| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2010 11:05:03 PM · #1176 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You can take a scissors to The Bible and make it say anything you want. Bad, bad things have happened in history when people did that. |
But this is exactly how the volume you now refer to as "The Bible" was assembled ... |
|
|
|
02/15/2010 11:25:26 PM · #1177 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Those are all badly taken out of context... |
In what context would those passages make "God has revealed himself in his word, and he has told us that he doesn't lie" true? |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:27:23 AM · #1178 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You can take a scissors to The Bible and make it say anything you want. Bad, bad things have happened in history when people did that. |
But this is exactly how the volume you now refer to as "The Bible" was assembled ... |
Can you support that claim?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Those are all badly taken out of context... |
In what context would those passages make "God has revealed himself in his word, and he has told us that he doesn't lie" true? |
First of all, I prefer the English Standard Version over the New King James (as do many scholars and theologians) for various reasons which I can explain if you'd like.
In most cases, you need to read at least a whole paragraph to understand the context of one single verse, but in the case of the first verse you quote, you only need to look at the two verses before and the verse after.
10The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I highlighted four parts, so I will explain those. First, notice that there are two stages of delusion/deception. The first delusion is caused by the activity of Satan, not God. Second, we see that Satan has brought this deception or delusion upon those who are perishing. This is present tense which shows that these deceived people are currently perishing, meaning that they've already made their decision to follow the lawless one (i.e. messenger of Satan). Third, we see what I just explained, that those who are perishing have refused (past tense) to love the truth and be saved. The fourth section reiterates the same, that those who are deceived have already chosen to resist the truth (God's word).
Here's a little timeline to help. God offers truth -> Satan offers false signs and deception -> some people refuse the truth and are deceived -> God sends further delusion to those who have already rejected him as judgment -> those people are condemned. In other words, God is not deceiving people and deliberately leading them away from himself, rather he is righteously judging those who have already decided under their own power to reject God. Satan is the one who originally deceived these condemned people. Think of it like this... When someone commits murder, they have made their choice to break the law thus condemning themselves. After committing the crime, the criminal has lost his/her freedom to choose and it's all up to the judge. Obviously, if the judge has any regard for the law he/she will sentence the person to prison. God is the judge, not the deceiver.
That was my personal interpretation. Here's what the study notes in the ESV Study Bible say: "Because unbelievers have rejected God's offer of salvation in the gospel, God sends them a strong delusion. As part of his righteous judgment, God is instrumental in causing these unbelievers to embrace the Antichrist (believe what is false) so that they advance to a whole new level of rebellion and are thus condemned as allies of the Antichrist at the second coming."
The study notes seem to agree (and I'm sure most commentaries would as well) that God is sending the delusion as a form of judgment to those that have already rejected him. God does not drive people away from himself, but he will judge those who drive themselves away from God. Would you like me to explain why the other two verses are taken out of context, or did I prove my point?
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 00:37:54. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:55:02 AM · #1179 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You can take a scissors to The Bible and make it say anything you want. Bad, bad things have happened in history when people did that. |
But this is exactly how the volume you now refer to as "The Bible" was assembled ... |
Can you support that claim? |
Surely you know that "The Bible" has been through numerous editing processes whereby certain documents were included and others omitted, depending on which group did the editing, and that not all "versions" of the Bible contain the same stories -- this is not even getting down to the level of the decisions made as to how to translate or interpret certain passages. Good God (pun intended), the very fact that there is more than one version of "the Bible" extant today id de facto "support of my claim." If God indeed gave you the ability to reason, at least use it once in a while. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 01:05:38 AM · #1180 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
did I prove my point? |
Nope. You spent 6 paragraphs dancing all around "God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" without actually acknowledging the simple fact that he lied. Whether or not those he lied to would have believed the truth anyway is both irrelevant to your claim that God never lies and a blatant act of entrapment. They had already been judged wicked before this deceit, and "God lies in order to condemn those who don't believe the truth" is a circular statement. Oh, and so much for free will... the story here has God making absolutely certain that some people cannot make a 'correct' choice of their own volition. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 01:08:17 AM · #1181 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You can take a scissors to The Bible and make it say anything you want. Bad, bad things have happened in history when people did that. |
But this is exactly how the volume you now refer to as "The Bible" was assembled ... |
Can you support that claim? |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
First of all, I prefer the English Standard Version over the New King James... |
LOL! |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 07:22:09 AM · #1182 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Here's a little timeline to help. God offers truth -> Satan offers false signs and deception -> some people refuse the truth and are deceived -> God sends further delusion to those who have already rejected him as judgment -> those people are condemned. In other words, God is not deceiving people and deliberately leading them away from himself, rather he is righteously judging those who have already decided under their own power to reject God. |
If indeed this is the scenario you envisage I would strongly suggest you not embark in a career in law enforcement. By his very actions, your God has deliberately enticed people into doing something they might not otherwise have engaged in. One would think that if judgement has not yet been passed that there might have existed a possibility for salvation... but all hope is gone now that these poor weak people have been enticed into a life of sin by both Satan and God...what chance did they have?
