Trilemma (Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?)

220px-Christos_Acheiropoietos Who was Jesus? Some people claim he was only a myth and never truly walked the earth. Among those who believe he lived, opinions vary. Muslims claim he was a prophet. Buddhists say he was an enlightened person, having experienced many prior lives. A general feeling in the not-so-religious community is that Jesus was simply a good man, a proponent of love and peace.

Christians, generally speaking, dislike these theories. According to them, Jesus’ statements regarding his own divinity preclude him from being a prophet or a “good teacher.” Their stance is that his claims only allow for three possible realities. Jesus must have been the god he professed himself to be. If not, he was either crazy, or a deceiver, neither of which afforded him the status of “a good teacher.” This argument was made popular by CS Lewis, but was introduced back in 1860, by a Christian preacher named John Duncan. Duncan stated Christ either [1] deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or [2] was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or [3] was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.

Cool and confident, this argument struts its way from pulpits still today. It lands casually in the ears of Christians already convinced of its validity. It appears to be enticingly obvious. It is so comfortable with its own bodacious claim that you can almost hear it singing, “I’m too sexy for Milan, too sexy for Milan, New York, and Japan.”

But black and white statements like this contradict everything that makes religion what it is, a ginormous gray area filled with legend, mystery, mythology, verbal history, varied interpretations, and societal and political influence. We are talking about a movement with incredible power over societies, involving political strategies, as well as the ruminations of billions of humans, globally, over the course of two millennia. Regardless of my distaste for organized religion, I’d like to think that Jesus, his life and teachings are much more nuanced than a paltry trilemma.

As you probably suspected I would, I’ll tackle the trilemma anyway. For the sake of argument, let’s assume Jesus was a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Being crazy doesn’t mean his life work ought to be immediately discarded as irrelevant. Our human history has long been graced with “eccentric,” but impactful characters.

Take Pythagoras, a Greek mathematician who invented his own insane religion. We disregard the cray-cray and continue to study his theorems in math class. Michelangelo, who created some of the world’s greatest art, suffered from what appeared to be mental illness or severe autism, exhibiting extreme reclusiveness and refusing to bathe or remove his shoes. Nicola Tesla, whose contributions to technology are unparalleled, lived with oppressive OCD. Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels, went crazy and attempted to rip out his own eye. Famed writer Edgar Allan Poe descended into a madness that consumed him upon his wife’s death. Ever flirting with the dark side of his own imagination, Poe’s insanity served to further fuel the nightmares that spilled from his pen.

I won’t even go into the countless colorful characters who have led revolutions, left their marks on pop culture, performed rock and roll, created classical compositions, run in political races, made scientific discoveries, or taught in universities. Passionate zealotry is what puts people on the map of human history, and even makes them best in class. There is no correlation between insanity and irrelevance. Duncan’s view that Jesus could not be a good teacher or an impactful individual if he were insane is simply unsubstantiated.

But what if he were a liar? Well, if his motivations were political or based on advocacy for human rights, some deception is admissible. Take for example the D-Day landing in Normandy. Allied generals employed a complex strategic deception, complete with false radio broadcasts and decoy tanks, to fool Hitler. This operation culminated in the retreat of the German army and victory for the Allied Forces. The fact that these generals used clever deception to battle Hitler’s forces made it no less noteworthy or heroic.

In the first century C.E., during the time Christ would have lived, most rulers were equated with gods. I snagged this concise explanation from the Bart Erhman Blog, the History and Literature of Early Christianity:

Sometimes military men/political rulers were talked about as divine beings.  More than that, they were sometimes *treated* as divine beings: given temples, with priests who would perform sacrifices in their honor, in the presence of statues of them.  Does that make the person a god?  In many ways they would be indistinguishable.  If it walks like a god and quacks like a god…

During that time, nations were bound to whatever divine being they worshiped. Politics was religion. There was no way to instigate a rebellion or plot a revolution, without a god-figure to lead it. Would it surprise you to know there was a temple erected to Jesus’ contemporary Julius Caesar, with the inscription, “Universal savior of human life?”

