Pages

Monday, July 06, 2009

Just a Few of the Trivially Easy Ways by Which God Could Get People to Believe in Him without Violating Their Precious Free Will®

The following couplet is brought to you by Pelagian-Off. When you’re drifting toward the shore of Pelagia, shove off™.


If there is one thing which I insist must be,
It is that God needs be smarter than me.

God has an image problem. When you look for Him, you can’t see Him. Yes, we know that He’s everywhere, but He’s invisible. In this regard, He’s almost, but not quiet, completely unlike Barry’s role in GM.

But I digress.

If our recent spate of Arminian commenters are to be believed, God wants to save everyone. I mean, He really, really, really wants to save every single man, woman, and child (even Britney!) who has ever walked the face of the planet, be it past, present, or even future. How much does He really, really, really want to do this? Spread your arms wide. See how far they go? God’s want goes farther.

But God happens to be invisible. What is an invisible being to do? I mean, if you were invisible, how would you convince people (other than the IRS, who would tax you even if you didn’t exist) that you exist? This could be troubling. Especially if you can’t touch other people either, or say their name, or interact with objects. You’d be like Sam from Ghost, and who wants that?

But what if you were omnipotent? Why, then not only could you touch people, interact with objects, talk to them…why, you could even make yourself visible!

Today when I went out and picked up my lunch, I was fully convinced the woman at the counter existed. I believed she exists because I saw her there. And my having seen her didn’t violate my Free Will® in any manner, did it? Nope. Not at all.

So really all God would have to do to convince people that He exists is: show up.

You know, when two pagans are making out in the backseat of a car, God could suddenly pop up in the driver’s seat and say, “You kids know you shouldn’t be doing that. By the way, I exist.” I’m fairly certain that would scare the hell out of them. They might even become Methodists.

Come down this path with me now. See that giant white orb in the night sky? There aren’t very many people who look at the moon and say, “That doesn’t exist.” Those who do say that vote multiple times in every election, and are rightly shunned by the rest of society. But they’re a minority. You have to admit, the vast majority of people believe the moon is real (some even believe people walked on it once).

Yeah, I suppose it is possible that someone could see God standing there and still think, “He’s no better than Aunt Wilma, who at least bakes apple pie for Thanksgiving.” But if you said that, couldn’t God bake you an apple pie in response? I mean, what’s stopping Him? And maybe you’d say: “I would like you better if you were four feet tall and green.” What’s to stop God from doing that for you? Whatever you needed God to look like (a giant puppy dog with a rainbow collar and sparkles on his nose) God could be just that! He’s got da power.

Come along further then. How many of you have ever looked at a vending machine and said, “I don’t believe that piece of junk will give me my selection if I put money in it” and then, when you put money in it, you got your selection after all? Would you then say, “I don’t believe that piece of junk will give me my selection if I put money in it” the next time you see it? Perhaps. But suppose you do this a thousand times (because you’re really hungry, see also: rich), and it always gave you your selection. Would you not agree that the machine is reliable and you can trust in it?

Why can’t God do that with atheists? If an atheist says, “God, I want you to jump through hoop A and then I’ll believe” why couldn’t God jump through hoop A? And if the atheist adds more hoops, it’s not like God will get tired (Omnipotence, baby!). And if He can’t acquiesce for logical reasons (suppose the atheist says, “God, if you exist, I want you to raise John McCain from the dead”) He could at least give the reason (“McCain is already undead”).

Now I may be confused, but it seems to me that more people would believe in God if they could see Him and He responded to them then currently believe in Him now when they can’t see Him and He doesn’t seem to respond to them. And the simple action of seeing what’s in front of your eyes is not a violation of Free Will®. Appearing would be a trivially simple task for an omnipotent being, wouldn’t it?

Naturally, in the past I’ve made similar arguments. One response I got was that God’s showing up wouldn’t make any difference. That’s because apparently every time someone shows up we are supposed to automatically assume we are hallucinating.

But the objection continued that it was due to sin that it wouldn’t make any difference. But I thought there was this thing called peeved prevailing prevenient grace, which is kinda like an insurance policy from Progressive: namely, if you have insurance, you can drive your dad’s Yugo. PG is like that, only you get to pick if God will drive or if t3h debil wit t3h houndz of hellx0r will. Which makes me wonder…if PG works, then why would God’s appearing or not appearing have any relevance to what driver you pick to haul down the Interstate is 17.3 mph? I mean, when the insurance agent shows up and says, “You can fill out this card and drive” you don’t say, “You don’t exist” in response.

Oh you do. In that case, I have a voter registration card I need you to fill out. No, no. You can have several.

29 comments:

  1. And yet no cohesive point was made in this entire post. Wah wah waaaaah.

    God did show Himself to a bunch of people a couple of thousand years ago. He also did a bunch of neat stuff, like healing deformed limbs, giving sight to the blind, and raising 4 day old dead people. Some people believed in God after that, and some people didn't. Seeing God or miracles doesn't ensure someone will believe.

    You sound like you've been taking cues from some atheists, as I've run across this dumbness in their camp too. I imagine it in a whiny voice, "Why doesn't God show himself to me if he wants to prove his existence?"

    Answer: He has.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some people are just too serious to get SATIRE.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh I got it, I just thought the satire at someone else's expense deserved a response.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anyone who has to say "I got it" didn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BTW, BSman said:
    ---
    Seeing God or miracles doesn't ensure someone will believe.
    ---

    And yet you never stop to wonder WHY.

    Seriously, think about this for a second. If people are basically good, or even if they're just neutral, then why would they not believe even having seen miracles?

    Doesn't that actually show you HOW DEPRAVED THEY ARE? (I wish I could put this in neon on your honor.)

    BSman said:
    ---
    You sound like you've been taking cues from some atheists, as I've run across this dumbness in their camp too.
    ---

    That's because atheists go after the low-hanging fruit too. They can't beat Calvinism since it's logically sound and self-coherent. So they go after you instead.

    And the fact that you still can't respond to their "dumbness" shows me that their "dumbness" triumphs your "wizzdumb."

    BSman said:
    ---
    Answer: He has.
    ---

    No, He physically showed Himself to people 2000 years ago. Doesn't help the modern atheist out one bit, especially the Loftusian kind who insist that history is unverifiable anyway.

    Be that as it may, God certainly has the power to appear to atheists today, right? Yet He does not do so. Why?

    If it's because it would make no difference, then you prove that men are more depraved than you can have them be (that and that God's grace at giving them the chance to believe is a flimsy reed to lean upon). If it's because it would make a difference, then you prove that God doesn't want all men saved.

    Which of these paths to your demise do you wish to race blindly down this time?

    ReplyDelete
  6. And yet you never stop to wonder WHY.

    1) God shows conclusive evidence that He exists

    2) Not all believe even after seeing this evidence.

    So the only logical conclusion is unconditional election? That doesn't follow logically.

    They can't beat Calvinism since it's logically sound and self-coherent.

    Funny, that's what guys like Dawkins and Hitchens like to pick on the most. I constantly find myself having to distance myself from certain aspects of reformed theology when speaking with atheists. And that still doesn't explain why you used their argument.

    Paul affirmed that God has given everyone ample evidence to believe.

    you prove that men are more depraved than you can have them be (that and that God's grace at giving them the chance to believe is a flimsy reed to lean upon). If it's because it would make a difference, then you prove that God doesn't want all men saved.

    I believe men are totally depraved.
    ---
    Here's your argument.

    1) God could cause people to believe in Him by appearing to them.

    2) God doesn't appear to them

    3) God doesn't want all to believe.

    First, again, that doesn't follow logically. Just because He doesn't appear doesn't mean He doesn't want all men to believe (not to mention scripture says the EXACT opposite).

    Also, there's nothing that says premise 1 is true in the first place (it may not make any difference). It seems to me you're thinking too highly of the cognitive ability of humanity. Some people deny what's right in front of their face (like Calvinists with certain passages in the Bible).

    Why don't some believe in God? I don't know, but I DO know that that fact does not logically necessitate a Calvinistic theology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BSman said:
    ---
    So the only logical conclusion is unconditional election? That doesn't follow logically.
    ---

    Total depravity is what follows logically. Thank you for playing. You can get your parting gift at the door.

    BSman said:
    ---
    Funny, that's what guys like Dawkins and Hitchens like to pick on the most.
    ---

    The only "response" I've ever heard from Dawkins and his ilk regarding Calvinism is that they wouldn't want to follow such a God. That's not an argument; that's a preference. They can't refute it logically, they just don't like it.

    On the other hand, they have LOTS of arguments against Arminian positions. They usually steal them from Calvinists (you know that's why John Loftus trolls here).

    BSman said:
    ---
    And that still doesn't explain why you used their argument.
    ---

    Do I have to give an account to you for why I agree with atheists who say that 2 + 2 = 4 next?

    BSman said:
    ---
    I believe men are totally depraved.
    ---

    If you did, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me here.

    BSman said:
    ---
    First, again, that doesn't follow logically. Just because He doesn't appear doesn't mean He doesn't want all men to believe (not to mention scripture says the EXACT opposite).
    ---

    What it means is that God wants something ELSE more than He wants to save all men (and when you read Scripture and find out what that something else is, you see that it requires there to be non-saved people). Regardless, it's blatantly obvious that saving all men isn't that high on His priority list because He's doing a really bad job at it. And I could do a better job at it if that was my all-encompassing purpose, as Arminians think.

    Finally, you've never exegeted a single text of Scripture yet, despite been shown the archives where we have.

    You said:
    ---
    Also, there's nothing that says premise 1 is true in the first place (it may not make any difference).
    ---

    It can only make "not make any difference" if Calvinism is true. And even your interpretation of Premise 1 remains obviously true. Show me one example of something seen by everyone that is denied by the numbers of people who deny the existence of God.

    You said:
    ---
    It seems to me you're thinking too highly of the cognitive ability of humanity.
    ---

    I'm certainly not thinking too highly of YOUR cognitive ability.

    You said:
    ---
    Why don't some believe in God? I don't know, but I DO know that that fact does not logically necessitate a Calvinistic theology.
    ---

    And here we get to the meat of your response. "I don't know."

    You could have just typed that at the beginning and spared everyone.

    Anyway, allow me to illuminate you. Romans 9 is pretty clear on why God doesn't save everyone. Because He has compassion on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. And He does it to demonstrate His glory to the objects of His mercy. In order to do that, He needs two objects: those who are saved and those who are not saved.

    Therefore, if there are none who are not saved, God cannot display His glory as He chooses to do so for those objects of His mercy.

    Therefore, God decided to create those whom He would save and those whom He would damn. And when you say, "But how is that fair" Paul already told you: "Who are you to talk back to God?" God can make whatever He wants. He's the potter, you're the clay. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Total depravity is what follows logically. Thank you for playing. You can get your parting gift at the door.

    Didn't I just say I believed in total depravity? Thank you for the gift of seeing that you can't handle logical arguments.

    Regardless, it's blatantly obvious that saving all men isn't that high on His priority list because He's doing a really bad job at it.

    Nope. Wrong again, Petey. God did the work on the cross. Salvation is available, and guess what, whosoever will may come *gasp*. The only ones who are doing a bad job is those who refuse the gift of salvation through unbelief.

    Nice try, though.

    Finally, you've never exegeted a single text of Scripture yet, despite been shown the archives where we have.

    I have, just not here. And, since I have read many a Calvinist exegete's position on the 'world' and 'all' verses and have found them sadly lacking in their conclusion, I have a pretty good idea the pains you all have gone through to try and prove that 'all men' doesn't really mean 'all men' and 'world' really means 'elect.' i assume I will find those sadly lacking as well. Anyhoo...

    It can only make "not make any difference" if Calvinism is true

    You again show your lack of ability to deal with logic. This conclusion does not follow logically.

    Show me one example of something seen by everyone that is denied by the numbers of people who deny the existence of God.

    Barack Obama's communistic leanings and lack of birth certificate.

    I'm certainly not thinking too highly of YOUR cognitive ability.

    I'm the only one producing logically cohesive arguments. Very Christian of you BTW, Petey.

    And here we get to the meat of your response. "I don't know."

    You could have just typed that at the beginning and spared everyone.


    I would say the same thing to you when you decide to appeal to either antinomy or God's "uber-super-mega secret will."

    Romans 9 is pretty clear on why God doesn't save everyone

    No it's not. It's clear on why the Jews are not saved simply due to their ethnic heritage (psst...vs. 30). And the rest of your interpretation falls on that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since I perceive that you lack acumen, I must be blunt.

    You originally said:
    ---
    Seeing God or miracles doesn't ensure someone will believe.
    ---

    To which I responded:
    ---
    Doesn't that actually show you HOW DEPRAVED THEY ARE? [Caps in original]
    ---

    To which you then responded:
    ---
    So the only logical conclusion is unconditional election? That doesn't follow logically.
    ---

    To which I pointed out:
    ---
    Total depravity is what follows logically.
    ---

    And NOW you're saying:
    ---
    Didn't I just say I believed in total depravity?
    ---

    So LISTEN UP, because you're on a short leash with me.

    Of the two of us, I am the only one who consistently spoke of Total Depravity on this point. YOU tried to change the subject to unconditional election and pretended that that was what I was speaking of, when I plainly was not (I even wrote in caps that I was dealing with Depravity). So consider this your last warning. You either take time to read what you're interacting with or you go somewhere else, because if you keep this up your comments are getting deleted from my blog posts.

    I'll give you a chance to rephrase any of what you just wrote, because you read so poorly that it's not worth my time to waste reading it. In fact, the only reason I'm not deleting it now is so that all can see how stupid you are and that I did not invent your idiotic quotation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And yet...after all of the bluster...

    Nobody has addressed just WHY some believe and some do not...

    to borrow a phrase from bossmanham:

    "pssst...John 10:25-30"
    While dealing with people who have just seen the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, some believe and some do not...Jesus himself explains it this way:

    he says:

    “I told you and you do not believe. The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me. But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep.

    and by contrast:

    My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.

    So, though people saw miracles; they didn't believe, and Jesus says it's because they are not of His sheep...that's the cause according to Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Until BSman can answer the questions posed to him, he's no longer welcome to respond on my blog posts. This isn't a T-blog ban, for the record. But seeing as how my original post was written with Onesimus in mind, and how I never asked for BSman to comment, and how he's got all the sense of a seventh grader hanging by his underwear from the towel hook in the locker room, he's got no reason to comment on my posts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Where's the love of Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let no one think me foolish. But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool. Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter,
    Your comments show now Christian love toward your brother at all.


    And this is coming from a Calvinist.

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm glad to know that my Calvinist brothers consider me, a lowly Arminian, to be a brother in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Matt,

    You'd do well to read 2 Corinthians 11:16-21.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Furthermore, I have to point out that it's nothing but a cheap debate trick to whine and complain "Where's the love of Christ?" after your position has been demonstrated futile. It's nothing but an attempt to shame me for being correct, but it doesn't work. I've been on-line long enough to see through such self-righteous airs.

    Apparently, I am unloving, but the person who's first paragraph to me was "And yet no cohesive point was made in this entire post. Wah wah waaaaah." is a shining pillar of righteousness and moral virtue.

    Yes, it is to my shame that I'm not more like THAT!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's good to know that we brothers in Christ are working hard to get along now since we will be spending an eternity together in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Peter,
    As I noted, I am a Calvinist and so have no interest in disagreeing with your position. I was merely pointing out that your demeanor and speech reflect nothing of the love of Christ. I would suggest that you examine your heart for pride and bitterness; I know that I am prone to these as well, especially in theological debate.

    As this is your blog, I was commenting on your speech and not someone else's. Just as "the love of Christ" doesn't win a debate, neither does throwing out the red herring of "well he did it first so I can do it too."

    I would also suggest that you look at the passage you cited in context; I don't think it applies to this situation very well.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. drwayman,
    I am not sure what to make of your comment. Why wouldn't I consider you a brother in Christ? Does the fact that you are an Arminian and I am a Calvinist separate us in that way? I don't think so.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  22. Matt - thank you for the affirmation. Sometimes, people get so caught up in their own pet theology that they forget that we are all on the same team but just different branches. I am preaching to myself here because there are times that I have gotten so sure that I was right that I forgot that some Christians may have other points of view. I embrace both my Calvinist and Arminian brothers and those in between.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Howdy: Just dropped in for a moment and couldn't believe how mean two Christians can be toward each other. If you want to quote Paul, he said this (and there really is no question as to what he meant): "I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love... speaking the truth in love..." Eph. 4:2,13 Jesus said it best in John 13:34-35: 34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. So, where's the love?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Matt said:
    ---
    As this is your blog, I was commenting on your speech and not someone else's. Just as "the love of Christ" doesn't win a debate, neither does throwing out the red herring of "well he did it first so I can do it too."
    ---

    A) It's not my blog, just my blog post. :-)

    B) It's not a red herring to point out that the tone was set by someone else who was then was responded to by me in part exactly because of his tone. In other words, his behavior is the whole point as to why he can no longer post here (at least, not until he actually answers the questions I've given).

    Now you're fully welcome to your incorrect opinion....

    More broadly, however, I don't see how my behavior was not reflective of the love of Christ, given that the last thing that I was criticized for was a direct quotation of Paul, and I've used nowhere near as "bad" statements as he made to believers (Galatians comes to mind).

    And don't expect me to suffer fools. I have more pressing concerns then whether or not I hurt a jerks precious feelings. And notice for all his blustering, lies, and slanders, not one of us have ever said, "BSman, you don't demonstrate the love of Christ!" So it's not like *I* am the one trying to apply a double standard here.

    In any case, just what is supposed to be meant by the love of Christ anyway? Should we use the love of Christ that said, "Get thee behind me, Satan" or the love of Christ that overturned tables and used whips on tax collectors in the temple? Toss me a line here. Don't just say I don't show it, show me what it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The love of Christ should be shown in such a way that your first reaction to a man who crosses the line of fruitful dialogue is not "And the fact that you still can't respond to their "dumbness" shows me that their "dumbness" triumphs your "wizzdumb," but "if a man tries to take your shirt, give him your cloak as well," or "turn the other cheek," or "speak the truth in love." In other words, my response as a believer is ALWAYS to be one of love and compassion towards both my brothers and sisters in Christ and my lost neighbors, friends, etc.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  26. Matt,

    But that's not the first time I've dialogued with BSman.

    I realize you think your points are valid, and I realize that you think it's "better" to conform to whatever little rules you've got in place. Perhaps it is, but I remain unconvinced.

    I, for one, have a very thick skin when it comes to so-called "insults" and the like. The results speak for themselves. Never once have I berated BSman for being a jerk (I have only pointed it out when I was accused by you of being one myself). No, I censured him on my blog post because he refused to engage in actual discourse, not because he was arrogant, haughty, and insulting.

    Anyone can mock me as much as they want and I don't care, as long as they provide some kind of argument that can be interacted with. I've been on-line a long time; insults and satire and ribbing are part of the game. All I ask is that if you dish it you can take it. That seems fair enough to me, so I see no reason why I have to conform to your notion of what is proper "etiquette" or whatever.

    Of course, if I was at your house, I would obey your rules out of respect for you. And in our dialogue, your tone sets the standard for how I respond, which is why I don't respond to you anywhere near the way I've responded to BSman.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter,
    While I appreciate your response, I still do not understand your logic from a biblical point of view. From a worldly standpoint, I might agree with you; discourse naturally digresses to the lowest common denominator of whichever participant is throwing out the worst trash talk. However, I simply don't understand it from a biblical perspective. I don't see how it at all reflects what Christ has called us to in the way we treat one another. Jesus says in John 13 that unbelievers will know us by our love for one another, and I seriously doubt that if someone read some of the comment threads they would be convinced of who Jesus is by your (and yes, your opponents) love for one another. It has nothing to do with my own oral Torah or made up etiquette, but everything to do with how we reflect Christ not just in theological reflection but interaction with those who disagree with us and even perhaps stoop to levels that may cause us to want to retort back at the same level (although I doubt that it has only been when someone else has 'started it' that you have used this type of rhetoric; maybe I'm wrong).

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think it comes down to the fact that you view so-called "trash talk" as an inherently evil thing, whereas I do not. You can't imagine how Christians could do that, whereas I "trash talk" with all my friends even more so than people I consider "foes." I mean, one of my friends gave me an "Ultimate Slacker Award" at work because we're constantly calling each other slackers. You'd probably turn red to hear what my brother-in-law and I called each other non-stop.

    So I don't view it as inherently evil in the first place.

    Secondly, verbal jousting is just that: jousting. I view it much in the same way as I do anything else I write that's trying to be "pure reasoning." Why do I use analogies? To drive the point home. Why do I use satire? To drive the point home. Why do I verbally joust with others? To drive the point home.

    And again, it's not like this wasn't a level playing field; BSman has just as much a chance to do what I've done. Again, the only reason I said he was banned was because he wasn't engaging the issues.

    Again, I could be wrong here, but I don't see Jesus as being a stuck up old fogey with no sense of humor, a stick in the mud, or someone who didn't "guy talk" with the disciples from time to time. And when you read how Jesus interacted with His enemies, you'll see He pulled off some zingers too. So again, I think I'm prefectly consistent with the overall aspects of Christ's behavior, although of course I am still a sinner and know that I do fail from time to time (sometimes without even knowing it).

    All I can say is that I don't feel conviction from the Lord here. All I feel is that some people have stylistic differences with me, and that these people always only fall on keeping the T-Bloggers in line, turning a complete blind eye to anyone else's behavior. That's the only part that's galling to me: I'm perfectly fine to let you have your opinion about the rest with no real conflict (other than my pointing out I disagree) so long as you hold everyone to that same standard. Which you seem to be doing now. So again, I disagree with you, but this is an issue that I don't think is all that important to dwell on (for the reasons I've stated) and thus feel no need to pursue you further in disagreement here. I'll let you get in the last word (unless you say something that's just crying out to be responded to!).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Peter,
    Thanks for another thoughtful response, and thanks for the last word :-). First, I want to affirm that I am not attempting to single you or the other writers here out and let other commenters off the hook; I simply think that since it's your blog it would be easier for you to set the tone of the discussion, even if someone else tried to make it digress. Second, let me again say that I think satire is perfectly legitimate (I think I said this in the other comment thread also), and that I also don't think Jesus was a stick in the mud. I, in fact, love most any kind of humor, except the toilet variety because it just requires no thought whatsoever. One of my all-time favorite movies is Anchorman (gasp from the fundies!), and Tommy Boy will always be one of the funniest movies ever made. We will simply have to disagree on what you consider humor. I still think calling people stupid and mocking them is in poor taste and lacking wisdom in a Christian dialogue; however, if you do not feel convicted by the Spirit then it is not up to me to pursue the matter further. I am writing one final to time to underscore the fact that I am not attempting to police you in any way or hold anyone to some legalistic modern social morae code, but trying to provide what I perceive as a needed correction in the tone of the blog. Again, given that you have said you feel no conviction from the Spirit, and given that I am not the Spirit, I will simply have to conclude by saying, in the words of the great Ron Burgundy, "Well, agree to disagree."

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete