God Makes Sense of the Logic Used to Reject Him

Posted byHaden ClarkPosted inapologeticsTags:, , , , , , , , , , ,

Our friend Dr. Travis Dickinson explains what logic is and why it is best explained by God. In the end, atheists attempt to use logic to deny God, but logic is a non-physical thing that is best explained by the existence of God.

God Makes Sense of the Logic Used to Reject Him

Advertisement

Published by Haden Clark

Haden lives in North Texas with his wife, daughter, and three dogs.

68 thoughts on “God Makes Sense of the Logic Used to Reject Him”

  1. One of the greatest idiosyncratic dispositions of this is that Rene Descartes, the philosopher whom theorized two competing aspects of self, Res Cogitans and Res Extensia was a deeply spiritual man, as are many scientists in there non public life. Can’t wait to read more and thank you for the great morning thoughts.

    Like

    Reply

    1. In all honesty, I thought the author’s analogies were a bit weak, but in simplistic terms, Logic itself seems to be evidence enough of, certainly, some higher Force. Now, whether one ascribes this Divinity of Mind to any specific religious teaching is another topic; though, all in all, his point was easily understood. I’m curious, what “evidence” are you seeking, and in what regards? Also, “Bet you a million bucks you can’t”, seems to be spouted out of frustration. Surely, our Egyptian forefather would have encouraged the furtherance of intellectual growth, not simple, and vague sarcasm.

      Like

      Reply

      1. After years of reading the same unsubstantiated waffle from Christians you will have to forgive my ‘frustration’.
        And any intellectual growth on the part of fully committed Christians will inevitably lea to deconversion, as it will for any religious individual.
        If you have to ask what ”evidence you (I) am seeking” then I am afraid you probably do not fully understand the term evidence and have allowed yourself you to pander to the type of nonsense that permits people such as Gary Habermas to claim there is historical ”evidence” (sic) for the resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.

        However, on saying this, if you truly beleive you have evidence then by al means, please present it.

        Like

      2. “Evidence”. Well, if by “evidence” you mean, perhaps, video footage, or a Polaroid picture of Jesus walking out of the grave, or any such tangible “item”, then yes, I will fully agree, this is surely a difficult thing to “prove”. Though, it’s as equally difficult to disprove, as it is to prove, no doubt. Therefore, it’s really not worth the time, or the intellectual effort to prove such tangibles, but better yet, it is to elucidate on the perennial Ideas, that which long existed before Jesus, and what was truly the bulk of His teaching; especially, when one can remove Rome, the heretic Paul, and many other contradictions, the Light of Truth is ever impossible to deny.

        I’ve before seen you ask for any such “evidence” in these dialogues, therefore, in one such aspect, I will uncharacteristically play the Devil’s advocate pointing towards the hundreds of thousands of mistranslated manuscripts, supposedly, of this Man’s life. Thus, to say “evidence” does not exist, would, in fact, be erroneous, as there are numerous myriads of contemporary written claims to such. Now, whether one is satisfied with the “evidence” that is presented, and often, even I certainly am not, that is the real question, and truly, only a personal one. With that, I absolutely get your point, though, I believe your question needs refinement, as there are certainly copious amounts of purported “evidence”, at least in the written form. Therefore, your call for “evidence” can, no doubt, be heaped upon you, right, wrong, or indifferent.

        Now, I’m not one who ascribes to much of the literal interpretation to the metaphysical nature that is held in the Gospels, I mean after all, resurrection (anástasis) simply means: “illuminate”, or “irritated”, or “a raising up”. Thus, to claim a “zombie’esk” Jesus was walking around for 40 days, well, I’m certainly not one to say in absolute definition. But in all honesty, it truly matters not, as Jesus wasn’t speaking, in my humble opinion, of an awakening of one’s dead body, but of the dead minds of Men. Though, rising from the dead is, certainly, not unheard of, even in our modern day. I mean really, with all the profundities in this world, rising from the dead is not at all that far-fetched. Now, if tangible, material “evidence” is what you seek, at least in the literal sense, then you, and many others, my friend, will be left wanting.