Seems very possible to me that Jesus, analyzing the situation, was using the appropriate jargon to stir up a grassroots movement.  Would you agree that telling inspirational stories about divine power, (which was completely commonplace for the era) is different than outright deception? For all we know, Jesus’ followers were completely on board with the “deception,” and were using it to recruit strength in numbers. Stripping the Pharisees of their religious influence, and uniting Jews and Gentiles to impact Roman rule would have been a good strategy for alleviating the religious and governmental oppression faced by Jesus’ generation. In fact, Christianity did have a lasting effect on the Roman empire, resulting in freedom of religion, release from the strenuous Jewish law, and monetary support for the poorest segment of the population, including widows and orphans.

So for today, I’ll leave you with the thought that Jesus could have been a wonderful teacher, even if it was insanity that led him to believe he was God. I also believe he could have been a wonderful influence on the society of his time, despite using the same culturally-necessary untruths other powerful leaders employed, to gain momentum for his movement. All these years later, we are still attributing victories to “God,” be it on the battleground or the football field. When we do so, we are falsely acknowledging a “pact” with the supernatural. We are making a claim that we don’t know to be true, but one that is culturally acceptable for our times. Is that any different from leaders claiming an intimate connection to supernatural beings, 2000 years ago?

All that said, I’m not convinced of the trilemma, personally. I believe there are at least three other possibilities that would account for Jesus’ apparent claim of divinity. As I’m not much of a historian, I’ll have mercy on myself and resume this topic next week, with what will be henceforth known as a hexalemma.

I know. It sounds witchy. I could have gone with sexilemma. It was a toss-up.

62 thoughts on “Trilemma (Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?)

  1. “It lands casually in the ears of Christians already convinced of its validity.”

    I heard this when I was a Christian from the churches I attended. It seemed to make sense and further confirmed what I already “knew” about Jesus. He was who he said he was. I was convinced of it. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” That’s another churchy saying that I was all too familiar with back then. The problem with all of it was my source. The Bible. A flawed, man-made book full of rules and regulations that didn’t honor the God they spoke of, but rather gave the men in power even more power.

    I personally think Jesus did exist based on a lot of historical evidence outside of the Bible. But that doesn’t mean anything written about him in the Bible is true. Some of it may be or may not be. The messages he preached have some value even if you disregard the divine implications. The messages of love and peace are in stark contrast with a lot of what’s going on in the world today.

    Another great post. I enjoy reading them.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Thank you so much. It is interesting when we look back on the sayings and “evidence” that we used to believe confirmed everything we were being taught. As you said, it did make sense at the time. In my case, it was as though I was under some rare form of hypnotism that prevented me from seeing the very obvious holes in Christian theories. It’s very interesting how the mind works. It seems as though the brain desires and even creates supportive evidence when the setting demands it.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Hypnotism, brainwashing, abuse…there are so many labels to choose from. Things that I was 100% convinced of back then seem ridiculous to me now. A change of scenery can make a huge difference.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Great read. The trilemma does appear too narrowly focused, and other possibilities certainly exist.

    As an amateur historian and empiricist, I can draw the following conclusions: 1) There is insufficient evidence (i.e. verifiable facts, corroborating texts) to prove the actual existence of Jesus. 2) The number and similarity of both oral and written mythologies suggest that a figure consistent with the traditional Jesus could have existed; and, that this figure was apparently a cultural and political revolutionary. 3) The lack of empirical evidence for the existence of god(s) means the Christian assertion of Jesus’ divinity is problematic at best.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, Robert! I agree that the history is vague. I’ve done some reading on the Christ myth theory and,. conversely, I’ve done my best to dredge up evidence outside of the Bible to corroborate Christ’s existence. It’s all for curiosity, though. The impact, both positive and negative, of Christianity on society is independent of his mythical or physical existence. I do enjoy point out obvious flaws in Christian propaganda however. 😉

      Liked by 3 people

  3. A Muslim friend of mine pointed out that in the gospels, Jesus makes very few direct claims of divinity (IIRC, there’s one in John, which might have been the product of a later edit). There’s a good argument for the position that the divinity of Jesus wasn’t claimed until Paul’s additions to the faith. It also would have made sense for Paul to do that, since apotheosis (the act or process of turning someone into a deity) was a Roman cultural and political practice. Think of it like translating Jesus’s story from using Jewish tropes to Roman ones.