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Think of it like this... When someone commits murder, they have made their choice to break the law thus condemning themselves. After committing the crime, the criminal has lost his/her freedom to choose and it's all up to the judge. Obviously, if the judge has any regard for the law he/she will sentence the person to prison. |
Actually, any judge having regard for the law will consider all factors before rendering judgement. In the case you present here, the crime contains both "Mens Reus" and "Actus Reus" elements, meaning that in addition to proving that the act was committed, the prosecutor must also prove intent. In proving intent, one has to take into consideration a myriad of situational factors which contributed or gave rise to the commission of the act... and it could very well come to pass that the accused might be found not guilty of the charges. Examples such as self defence, spousal abuse and the like come to mind.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
"Because unbelievers have rejected God's offer of salvation in the gospel, God sends them a strong delusion. As part of his righteous judgment, God is instrumental in causing these unbelievers to embrace the Antichrist (believe what is false) so that they advance to a whole new level of rebellion and are thus condemned as allies of the Antichrist at the second coming." |
...Hmmmm, kinda throws a wrench into that "Forgive and Forget" thing I heard so much about.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The study notes seem to agree (and I'm sure most commentaries would as well) that God is sending the delusion as a form of judgment to those that have already rejected him. God does not drive people away from himself, but he will judge those who drive themselves away from God. |
Viewed in this perspective, I guess I would have been vindicated had I acted in an egregious manner towards my child whenever she said she hated me or acted in any unacceptable manner. The culmination of her actions would have, in my eyes anyways, have warranted any draconian actions I might have contemplated... she would have brought it upon herself ... right?
Ray |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 08:30:04 AM · #1183 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I acknowledge that many people have issues or questions with Christianity that cannot be answered. |
It's not really the Christianity thing......it's those statements about the Bible being infallible that got you in trouble here....
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not trying to offer up faith as an absolute and I'm not trying to "prove" it necessarily. |
Umm.....actually, with a few of your "Absolutely True on all Counts" Bible stances here and there, that's exactly what you were trying to do.
Here's the thing......at least from where I'm sitting as a fellow American, I deeply believe in your right to believe and worship as you so choose. I also believe that everyone has certain rights that should never be governed by religious beliefs. When one group tries to quell/discriminate/shut out/whatever, another group based on beliefs, then that's an issue with me.
I love the back and forth that people have every day in their lives with the sharing of thoughts and beliefs......vie la difference!
But IMNSHO, it's so much more interesting if you learn about each other and don't try to convince the other that their beliefs are wrong.
When you get right down to it, nobody knows for sure what happens when you die. So the door has to be open for any possibility......and one thimng that occurs to me is that everyone could be right......or wrong!
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
All I'm trying to do here (and in the other forums as well) is show that Christians can be intelligent, logical, and reasoned people too (although I think DrAchoo does a better job of this than I do). |
I don't dispute that on any level. My boss is a fundamental Christian (Mennonite), and he's one of the gentlest, kindest men I have ever met in my life, as well as an intelligent, logical, reasoned guy who is also a smartass with one heck of a sense of humor.
I will agree with your assessment of Jason, too.......8>)
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 08:30:35.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 08:43:16 AM · #1184 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't disagree that Christianity was popularist. I disagree that it was popular (for the average citizen) for political reasons. If the early Christians were seeking political power, why would they endure 200 years of violent persecution? Christianity gained a lot of power in the fourth century, but the early Christians had no idea that would ever happen while they were being fed to lions and burned at the stake. |
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I am talking about personal politics ΓΆ€“ not the governance of the empire. From what you say, you probably agree that Christianity offered something new to people and by preaching equality it will have redefined their personal relationship with other people and the state. That was the upside, and persecution was the downside.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I acknowledge that many people have issues or questions with Christianity that cannot be answered. I'm not trying to offer up faith as an absolute and I'm not trying to "prove" it necessarily. All I'm trying to do here (and in the other forums as well) is show that Christians can be intelligent, logical, and reasoned people too (although I think DrAchoo does a better job of this than I do). |
It is an enjoyable discourse. However, it bemuses me how apparently intelligent people can accept something so illogical and against reason as the existence of an interventionist god in the world. The US bucks the international trend (together with Ireland) that shows a clear correlation between higher education and higher rates of atheism (or to put it in a less inflammatory way, a correlation between the lack of education and higher levels of religious belief).
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
That was my personal interpretation. |
I thought that you believed that interpretation of the bible was an objective affair (not prone to multiple and differing interpretations)?
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
did I prove my point? |
Does it not worry you that we need a study guide to point us to one way of interpreting these verses that makes some sort of sense? Surely you can understand the accusation that the natural meaning of words needs to be twisted in order to make the bible internally consistent to any great degree.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:05:47 PM · #1185 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Does it not worry you that we need a study guide to point us to one way of interpreting these verses that makes some sort of sense? Surely you can understand the accusation that the natural meaning of words needs to be twisted in order to make the bible internally consistent to any great degree. |
I always loved this quote by CS Lewis (natch), "If Christianity were something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has not facts to bother about."
I also appreciate your understanding that early Christianity was a religion which empowered women. Too often people have the misconception that it was a misogynistic faith when this is far from the truth. Christianity was often castigated as a "religion of slaves and women".
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:07:31 PM · #1186 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't dispute that on any level. My boss is a fundamental Christian (Mennonite), and he's one of the gentlest, kindest men I have ever met in my life, as well as an intelligent, logical, reasoned guy who is also a smartass with one heck of a sense of humor.
I will agree with your assessment of Jason, too.......8>) |
Great. Now I missed what was said about me.... >:) I'll have to go back.
Isn't your boss a liberal Mennonite? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but "fundamental" and "liberal" are probably antonyms in a religious sense.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:23:43 PM · #1187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also appreciate your understanding that early Christianity was a religion which empowered women. |
That was me. :P |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:24:57 PM · #1188 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't dispute that on any level. My boss is a fundamental Christian (Mennonite), and he's one of the gentlest, kindest men I have ever met in my life, as well as an intelligent, logical, reasoned guy who is also a smartass with one heck of a sense of humor.
I will agree with your assessment of Jason, too.......8>) |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Great. Now I missed what was said about me.... >:) I'll have to go back. |
Nothing much......just that you were a better example of an intelligent, logical, reasoned person than Johnny.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Isn't your boss a liberal Mennonite? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but "fundamental" and "liberal" are probably antonyms in a religious sense. |
SOMEHOW, I just knew that you were going to remember that I had told you that.
Thing is......to me, that was an amusing and interesting concept in trhe first place. I wasn't aware that you could use the words "liberal" and "Mennonite" in the same sentence.....I have since discovered, much to my surprise and delight, that I was wrong.
That said, in comparison to the garden variety, not so religious person, even a liberal Mennonite is a pretty strict Christian sort of fellow. God & Christ are pretty much a part of their daily lives. BUT......he is also the go-to-guy for me when I want to ask questions, and though I know he hopes and prays for my salvation, he is *never* evangelistic in any way. He's not afraid to tackle any of the strange and unusual concepts that I put forth to him, and his replies to discourse, and answers to my questions are always careful, courteous, and well thought out, the only caveat to that being that they are heavily influenced by his faith.
Thing is, I know that and when I want to try and understand how the influence works in a genuinely decent manner in real life, I'll ask him questions as to how he would approach an issue. He does a lot of truly goosd things for people just because of who he is, how he was brought up, and because of the type of Christian that he is. He's done more for my appreciation of, and is probably the poster child for me for what a good Christian should be.
And I truly and genuinely like him because of who he is.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:40:51 PM · #1189 |
Originally posted by Louis:
[quote=DrAchoo]I also appreciate your understanding that early Christianity was a religion which empowered women. |
I gather that has changed rather drastically over the years... at least as it relatles to the Catholic church.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:41:38 PM · #1190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I always loved this quote by CS Lewis (natch), "If Christianity were something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has not facts to bother about." |
But see, that's the thing - the individual author's of the books of the Bible did believe that they were making it "easier," for their audience at the time. Or, at least, playing into the expectations of the audience the particular book was written for at the time in order to make acceptance of the story they were telling easier, or to make the theological or political point they were trying to get across clearer. It is only in retrospect, when the books are assembled as a supposedly cohesive whole, when there is a need to harmonize conflicting accounts that it appears complicated.
The conflicts and discrepancies in the books of the Bible, Old & New, make no sense if the books are taken as a literal - or at least human-flawed attempt at literal - historical documents. They make complete sense if you take into account when the books were written, who they were written for and the likely motives of the authors. They are not historical documents. They are political documents.
edited for clarity
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 12:46:06. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 12:46:49 PM · #1191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I always loved this quote by CS Lewis (natch), "If Christianity were something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has not facts to bother about." |
If indeed everything being advanced was an undisputable fact, then would it not follow that this very thread would not even exist. A great deal of what is advanced by the various churches are "faith based" issues which unfortunately are not supported by facts, but rather suppositions and oral history.
One could take the quote you advance, turn it around a tad and end up with something akin to:
"My mind is made up... don't confuse me with facts"
Ray |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 01:03:57 PM · #1192 |
Ray, take the feel of the whole quote as my intent and not that little phrase. Obviously Lewis feels strongly and I fully understand you reject that. I mainly used it as an introduction to the idea that it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated (although I am not then saying that complicated denotes validity). There is a latin term for this type of argument, but it escapes me at the moment. An analagous argument would be the person who says there is no God because the universe is so large and full of empty space. "Why would he waste all that space just to create us?" The problem is, if the universe was quite small the exact opposite argument could be just as easily made, "Why would a mighty God make so small a universe?"
No worldview can withstand scrutiny at smaller and smaller levels. Each and every system has a point where one must declare "I don't know how it works beyond this point." In these arguments I find both sides forget this. It isn't defeat for the Christian to say, "you know, I just don't know how that works in exact detail." but, likewise, it is not victory for the atheist to get the Christian to admit it. Too often these arguments get stretched to the point of absurdity as the atheist gleefully tries to force the theist into saying, "I DON'T KNOW!" while the theist mistakenly believes that he is absolutely not allowed to utter those words. The argument becomes more and more convoluted until we are down to minutae and arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
This is part of the pathology of Rant. When I talk to people like Louis on IM, the conversation is much healthier. Somehow by having it in real-time, and having a one-on-one conversation, we are all able to let our guard down a bit and more easily admit there are things we just aren't smart enough to explain.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 01:40:26 PM · #1193 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
we are all able to let our guard down a bit and more easily admit there are things we just aren't smart enough to explain. |
That's kinda been the point with some of us all along.......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 02:44:54 PM · #1194 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated |
*cough*intelligent design*cough* |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 03:42:25 PM · #1195 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
we are all able to let our guard down a bit and more easily admit there are things we just aren't smart enough to explain. |
That's kinda been the point with some of us all along.......8>) |
Don't worry Jeb, you've proved you aren't very smart very well! ;P (totally kidding)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 03:45:24 PM · #1196 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated |
*cough*intelligent design*cough* |
You know, when this thread started back up I mentioned Anthony Flew, but it never picked up as a topic of conversation. It's interesting he has some flavor of ID in his "10 things to take into consideration list". I'm not familiar with the book or the author though so don't know if it presents ID in a different light. Would be interesting to check out.