        Even so, if one looks to the eternal nature of our very Being, our rise into eternity, in whatever form, it seems ever so logical to assume a rising from the dead is only natural. For we are not defined by our bodies, but, at the very least, through our minds, and/or further, through our very Essence.

        Anyhoo, I look forward to your reply.

        Like

      3. there are numerous myriads of contemporary written claims to such

        Sorry, you are wrong. There is not a single contemporary claim and neither is there a single piece of contemporary evidence.
        It is important that you try to understand the difference between a claim, written or other wise and evidence.
        Do you consider a Harry Potter novel evidence that wizards exist?
        That a young boy went to a school called Hogwarts and he could fl on a broomstick?Or something closer to home:
        Do you consider there is historical evidence that Mohammed flew to Jerusalem and heaven on a winged horse?

        Unsubstantiated claims remain exactly that.

        Again, if you feel you have evidence please feel free to post some. Links will suffice.

        Like

      4. It seems to me that your definition of “evidence” is what is puzzling. Regarding criminal law, many defendants would love your notion of what, in fact, regards as evidence. Maybe you should have been a lawyer, if you are not already one; public defense is calling your name:) Concerning written texts, the more obvious examples are Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, Gaius Tranquillus, and other first, second, and third hand accounts. The “evidence” is there, my book shelves are filled with these accounts, often vague, and at other times, quite concise. Though, in reality, these, and the others, truly, matter not, as the Teachings of Jesus are far older than He, one only needs to look towards Egypt, or Pythagoras to understand this Doctrine is far older than Jesus. So really, I wonder what are you getting at, because the Doctrine still stands in sagacity. We could go back and forth all day on who wrote this, who said that, carbon dating, and the like. Though, I’m curious, is there something in the Teachings of Jesus that offends, or further, that doesn’t ring true towards humanity and how we are to interact with each other? Now, I’m not talking Roman Catholicism, or Protestant Christianity, I’m more focused on the Teaching, supported, or purported.

        Like

      5. I must stay, I truly appreciate your approach: give me the brass tacks, or nothing will suffice! I get it, truly. Though, if one holds your current line of reasoning, one would have to say that no historical figure can be substantiated, at least those who’ve existed before DNA technology, or photographic capabilities. Even Arkenaten cannot be validated through your reasoning, as he can only be verified through inscription, a few carvings, or God forbid, oral tradition. Is this truly your base foundation of reasoning when looking into the past, or more so, do you simply have a religious axe to grind, which, I can certainly relate to?

        Like

      6. Though, if one holds your current line of reasoning, one would have to say that no historical figure can be substantiated,

        Wrong, and this is a stupid line of reasoning, and I am sure you know it.
        It is nothing but apologetic whining.
        If you wish to assert that there was an historical eschatological itinerant Rabbi called Yeshua crucified for sedition as mentioned by Tacitus, then fair enough. I mean, really who cares?
        But the biblical character, the virgin born miracle working wonder man, the divine lake Tiberius Pedestrian who was crucified then rose from the dead and levitated into outer space?
        Well …. obviously this is simply a narrative construct that has no bearing in reality.
        It isn’t even a good story!, and belief in this character has to be indoctrinated using fallacious claims and the carrot.-and-stick.

        So, once again, if you have any evidence to support the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth, then feel free to present it.

        Like

      7. Wow! Such frustration, rambling, and an utter lack of cordial dialogue. Well, I thought we could have exchanged in a meaningful way, flourishing through intellectual thought and conversation, but alas, to each their own.

        Like

      8. You are not the first I have engaged on this topic yet your replies are almost exactly the same hand waving theological two step that one gets from almost every believer.

        You continue to assert there is validity for your claims and yet, every time I have offered you the opportunity to present evidence you have dodged the bullet.

        Therefore, in the interests of demonstrating you have some integrity in this regard, at least make an effort and present the evidence you claims exists.

        Like

      10. Let’s just get it out in the open for clarity, and for the utter sake of this community of thinkers; what will suffice, for you, as evidence: blood samples, DNA evidence, photographic evidence, stool samples, video footage, a literal first hand account, what will suffice to satisfy your need, as clearly, text doesn’t hold enough weight in your opinion? Lay it out brother, or sister, please, speak plainly, and further, in concise terms.