    And really any of this is only relevant if Jesus actually existed.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. A Muslim friend of mine pointed out that in the gospels, Jesus makes very few direct claims of divinity (IIRC, there’s one in John, which might have been the product of a later edit). There’s a good argument for the position that the divinity of Jesus wasn’t claimed until Paul’s additions to the faith.

      Sirius, an excellent historical contextual comment. Bravo to you!

      If I may add too Sirius, Yeshua’s Jewish sect — the Nasoraeans/Mandaeans — were much more ascetic Arabian than Greco-Roman, the eventual Pauline Hellenistic version of Christology. Also, WHY did the Apostle Paul find it necessary to spend 3-years in Arabia????

      Things that make you go…. Hmmmmmmm.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Hahahaha!!! I’m sorry Danica. I got excited cuz this is great stuff. You can spank us real bad and make us write bad checks for our logorrhea and wild imaginations. 🤩

        YOU have the good stuff!!! 😉 ❤

        Liked by 2 people

  4. The narrowness of the trilemma is based on accepting that the gospels contain true accounts of things that really happened. And someone who is prepared to accept that, without questioning the accuracy or veracity of the accounts, is already predisposed to accept the religious claims. So it makes no sense to use the trilemma as an argument, since those within the religion don’t need that argument to be convinced, and those of us outside their religion realize that there are more than just those three options. (I also expand it to six, each of the new ones starting with “M”. I’ll be interested to see your three additions to see if they match mine.)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You’ve piqued my curiosity. Have you blogged on this topic? If so, I’d be interested in a link! If not, please share them in the comments next week. I’m very interested in gathering varied perspectives on theological arguments. Thanks for reading and commenting!

      Liked by 2 people

  5. This is a fantastic read. Have you ever seen he website They basically say the gospels are essentially plagiarized Buddhist texts.

    I feel like Jesus is a metaphor for all of us. I the whisper down the lane of 2,000 and I ay too many people getting involved and everything, it’s just not how the story was. Jesus was to show us how to live and be saved. Everyone focuses on the crucifixion but I see that as a metaphor. If you do not see yourself as a child of god – such that you see your own true creative power, if you do not see and love and embrace your true self, you will watch the people you love most kill you. We all crucify ourselves daily anymore.

    Beautifully written. I can’t wait to read more!!


  6. Sometimes I wonder if we’re not looking at an older version of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, two (or several) leaders fighting the Roman occupation in their own way. Malcolm would be that “Athronges” guy (a contemporary of the peaceful carpenter, he favored force when appropriate), or others similar to him. No shortage of Jewish rebel fighters in the area at that time. Masada comes to mind, as does “Life of Brian” which so elegantly picks up on the idea of various factions bickering with each other and forgetting the actual enemy in the process…

    What made old Yeshua ben Yosef different was his nonviolent approach, and Gandhi was the prime example how well that can work.

    So maybe we should credit the guy (if he existed and preached the way we think) with either coming up with the nonviolent resistance idea, or at least with being the first to make it work in such a spectacular fashion that we still talk about it today – even founded a religion based on it (and then promptly screwed up the nonviolent parts).

    Also, it helps to remember that at the time there were various candidates for the job of “Messiah”, with John the Baptist being an early front runner. Like in India during Gandhi’s time, or in the US during the 60ies, the climate was one of resistance and people looked for a leader. Yeshua was one among many, but his movement drew the largest crowds (again, MLK style), and being killed made him a legend. Talk about the Empire shooting itself in the foot with that one…

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Excellent comment. I have thought about this a lot, over the course of my life. At times. You have also touched on a point that I will be discussing next week. If not for that, I would have a pretty long followup thought to your comment 😉 Thanks so much for reading and commenting!

