tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post9143689792754249478..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Thom Stark's Critique of Copan: Deceptive Apologetics?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17973367006763162252011-05-20T04:50:59.729-07:002011-05-20T04:50:59.729-07:00 What I find extremely troubling is that many crit... What I find extremely troubling is that many critics of the bible continue to describe the events reported in the old testament as real "genocides".<br /><br />In fact, both the conquest of Canaan and the massacre of the amalekites are not true genocides.<br /><br /><br />In reality, both events never occured:it is a well accepted fact that there was no exodus from Egypt, no Mose, no Joshua, no conquest of Canaan.<br />The israelites actually emerged from the canaanites, that is from the very folks they are accused of having slaughtered !<br /><br />Although David existed, it is extremely unlikely that the reports of the Bible have any kind of ressamblance with the true historical figure (Finkelstein): they never was a great unified kingdom regrouping Judah and Israel, and the books describing David were written much later, at a time where historical evidences contradicting the theological fiction were no longer available.<br /><br />By the way, the same can also be said about the conquest of Canaan. <br /><br />It is therefore extremely misleading to see fellow atheists and sceptics (who should know better) speak of these events as if they really took place in time and history. <br /><br />Instead of either stating that God (if he existed) would be a moral monster or that the ancient israelites commited atrocities in his name, we should perhaps simply say that the ethic of the jews at this period of history was extremely primitive and this lead them NOT TO COMMIT THEMSELVES ATROCITIES BUT TO IMAGINE ATROCITIES COMMITED BY THEIR ANCESTORS WHICH NEVER HAPPENED !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69079752169975024752010-10-03T17:46:35.246-07:002010-10-03T17:46:35.246-07:00A minor correction. Two comments up I said 1 Cor 6...A minor correction. Two comments up I said 1 Cor 6. I meant 1 Cor 5. 5:12 to be precise. (Two verses shy of chapter 6.)Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7583522815960429322010-09-23T18:56:16.336-07:002010-09-23T18:56:16.336-07:00One final note. Like another anonymous commenter h...One final note. Like another anonymous commenter here, I too have an admiration and respect for Victor and his fair approach and even-handedness. I am a young pup; perhaps by the time my hair is white like his, I'll be as fair as he. I hope so. :)Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41195535201172242092010-09-23T18:39:07.092-07:002010-09-23T18:39:07.092-07:00Anoymous said:
"Loftus can be accused of EXA...Anoymous said:<br /><br />"Loftus can be accused of EXACTLY the same sort of blunders, and many more, and we don't see Thom going on a crusade against the myriad of Loftus' misrepresentations."<br /><br />Actually, I critique Loftus for his blanket condemnation of Evangelicals. He said they were all idiots, and I called him out on it. If I haven't been on a crusade against other of his errors, it's only because I don't read his blog very often. I've read a few posts, and I've read his book. <br /><br />But there's another important distinction here, Anonymous. I am a Christian, and so is Copan. Loftus is an atheist, and I am not. Thus, if I'm more critical of biblical apologists than apologists for atheism like Loftus, it's because I follow Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 6, and reserve my judgment for those inside my fold. I am not concerned with any dishonest tactics used by those outside the faith. I have no responsibility to correct them. On the other hand, when those inside the faith use dishonest tactics, I feel a responsibility to speak out about it precisely because I identify with them. And I have tended to make such criticisms jarring so that it is clear to outsiders that I am not treating my tradition's dishonesties with kid gloves. <br /><br />That explanation may or may not make sense to you, but it is what informs my agenda, like it or not.Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22710114048619323872010-09-23T18:13:51.580-07:002010-09-23T18:13:51.580-07:00Now, as for Morrison's prediction that my book...Now, as for Morrison's prediction that my book will not be out soon, and that I am staging a publicity stunt, I am afraid we have yet another failed prediction on our hands. My book will be out in October, and despite Morrison's prediction that Loftus and I are staging a "deconversion" publicity stunt where I announce that I am no longer a Christian (in order, presumably, to sell more books), I am and will remain quite Christian (though not, of course, by Morrison's standards). <br /><br />I have nothing against those who wish to continue to call Jesus "lord," but as I stated, I believe such language accommodated imperialistic structures the ideology of which the gospel ultimately subverts, so I think that different language to express our relationship to God and God's agent Jesus is necessary as we progress ever closer to the truth of who God is and who we are in God. I am quite aware that to Christians like Morrison, my perspective is appalling, or "evidence" that I am only a pretend Christian. They are entitled to their view of my faith, but I see no need to defend it to them. <br /><br />I thank Victor for hosting this thread and for the challenge it poses to my strategy and the language I have used to call into question the strategies of certain biblical apologists. It is a healthy exercise. I have benefited from it, and to be honest, I find myself being pulled further and further away from my former penchant for sensationalism. That said, I think it still has a place. I'll just try to be a bit more intentional and careful about it in future. So thank you for the challenge. <br /><br />All that said, my criticisms of Copan still stand, and I am yet to be persuaded that they are poor or pedantic.Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88390153374408208372010-09-23T18:13:34.489-07:002010-09-23T18:13:34.489-07:00That said, most of the discussion in this thread h...That said, most of the discussion in this thread has ignored my other critique of Copan's strategy. He focuses only on the conquest narratives in Joshua in order to defend his thesis that Yahweh did not order Israelites to kill women and children. But I pointed out that in Numbers 31, the Israelites are explicitly ordered to kill thousands of women and children, and Yahweh orders the same thing in 1 Sam 15. So, Copan's strategy fails, because it omits the evidence that is damning to his thesis. These omissions may be intentional, or perhaps he has never read Numbers 31 or 1 Samuel 15 (among numerous other texts where Yahweh orders child-killing). In either case, his strategy deceives by omission. <br /><br />Now, as for your charge that I am nitpicking at Copan because I am only focusing on a few small statements in a long essay, I'm afraid that won't stand. It may be that I homed in on a few small instances, but Copan's entire essay is riddled with problems. I just picked two big ones, and pivotal ones. The evidence in Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15, in fact, undermine his entire case in that section. So, the fact that I am picking on only a few small statements is precisely the problem with Copan's essay. They were small statements because giving them more shrift would have exposed the weakness in his argument. <br /><br />Was the title of my blog post a bit sensationalistic? Perhaps. If I need to apologize for that, then I apologize. Did it constitute an accusation that Copan was a liar? No it did not. I don't deny that I can sometimes behave badly, but in this case I was at most being a bit ornery. <br /><br />(cont'd)Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34220629513525860362010-09-23T18:13:17.304-07:002010-09-23T18:13:17.304-07:00Dear BenYachov,
My response to your comments:
Y...Dear BenYachov,<br /><br />My response to your comments: <br /><br />You said: "I guess Thom just can't practice what he preaches(i.e. reading carefully) RD did quote verse 18 in his post #14."<br /><br />You are correct. I apologize for missing that. I was responding to his later comment (#16), where verse 18 was left out. So it was not fair of me to suggest verse 18 was left out for convenience. For that I apologize. <br /><br />But that does not change the fact that verse 18 is the pivotal verse for Niditch's argument, which Copan either misunderstands or ignores, and which RD was not grasping (simply because he hasn't read Niditch herself, which as I said is no crime). <br /><br />So despite the fact that RD did not leave out verse 18 for convenience (that was a lazy implication anyway which I never fully intended), the point is, verse 18 according to Niditch's argument indicates that this is not a text about human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle. That Copan cites Deut 20 as an early text indicates that he has either not read Niditch's argument at any serious length, or he is intentionally obfuscating her argument. <br /><br />In all fairness, I think it's the former, not the latter, and I never did call him a liar. I raised the question, and whether my clarification impressed you or not (it was not intended to impress), I was making an insider's reference to C.S. Lewis's "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument. Since I never called Copan a liar, I have nothing to apologize for. I raised it as a question for discussion, hence the question mark (?) in the title. <br /><br />Now, I did call Copan's apologetics deceptive, but they can be deceptive without being intentionally so. <br /><br />(cont'd)Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81212860045651318822010-09-23T18:11:01.377-07:002010-09-23T18:11:01.377-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3430403941469092152010-08-24T02:06:28.726-07:002010-08-24T02:06:28.726-07:00BenYachov said..."Best wishes to you "An...BenYachov said..."Best wishes to you "Anonymous" post August 23, 2010 7:09 AM.<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />August 23, 2010 11:01 AM"<br /><br />Thanks BenYachov i wish you and others here the very sameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39536345615524186332010-08-23T16:39:54.761-07:002010-08-23T16:39:54.761-07:00TheCharles: It was in his essay The World's La...TheCharles: It was in his essay The World's Last Night.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57926149236282519402010-08-23T11:01:24.784-07:002010-08-23T11:01:24.784-07:00Best wishes to you "Anonymous" post Augu...Best wishes to you "Anonymous" post August 23, 2010 7:09 AM.<br /><br />Cheers.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41234190455994364712010-08-23T08:25:45.210-07:002010-08-23T08:25:45.210-07:00Victor,
You said
Interestingly enough, C. S. Lew...Victor,<br /><br />You said<br /><br /><i>Interestingly enough, C. S. Lewis thought that Jesus was wrong about the end of the world and had not problem with it.</i><br /><br />Could you provide the reference for this? I would be interested in more detail. It may be in something that I have already read, but missed.TheCharleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00188192045307730503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67825240500542022512010-08-23T07:09:05.619-07:002010-08-23T07:09:05.619-07:00Hi BenYachov that seems a pretty fair call of your...Hi BenYachov that seems a pretty fair call of yours,and you do seem correct.<br /><br />It guess it just gives me the heeby jeebys a bit when theists start getting heated amongst each other.Maybe it reminds me too much of past trauma experienced involved in excommunications and divisions.If we must have theism, i cant help hoping it would be kinder toward each other.<br /><br />For some reason for me i find it easier to handle and understand when theists go dog on us atheists ,its like i even expect it.<br /><br />"Unfortunaly the internet brings out the worst in people"<br /><br />Yes you are right its often so very true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38110610840193418932010-08-23T04:59:47.931-07:002010-08-23T04:59:47.931-07:00All this hoohha over Thom Stark is just a publicit...All this hoohha over Thom Stark is just a publicity stunt jump started by Thom.<br /><br />He has just followed the Loftus tactic of making an outrageous charge...Loftus just recently AMITTED he does this to get hits...to generate interest in the book.<br /><br />So, when the book comes out in "a few months"...and I predict it WILL NOT come out on schedule...there will already be some interest.<br /><br />If I can look at a USED copy I may take the time.<br /><br />Until then, say good bye Thom. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame. "Truly, you have your reward.".Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137890891223067672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61468583229289098552010-08-22T18:27:32.356-07:002010-08-22T18:27:32.356-07:00>Thom suggests RD stopped short of verse 18, wh...>Thom suggests RD stopped short of verse 18, which Thom suggests shows that this is not an example of human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle.<br /><br />I reply: I read the original thread over at Thom's blog just a few days ago. I guess Thom just can't practice what he preaches(i.e. reading carefully) RD did <b>quote verse 18</b> in his post #14. So I guess Thom by his own standards is either a liar or incompotent.;-) No not really. That would be stupid.<br /><br /> Seriously, the rest of Thom's "response" to RD was merely repeat. I'm not impressed. OTOH I find Thom's overall critique of Copan tedious and overblown. In essence he is merely nitpicking one maybe two citations out of 74 (if you check the bibliography of Copan's essay) and from that hurling uncharitable invectives about "Deceptive Apologetics" and calling Copan a "liar"(btw I was not impressed by Thom's lame excuse about calling Copan a liar being an inside reference to CS Lewis "liar, Lord or Lunatic" view of Jesus. Just man up Thom & apologize). Anyway Copan can defend himself (and his original essay was very good over all). I'm not involved. It was wrong for some unsigned coward to call Thom "Loftus' bitch" but that doesn't mean Thom isn't behaving a little badly himself.<br /><br />Unfortunaly the internet brings out the worst in people (yours truely is rather infamous for it). Even over at Dawkin's website there was some type of falling out and all the Atheists are hating on each other. I'm Catholic & can I tell you some ugly stories about my experiences with my fellow orthodox and traditionalist Catholics. Yikes!<br /><br />But I take comfort in the fact God is forgiving to those who repent.<br /><br />Cheers.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65596067342544187152010-08-21T19:03:21.747-07:002010-08-21T19:03:21.747-07:00BenYachov said... "Well maybe I'm bias si...BenYachov said... "Well maybe I'm bias siding with a fellow Catholic but RD does make the better argument against Thom."<br /><br />BenYachov You may be right,but it seems to me Thom still felt Rd was missing what he was trying to explain.<br /><br />Heres a thread on Thoms site for reference http://thomstark.net/?p=1624#comments<br /><br />Where he goes further to explain.<br /><br />Quote.<br /><br />RD, you quote vv. 16-17 and conveniently stop short of verse 18 which shows that this is not an example of human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle. Verse 18 reads: “so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.”<br /><br />You see, if you had read Niditch’s book, you would know what you’re talking about. Niditch argues that the early ideology of war was one where the sacrifice of noncombatants was offered to Yahweh in exchange for victory against combatants. But, as Niditch argues, in Deut 20, this is not the case because a moral justification for the annihilation of the Canaanites is offered. Thus, killing them is no longer seen as an offering to God in exchange for giving Israel victory against the Canaanite armies; rather, the slaughter of the noncombatants is portrayed as a punishment for their moral and spiritual depravity. <br /><br />Thus, once again, your unfamiliarity with Niditch’s argument prevents you from being able to offer a valid critique of my critique of Copan’s use of Niditch. Got it? <br /><br />I said: I’m sorry, but you’ve only won a victory in your own mind. <br /><br />You said: I have won no victory, as I could easily be wrong. What I have done, however, is make