        I’ve given quite a number of examples, even excluding the recorded and verified apostolic descent stemming from the first century, the letter of Mara Barsarapion, Thallus, Julius Africanus’ preservation of Phlegon’s writings, the Babylonian Talmud, and etc., etc., etc.; now whether they satisfy you, or not, matters not, there IS evidence of His life, my friend, it seems that you just cannot accept it as “valid”, at least under your ever so specific terms, which, by the way, you’ve yet to state clearly. Though, to make this a true dialogue, both parties are required to provide reasoned thought and whatever “evidence” one may possess, unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, you’ve provided nothing of the sort. I’m always beyond excited and willing to learn, so please, indulge what seems to be, my clear ignorance in actuality. And please spare us with your ever-repetitive final comment, “show me the evidence of the miracle worker named Jesus”, as I, and many others in the past, have done this in a number of ways.

        It must be further stated, that the miracles of Jesus bring absolutely ZERO credence to His life, none, zero, zilch. They do not substantiate, or detract from His teaching. I’ll honestly state, the miracles (in my studied opinion) were inserted to fulfill much of the OT prophecy, or to lift up the feeble and simple mind into belief. It must also be stated, Jesus was not of the Jewish teaching, that is beyond clear, if one is studied. Further, there was a reason why Thomas Jefferson was recomposing the NT without the miracles of Jesus, as they took away from, in his, and in my humble opinion, the essence of His teaching, which was: clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned, care for the sick, love God, love your neighbor as yourself, honor your parents, love your enemies, etc. Are you in opposition to the Truths? Is your philosophy superior to that which existed long before Jesus?

        Like

      11. There is not a single piece of contemporary evidence nor a single contemporary claim for the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
        And nothing you have provided so far counts as anything but unsubstantiated claims.
        An unsubstantiated claim is NOT evidence.
        Do you understand?
        And once again, are you a Christian?

        Like

      12. Oh brother, I’m afraid that you’ve made yourself look absolutely ridiculous, please spare yourself what little scholastic dignity you may possess, though, you’ve as of recently, yet to show. Arkenaten, one of greatest forefathers, would be absolutely disappointed in your pitiful representation.

        Like

      13. Instead of behaving like a smug ,condescending ass, please present a single contemporary claim or a single piece of contemporary evidence for the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth, for which you have asserted there is a ”myriad”.

        Like

      15. LOL!
        You have GOT to be kidding me!
        What next? An original piece of the cross?
        This is simply becoming embarrassing.

        Are you unable to read or do you simply fail to comprehend what the word contemporary means?

        Really, you are behaving like a complete
        ignoramus.
        Now, once again, please provide a single piece of contemporary evidence/or a single contemporary claim for the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.

        Like

      16. Oh man, you’re too much, I love it. It seems that nothing can suit the man who has provided absolutely nothing to the furtherance of dialogue; and again, I say in the warmest regards, salvage your dignity, my friend, you’ve become steeped in foolishness and unreality.

        Like

      19. Kudos to you, my friend, like I said, 2 seconds on google, but that really wasn’t the point. But hey, at least you finally brought something to the table to chew on.

        Like

      6. Willingly.
        Please present the evidence you claim you have for the character Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the bible.
        And please present a single piece of contemporary evidence/claim that you have asserted existed for this character.
        Thanks.
        And once again, are you a Christian?

        Like

  4. Ark, above I’ve added a number of sources, first and second century, and believe me I know, it’s not up to your standards; standards that I, again, wish for you to lay out in plain terms. What is it that you seek, specifically? Can you articulate what you deem credible as far as “evidence”, contemporary or otherwise? I would love to hear your rational, please, indulge me. Even though this has been a bit bumpy, I really have enjoyed our time together.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I am not going to bother explaining what contemporary is.You either know of you need to read a dictionary.
      You have already stated that there is contemporary evidence and contemporary claims.
      Both of these assertions are erroneous,.
      Once you demonstrate that you understand what you are talking about i will be happy to indulge you.
      And for the last time – are you a Christian?

      Like

      Reply

  5. Well, we seem to be swerving down an endless path to nowhere. Maybe at some point we’ll have a meaningful discussion, until then… may the Cosmos and You be well.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Maybe at some time you will develop some integrity and honesty. Meantime, may your make believe god man .look mercifully on your penchant for disengenuity and not send you to Gehenna for eternity.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I was hoping I could find on your platform some of your “profound insights”, especially concerning this conversation, as even you felt it was worth enough to “blurb” about, and well… crickets… crickets, I say! Though, you’ve got a pretty sweet echo-chamber going on, that must be nice, though, it’s probably quite boring in the end. Even so, I must say, those cupcakes sure looked tasty, and I liked a few of your posted pictures, did you shoot all or any of that(?), the birds were nice, some of your one-liner memes were kinda funny, but that was about it. So, until you bring something to the conversation, anything(!), which, I eagerly await, as do many others, you will no longer be referred to as, Arkenaten, but from hence forth as, Lemon Cupcake, which, I must state, happens to be one of my favorite treats. Dang, now I want cupcakes…

        Like

      3. It’s going to be profoundly difficult for me to ”bring something to the conversation, anything(!)’ as I’m still waiting for you to offer any evidence for your claims.
        But the moment you do I will engage in a flash!!
        So …. evidence?

        Like

      5. It’s nice to read that you can think.
        Now let’s see if you have any comprehension skills to match,
        Evidence for the claims you have been making since this thread began.
        Come on”bud” … stretch yourself and provide us with just one example of evidence.
        I’m sure you are able to if you try.

        Like

      6. I think I’m attempting to dialogue with a trained parrot? Lol! Just so you know, you’ve been incredibly entertaining this past weekend, my friend, many have enjoyed you commentary, or lack thereof, just know you haven’t gone unappreciated. Now please, let me get back to something worth my time, this feedback loop is beginning to be quite pointless. Again, may the Cosmos and You be well.

        Like

      7. So, no evidence, then?
        I wish I could likewise say you have been entertaining; although you did provide fodder for a blog post, which provided a smile or two.
        Your lack of integrity, disengenuity, and all round dishonest behaviour simply affirms what we’ve all come to expect from arse hats such as you.
        You can let go of your penis now and take your thumb out of your mouth.

        Like

      9. Vulgar? I thought it quite poetic.
        Telling a child it is going to hell to burn for eternity because they are a sinner and don’t believe in Jesus… now THAT’s not only vulgar but downright obscene.

        Like

  7. Well, only fundamentalists believe in that load of crap, which you just cannot seem to let go of, so, if the shoe fits… But hey, at least it looks like we’re getting at what seems to be the root of your animosity. So, come now, let’s sit down, we’ll exchange traumatic childhood religious experiences, we’ll have a good cry, and don’t worry, I’ve got a big box of tissues, and a whole mess of cupcakes, we’ll hash this out. Maybe afterwards we’ll throw on the 10lbs gloves, beat each other up for a bit, but then, let’s go grab a pint. Because for me, at least, this seems to be the beginning of a beautiful relationship!

    Like

    Reply

    1. To point out what a huge number of Christians not only fully believe but actively indoctrinate children with is not fundamentalist, it is a public service to call such people out.
      *Smile*. Sorry. I have no traumatic childhood religious experiences. In fact, I hardly did the religious thing at all as a kid, so you will have to play with yourself on that score.
      What’s your story? Were you brought up with Jesus at the knee of mum and dad o diod you find Jesus as a teen when you realised how much of a sinner you were?
      I’m no Sigmund Freud or Piaget, but I’ll ”listen” to your tale of woe salvation if you are of a mind to divulge.

      Like

      Reply

  8. Wow, you really are way beyond your philosophical depth, aren’t you. But hey, I’d still love to grab a pint, though, I’d probably still do most of the talking, matter fact, you better bring a few mates, as you’re about as dull as the barstool you’d be keeping warm. Lol! Oh Lord, it’s just too easy:)

    Like

    Reply

    1. Good grief, now you are dribbling all over the page.

      I’d probably still do most of the talking,

      Yes, you do talk rather a lot don’t you?
      It is just a shame you don’t actually say anything. I’m pretty sure the vernacular term for all your vacuous diatribe is Verbal Diarrhea.

      And it is rather telling that the two pertinent questions I have asked – provide evidence and: are you a Christian? you have steadfastly avoided answering since the get-go.