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I’m not entirely convinced about the “nonviolent” part. Remember that the later writers only wrote down the parts that they wanted remembered, the way they wanted to remember them, so there was much left out. But one thing that did make it through was Jesus instigating a violent event at the Temple. And, if you remember at Gethsemane, where Jesus tells Peter to “put away your sword”. This means that Peter had a sword! What was a poor fisherman from Galilee, who had followed a cult leader into Roman-occupied Jerusalem when it was crowded for Passover, doing with a sword? How many of the rest of the gang had swords? Were they actually planning a violent uprising? Maybe.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That’s a good point. For the time period we’re discussing, a violent revolution would be more commonplace than a nonviolent one. And Jesus did say, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

        Liked by 1 person

      2. And the Jews were expecting their messiah to be a great warrior-king who would liberate them from oppression. If Jesus really thought he was that messiah, of course he would be arming his followers.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. That’s another interesting angle, Ubi!
        Especially about the later writers. But that would require me to take the bible as being more than vaguely accurate in a historical sense, and I’m not sure I’m ready to concede that.

        Either way, I can see Yeshua as not being quite so strictly peaceful as MLK for example. What I still try to figure out is what set him apart from the other Jews vying for the position as leader, to the point where he had enough followers to carry on after his death and then spark a whole new religion.

        The peaceful message, being a novelty at the time, is in my mind a good candidate for that ‘special ingredient’. Also, the fact that the majority of Jews did not think he was the warrior-king Messiah, might hint that he didn’t fit the bill. Or fit it to a lesser degree than other hopefuls.

        Like Danica said, so many possibilities. So few answers.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. I read a lot about religion and wish I had time to read much more than I do. I have a book on the Jesus myth theory that I have begun several times but haven’t gotten deeply into. It’s very scholarly, and I’m more drawn to works that are peppered with humor, sarcasm, or poignant remarks. I think it will be a good source of information for me, though, when I can strap myself down and force myself to read it, haha.


  7. I have a question on the subject of Jesus being a real person. Is it not possible that the character of Jesus is a composite of several / multiple people from around the same time frame? Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Yes, it’s quite possible. My blog post about the Sun Gods touches on that. The celebration of Jesus mimics almost perfectly the celebration of many gods born around the solstice. I also think a historical Jesus is possible, but the one later followers came to know from works written about him don’t actually represent his life or his goals. Thanks for reading and commenting!

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Thank you for the heads up on your other post. I just went and read it. i liked it. Professor Taboo recently gave me some stuff to read up on the subject also. But I was talking more about Josephus recording other people being called Jesus. I cannot recall all the details but I have read that there were a few going by that name. So I was thinking maybe the physical person of Jesus is a composite of several different people who did live, but none were as described today. Thanks. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I think Ark and John were the ones talking about it on Ark’s blog. I think that is where I read it. Let me know because if I am wrong on the subject I would like to know. Thanks. Hugs


    2. I think that Jesus could have very well been a real person. However, Jesus as described in the Bible, seems to closely resemble various other gods or “god-men”. Dionysus for example. It’s hard to know for sure with such little evidence to go on. It appears as if the Bible plagiarized other ancient stories to describe Jesus as well as many other “facts” in the “holy scriptures”. The flood would be another example. Could Jesus have been real? Sure. As described in the Bible? Not very likely.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thank you Ben. I have been trying to learn while also keeping a semi-open mind. From all I have read it is hard to see how the Jesus of belief is real. Thanks . Hugs

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I always thought that if you take the Jesus of the Bible and add it with the Jesus described outside of the Bible you had enough evidence for it all to be true. Of Course, that’s back when I took almost everything on faith. My eager young brain was always open to washing. When I looked at things more logically, I realized that Bible Jesus + “extra-biblical” Jesus does not in fact = truth. Funny math is not a good way to prove something is true. Especially when it comes to something as dangerous as religion. There are documents outside of the Bible that mention Jesus, but none of them say anything about him being divine. Interesting detail to leave out if it were true, don’t you think?

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Lewis’s trilemma argument is the height of arrogance based on presupposition due to indoctrination.
    The fourth option is Letch, obviously, and anyone who actually took the time to study the gospels will quickly realise this.
    Also, recently exposed manuscripts from the Secret Gospel of the Miscreants smuggled out of the Vatican Library reveal that Jesus was not divine but simply the leader of a Palestinian Punk Rock bondage-style Boy Band. Jesus wasn’t even his real name as they hadn’t invented the letter J at this time.
    The correct English language equivalent would be Cyril. his group were known as Cyril and the Disciplinarians. Some of their more popular chants include:
    I’m a Moron compared to God
    Would I Iie to you honey – damn right I would!
    Whine not water
    Lend me your ass

    But full marks Danica for trying.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Okay … in a more serious vein.
        Lewis was a typical apologist and you have highlighted the absurdity of his trilemma.
        I beleive he was intelligent enough to see the disengenuity of his claim which suggests he knew it was a con.

        As for Yeshua … I agree with Price. If … and this a very big if … this bloke ever existed he is so lost to history as to be practically impossible to discover.

        The biblical character, the miracle working, Lake Tiberius pedestrian is a narrative construct … a veritable work of fiction.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Well there’s not much more I can add to the other comments. I hardly ever read through comments on blogs because they can be so uncivilized. But I read them all on this post. Not only are you an excellent writer, but you seem to attract people who are civil. I do agree with your comment, “I’m more drawn to works that are peppered with humor, sarcasm, or poignant remarks.” However, the tone you set allows for the humor without it getting nasty. I don’t care for arguments. I want to learn something. Kudos to you!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks so much! I also think we have a great discussion here every weekend. It’s becoming something akin to hanging out with great thinkers, sharing drinks and conversation on a pleasant patio. I can’t always guarantee civility, of course. That’s just the nature of these heated topics. 😉 But what’s life without a little zest? 😉


  10. If you ever want to get into a fun discussion, ask a Christian to name a single new, original, or even vaguely useful thing Jesus said or did. Right out of the gate, they think this is the simplest chellenge ever presented. Truth is, there is not a single thing Jesus said or did that had not already been said or done by someone before him, and often said much better… Excluding, of course, turning a fish into an ATM machine. That does appear to be quite unique.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. That poor tree was the first contender, and it stood for a while until someone found a Chinese deity (whose name now eludes me) who not only cursed a single tree, but an entire forest.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Again, dear Danica…you are a marvelous writer. I too, looking forward to the next post.
    About writing… the Bible is for me a book similar too an autobiography. Written by others, based on the memories of others. I absolutely believe Jesus did exist, I absolutely also believe, he wasn’t the person or god many people made (or still make/want) him to be.
    For me it is like when an small accident happens, per example… I hit my foot on a stone. I tell my mother about. She tell the neighbor and adds a bit to the original story of me (her own perception of my story, what she remembered I told her), the neighbor to the next….and so on. I still live, so I could (if I wanted to) correct the latest story.
    Jesus can’t. We will never find out what he really was, what his true opinions and thoughts were. Unless someone is able to travel back in time.

    Frankly, I don’t want to know (anymore). I know my truth, I know that is most likely different from other persons truth. To me, we all have a right to believe what we want to believe, as long as it doesn’t harm our neighbors. Love over religion. Yes, always. But that also means, loving my neighbor enough to have him/her have their believe system.
    Is the answer to a peaceful world, where we all can live upon in harmony, keep telling others their believes are ridiculous? Trying to convince them, their are no facts to support their believes? But what about those things, not able to scientifically prove, but we all know it did or does happen, is possible.
    I wrote an article once,
    I don’t know, I truly hope it is, I doubt it still.

    Anyways, rambling on…one thing left to add….there truly is a fine line between genius and madness.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi, Patty! Thanks for your kind words and for the link to your article. I will read it, for sure! I agree with you about the Bible being a collection of stories that document verbal history. Sometimes I wonder if the story of Adam and Eve is just the tale of the first humans alive, and how they slowly evolved from prehistoric people, to people who are concious of our thoughts and mistakes, people who need to wear clothes, haha!

      To your other point, I do agree that a certain amount of religious tolerance is necessary. However, I still consider it one of my life’s missions to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of religion on society and on the individual. Here in the United States, there are laws that protect religious institutions over the invdividual. Parents can send a child who is questioning their gender to an institution where they will recieve emotional and physical abuse to “correct” them. And these institutions are exempt from punishment under the law of “freedom of religion.” Religious institutions also fight many of the advances in medicine and challenge the idea that we should protect the earth, making it very difficult for doctors and scientists to promote truthful and healthy ideas. In many areas, children are exposed to Christian “afterschool clubs” which take place right in their school. If they don’t attend, they are bullied and considered outcasts. Here’s a link to one study.
      The people who are often most vulnerable to religion are the underrepresented segments of society, gay and lesbian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist. The Christian church also takes advantage of the poor, ofering them “help” but expecting in exchange a conversion of their beliefs. I also know, on a personal level, many individuals who have suffered their entire lives because their beliefs differed from those of their fundamental Christian family’s. I’m sure you are well aware of the sexual abuse that has been permited for decades by the Catholic religion. In the Muslim religion, women are often treated with contempt, and physical abuse is permissible. It is because I believe that the rights of my human family must prevail, at all cost, over religious dogma, that I am so outspoken against religion. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Like I said, when it does no harm 😉
        But yes, you are so right…it still does do harm. It’s just my personal feelings, doubts, if us fighting this, will ever result in the change so much needed.
        But please, keep on writing your marvelous pieces and keep on fighting for a better world for all of us.


      2. Oh, you are the best, Patty! And I do so love your embracing and loving attitude towards this world and everyone in it. If there were more people like you, whether inside or outside of religion, this world would be an even more lovely place to reside! 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

    2. @Patty, but also whomever else would like to respond.

      I think the problem with talking about some broad, abstract term like religion is that people mean very different things when they say they belong to a “religion.”

      1) Some people mean they believe in a magical book written directly by a divine being who created the entire universe and they direct every aspects of their life, beliefs, and ideas around this metaphysical worldview.

      2) Some people mean they believe in this metaphysical idea to a point (as a portion of their worldview), but understand other considerations like science, direct experience, historical/cultural knowledge, common sense, etc. needs to help guide them as well.

      3) Some people mean they perform certain ritual practices and holidays at some point in the year, and hold certain values that stem from or connects to their “religion,” along with key metaphors that describe the human condition.

      4) Some people mean it’s just a culture with a series of many different values emphasized over a long tradition that developed over time, and when they talk about their “religion” they mean that long tradition of books and interpretations that forms their culture, but may not mean anything particularly supernatural. (although I’m not sure this is really that different from # 3).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree. And I feel the value in religion is inversely proportional to your list. I fall into the #4 category, where I appreciate all religions for the tradition, art, music, and myth they provide to cultures worldwide. I believe there is great worth in this, when it comes to understanding and appreciating our human history. Then there is #3, which still provides some value to humanity in the sense of shared traditions, reasons to celebrate, cook, take trips, converse, send cards, call people. The exact motivation for the holiday isn’t as important as the holiday itself. In a utopian future world, we would still celebrate holidays and traditions, acknowledging where they came from, but no longer “believing” in the myths that were their origens. I have many friends who fall into the #2 category. They are firm believers in their faith, but they are open to ideas prevalent in other religions, as well as in science and nature. They generally use their religious affiliation in a way that is beneficial, in many aspects, to humankind. Spending a day a week volunteering, assisting a stranger in need, generating ideas to help the community, opening their doors to a relative who has nowhere to live, etc. Though there is value in this #2 form of religion, I believe these people would be just as amazing, loving, and giving, without affiliating themselves with a worldview that also harbors discriminatory and judgmental beliefs. And then we have #1. This group is the reason I blog! In the year 2018, in an enlightened and advanced nation, there is simply no purpose for this kind of religion anymore. It does more harm than good, in my opinion. 🙂 Thank you both for commenting!


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s