“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
In the midst of his rhetoric, notice the claim God is "unjust." While I have dealt with such an issue here and here, one wonders upon what ground Dawkins alleges God is unjust and, furthermore, why - even if we concede his vitriolic caricatures accurately depict God's character - he should give two hoots. Is there a particular reason Dawkins or any other atheist should find God morally repulsive? Such an answer requires a logical account of one's own moral perception. But this is an insoluble problem for Dawkins, for, as Hume notes in his A Treatise of Human Nature:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not , I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."
Dawkins must answer in what manner one may come to believe a given action should or should not be committed. The problem Dawkins faces is that if his secular world-view is correct, he cannot traverse from "is" to "ought" logically.
A common Darwinian reply to the question "from whence did moral perceptions derive?" is that historically, some group of people learned that through altruism or reciprocity, they acheived a certain, desireable goal: e.g. survival. This is an is answer. One person's (or, by extrapolation, muliple people's) likes and dislikes, however, does not constitute as a logical reason for the universalizing of those likes and dislikes. That one person enjoys his life does not suffice as a logical reason that all people should live. In fact, why should an individual himself do what he desires? It becomes quickly evident that the historical, Darwinian is answer, even if it were true, fails to account for how moral perceptions are rational. And this is generalizable for other secular philosophies as well.
Providentially, as Scripture is the ground of knowledge, Christians are equipped with an answer to the is-ought dilemma. Because the Bible is true, the should statements found in the Bible are also true. It is quite logical, then, for a Christian to affirm shoulds, and it is quite logical, without putting forth any further effort, to require men like Dawkins to furnish the proof with which they are burdened when they make such absurd statements as seen above.
32 comments:
I'm glad that you noted that the term “unjust” is of a different nature from the rest of Dawkins' quote. Dawkins' mistake here was to speak of God in terms of justice, instead of terms of compassion and rationality. I don't see how the owner of something can charged with unjust treatment of his own property. (The author of Genesis apparently disagrees, cf. Genesis 18:25.)
But I also do not see why one cannot logically traverse from “is” to “ought” with a secular worldview. Yes, one person's likes and dislikes is an “is” answer. Yes, the goal is an “is,” but the value attached to it produces “oughts.” The person will think that others ought to do things that promote and correspond to his goal. This is where the universalizing comes in. He will think that all people whose lives affect his own should share his goal, because he thinks the facts support his goal.
- scripturesearcher from the FFF
Thanks for your comment.
With regards to Genesis 18:25, you may be interested in this blog post:
http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-exegesis-of-romans-9.html
Recall from our discussion on God's ownership that God's justice extends beyond His sovereignty. God is not just because He is sovereign, per se. He is just because He upholds His honor, glory, and name. The way in which He does this is by exercising His will unconditioned on anything. That's why Romans 9:15 functions as an argument against the claim God is unjust due to 9:11-13 (i.e. an argument for human sovereignty over against His sovereignty).
TO deny Himself, however, is impossible (2 Timothy 2:13). For God to act contrary to His glory, name, and honor would mean He would cease to be God. When an author of Scripture ticks off things God cannot do, then, he is emphasizing those things which would, if God did them, not manifest His glory, honor, or name. Genesis 18:25 is one of those things, as is the fact God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
With regards to your more pertinent point, what you say may be historically true - "The person will think that others ought to do things that promote and correspond to his goal" - but that one thinks that another ought to do a thing because he likes it is not a justification of the traverse from "is" to "ought." The point at which one says, for example, "I like this, so I ought to like it" is the point at which the non sequitur occurs.
As I said on the FFF, I always understood Romans 9:14-15 as referring to God's ownership (which, I guess, is the same as His sovreignty). John Piper (being unfamiliar with his work, I'm assuming you are correctly understanding his viewpoint) offers no proof from the verses themselves that they refer to God's obligation (I always wondered why God has obligations) to uphold His glory, instead of simply referring to His sovreignty.
Piper cites Roman 3:25-26 as evidence Romans 9:14-15 is speaking of more than God's sovreignty. These verses are, I think, the most concise statement of the doctrine of the Atonement in the NT, a doctrine which says that God has an obligation punish sin. I don't see any reason behind Piper's assertion that God must punish sin to uphold the “infinite worth of His glory.” Who is he to determine what God can and cannot do to uphold His glory? How is any human to know this? Why does the Bible even speak in such terms? How are we to know that, e.g., God not be upholding His glory if He were to destroy twenty or thirty righteous people in Sodom?
I don't understand your last paragraph. Why can't someone say “Since I like this (e.g., a prosperous, peaceful society), you should like it too”?
