doing these things because you think it’s going to get you into heaven but rather because it is the right thing to do. Christian’s didn’t do these things through grass-roots campaigns and at the same time all the heads of all those Christian organizations were buying themselves jet airplanes, Rolls Royces, and mansions. There are LOTS of other religions and – can you believe it – even ATHEISTS – that do good WITHOUT the gun to their heads of heaven or hell. And for all the so-called good Christian’s have done they have also done irreparable harm; killing each other over their ridiculous mythology. Try picking up a history book instead of the mythological Bible and see.

        Try taking a TRUE and impartial look at your faith. You could do all those things without religion AND it wouldn’t have the reward of getting your ass into heaven, it would be because it’s the right thing to do without reward. That’s goodness.

        Liked by 1 person

      • But the various Jesuses in the NT are not a ‘bit different’, they are irreconcilably different. Rather like a biography of Churchill that presents him as an accomplished politician and another that portrays him as a circus clown.
        My beef, you tell me, is with the legislature. Thank you for revealing this to me. Here I was thinking ‘my beef’ was with influential Christians that constantly push for a theocracy. You do know you offer non-sequiturs in response to comments, always trying to shift the agenda back to one of your choosing.

        Like

      • From the Christian Post: “The primary objective of most Christian evangelicals is not to construct a theocracy. In recent years, the involvement of Christian evangelicals in the political realm has mostly been a resistance movement to the insistence that religion in general and Christianity mainly, should be consigned to private life.”
        https://www.christianpost.com/voices/christian-evangelicals-want-to-make-us-a-theocracy-true-or-false.html

        I agree with that.

        Most conservative evangelical Christians I talk with agree with that.

        We resist having humanistic laws forced on us, as they have been in recent years. We do not wish to force Christian moral principles upon others through legislation or cultural intimidation, even though we believe that the moral principles that are the foundation of Christianity would be beneficial to society. We believe that even if we were to do so, it would be ineffective in changing society because real change comes from within rather than by legislation.

        Like

      • I’m sorry, Don, but as is my constant experience, you don’t seem to know very much about your Bible or your religion. According to Jesus (and his brotherJames) charitable works are the path to salivation, NOT as Paul would have you believe, faith in the resurrection of Jesus. Please read a good copy of the Hebrew Bible, this is a standard for Jews; good works i.e., feeding the poor, clothing them, etc. is the path to salvation, not faith alone. As I previously mentioned, Jesus was a Jew; born, bred, preached in the Temple AND in local synagogues, etc. I would say died as a Jew as well but he didn’t but he certainly lived his entire life adhering to Jewish faith and the Law as outlined in the Torah. It was Paul that made up all the other nonsense.about the resurrection. Jesus would not have expected to die and return from the dead.

        Please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with Judeo-Christian dogma.

        Like

      • You seem to want to separate Paul and Jesus and to distance both from the Old Testament. I, on the other hand, see coherence.

        To begin with, I see Jesus as Messiah and the church as continuation of the direction established in the Old Testament. That means Jesus was the king and the kingdom of God promised in the Old Testament.

        Related to salvation, personal salvation was never dependent upon following the Law nor upon feeding the poor, etc. Following the Law ensured God’s blessing upon those who obeyed the law, as it does today, and on the nation if obedience was the character of the nation. Personal salvation was always dependent upon the mercy of God and forgiveness, which is pictured in the sacrifices. Feeding the poor, and obedience was the evidence of trust in God’s mercy and of looking to God for direction for life, not a substitute for it. All of those could be faked and were. That is one of the warnings of the prophets; be genuine. But doing justice being merciful (doing good) do follow.

        Micah explains that pretty well in a passage that I think is the key passage in the Old Testament.

        He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
        And what does the Lord require of you?
        To act justly and to love mercy
        and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

        Neil: [Jesus] certainly lived his entire life adhering to Jewish faith and the Law as outlined in the Torah.

        Don: Jesus did not need saving.

        But more to your point, his example of following the law was not to demonstrate a path to personal salvation. It was to demonstrate obedience to God that is founded on a heart commitment to God. That is why he amplified the meaning of the law in the rest of then Sermon on the Mount. It was also why he was so critical of the Pharisees. They keep the law to the letter, but they failed to do so from their heart.

        Neil: “It was Paul that made up all the other nonsense.about the resurrection. Jesus would not have expected to die and return from the dead.”

        Don: You mean all the Old Testament prophecies that spoke of the eternal continuance of the Messiah king were mistaken?

        “After he has suffered,
        he will see the light of life and be satisfied; (Isaiah 53:11)

        The prophecy about him not seeing corruption as a dead body was mistaken?

        The words of Jesus as he repeatedly told his disciples of his resurrection were mistaken?

        Paul made nothing up; his simply explained what it all meant.

        Like

      • Welcome to the Don Camp takeover of someone else’s blog!
        Please remember Don, that a comment should be just that, not a voluminous essay. You’ve your own blog for that.
        Further, while I agree with RaPar’s points, I find it disconcerting you think you’re replying to me.
        Also, have you noticed how everyone is out of step but you? The scholarly consensus, the other blogs you comment on and the views expressed here are all wrong – only you know the truth (apparently). This should tell you something.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Wrong. And I have a strong hunch that if you asked a traditional Jew if this is the case, he would agree with me. As RaPaR suggested, do some research.

        Didn’t Timothy say something about studying to show yourself approved?

        Like

      • Don, you really do need really familiarize yourself with the history of the Jewish people and the origins of Christianity, they are quite two different things. Jesus was a Jew, never told anyone not to follow the Law, Paul did. A man that never met Jesus, wouldn’t know him from Adam (no pun intended….well, maybe) called himself a Pharisee and certainly was not a Pharisee, and didn’t seem to know anything about Jesus if you follow his letters (at the least the 6 that scholars know he wrote.) READ HIS LETTERS and compare them to what Jesus says in the gospels. Complete diametrically opposite teachings.

        Liked by 1 person

      • How do you know what you say you know? In particular how do you know Paul was not a Pharisee?

        How do know that Paul knew nothing about Jesus?

        FaPaR: compare them [Paul’s teaching] to what Jesus says in the gospels. Complete diametrically opposite teachings.

        If so then it is Jesus who diverged from the Old Testament rather than Paul. But I am interested in what you see as the difference between Paul and Jesus.

        Like

      • Thank you for your question, Don. Prepare for irony:

        It’s in that book you claim to know so much about yet seem to know so little! Yes, it’s all in the Bible! This is why it needs to be read completely with a critical eye and with great attention to detail, not spoon-fed to you by others and the TOLD what it means, as is so very often the case. Of course I can site a dozen books you can read on this very topic however it’s apparent your knowledge of your own source-dogma is wanting at best so I would start there.

        If you sincerely believe you know the gospels then I would start with Paul’s letters first, then move on to Acts. If it doesn’t jump out at you after carefully reading these books, then consider yourself locked in by the powers of cognitive dissonance and move on. Let’s let Neil get back to other topics he might wish to cover.

        Like

      • Yes, he did. He didn’t answer your direct questions because the answers are in the bible when it’s read, as he said — completely with a critical eye and with great attention to detail. Few believers do this, being more content to take the word of apologists and/or preachers.

        Like

      • The trouble with RaPaR’s answer or non-answer is that I could do the same. I have spent a good part of 60 years personally reading and studying the Bible both independently and in formal settings. I would guess that is at least as much time as RaPaR.. So if I wanted to play the I-am-better-acquainted-than-you card I could. Rather than huff, however, a reasonable conversation is based on concrete examples or evidence and well reasoned conclusions.

        However, I see that RaPaR has provided one reason, and I;ll consider that.

        Like

      • In the interest of letting poor Neil get back to his own site and topics of discussion, I’ll give you a little more to go on.

        Q: How do I know that Paul didn’t know anything about Jesus?

        A: Because Paul doesn’t mention a SINGLE event in Jesus’ life; not his virgin birth (WOW! Really?!), not his mother or father, not any of his miracles, his sermons (even the sermon on the mount!), not a single word, parable or line that Jesus’ made have said, not his turning of the tables in the temple, his arrest in Gethsemane, or his trial. Remember, Paul never met Jesus; Jesus was dead already for years when Paul had his phony baloney revelation and his self appointment as an Apostle. And, unfortunately for Christianity, Paul is the ONLY person that claims a “first-hand” resurrection experience, the only one, even though it was years later and hundreds of miles away from where Jesus was tried, executed, and supposedly resurrected.

        Let’s start with that….

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Generally, ” Christians do not want a government forced religion. Remember, that is why they came to the new world in the first place – to escape a government enforced religion.”
    https://justicetothenations.com/do-christians-want-a-theocracy/#:~:text=The%20Christian%20theocracy%20merely%20says%20that%20God%20decides,to%20protect%20men%20from%20the%20abuse%20of%20others.

    Many evangelicals in America believe that what is happening is a government forced humanistic and anti-Christian philosophy/religion. So we are reacting to that shift in a similar way that you are reacting to what you reprieve as an attempted theocratic takeover.

    Like

  4. PaPaR: You shouldn’t be doing these things because you think it’s going to get you into heaven but rather because it is the right thing to do.

    We don’t. That is a total misunderstanding of the motivations of Christians. Feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick will not gain anyone credit toward heaven. That is at best a Medieval Catholic idea.

    Christians do good because it is good and because it is the nature that God has imparted to us as he transforms our hearts. We do good because God does good.

    Like

  5. I don’t see how to reply to a comment that doesn’t come to me, so I’ll reply generally.

    To RaPaR:
    How do I know that Paul didn’t know anything about Jesus? Because Paul doesn’t mention a SINGLE event in Jesus’ life…

    That is actually not true. He mentioned his death and resurrection, at the very least. He mentioned his linage as a son of David. But in answer to your reply I’d like to ask, why would you expect him to mention his parables, his arrest, his virgin birth, etc.?

    Paul was writing between twenty and thirty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. He was writing to churches either he or another of the early missionaries – Aquila and Pricilla, for example – had established. He is writing to churches that had heard the gospel account of Jesus and had received some pretty intensive teaching already. So why would we expect he would take the time and paper and ink to cover old ground?

    He was writing in almost every instance to churches that needed some correction in their understanding of Jesus and the message of the kingdom of God. The Galatians needed to know that the Jewish ritual laws would not save them nor make them holy. The Corinthians need to know that purity of life was important. They needed to know that the gifts of the Spirit were meant to build up the church. They needed to know that the resurrection was real. Etc. So that is what Paul wrote about.

    In every instance, Paul reinforces and makes concrete the principles Jesus taught: humility, kindness, love, authenticity, trust in God, etc. In no instance does he contradict Jesus. Even your observation that Paul taught that keeping of the law was not necessary for salvation is mistaken. What he said was that turning to God in trust (faith) and relying on the forgiveness offered in Jesus is first. Obedience to the instructions of God (Torah) follow as a natural and authentic expression of that commitment to God.

    Romans 8
    For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    Regarding Sabbath keeping Paul did not argue against it (Romans 14) He argued for genuine worship. Regarding circumcision he argued for circumcision of the heart, which is what the prophets also preached.

    So Paul was neither preaching another gospel from that which Jesus preached nor preaching anything contrary to the instructions of the Old Testament.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.