      Are you embarrassed or simply confused?

      Like

      Reply

  9. Oh brother, please, you’re becoming a laughing stock. You should probably stick with your one-liner memes, cupcakes, and bird watching, as that seems to suit your natural abilities. Though, for one last time, if you will, please, indulge us with your, supposed, philosophical prowess; the floor is yours. And trust me when I say, everyone is eagerly awaiting for you to, finally, use that vulgar trap of yours to speak something profound…

    Like

    Reply

    1. Us? Who are all these people you continue to allude to?
      I could not even dream of equaling the vulgarity of Christianity.
      Neither could I match it for its’ charlatans and liars.

      Like

      Reply

    1. I suppose I should apologise for stepping on your toes, but when you keep trying to lead when you don’t understand the dance then your toes are inevitably going to get trampled on.
      The vulgarity rests with those who consider plain speaking vulgar. Maybe a true test would be for you to ask a child from a strict religious background what they think about vulgarity?

      If you anticipate a ”next time” you ought to reconsider your approach and it would also do you a power of good if you took your head out of your backside and look up the words honesty and integrity.
      Oh, and the word evidence of course.

      Like

      Reply

  11. It’s official, you’re a complete laughing stock, and a total intellectual mess. I wish I could comment on your input, but… you provided not a single thing to the conversation. Have fun in the echo-chamber, my friend, it truly suits your state of knowledge, or lack thereof.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I think if anything is official it is your ability to repeatedly demonstrate how ignorant you are.
      I have made it perfectly clear that the moment you provide evidence for any of the claims you have made we will be able to engage in a meaningful manner.
      To date you have not done so.
      Maybe you should consider this before you fire back with any more asinine comments.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Refusing a request does not invalidate the request, but it does make one wonder why you steadfastly refuse to address the issue?
        Is it because of hubris, pride or simply ignorance?
        I have mentioned that you make use of a dictionary, yes? The word evidence is in there.

        Like

      3. *Sigh*
        You really ought to consider changing your blog name to Dickhead.
        It suits you down to the ground.
        I shall turn in.
        Feel free to utter any number of meaningless refrains.

        Like

  13. Okay, enough bickering, because clearly we can do this all day, even though, it does make us both look absolutely ridiculous (although, I did love your “ass hat” comment, Lol). Let us try, again. I hope this will break us loose, finally, to converse. And I’m starting with you, just so you know.

    Ark, two things first, what evidence is it that YOU bring to disprove the historical character, Yeshua, AND the “biblical narrative”, “miracle worker” named, Jesus? I would appreciate 1st – 4th century sources. This is, arguably, a significantly larger field of time than you’re allowing me. Now, for the record, as I stated earlier, and from my studied position, His “miracles” don’t add or detract from Jesus’ real message (clothe the naked, feed the hungry, love your neighbor, etc.,) which, existed LONG before He, supposedly, existed. Can you provide anything to this context? Text will suit me just fine. I hope you can finally provide us (the 5000+ community) with something to chew on.

    What type of “physical material”, or “evidence”, would satisfy you in these terms? Assume here, that even after a number of years of me, personally, studying criminal law, that I still do not understand the definition of “evidence”. Indulge us, please! If text doesn’t suffice, then you have to be much more specific in what you deem as, in fact, “evidence”. Would the crown of thorns be worthy, would that suffice? Is that what you seek? I bet we can get some DNA off that thing, for sure! Is this more along the lines of your thinking? I know it’s a bit of a ridiculous example, but come on, out with it already!

    “Contemporary” can not be specifically defined as simply you and I, in this very moment, and nothing else. It cannot be reduced down to that sort of level, it just can’t. For instance, if I was your student at 20 years old, and you were my teacher at 80 years old, we are contemporaries, living and existing, roughly, in the same time in space. Now, say you live another 10 years, and die, me being age 30 (it was a beautiful service, I probably said a few too many words, though, it was still quite lovely). Now, say I live another 60 years. On the very day I’m to die, right before my very last breath, I state, ” I was, and still am, a contemporary with Ark.” This would be absolutely, TRUE! If you feel otherwise, that it’s a more narrow window of time than that, well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Though, this train of thought, in such a reduced sense, I’ve yet to encounter in a scholastic environment to such a degree, especially when looking at any distant historical subject. In general, when trying to date the ancients, a 50 – 150 year window is beyond reasonable.