My original thread:
Originally posted by Jason, the wise:
I had never heard about Anthony Flew before who is another case of atheist turned theist (deist in this case). Cases like this (in either direction) are fascinating because these are people who are obviously dedicating a ton of their time exploring such ideas. It's also fascinating that, lo and behold, CS Lewis' name pops up.
The big reason for the post is to take Flew's list of things we should take "into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God". I feel somewhat vindicated that I have personally brought up 5 of the 10 items on the list. I feel that, at the very least, this asserts that I am not crazy for asking questions on these fronts. I am not saying they amass some "proof of God", but rather are reasonable questions that too often are simply struck down as the rantings of a theological stick-in-the-mud.
Items to "take into account" when discussing God:
A novel definition of "God" by Richard Swinburne
The case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?
The Church of England's change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell
The question of whether there was only one big bang and if time began with it
The question of multiple universes
The fine-tuning argument
The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter
The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction
The concept of an Intelligent Orderer as explained in the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese
An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway. |
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 04:37:26 PM · #1197 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated |
*cough*intelligent design*cough* |
You know, when this thread started back up I mentioned Anthony Flew... |
Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself ΓΆ€“ which is far more complex than the physical Universe ΓΆ€“ can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."
That would be your aforementioned fallacy. Flew has also repeatedly insisted that he doesn't believe in anything remotely like the Christian concept of God. Not your best argument. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 05:06:53 PM · #1198 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated |
*cough*intelligent design*cough* |
You know, when this thread started back up I mentioned Anthony Flew... |
Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself ΓΆ€“ which is far more complex than the physical Universe ΓΆ€“ can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."
That would be your aforementioned fallacy. Flew has also repeatedly insisted that he doesn't believe in anything remotely like the Christian concept of God. Not your best argument. ;-) |
Oh, I never claimed he did. But not all fallacies are created equally and what you seem to consider one seems to have other reasonable people giving some actual consideration.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 05:09:38 PM · #1199 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated |
*cough*intelligent design*cough* |
You know, when this thread started back up I mentioned Anthony Flew... |
Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself ΓΆ€“ which is far more complex than the physical Universe ΓΆ€“ can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."
That would be your aforementioned fallacy. Flew has also repeatedly insisted that he doesn't believe in anything remotely like the Christian concept of God. Not your best argument. ;-) |
Well you gotta takee whatever you can. Flew is already on the precipice of rationality so if he choose a specific flavor for his God, Christianity or whatever, he'd undoubtly fall off.
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 17:10:56.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2010 05:16:04 PM · #1200 |
And...
The buzz in the atheist blogosphere is about Antony Flew, a "notorious atheist" who has converted to deism and published a book...
The title of the book, "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind", is a bit of a distortion. One of the things you learn from the blogosphere is the names of all the important activists and other people involved in the movement. But I've never heard of Antony Flew, so he's hardly notorious. Apparently, he used to be well-known in philosophy circles. Currently, he seems to be aging badly, and losing his memory (Flew himself says he has "nominal aphasia"). The book, as Richard Carrier will tell you, is transparently the work of Christian apologists putting words into Flew's mouth with the purpose of using his "authority", as if he had any. It's all rather appalling. Talk about liars for Jesus.
Source, which also talks about Francis Collins' conversion. About scientists-cum-religionists, Dr. Dawkins has this to say:
The efforts of apologists to find genuinely distinguished modern scientists who are religious have an air of desperation, generating the unmistakably hollow sound of bottoms of barrels being scraped.
In the same chapter of Dawkins, there is a nice succinct summation of many atheist people's position. Jim Watson (co-founder of the Human Genome project) says, in response to the proposition that "science is about how things work and religion is about what it is all for":
Well, I don't think we're for anything. We're just products of evolution. You can say, "Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose." But I'm anticipating having a good lunch. |
|