an argument that has only been met with various assertions. <br /><br />I have not made various assertions. It’s just that your unfamiliarity with the relevant material has prevented you from seeing the relevance of what I’ve said in response to your claims. <br /><br />I said: I suggest we’ll have nothing further to contribute to each other’s understanding until we can both get on the same page in terms of the academic research. <br />You said: Please, keep your subtle insults concerning my academic credentials/research, in comparison to yours, to yourself, as you know nothing about me. <br /><br />This was not a subtle insult, or an insult of any kind, RD. I was referring to the fact that you have not read Niditch’s book, which you stated at the outset. Thus the “academic research” that you haven’t done to which I was referring was Niditch’s book, as I’ve said repeatedly. <br /><br />I said: I appreciate your willingness to defend Copan, who I’ve attacked. <br /><br />You said: Honestly, I could care less about Mr. Copan. What I cared about was the fact that I thought your comments were poorly thought-out and poorly argued, and I wished to demonstrate this.<br /><br />I appreciate good criticism, of course. So I’m grateful for the honest attempt. Unfortunately, you have failed to demonstrate that my comments were poorly thought-out and poorly argued. All you have demonstrated is that you have not read Niditch’s book, which is no crime, but would be very helpful if you wish to critique my critique of Copan’s use of Niditch’s book. <br /><br />Good bye.<br /><br />End Quote.<br /><br />Thom suggests RD stopped short of verse 18, which Thom suggests shows that this is not an example of human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle.<br /><br />This thread is already about Deceptive Apologetics.Deceptive Apologetics can be deceptive whether they are purposely presented in hope of it being that way or not.<br /><br />Why cant Christians discuss these matters without having to be hating on each other?.Surely faithful dont have any problem with exploring what may or may not be the truth?.You dont want deception to be promoted do you?<br /><br />And please dont try blaming it all on the young Thom Stark.He sure didnt invent this lack of gentleness among Christians.Do the elders lead the way?,or is it all up to the young to display this gentleness people speak of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7076436599237811392010-08-21T17:59:01.509-07:002010-08-21T17:59:01.509-07:00Im he who posted above about my respect for the wa...Im he who posted above about my respect for the way Victor handles matters.Im an atheist and post as anonymous here because i know about the nasty factor among many Christians,and should i post more publicly it would only serve to enrage people here.Maybe as an atheist i should be happy to see many Christians suddenly ganging up on Thom.<br /><br />Thom is young and he is still Christian.And as another anon poster pointed out Dale Allison <b>maintains a fairly strong faith in what most evangelicals feel are the essentials of Christianity.Just on Allison's recommendation of Thom's book alone, I have to believe that it is going to be well-argued and extremely challenging</b><br /><br />Now i wouldnt know who this Dale Allison is, from a bar of soap.But this poster even though they obviously also feel wary of posting publically here incase of also being ripped to peices by the crew of rabid christian elephants,feels Thom deserves to be shown some better understanding and maybe even a little kindness.<br /><br />Ive seen some people here rip into Thom for his lack of gentleness.Well hello look at many of you lot here on this blog,do you suppose Thoms experience among Christians was somehow totally free of this lack of gentleness?.If not,how do you suppose you can expect Thom to have come out with this gentleness he is acused of lacking?,was somebody here thinking maybe Thom was also a reincarnation of Jesus, like many faith people often seem to expect of others who have been through the faith wringer being mangled along the way.<br /><br />What do you expect miracles?.<br /><br />As an atheist i dont usually bother using the word ought.But in this case i think some real soul searching is in order,and in my opinion some Christian ought to be rather ashamed.So much for the word of Jesus about all falling short of the glory of God.Morri cant even offer a simple apology and admit everyone makes mistakes.<br /><br />Why would young folk stay within faith today?.You folk are often so mean.<br /><br />Now im an atheist and maybe i should shut my trap and be very happy about this.But i try to be a fair person which is why i have much respect for Victor.And Thom has nasty Christian attacking him from all angles at present.Whats worse he has little support or kindness being given by any christians which to me only makes this matter seem terrible.<br /><br />You might not agree with him on what he says.But atleast show the young man some charity and kindness.<br /><br />You cant expect people to learn that what you yourself are lacking in.Unless you really believe in miracles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80621818543485558252010-08-21T10:25:47.944-07:002010-08-21T10:25:47.944-07:00OTOH (before BDK beats me to the punch) maybe it w...OTOH (before BDK beats me to the punch) maybe it was a follower of Fried Phelps?<br /><br />....just saying. :DBenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26531379352055109352010-08-21T10:25:44.729-07:002010-08-21T10:25:44.729-07:00CS Lewis was not God.