    Let us ruminate over texts, for a bit. What better source could there be than a text, especially, in this ancient regard? What kind of historian excludes History’s actual historians? I mean really, we’re talking two thousands years here, let us be rational. I’ve provided a number of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century sources above, now whether you consider that valid, I really don’t care, there is a far greater number of credentialed Scholars that do. I’m moving forward, you may want to skip this below paragraph from here if this is too hard for you to intellectually stomach, at least, regarding the validity of text.

    Continuing, and in a different train of thought from above. Truly, the most reliable, and direct sources come from, at least, regarding the story, teachings, and texts, the apostolic disciples of the Apostles, and further, their many, many descendants, which is documented and supported by the Vatican, and the Greek Orthodox Church. Now, whether one believes them, or not, doesn’t really matter right now, we’re simply talking about the texts themselves, possible avenues of “material evidence”. Now, for instance, take 12 letters and hand them out, and tell those 12 to copy those letters twelve times and circulate them, and have those 12 tell everyone they hand it out to to do the same exact thing, and again, and again, and again… This is how the spreading of any sort of publication was done during that period; this is beyond obvious, though, it must be reasonably stated. Thus, before you know it, there’s a mass of literature out there, a myriad, my friend; maybe not all exactly accurate, but none the less, it’s out there. The amount of texts we’ve lost due to simple disintegration will forever far outnumber what remains, even so, what remains in totality from over the centuries does range in the many, many thousands; whether you like it or not, they are there, and I’ll specifically address that below. “Well then, why do we only have what seems like just a bunch of little fragments available to the public here in 2019?” You know why? Well by God, number one, we the public are little groms in their sight, not worthy of holding such treasures, number two, back then those that had it actually used the text, everyday, so what we, the people, once possessed has now been lost to realistic nature of being peasants in time. This is, again, beyond rational, and again, beyond obvious. I hope your catching my common sense drift, here. Further, to really boil it down plainly, if you really want the very best proof of text, or “material evidence”, you better take it up with the Vatican, my friend, or the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. Their depositories are incredible, and again, beyond vast; one could say, in the myriads. Now, if one facilitates the right connexion, or possess some other worthy status or clout, you can, yourself, see the most ancient of “evidences”, again, in the many, many thousands. If you do not realize this, well then, I’m totally surprised, and you better start penning your viewing request, ASAP, because they ARE there, my friend. But hey, if text is nothing but hearsay, well, then, I’m surprised you read this far.

    Enough for now, and in all sincerity to my fellow Man, I truly hope that you’ll address, in ever specific, cordial, and refined detail, each of the above sections, for ALL our sakes. If so, this will undoubtedly start an incredible dialogue between friends, and likely, many others.

    Like

    Reply

    1. As you are the one making the initial claim the onus is on you to provide evidence – not unsupported, unverified claims, but evidence.
      Fr example: Habermas’s claim about the supposed historicity of the resurrection and the empty tomb is simply farcical. Nothing he puts forward is evidence. .
      Therefore, I will reiterate, there are no contemporary accounts or claims for the assertions you have been making regarding the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth. Not a single one.
      Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the gospels does not feature in the historical record and by all accounts suggests he is nothing but a narrative construct. Be mindful not to come back and cite Tacitus,please.
      Oh, and a gazillion copies of an erroneous text doesnpt make it any less erroneous.

      Furthermore, there is no evidence for the 12 disciples either for that matter.

      Even Paul does not feature outside of the bible, but I will at least credit that someone who is called Saul/Paul is responsible for 6 or 7 of the epistles,. or at the very least they are considered to have been composed by the same hand..

      Oh, and your little theological two-step regarding the word ‘contemporary’ suggests you are being just a tad disingenuous.
      The Vatican and their cronies have demonstrated their lack of integrity for millennia. I wouldn’t even pee on them if they were on fire.
      All that aside, you still have your work cut out for you.
      Best of luck.
      If can actually provide any evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claims regarding the character Jesus of Nazareth I will be singularly impressed.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
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 )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: