Gary, I understand.
I am a she he, happily soon to be married- that’s in a jest.
I wasn’t going to ask we discuss religion in private, though, that I can do here.
Good day
Nate asks, how do you react when someone calls you a fool? I wear sack clothes. I weep then I investigate why they thought me a fool then respond to them.
Gary asks about worldview.
My worldview encompasses both philosophical and methodological naturalism. Is it right? I think so. Could I be wrong? Yes, I have been wrong many times this might not be the first time.
Having said that, however, I think any worldview that allows for the existence of some other world beings like gods and angels is wrong. They have their origin in our ignorant past and continuing to hold on to them is evidence that such a person has not moved very far from that savage past.
Does anyone have a quote from Josephus or any other Jewish source that says that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles? If so, what do scholars say about their authenticity? In other words, are they thought to be authentic or Christian additions/forgeries to the original text?
Why doesn’t Luke mention any Guards at Jesus’ Tomb?
Matthew is the only Gospel writer who mentions guards being stationed at Jesus’ tomb to prevent the robbery of the body by Jesus’ disciples. Many Christian apologists use Matthew’s claim to say that with guards at the tomb, the only good explanation for the tomb being empty on Sunday morning is that a resurrection had occurred.
But why didn’t any other Gospel writer mention this detail, in particular, Luke, who states he thoroughly researched the accounts about Jesus?
Ex-Christian, John Loftus:
One of the things I say in my revised WIBA book is that since the gospel of Luke does not mention the guards at the tomb, and since he said in the opening that he had investigated everything and swears that his account is accurate, that therefore the author of that gospel disputes the whole story, probably for the same reasons you shared. That’s one gospel denying the claims of an earlier one.
…we already know Luke had access to Matthew’s gospel because he repeats it almost word for word in the Greek in a few pericopes. The dependency of later gospels upon previous ones is accepted by a majority of Christian scholars. Luke knew the story of the guards at the tomb and rejected it!
…Interesting how the centurion at Jesus’ crucifiction (Matt 27:54 – Truly this was the Son of God) could figure out who Jesus was, but the soliders at the tomb who saw angels coming down from the sky etc just take a bribe and are on their way.
I guess you never send a common solider to do a centurion’s job!
Gary: “I think it would be interesting if every person who participates on this blog would answer these two questions:”
I’m all for moving past the discussion about how to have a discussion so count me in 🙂
Do you believe that your worldview is the only correct worldview?
I’m agnostic about our origins and any possible deities existing so basically my worldview is “I don’t know.” Yes, I do feel as though this is an honest and correct worldview. Could I be wrong? Sure! Perhaps I actually KNOW the answers to the greatest mysteries of all time and am somehow suppressing that knowledge and tricking myself into thinking that I don’t know. Stranger things have happened.
And, if other people choose not to believe, accept, and adopt your worldview, do you believe that they will be punished in some manner for not doing so?
Only if my friend Gary gets a hold of them 🙂 J/K!!
My answer is no, but I do think we need to be on the lookout for people who think the world is going to end soon and will pretty much trash the planet if allowed to do so. It’s not so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence for neglect.
Now I have a question for Gary: Do you have a deconversion story posted online anywhere that you would be willing to share?
“The New Testament miracles need to first be examined by seeing what the scholars write about them, as I have already mentioned. – Sorry, Dave (and Nate) – I’m with Gary. The only “scholars” whose testimony I will accept are those who provide eye-witness testimony. Did you see it? If not, keep your opinions to yourself.
Not Gay here, Paulie, but you want to buy a place next door, I’m thinking we could throw some great backyard barbecues! We’d split the tab on the booze, I didn’t take you to raise!
So I’m sitting having lunch by the river. The cafe owner is friendly. There is enough shade from the gum trees to keep it cool. An elderly couple is in conversation next to me. You can tell they care about one another. Two friends sit together behind them. behind them is a young mother with two kids. water is calm, the town is buzzing in quiet exchanges. not much is happening, but there is alot happening. People are living. It’s a privilege to be here.
“But in your zeal to stamp out a belief system, you seem to be treading on individuals as well.” – Individuals who place themselves in their own harm’s way, by the very position that they choose to hold.
“He knows why.” – As does anyone who knows you, but I digress. I agree Unk is a chess player, and as such, never makes a move without thinking at least three+ moves ahead. When one accepts his terms, one should brace themselves for a loss.
If we are going to teach ‘creation science’ as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”
— Judith Hayes —
that ‘us vs them’ mentality an attitude that tears this world apart. Im thinking that the notion of cleansing the world from “ignorance” by dismissing people who don’t agree with you, is leaning more towards the radical than Nate is. Guess who else has that sort of attitude and runs with it – every violent nationalist and religious cell that has existed. who is the more extreme – the one who accepts humanity and respects them because of shared humanity, even if they disagree….or the guy who will restrict and belittle a belief they disagree with, even if it means attacking the person verbally. Lets follow these two modes of thinking along….Who out of these two people would be more at risk of getting to a point of hurting someone or bombing a school given enough “justfication”? I’m thinking the second guy.
“He knows why.” – As does anyone who knows you. When one accepts his terms, one should brace themselves for a loss.
Haha!
Contrary to what you believe I was generally civil at all times. 🙂
Oh, I never, ever consider/ed any interaction with unklee as a ”loss”.
For me, as with all such dialogue with an indoctrinated Christian – and make no mistake, it is indoctrination, though such folk will likely vehemently deny it and claim you suffer in a similar fashion – I consider it a learning experience. And I learned quite a lot.
Frustrating on numerous occasions, yes. But this was because I initially harbored the delightful idiocy that fact/truth would triumph over stupidity.
Well, the facts generally don’t change only belief and I was the one who ended up feeling stupid, while unklee, as are all religious people, remain simply ignorant – some willfully.
The best one can hope for is that the ‘lurkers’ are able to discern the truth while following the dialogue.
Like William Lane Craig, unklee is not so naive to believe his arguments will ever convince a non-believer, they are facile, and as cleverly cherry picked as any an soldier on point traversing a minefield.
At best he will reassure himself with more carefully picked stats etc and have the choir nodding in an I-told-you-so fashion.
If every major Jewish religious leader came out and publicly announced the entire Torah was made up and the Pope confessed something similar about the New Testament, every other ”Christian” would probably say: ”Hurrah, Satan has been exposed. It’s a miracle. Come Jesus, come.”
Thanks again for your support and kind words. I appreciate and agree with most of what you say. I recall how when I first came to this blog we rattled each other’s cages a little (I think I was more pushy than you were) and I had to apologise a couple of times, and so, I recall did you. I certainly never took offence, and I don’t think you did either. Once we understood each other, I think we were able to relax a little and no apologies have been necessary for some time now. I appreciate how you have dealt with a christian coming to an ex-christian’s blog and rarely if ever accusing me of anything, but simply and calmly disagreeing.
“This is no longer a historical discussion, it’s a theological discussion (no surprise to anyone).”
Hi Dave, thanks for this. I feel we understand each other reasonably well. As I’ve made clear several times, the consensus of scholars can help us understand the facts, or the closest historical study can get to the facts, if we want to know them. Then we can decide how we respond to these facts – with belief, or scepticism, or agnosticism, or further research, or whatever.
Theology doesn’t count as evidence, they are two different things. But theology can and should be built on evidence, just as atheology should be. My main emphasis here has been to point out how little of the atheology on display here (not including yours and Nate’s and a few others’) is actually built on good evidence. So many of the comments made to me mock or avoid the evidence.
Obviously I disagree with you and Nate, but at least we can talk because you show me you care about evidence.
I re-read Genesis chapter one today. The first time I had read the chapter since my faith crumbled in February this year.
What struck me was that it made prefect sense if I viewed it as an ancient people trying to explain the world as they saw it. This was like an Epiphany to me.
For so many years I have read that chapter with the tortured logic of an apologist. I have struggled to reconcile it with the reality of science. But once free of the need to see in divine inspiration I had the freedom to be able to throw off the blinkers and just see it for what it is.
As an aside, the Biblical Scholar, Peter Enns, has an ongoing series on his blog of what he calls the ‘Ah-ha’ moment. In it he invites various Biblical scholars to outline when they came to the realisation that the traditional view of Biblical inspiration and interpretation could not be sustained.
Well, it seems like the tumult and the shouting has died for a while. For the second time I have to say it seems a little surreal to have so much talking about me. Like Dave, I would be very pleased to see discussion of issues rather than people.
It makes me wonder what is going on. It seems to me like several things.
1. I believe there has been misunderstanding, and sometimes you have assumed I’m saying more than I am. Take NT miracles. I have not said that most scholars believe the miracles occurred. Check back and see. I said that most scholars believe Jesus was known as a healer, some believe he used natural “folk healing”, some that he did genuine miracles and many don’t pass a judgment on that. So I said that the historical evidence for the miracles is good, but the metaphysical issues make it difficult to simply accept the historical evidence. So there is evidence, but each of us will interpret the evidence differently.
2. It seems like some of you find it difficult to cope with the possibility that a christian might believe what they do because they think it is true and believe there is good evidence for this truth. It seems somehow some of you think that since you feel strongly about it, you must assuredly and obviously be right and no-one sensible could possibly think otherwise. And you don’t want to even think about the possibility that it may not be so. And so I must surely be devious, dishonest, have false motives, etc – but equally obviously you couldn’t possibly suffer from the same weaknesses.
I feel if you could just come to terms with the fact that I read a lot, I think a lot, I have well-worked out beliefs, and we just happen to disagree, things could be a lot more pleasant.
Remember, I’m supposed to be the intolerant one, not you, and yet I’ve never said those sorts of things about you. I disagree with you, I point out where my reading indicates you haven’t looked at the evidence, and if I meet a brick wall, I stop. I can cope with you guys without being intolerant or making crazy claims, so maybe you can too?
3. The other thing that seems to aggravate you is my use of scholars as evidence. I’m not sure why, because we are all supposed to be evidence based, aren’t we? And on topics where we are not expert, we surely need to get our facts from those who are. So why haven’t you joined me in learning what the experts say, and if you think I have quoted them in a biased way, provide the evidence for that accusation? Instead, what we see is almost no evidence provided, just assertions. And a covering up of this lack of evidence on your part with explanations of how I have a sly agenda, and I’m such a tricky customer. I’m so devious, I actually quote experts all the time!
It is possible to test this out very simply. So since I have been asked questions and challenged, I’m going to do the same.
#1. Ark, you made a very strong claim that “regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence (or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.” I challenged that statement, and provided references and quotes to show that there was a range of views and a lot of good scholars spread across the spectrum of views. You have not responded. So here’s the challenge. Since you say you believe in evidence and I am avoiding it, show that is the case here. Find references to show that what I said and the references I quoted are wrong. Not just statements from minimalists – because for every one of them I can find one by someone else – but find references that show that no competent scholar holds another view, as your strong statement claimed. That’s the challenge. And since Arch has expressed similar views in the past, why not ask him to join you in your refutation?
#2 Gary, you have been saying a lot of stuff about me, but never really answered the reasons I gave for giving up discussing with you. So here’s a challenge for you. You have said heaps about how harmful christian belief is, “It is evil. Plain and simple.” But you provided no evidence for that statement. You probably think that it is obvious, but can you find good scientific and historical evidence for that statement? Not just an odd rave by someone, but some good meta-studies that summarise the findings of scientists and historians who have studied these things. I believe I can show you overwhelming evidence that your statement is objectively wrong. So there’s the test – are you interested in real solid evidence, or not?
I have answered questions until it became clear there was no point in going further. Are you guys going to answer this challenge with some real evidence, or are you going to laugh it off?
You may feel I have been hard here, in which case I am sorry. But as Nate says, I have been willing to discuss and answer questions from a whole host of atheists. Are you willing to do the same? Thanks.
BTW, I will be away from how for a couple of days, so you have plenty of time to consider. I probably won’t be able to read or respond in that time.
Finding Truth 
Gary, I understand.
I am a she he, happily soon to be married- that’s in a jest.
I wasn’t going to ask we discuss religion in private, though, that I can do here.
Good day
LikeLike
Nate asks, how do you react when someone calls you a fool? I wear sack clothes. I weep then I investigate why they thought me a fool then respond to them.
Gary asks about worldview.
My worldview encompasses both philosophical and methodological naturalism. Is it right? I think so. Could I be wrong? Yes, I have been wrong many times this might not be the first time.
Having said that, however, I think any worldview that allows for the existence of some other world beings like gods and angels is wrong. They have their origin in our ignorant past and continuing to hold on to them is evidence that such a person has not moved very far from that savage past.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And before you run to the nearest mosque, hold it a moment. I think two years or so ago I read a book or articles that question the existence of Mo.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a quote from Josephus or any other Jewish source that says that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles? If so, what do scholars say about their authenticity? In other words, are they thought to be authentic or Christian additions/forgeries to the original text?
LikeLike
Why doesn’t Luke mention any Guards at Jesus’ Tomb?
Matthew is the only Gospel writer who mentions guards being stationed at Jesus’ tomb to prevent the robbery of the body by Jesus’ disciples. Many Christian apologists use Matthew’s claim to say that with guards at the tomb, the only good explanation for the tomb being empty on Sunday morning is that a resurrection had occurred.
But why didn’t any other Gospel writer mention this detail, in particular, Luke, who states he thoroughly researched the accounts about Jesus?
Ex-Christian, John Loftus:
One of the things I say in my revised WIBA book is that since the gospel of Luke does not mention the guards at the tomb, and since he said in the opening that he had investigated everything and swears that his account is accurate, that therefore the author of that gospel disputes the whole story, probably for the same reasons you shared. That’s one gospel denying the claims of an earlier one.
…we already know Luke had access to Matthew’s gospel because he repeats it almost word for word in the Greek in a few pericopes. The dependency of later gospels upon previous ones is accepted by a majority of Christian scholars. Luke knew the story of the guards at the tomb and rejected it!
…Interesting how the centurion at Jesus’ crucifiction (Matt 27:54 – Truly this was the Son of God) could figure out who Jesus was, but the soliders at the tomb who saw angels coming down from the sky etc just take a bribe and are on their way.
I guess you never send a common solider to do a centurion’s job!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m all for moving past the discussion about how to have a discussion so count me in 🙂
I’m agnostic about our origins and any possible deities existing so basically my worldview is “I don’t know.” Yes, I do feel as though this is an honest and correct worldview. Could I be wrong? Sure! Perhaps I actually KNOW the answers to the greatest mysteries of all time and am somehow suppressing that knowledge and tricking myself into thinking that I don’t know. Stranger things have happened.
Only if my friend Gary gets a hold of them 🙂 J/K!!
My answer is no, but I do think we need to be on the lookout for people who think the world is going to end soon and will pretty much trash the planet if allowed to do so. It’s not so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence for neglect.
Now I have a question for Gary: Do you have a deconversion story posted online anywhere that you would be willing to share?
LikeLike
“The New Testament miracles need to first be examined by seeing what the scholars write about them, as I have already mentioned. – Sorry, Dave (and Nate) – I’m with Gary. The only “scholars” whose testimony I will accept are those who provide eye-witness testimony. Did you see it? If not, keep your opinions to yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_M-ghG5GpqTemIyNlU3YlIwTnc/edit?usp=docslist_api
Hope this works. I’m on my tablet and not sure how to do things all that well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not Gay here, Paulie, but you want to buy a place next door, I’m thinking we could throw some great backyard barbecues! We’d split the tab on the booze, I didn’t take you to raise!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cricket – is that a real game?
LikeLike
So I’m sitting having lunch by the river. The cafe owner is friendly. There is enough shade from the gum trees to keep it cool. An elderly couple is in conversation next to me. You can tell they care about one another. Two friends sit together behind them. behind them is a young mother with two kids. water is calm, the town is buzzing in quiet exchanges. not much is happening, but there is alot happening. People are living. It’s a privilege to be here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave,
I’ve just tried three times to post a link to my deconversion story, but for some reason the link won’t post.
LikeLike
“But in your zeal to stamp out a belief system, you seem to be treading on individuals as well.” – Individuals who place themselves in their own harm’s way, by the very position that they choose to hold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you want to read it, do a google search:
My Deconversion Story in a Nutshell, Escaping Christian Fundamentalism
LikeLike
I’m beginning to sense, Nate, that you are not as far removed from religion as you may think you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“He knows why.” – As does anyone who knows you, but I digress. I agree Unk is a chess player, and as such, never makes a move without thinking at least three+ moves ahead. When one accepts his terms, one should brace themselves for a loss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arch,
that ‘us vs them’ mentality an attitude that tears this world apart. Im thinking that the notion of cleansing the world from “ignorance” by dismissing people who don’t agree with you, is leaning more towards the radical than Nate is. Guess who else has that sort of attitude and runs with it – every violent nationalist and religious cell that has existed. who is the more extreme – the one who accepts humanity and respects them because of shared humanity, even if they disagree….or the guy who will restrict and belittle a belief they disagree with, even if it means attacking the person verbally. Lets follow these two modes of thinking along….Who out of these two people would be more at risk of getting to a point of hurting someone or bombing a school given enough “justfication”? I’m thinking the second guy.
LikeLike
@Arch.
Haha!
Contrary to what you believe I was generally civil at all times. 🙂
Oh, I never, ever consider/ed any interaction with unklee as a ”loss”.
For me, as with all such dialogue with an indoctrinated Christian – and make no mistake, it is indoctrination, though such folk will likely vehemently deny it and claim you suffer in a similar fashion – I consider it a learning experience. And I learned quite a lot.
Frustrating on numerous occasions, yes. But this was because I initially harbored the delightful idiocy that fact/truth would triumph over stupidity.
Well, the facts generally don’t change only belief and I was the one who ended up feeling stupid, while unklee, as are all religious people, remain simply ignorant – some willfully.
The best one can hope for is that the ‘lurkers’ are able to discern the truth while following the dialogue.
Like William Lane Craig, unklee is not so naive to believe his arguments will ever convince a non-believer, they are facile, and as cleverly cherry picked as any an soldier on point traversing a minefield.
At best he will reassure himself with more carefully picked stats etc and have the choir nodding in an I-told-you-so fashion.
If every major Jewish religious leader came out and publicly announced the entire Torah was made up and the Pope confessed something similar about the New Testament, every other ”Christian” would probably say: ”Hurrah, Satan has been exposed. It’s a miracle. Come Jesus, come.”
LikeLike
Arch,
In saying that, I’m not suggesting that your going to blow up a school 🙂
Hope your going well for you, it’s been awhile
LikeLike
Meant to write: hope things are going well for you*
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
Thanks again for your support and kind words. I appreciate and agree with most of what you say. I recall how when I first came to this blog we rattled each other’s cages a little (I think I was more pushy than you were) and I had to apologise a couple of times, and so, I recall did you. I certainly never took offence, and I don’t think you did either. Once we understood each other, I think we were able to relax a little and no apologies have been necessary for some time now. I appreciate how you have dealt with a christian coming to an ex-christian’s blog and rarely if ever accusing me of anything, but simply and calmly disagreeing.
Thanks to William and Dave too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“This is no longer a historical discussion, it’s a theological discussion (no surprise to anyone).”
Hi Dave, thanks for this. I feel we understand each other reasonably well. As I’ve made clear several times, the consensus of scholars can help us understand the facts, or the closest historical study can get to the facts, if we want to know them. Then we can decide how we respond to these facts – with belief, or scepticism, or agnosticism, or further research, or whatever.
Theology doesn’t count as evidence, they are two different things. But theology can and should be built on evidence, just as atheology should be. My main emphasis here has been to point out how little of the atheology on display here (not including yours and Nate’s and a few others’) is actually built on good evidence. So many of the comments made to me mock or avoid the evidence.
Obviously I disagree with you and Nate, but at least we can talk because you show me you care about evidence.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I re-read Genesis chapter one today. The first time I had read the chapter since my faith crumbled in February this year.
What struck me was that it made prefect sense if I viewed it as an ancient people trying to explain the world as they saw it. This was like an Epiphany to me.
For so many years I have read that chapter with the tortured logic of an apologist. I have struggled to reconcile it with the reality of science. But once free of the need to see in divine inspiration I had the freedom to be able to throw off the blinkers and just see it for what it is.
As an aside, the Biblical Scholar, Peter Enns, has an ongoing series on his blog of what he calls the ‘Ah-ha’ moment. In it he invites various Biblical scholars to outline when they came to the realisation that the traditional view of Biblical inspiration and interpretation could not be sustained.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, it seems like the tumult and the shouting has died for a while. For the second time I have to say it seems a little surreal to have so much talking about me. Like Dave, I would be very pleased to see discussion of issues rather than people.
It makes me wonder what is going on. It seems to me like several things.
1. I believe there has been misunderstanding, and sometimes you have assumed I’m saying more than I am. Take NT miracles. I have not said that most scholars believe the miracles occurred. Check back and see. I said that most scholars believe Jesus was known as a healer, some believe he used natural “folk healing”, some that he did genuine miracles and many don’t pass a judgment on that. So I said that the historical evidence for the miracles is good, but the metaphysical issues make it difficult to simply accept the historical evidence. So there is evidence, but each of us will interpret the evidence differently.
2. It seems like some of you find it difficult to cope with the possibility that a christian might believe what they do because they think it is true and believe there is good evidence for this truth. It seems somehow some of you think that since you feel strongly about it, you must assuredly and obviously be right and no-one sensible could possibly think otherwise. And you don’t want to even think about the possibility that it may not be so. And so I must surely be devious, dishonest, have false motives, etc – but equally obviously you couldn’t possibly suffer from the same weaknesses.
I feel if you could just come to terms with the fact that I read a lot, I think a lot, I have well-worked out beliefs, and we just happen to disagree, things could be a lot more pleasant.
Remember, I’m supposed to be the intolerant one, not you, and yet I’ve never said those sorts of things about you. I disagree with you, I point out where my reading indicates you haven’t looked at the evidence, and if I meet a brick wall, I stop. I can cope with you guys without being intolerant or making crazy claims, so maybe you can too?
3. The other thing that seems to aggravate you is my use of scholars as evidence. I’m not sure why, because we are all supposed to be evidence based, aren’t we? And on topics where we are not expert, we surely need to get our facts from those who are. So why haven’t you joined me in learning what the experts say, and if you think I have quoted them in a biased way, provide the evidence for that accusation? Instead, what we see is almost no evidence provided, just assertions. And a covering up of this lack of evidence on your part with explanations of how I have a sly agenda, and I’m such a tricky customer. I’m so devious, I actually quote experts all the time!
It is possible to test this out very simply. So since I have been asked questions and challenged, I’m going to do the same.
#1. Ark, you made a very strong claim that “regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence (or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.” I challenged that statement, and provided references and quotes to show that there was a range of views and a lot of good scholars spread across the spectrum of views. You have not responded. So here’s the challenge. Since you say you believe in evidence and I am avoiding it, show that is the case here. Find references to show that what I said and the references I quoted are wrong. Not just statements from minimalists – because for every one of them I can find one by someone else – but find references that show that no competent scholar holds another view, as your strong statement claimed. That’s the challenge. And since Arch has expressed similar views in the past, why not ask him to join you in your refutation?
#2 Gary, you have been saying a lot of stuff about me, but never really answered the reasons I gave for giving up discussing with you. So here’s a challenge for you. You have said heaps about how harmful christian belief is, “It is evil. Plain and simple.” But you provided no evidence for that statement. You probably think that it is obvious, but can you find good scientific and historical evidence for that statement? Not just an odd rave by someone, but some good meta-studies that summarise the findings of scientists and historians who have studied these things. I believe I can show you overwhelming evidence that your statement is objectively wrong. So there’s the test – are you interested in real solid evidence, or not?
I have answered questions until it became clear there was no point in going further. Are you guys going to answer this challenge with some real evidence, or are you going to laugh it off?
You may feel I have been hard here, in which case I am sorry. But as Nate says, I have been willing to discuss and answer questions from a whole host of atheists. Are you willing to do the same? Thanks.
BTW, I will be away from how for a couple of days, so you have plenty of time to consider. I probably won’t be able to read or respond in that time.
LikeLiked by 1 person