Thunderfoot Channels Christopher Hitchens

As I have considered various issues that I might discuss on this blog, I have often toyed with the idea of going through the anti-Christian videos of a YouTube star who calls himself Thunderfoot.  Though much of his material seems to focus on debunking the young earth arguments of Christians like Ken Ham which I have no inclination to defend, I have been certain that I could find plenty of topics to post on in his materials.  The other day I came across a video where Thunderfoot channels the late Christopher Hitchens that confirmed this impression and I decided to write a post about it.

Now the first part of the video is good clean fun where Thunderfoot does some physics calculations to show how catastrophic it would be if God stopped the earth as described in Joshua.  The one regret I had as I watched Thunderfoot go through those calculations was that he only rarely examines the assumptions of the atheist worldview with such vigor.  As I have made clear in previous posts, I waffle between two positions with regard to these issues.  On the one hand, the idea that parts of the Old Testament are what J.R.R. Tolkien called “The chosen mythology” has never been difficult for me.  On the other hand, as I have grown as a Christian my appreciation for the Old Testament has grown to the point where I sometimes think that all the accounts are historical.  Either way, it doesn’t make any difference to me.  The second part of the video is what captured my attention.

In the second part of the video, Thunderfoot asks the question that was the basis for a thought experiment that I first performed some 15 years ago.  He basically posts the picture of a young girl and challenges various creationists with the question, “What is the best way to slaughter this child in accordance with the commands of God?”  It was that very question which led me to the interpretation of the Old Testament that I have outlined in other posts.  Allow me to go through the thought process that I went through when I asked this question so many years ago.

First of all, it seems clear to me that Christianity is vastly preferable to atheism because at least Christianity gives you the basis for having a dilemma when considering the murder of a child.  As many other authors have noted, the relentless logic of atheism gives us no basis for believing that a child is any more important than a gut bacteria.  Since Thunderfoot regularly kills gut bacteria without a second thought, how could he have qualms about killing a child that are consistent with his atheist beliefs?

The second issue that occurred to me was how it could be moral to destroy an entire society.  No matter how depraved a society might be, and I believe that these ancient pagan societies were far worse than the Islamic State with all of its atrocities, such mass destruction is horrible to contemplate.  The answer that I eventually came to was given a much more colorful defense by the late Christopher Hitchens in a debate with A.C. Grayling.  The basic answer can be posed as a question.  Is it preferable from a moral perspective to allow the Nazis to murder, torture and enslave people forever or to stop them with a horrific war?  Or, in another form, is a finite evil preferable to an infinite evil?

If the finite evil is to be preferred, as I think it must be by every sane individual, then the destruction of corrupt and evil societies is justified along with whatever collateral damage is essential to prevent the spread of the corruption.  The little girl is cute and her pleas for life are compelling, but the simple math of the situation is that if her whole society has to be destroyed because it will not repent of evil, then her destruction is justified as well.  As sad as it is, I think she is better off dead than to grow up among morally depraved individuals who will cause her to become a thoroughly despicable human being.  As Thunderfoot himself said in a video entitled “Faith is the New Stupid Part 1“, “there are some things that are worse than death.”

This brings us to the third issue of whether or not I as a believer should obey a command by God to destroy such a child.  Though one might, in principle, agree that a society must be destroyed to prevent the spread and continuation of depravity, it is an entirely different thing to kill a fearful child who has just lost her family.  Eventually, I answered this question with a verse from the New Testament.

But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”  (Jude 1:9)

If even Michael would not dare to say something to the most evil being who has ever lived, then how is it that God should require me to murder a child made in his image?  Clearly, he could not.  God must desire to have me intercede on behalf of condemned sinners as demonstrated by his friend Abraham in Genesis 18.  As demonstrated in that incident, God may not always heed the impassioned prayers of a believer for a condemned sinner, but He always wants us to ask for mercy.  As demonstrated in other passages, God never wants us to carry out a judgment no matter how much we think it might be deserved.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  (Mathew 7: 1-2)

About Robert V

Former atheist currently living in Toronto.
This entry was posted in Atheist Arguments and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Thunderfoot Channels Christopher Hitchens

  1. byblacksheep says:

    When you say the relentless logic of atheism what exactly do you mean?

    What exactly leads you to believe that the ancient pagan societies were worst than ISIS? And my follow up question would be what makes you think the ancient Israelites were better than ISIS?

    You realize we fought nazi soldiers in a war? we did not murder the Germans down to the last man, woman, and child. You can tell because Germany is still around and a well respected member of the international community.

    • Robert V says:

      Black Sheep,

      -relentless logic

      Have you really not heard about the moral argument for God? Evolution and the belief that there are no moral absolutes is what Daniel Dennett called the “universal acid” that eats away at all non-subjective beliefs concerning morality and ethics.

      -worse than Isis
      The Bible describes some of the Pagan practices and this has been verified by archaeology. Basically, the worship of Molech involved throwing unwanted children onto a heated bronze plate and having an orgy as they sizzled and popped while worshipping their gods.

      -better than Isis
      When did I say the ancient Israelites were better than Isis? I implied that they were better than the surrounding pagan cultures which I said were worse than Isis. God chose the Israelites to demonstrated the transforming power of his love and now the nation of Israel is one of the greatest forces for the advancement of civilization in the world. (See the wikipedia article on Jewish Nobel price winners.)

      -fighting the Nazis
      You should really watch the video I linked of the discussion between Grayling and Hitchens. He makes the case far better than I ever could. The bottom line is that many Nazi children (and Japanese children) were killed.

      Thanks for your comments,

      • byblacksheep says:

        I think I accidentally hit “reply” before I meant too, fat thumbs, i apologize. But if my previous comment just disappeared into cyber space let me know, I have a couple of other points to add. But the last point is that yes lots of children did die. And I should point out that the nuclear bombing of Japan is pretty much abhorrent, however after winning the war we did not celebrate by murdering all of the non female, and non virgin Germans and Japanese (we can throw the Italians in there too). And if it is morally okay for the Jews to commit acts of genocide what moral high ground do you have to say the Nazis were wrong to try to exterminate the Jews?

      • Robert V says:

        Black Sheep,

        There was one argument that you made that I skipped over because I don’t like to address really bad arguments. In that argument, you made a simple moral equivalence between killing children that I might expect of an SJW or some other kind of moral defective. I did not mention it in the hope that you are better than that, but I thought that I would make a quick argument along this line just in case you are reachable.

        Let us imagine that a man has a dog who has contracted rabies in Colonial America. Though he loves the dog, he reluctantly takes the dog out to the back of the house and shoots it both for the sake of his family and for the sake of the dog.

        Let us now imagine a different man who lights dogs on fire and puts them out before too long to maximize the pain. Eventually, the dogs die from their wounds but the process. is long and torturous.

        Both of these men have killed dogs. In the simplistic moral sense in which you argued that the Israelites ere equivalent to those who sacrificed their children to Moloch, they are equivalent. But do you see any difference between the two men? If you do not, then there is nothing more I can say to you sir.

        Thanks again for your comment,

      • byblacksheep says:

        I’m so glad you brought this up, because unlike you I have no problem addressing really bad arguments and this sir is a doozy. Couple of things first Social Justice Warrior is a compliment so thank you. Second, given the Holy Book you follow, I would personally hold off on calling anybody a “moral defective.”

        To play your game, yes I would frown on the person who tortured the dog to death. However are you suggesting the Nazi’s would have been less evil if they had used a less painful execution method?

        Here is another question on the one hand you burn a child to death, on the other hand you murder the child’s family while he watches and then murder him. Which one is less evil (because neither are good)

        Of course we don’t actually know how “mercifully” the Israelites murdered their POWs

        The primary problem with your analogy is you turned one situation into two. We are not talking about one rabid dog put down and out of its misery, and then one perfectly healthy dog lit on fire. No we are talking about the same child, the same innocent baby sucking at his mother’s breast. You can maybe make the argument that the parents are “rabid dogs” or depraved individuals, however engaging in human sacrifices is not a virus, it is a cultural tradition that can be unlearned, case in point if you had read that whole Wikipedia article you would have seen that Yahweh was worshipped with human sacrifices, but Yahweh’s logic, the Jews should have been wiped off the face of the map. Or as we saw with Nazi Germany, a depraved society, now Germany is well-respected.

        So no, I don’t see a vast difference between the person who burns a perfectly healthy dog to death because his God commands it, and the person who stabs a perfectly healthy dog to death because his God commands it. I’m supposed to be excited because one dog suffers less than the other, please.

        And why were they sacrificing their children to Moloch? It doesn’t say, typically cultures engage in sacrifices to avoid incurring the wrath of their God. Kill a few kids, the rest of the tribe lives. Not terrible moral thinking for the time. Of course I think it is ridiculous because I know that sacrifices don’t affect natural disasters and I know natural disasters are not “God’s wrath.” Christians don’t have that luxury though. Christians still think a tribal storm/war god is going to destroy the world in fire and water. Oh and we have fun scenes like exodus 32:27-29 where the Levites are rewarded with priesthoods because of their willingness to murder 3,000 of their own brothers, companions, neighbors, and children in an effort to avoid “God’s wrath” It may not have been a ritual human sacrifice, but it included the murder of innocent children that fulfilled the same function.

      • Robert V says:

        It is as I feared. You are a morally defective SJW with no clue about the abcs of morality. You demonstrate this perfectly when you ask your “gotcha” question “Does the method of execution make any difference when a Nazi . . . ?” The method of killing the dog had nothing to do with the difference between the two men in my thought experiment. The salient issue was the intent. One man reluctantly killed a dog that he loved to protect his family and spare the dog unnecessary pain. The other man gleefully inflicted gratuitous pain on a helpless dog. But hey you are a materialist right? A dead dog is a dead dog and what difference does it make what the intent was? If you cannot do basic moral reasoning, then there is nothing I can do for you.

        Thanks for your comments,

      • byblacksheep says:

        Oh, so it’s okay to murder children so long as you do so reluctantly. So glad you cleared that up. And I’m the moral defective that doesn’t know the abcs about morality?

        You are defending a book that OKs slavery, that OKs genocide, that OKs murdering children to avoid a god’s wrath, that OKs Capitol punishment if you pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week, and you want to teach me about basic moral reasoning?

      • Robert V says:

        Black Sheep,

        You have no interest in understanding what I believe and your entire message betrays the fact that you have closed your mind to anything that would be problematic for your simplistic SJW beliefs. On the off chance that someone else might benefit from this conversation, however, I will answer your points.

        The problem is the simplistic moral equivalence principle that you use. If you see no difference between a sadist who kills and tortures for pleasure and a soldier who does so as a duty in order to protect that which he believes to be valuable, then you are a moral defective. Recognizing a distinction between two actions does not make one action good and the other bad in some simplistic black and white way. Rather it allows one to understand that sometimes actions that are bad can sometimes be better than the other available options. If you do not recognize this basic fact, then you are incapable of moral reasoning.

        In this world, God has constrained himself to act in a certain way. He does not intervene directly because he is seeking faith (there are good reasons for this, but you don’t care and I have discussed them elsewhere). Rather God acts through intermediaries. Because God has limited himself in this way, he must choose the least bad of a set of available options. This is why he judges nations who are so depraved that they would corrupt other nations. No better option is available to him given the purpose he is pursuing and the limitations that that purpose imposes on the way he can act.

        Now in eternity, the members of that judged nation will be blessed eternally by God. Since they have not accepted God’s help to love one another and have rejected basic morality, that existence will be hellish. God’s actions are always a positive blessing, but the hell comes from the way you have chosen to live. Live among people who burn their own children on the fire or commit abortions so they can pursue sexual pleasure and you will be miserable for all eternity. There is nothing God can do about it. You have rejected God’s help to love Him and your neighbor and thereby chosen to live with those who don’t care about love. Living among those who know nothing of love is hellish.

        God’s ideal morality for people is not revealed in the Old Testament but rather in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God was dealing with the most vicious and barbaric people in human history. He did this to demonstrate the transforming power of his love. In the Old Testament, therefore, God is teaching these vicious barbarians the basic abcs of love one little baby step at a time. He does not tell them that they cannot own slaves because if he had at that point they would simply have ignored him, rather he tells them not to beat their slaves. He does not forbid them from divorcing their wives, because if he had forbidden divorce they would have killed their wives when they were tired of them. He teaches them through his servant Abraham (in Genesis 18) always to intercede on behalf of judged nations, but he tests them to see if they understand this command by ordering them to carry out his judgment against condemned nations. They failed that test and carried out judgment and, as the text makes clear, committed the very same acts and were judged with the vary same judgments themselves later on.

        There is no sense in which the behavior described in the Old Testament is appropriate for someone who has grown up in the New Testament period. Those commands and stories belong to an age when people did not know even basic morality. So no I don’t believe that genocide is ok, that slavery is ok, that divorce is ok or that it is okay to kill a child as long as you do so reluctantly. I do believe, because I can see a hierarchy of good and evil which you are blind to, that God’s actions in the Old Testament can be understood as the actions of a perfectly loving being if you take the time and make the effort, but you are clearly unwilling to do so.

        Thanks for your comments,

      • byblacksheep says:

        Robert, I didn’t start in on the ad hominem attacks first, you did, so from an outsiders perspective, it would appear that between the two of us you were the first person to close your mind to the arguments of the other. And again social justice warrior is a compliment, there was this guy named Jesus, he was really concerned with women, orphans, widows, people with disabilities or communicable diseases. Some people would argue that he has a lot in common with social justice warriors, you might want to look into him, I hear there is a book.

        Once someone full throatily admits that they think there are circumstances where murdering infants in cold blood is a just, moral, and loving action, that’s the point where you are not worth engaging anymore. You’re not “reachable”at that point. You’re morality is complicated or nuanced it is “God issued this command, so it must be good, so now I have to bend over backwards to figure out how it is good” someday you might want to approach the bible with the mindset of “if I didn’t take God’s assertion that He is perfectly good and all His actions HAD to be good, would i still believe that God was good?” You might be surprised what you find.

        Cheers

      • Robert V says:

        Black Sheep,

        Sometimes demonstrating love requires sharing harsh truths. You constantly use a simplistic principle of moral equivalence that equates the act of killing a dog as an act of compassion with killing a dog as an act of sadism. When you do this, I have no choice but to tell you that this makes you a moral defective. Sadism and compassion are not the same thing and it does not make a difference if the end result is the same by some simple materialistic metric. I have taken an enormous amount of time to write responses to your questions in the hope that you will seek a deeper understanding. Try to shame me into silence if you want, but it won’t work.

        Thanks again for all your comments,

      • Robert V says:

        Black Sheep,

        One final point:

        -Oh and we have fun scenes like exodus 32:27-29 where the Levites are rewarded with priesthoods because of their willingness to murder 3,000 of their own brothers, companions, neighbors, and children in an effort to avoid “God’s wrath”

        I deal with this incident specifically in my post “The Greatest Sins in Human History”.

        Thanks for your comments,

        rob

      • Robert V says:

        Black Sheep,

        -So no, I don’t see a vast difference between the person who burns a perfectly healthy dog to death because his God commands it, and the person who stabs a perfectly healthy dog to death because his God commands it. I’m supposed to be excited because one dog suffers less than the other, please.

        I missed this argument when I first read through your comments. For the sake of completeness, I will address it now.

        In the modern day, many infants are aborted to avoid economic difficulty for the parents. Since you are not going to “get excited because one baby suffers less than another”, you are basically saying that it is okay to throw an unwanted child on the fire as a sacrifice to Moloch. The real reason those people threw their children into the fire was the same reason as most moderns have abortions. They didn’t want the child to get in the way of their lifestyle and so they made up an imaginary command from a non-existent deity that conformed to their desires.

        There is a huge difference, therefore, between murdering a child as a primitive act of obedience to a righteous deity that one performs reluctantly because the evil of a society has gone out of control and throwing an unwanted child onto a fire so that that child sizzles and pops so that you can participate in orgies. An inability to see this difference makes a person a moral defective.

        Now I would agree that the God wanted the Old Testament believers to pass this test and intercede for that judged nation just as He commanded them to do in Genesis 18, but even their primitive obedience was much more pleasing to him then the barbaric acts of a bunch of depraved sex addicts.

        Thanks again for all your comments,

  2. byblacksheep says:

    I have heard of the moral argument for God and I am unconvinced by it and I will tell you why. You literally just made a case that it is okay to kill the children of a group of people because they kill children. That is the definition of subjective morality. Unless of course you are prepared to make the argument that killing children is not objectively immoral, what was immoral was that the wrong God told them to murder children, at which point how are you any better than the people who worshipped Moloch? (Btw I would love to see your archeological confirmations). Additionally evolution is a biological process not a moral code, and I’ve never met or read an atheist who treats it as such. Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out there, but in my experience that’s just a straw man Christians like to throw around.

    I’m not really sure how that makes ancient Canaanites worse than ISIS, you described a particularly gruesome way to kill children to be sure. But I’m not too sure how that is so very different than say running a child through with a sword, or say subjecting a young girl (or anyone for that matter) to a life of sexual slavery. So what is it that makes them worse than ISIS?

    So you believe that the Israelites, and here I am referring to the Israelites during the specific times they actually followed God, not the times they turned their back on him, were on par, or worse than ISIS?

    • Robert V says:

      Black Sheep,

      You seem to have taken a brief overview of simple arguments that can be levied against the simplistic arguments of Thunderfoot as a comprehensive treatise on theology and morality. Thanks for the compliment, but I am not capable of such an astonishing feat. My point was merely that 1) atheism has no basis for belief in an absolute morality and this means that no child’s life can have absolute value for a consistent atheist. 2) That the simple mathematics of the situation dictate that the finite evil required to stop a depraved society is less than the infinite evil involved in allowing that society to be depraved and evil indefinitely. 3) That God’s desire is for those of us who believe in Him to intercede on behalf of those who are condemned because of 2. I believe that these points demolish the simple argument that Thunderfoot made against Christianity in his video. I was not trying to defend the morality of destroying every German because of Nazi depravity, I was merely using this as an illustration of the mathematics discussed in point 2 above.

      As to the morality of God judging those who are evil, I have addressed this in an essay called the Nature of God’s Provision and the Nature of Death. Of course, this issue is also tied to the nature of hell which I have also addressed in many posts.

      As for the evidence for ancient canaanite practices, the I remember reading a book about them. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the book. The article on Moloch in Wikipedia mentions what I was talking about. Perhaps the references there will be useful to you.

      As to your question concerning the Israelites, yes I really do believe that ancient Israel was worse than modern Isis and that God chose some of the worst people in human history to demonstrate the transforming power of his love.

      Thanks again for your comments,

      • byblacksheep says:

        Robert, don’t flatter yourself. I have simply taken some of your brief and simplistic arguments and have challenged in in a way that I hope will encourage you to think deeper on those areas.

        “1) atheism has no basis for belief in an absolute morality and this means that no child’s life can have absolute value for a consistent atheist.”

        How do you know this is true? and I read your gut bacteria post, you don’t address this.

        “2) That the simple mathematics of the situation dictate that the finite evil required to stop a depraved society is less than the infinite evil involved in allowing that society to be depraved and evil indefinitely.”

        The “Math” in this situation doesn’t change whether God exists or not (which relates back to your first point). Also, it has been my assumption that God cannot do any evil, you seem to be arguing he can do some evil so long as it is lesser and he has good intentions. Also, are you suggesting that two wrong make a right? Or that the ends justify any means?

        “I was not trying to defend the morality of destroying every German because of Nazi depravity, I was merely using this as an illustration of the mathematics discussed in point 2 above.”

        No, you were trying to use WWII to justify the morality of the genocidal practices commanded by God in the OT as necessary to stop a “depraved society.” My point was no matter what atrocities the good guys committed during WWII, they did not exterminate the Italians, the Germans or the Japanese, and all three are well respected members of the international community ergo genocide was not necessary to stop a “depraved” society, as you seem to be arguing.

        I read the first part to “throwing Moses under the bus” trying to decide if the rest is worth the read. You seem to miss that the fundamental problem with the OT isn’t what Moses did, but is what God commanded Moses to do, or what God just straight up did on his own.
        “As to your question concerning the Israelites, yes I really do believe that ancient Israel was worse than modern Isis and that God chose some of the worst people in human history to demonstrate the transforming power of his love.”

        The point with ISIS is just about everything they are doing because Allah tells them so, mirrors what the Ancient Israelites did because God told them so.

        with the exception of some of your snark, I am enjoying our conversation. And i’m generally a snarky person myself so I take no offense.

      • Robert V says:

        Black Sheep,

        A few more minor points.

        -How do you know this is true? and I read your gut bacteria post, you don’t address this.

        The Gut bacteria post references a quick video by Neil de Grase Tyson who makes his case for why human beings are insignificant. The video is 3 minutes long and not very hard to understand. If he is correct (and his logic is inexorable unless you introduce some basis for absolute morality) then the child is the same as a gut bacteria. But it is not my burden to prove that no justification for the child’s worth is possible given an atheistic world view. It is your burden to prove that a non-subjective atheist world view can grant the child’s life some transcendent value. Is there such a proof?

        Perhaps you believe Sam Harris has provided such a proof with his “worst of all possible worlds” derivation of absolute morality? I don’t think that he has successfully demonstrated the value of a child’s life with those arguments. All that he has done is demonstrate that the only conscious beings that evolution has produced might all agree that a given set of circumstances was universally bad. If creatures existed who enjoyed the suffering of others, on the other hand, then no absolute worst could exist because the misery of everyone else would make those creatures happy. No absolute worst would exist in this case and everything becomes subjective once again. Do people exist who enjoy the misery of others? In my experience, I have met many people who rejoiced at the suffering of those they did not like. Even if such people did not exist, it would be enough to refute the Harris argument that they could, in principle, exist.

        -No, you were trying to use WWII to justify the morality of the genocidal practices commanded by God in the OT as necessary to stop a “depraved society.”

        No I really wasn’t. The reason I mentioned WWII at all was to bring Hitchens into the debate since many atheists revere his opinions and the title of my post mentioned his name. The reasoning he uses is illustrative of the basic moral calculus that refutes Thunderfoot’s assumption that killing a child could never be justified. My real point was that if one is acting to minimize inevitable evil, then the killing of a child can easily be justified mathematically.

        You ask if I believe that God can do evil. Do you realize that an omnipotent and omniscient being could cause any evil action by merely not doing certain things? (I discuss this issue in my post God working through the demonic) God would, of course, have to take responsibility for these actions. But does an action that God does not want to take but takes because it is necessitated by the evil actions of those who have free will and choose to do evil count as an evil action? Can your understanding of morality, devoid of any notion of intent, entertain such a question?

        Thanks for your comments,

  3. Drexus says:

    Interesting, the subjective throws of morality as bound to the subjective interpretation of one’s perspective verses the subjective writings of an era long since extinct. This is akin to determining if blue is better than green.

    Morality is the product of a species with advanced sociality — a trait developed in response to the many environments said species had adapted to.

    To take aim at the bible as pro-moral or anti-moral is a moot point, for the material offered in the bible might have started off as mildly symbolic writings from a time void of critical review, but was then subject to large arrays of editing, reinterpretation, translation, modification, and omission. To call it anything above fiction is to dilute one’s critical faculties.

    More accurate moral guidance can be gleaned from “The three little pigs” than the bible.

    To this day, religion sustains itself through the insulation of faith as never asking if the whole thing is a fairy tale. Even still, the dogma continues to hinder the sustainable nature of our species based on permission in honouring one’s faith over reason.

    However, if there still exists the belief that the bible is true to it’s meaning, simply look up the original meaning of the word ‘hell’. You will find that the original reference points to a burial site — a sort of burning dump over the walls of a city. The contradictions of eternal torments as presented by today’s religions — aim to sell fear, and so reinterpret the bible (in true religious tradition) to present this dire fate — in contrast to the many areas of the bible that say otherwise.

    As mentioned, the bible is a collection of letters written by illiterate people in the desert who were more creative than factual — who found it necessary to rewrite their own work many times over until they got something they liked. To many, the hard-core truth of the bible from creative exploration of the original authors — opened the doors to subjective interpretation on a galactic scale.

    If you need moral guidance from something written, just follow the golden rule — it will get you most of the way there. If you need more, refer to Universal Rights — as not contingent of interpretation by language, ethnicity, or belief.

  4. Pingback: The Need for a Vision | A Thoughtful Christian

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s