The world will end, Vic, do...CS Lewis was not God. <br />The world will end, Vic, don't worry.<br /><br />And Thom Stark is not a scholar,so according to Loftus Groupie Dr. Hector Avalos, we do not have to pay attention to him.Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137890891223067672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30529608015169198322010-08-21T10:23:30.499-07:002010-08-21T10:23:30.499-07:00>Calling Thom someone's "bitch"? ...>Calling Thom someone's "bitch"? Really? We shouldn't be talking to anyone that way.<br /><br />I reply: OTOH how do we know it wasn't a follower of PZ Myers pretending to be a "Christian"?<br /><br />Hey, I'm just saying.......;-)BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19219613167916766532010-08-20T22:32:45.824-07:002010-08-20T22:32:45.824-07:00Interestingly enough, C. S. Lewis thought that Jes...Interestingly enough, C. S. Lewis thought that Jesus was wrong about the end of the world and had not problem with it.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59281152970936908242010-08-20T22:14:58.627-07:002010-08-20T22:14:58.627-07:00Here are some positive things we can glean from in...Here are some positive things we can glean from interacting with Thom's writing (instead of being fearful/reactive):<br /><br />1. He's obviously very bright. From the things said about his book so far, we can expect a thorough presentation of some of the toughest issues for evangelicals to deal with, in OT historicity, OT ethics, etc. Most evangelical Christians probably don't read widely enough in this subject and he's doing a favor here in that regard. <br /><br />2. It sounds like he is going to be offering a sort of liberal Christian solution to these issues, and I think it is always healthy to see this. I have interacted with more liberal Christians on alot of issues. I have always reacted strongly at first. On some issues, I have never agreed. On other issues, later on as I matured, I came to appreciate and even accept many of their views.<br /><br />I've read almost everything by Dale Allison. Allison is brilliant; anyone who has read his work knows this. He also maintains a fairly strong faith in what most evangelicals feel are the essentials of Christianity, though his critical scholarship has led him to believe some fairly unorthodox things (e.g. Jesus was sorely mistaken about the end of the world). Just on Allison's recommendation of Thom's book alone, I have to believe that it is going to be well-argued and extremely challenging. <br /><br />I hope Thom will simply cultivate more gentleness in disagreeing with evangelicals. After all, if he is a Christian, we are all brothers. You have to remember that we are disagreeing here about issues that are very close to all of our hearts. It is simply not easy to see some of these things challenged. <br /><br />I'm extremely challenged by his views on Christology, and I disagree strongly, but I've also had to refine some of my own views in light of them, as he seems obviously right in some instances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13373799916108171352010-08-20T22:01:21.936-07:002010-08-20T22:01:21.936-07:00I think Thom is being uncharitable with Copan (eve...I think Thom is being uncharitable with Copan (even though its obvious Copan needs to rewrite/rethink). But I'm pretty shocked, as a Christian, by some of the seemingly Christian anonymous posters on this blog. Calling Thom someone's "bitch"? Really? We shouldn't be talking to anyone that way. That's worse than anything I've seen Loftus post on this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70467870208576989012010-08-20T11:34:35.020-07:002010-08-20T11:34:35.020-07:00>Hypocrites abound everywhere obviously.
Yup.>Hypocrites abound everywhere obviously.<br /><br />Yup.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20192698841461076302010-08-20T11:21:36.922-07:002010-08-20T11:21:36.922-07:00Anonymous makes great points. Hypocrites abound ev...Anonymous makes great points. Hypocrites abound everywhere obviously.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.com