- scripturesearcher
“As I said on the FFF, I always understood Romans 9:14-15 as referring to God's ownership (which, I guess, is the same as His sovreignty). John Piper (being unfamiliar with his work, I'm assuming you are correctly understanding his viewpoint) offers no proof from the verses themselves that they refer to God's obligation to uphold His glory”
If you’ve never read his work, how do you know what proof he does or doesn’t offer? His work is widely regarded as an exegetical masterpiece. Also, read Exodus 33:19 (the passage Paul cites in Romans 9:15) in context, particularly verses 18 and 22. God’s glory is manifested when God acts unconditioned on men’s wills. That’s how Paul transitions from 9:15 to 9:16 validly.
“Piper cites Roman 3:25-26 as evidence Romans 9:14-15 is speaking of more than God's sovreignty.”
No, Piper cites 3:25-26 as support that in the context of his letter to the Romans, Paul writes consistently with the interpretation of Romans 9 I have provided. God would act unjustly if He allowed His glory to be scorned (i.e. delaying punishment on people who break His laws). How is that consistent with YOUR interpretation of God’s righteousness being dependent solely on His sovereignty?
“I don't see any reason behind Piper's assertion that God must punish sin to uphold the “infinite worth of His glory.””
Then the burden of proof is on you to explain why God would be unjust if He didn’t punish sin.
“Who is he to determine what God can and cannot do to uphold His glory?”
What are you talking about? Piper is exegeting; he’s taking God’s revelation at face value. He’s determining what God has revealed.
“Why does the Bible even speak in such terms?”
So that we can know God, obviously. That’s the purpose of revelation.
“How are we to know that, e.g., God not be upholding His glory if He were to destroy twenty or thirty righteous people in Sodom?”
Rephrase the question in a complete sentence, please.
“I don't understand your last paragraph. Why can't someone say “Since I like this (e.g., a prosperous, peaceful society), you should like it too”?”
You can say that. But it’s not a valid argument.
Premise: I like this.
Conclusion: You should like this.
The conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premise. It’s not a deduction, it’s a non sequitur. It’s quite plain.
“If you’ve never read his work, how do you know what proof he does or doesn’t offer?”
I was assuming you would have mentioned it if Piper had given any. And you are right that Piper was not using Romans 3:25-26 as evidence of his interpretation; apparently Piper thought he had already proved it and was referring to Romans 3:25-26 to “assess the validity of” his interpretation. I don't think he had already proved, and I think those verses function better as evidence than anything he used.
“God would act unjustly if He allowed His glory to be scorned (i.e. delaying punishment on people who break His laws). How is that consistent with YOUR interpretation of God’s righteousness being dependent solely on His sovereignty?”
I never said my interpretation was consistent with Romans 3:25-26, but I don't see any reason it's not consistent with Romans 9:13-15. Regarding Piper's interpretation of Romans 3:25-26, I think he's going beyond the language used in the verses to think they have anything to do with God's glory. Since I never said those verses make sense, I don't see why the burden of proof is on me to provide a better interpretation of them than Piper's. Again, I ask: Why does the Bible speak in terms of righteousness/goodness/justice, if we have no way of verifying/falsifying them; and, hence, no way to use them to know God?
“Rephrase the question in a complete sentence, please.”
I don't know what happened; I meant there to be a verb in there. I'll try again: “How are we to know that, e.g., God would not be upholding His glory if He were to destroy twenty or thirty righteous people in Sodom?
I'll have to think over that last part some more.
“God would act unjustly if He allowed His glory to be scorned (i.e. delaying punishment on people who break His laws). How is that consistent with YOUR interpretation of God’s righteousness being dependent solely on His sovereignty?”
“I never said my interpretation was consistent with Romans 3:25-26...”
The point is that if you can’t explain how God’s justice is based solely on His sovereignty in every context in which it is brought into question (in this case, Romans 3:25-26), then your interpretation is false even in those contexts in which it appears to be satisfactory. And your interpretation isn’t even satisfactory in the context of Romans 9:13-15, as you haven’t explained the relevance of Paul’s citation of Exodus 33:19 (at least not insofar as you’ve ignored the context, i.e. vss. 15-20).
“Regarding Piper's interpretation of Romans 3:25-26, I think he's going beyond the language used in the verses to think they have anything to do with God's glory. Since I never said those verses make sense, I don't see why the burden of proof is on me to provide a better interpretation of them than Piper's.”
See the above. You’re just ignoring every context of God’s justice which doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived interpretation. See the problem?
“Again, I ask: Why does the Bible speak in terms of righteousness/goodness/justice, if we have no way of verifying/falsifying them; and, hence, no way to use them to know God?”
I don’t see that you’ve asked this question before, but now that you have, I’m not sure I understand your difficulty. The question seems to imply that we don’t have any way to verify interpretations, which is a presupposition I reject in light of Piper’s clear exegesis (specifically) and the perspicuity of Scripture (generally).
“How are we to know that, e.g., God would not be upholding His glory if He were to destroy twenty or thirty righteous people in Sodom?”
To punish men who have upheld His glory would be a scorning of His glory; it would imply God broke the covenant (the so-called “covenant of works”) He made with Abraham.
“And your interpretation isn’t even satisfactory in the context of Romans 9:13-15, as you haven’t explained the relevance of Paul’s citation of Exodus 33:19 (at least not insofar as you’ve ignored the context, i.e. vss. 15-20).”
Honestly, I reread both passages after I read your response, and I still don't see any statement that isn't most likely referring to God's sovereignty.
“The point is that if you can’t explain how God’s justice is based solely on His sovereignty in every context in which it is brought into question (in this case, Romans 3:25-26), then your interpretation is false even in those contexts in which it appears to be satisfactory.”
This is exactly why I treated Romans 3:25-26 as evidence of John Piper's interpretation of Romans 9:13-15. Even if the author of Romans is referring here to an obligation God has to uphold His glory, he doesn't explicitly say this, nor does he give us any way to verify when God is or isn't upholding His glory.
“To punish men who have upheld His glory would be a scorning of His glory; it would imply God broke the covenant (the so-called “covenant of works”) He made with Abraham.”
What are you talking about here?
“Providentially, as Scripture is the ground of knowledge, Christians are equipped with an answer to the is-ought dilemma. Because the Bible is true, the should statements found in the Bible are also true.”
So “if God likes it, we should like it too” is a logical statement?
- ss
“Honestly, I reread both passages after I read your response, and I still don't see any statement that isn't most likely referring to God's sovereignty.”
Moses asks God to show him His glory. God’s response is:
“I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
God’s glory is revealed in the proclamation of His name and unconditioned nature of His acts. Why is this relevant to the context of Romans 9:13-15, given that in question is God’s righteousness? Because the upholding of God’s glory is that upon which God’s righteousness is predicated!
“This is exactly why I treated Romans 3:25-26 as evidence of John Piper's interpretation of Romans 9:13-15. Even if the author of Romans is referring here to an obligation God has to uphold His glory, he doesn't explicitly say this, nor does he give us any way to verify when God is or isn't upholding His glory.”
Yes he does: “He did this to demonstrate His justice” – what did God do? He presented Christ as propitiation. Why was this necessary to demonstrate His justice? “Because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Why is this relevant to God’s righteousness if His righteousness is only contingent on God’s sovereignty? You can’t answer that. I can.
“What are you talking about here?”
God makes various covenants with men throughout history. An example of an unjust, sovereign God would be for God to counterfactually have broken a covenant He made.
“So “if God likes it, we should like it too” is a logical statement?”
No; “if the Bible is true, then the ‘should’ statements within the Bible are true” is a logically valid statement.
“Why is this relevant to the context of Romans 9:13-15, given that in question is God’s righteousness? Because the upholding of God’s glory is that upon which God’s righteousness is predicated!”
Not necessarily. Romans 9:13-15 might be saying that the charge of unrighteousness doesn't apply due to God's rightful ownership/sovereignty.
“Yes he does: “He did this to demonstrate His justice” – what did God do? He presented Christ as propitiation. Why was this necessary to demonstrate His justice? “Because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Why is this relevant to God’s righteousness if His righteousness is only contingent on God’s sovereignty? You can’t answer that. I can.”
As I've been saying, I know that Romans 3:25-26 teach that God's righteousness is contingent on something more than His sovereignty, but the verses don't say what, not do Romans 9:13-15 tell us. Why would leaving sins unpunished be unjust? Why would leaving sins unpunished mean God isn't upholding His glory?
“God makes various covenants with men throughout history.”
Yes, but what covenant to Abraham are you specifically referring to?
“No; “if the Bible is true, then the ‘should’ statements within the Bible are true” is a logically valid statement.”
How does God logically traverse from “is” to “ought”?
- ss
”Not necessarily. Romans 9:13-15 might be saying that the charge of unrighteousness doesn't apply due to God's rightful ownership/sovereignty.”
That would imply God’s righteousness merely consists in the exercise of His sovereignty, which is incompatible with texts like Romans 3:25-26. Also, it ignores the original context of Paul’s citation. You’re simply repeating yourself.
”As I've been saying, I know that Romans 3:25-26 teach that God's righteousness is contingent on something more than His sovereignty, but the verses don't say what not do Romans 9:13-15 tell us.”
You aren’t being coherent in the last part, and the verses do indeed tell us on what God’s justice is coherent. That was the whole point of the quote you just cited: to show that upon which God’s righteousness depends. You’re attempt to separate Exodus 33:19/Romans 9:15 from the context of Exodus 33:15-20 backfires. Instead, you should recognize that for God to forbear punishing sins without propitiation would be unjust because such would be a failure to uphold His glory, honor, and name. He would be allowing men to scorn His glory with impunity. That’s why leaving sins unpunished would be unjust. That’s why leaving sins unpunished means God isn't upholding His glory.
”Yes, but what covenant to Abraham are you specifically referring to?”
That should read “Adam” (cf. Hosea 6:7).
”How does God logically traverse from “is” to “ought”?”
Your question implies God is subject to some abstract, moral law. He is not. He decrees what is good in accordance with His character.
“That would imply God’s righteousness merely consists in the exercise of His sovereignty, which is incompatible with texts like Romans 3:25-26.”
Yes, I just said that.
“You’re simply repeating yourself.”
I think we're both repeating ourselves.
“You aren’t being coherent in the last part”
Well, regarding the spelling error, there was supposed to be a “nor” where the “not” is.
“Instead, you should recognize that for God to forbear punishing sins without propitiation would be unjust BECAUSE [emphasis added] such would be a failure to uphold His glory, honor, and name.”
Why should I recognize that, if I don't understand the passages as saying that?
“To punish men who have upheld His glory would be a scorning of His glory; it would imply God broke the covenant (the so-called “covenant of works”) He made with... Adam (cf. Hosea 6:7).”
This reference to a covenant that Adam transgressed doesn't even say what Adam's obligations were under this covenant, let alone say what God's oblgations were.
"Your question implies God is subject to some abstract, moral law. He is not. He decrees what is good in accordance with His character."
I don't know what you mean. If there's a chasm between "is" statements and "ought" statements that humans cannot logically travese, then how can we know God's "ought" statements are true, just because His "is" statements are?
- ss
“Yes, I just said that.”
So then if merely referencing God’s sovereignty wouldn’t constitute as a satisfactory answer in one context, it wouldn’t in another.
”Why should I recognize that, if I don't understand the passages as saying that?”
Why don’t you understand that? What about my interpretation is unclear?
”This reference to a covenant that Adam transgressed doesn't even say what Adam's obligations were under this covenant, let alone say what God's oblgations were.”
You only need to read Genesis 1-2 to know that. Adam covenanted with God not to disobey Him with respect to eating the fruit of the tree. Adam disobeyed; he broke the covenant of works. Had Adam counterfactually subdued the earth and filled it, named the beasts &c., he would have satisfied the conditions of the covenant. Now, however, we need a Savior, one who fulfills that covenant for us as well as bore the punishment on behalf of us. That’s why Christ had to live righteously as well as die for us. God reckons Christ’s active/passive obedience as having been satisfied to those who believe in Him. If God forbears punishment on rebels without propitiation, He has failed to uphold the covenant, viz. Genesis 2:17.
”I don't know what you mean. If there's a chasm between "is" statements and "ought" statements that humans cannot logically traverse, then how can we know God's "ought" statements are true, just because His "is" statements are?”
I don’t understand the question. Look at it this way:
Premise 1: The Bible is God’s word.
Premise 2: God’s word is true.
Premise 3: Some statements in God’s word are ought statements.
From P1, P2, and P3, it follows ought statement God has spoken in the Bible are true.
I did read through Genesis 2 and 3. I didn't see any covenant. Adam would have to agree to something for there to be a covenant, right? I especially don't see a covenant that places any obligations on God. You pointed to Genesis 2:16-17, which reads: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
If this is a covenant, why aren't there obligations places on both sides? How can God possibly break this "covenant"?
- ss
What are the implications of saying an "ought" statement is true?
- ss
“I did read through Genesis 2 and 3. I didn't see any covenant. Adam would have to agree to something for there to be a covenant, right?”
No, not at all. The Suzerain is under no obligation to entertain the Vassals opinion. God didn’t wait for the Israelite’s opinions when He wrote the 10 commandments, either.
“If this is a covenant, why aren't there obligations places on both sides? How can God possibly break this "covenant"?”
If God tells Adam that He will surely die, and Adam does not die, God has failed to follow through on His statement. He would have lied, would have denied Himself, and neither are possible. For God to do that would require God to cease to be Himself. That’s how God would break a covenant. As the author of Hebrews says:
“When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself… Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.”
God’s promise to uphold the conditions and stipulations of the covenant He makes with men is the means by which we He could counter-factually break the covenant and, by extension, how we know God could be unjust.
"God didn’t wait for the Israelite’s opinions when He wrote the 10 commandments, either."
You're right. I was forgetting how the word "covenant" is used in the Bible.
"If God tells Adam that He will surely die, and Adam does not die, God has failed to follow through on His statement."
I always thought the verse was saying that dying would be the natural consequence of (as opposed to the penalty for) eating of the tree. But if Adam didn't die, God obviously would have broken His word. What does this have to do with not punishing those who have upheld God's glory?
What does it mean to say an "ought" statement is true?
“…if Adam didn't die, God obviously would have broken His word. What does this have to do with not punishing those who have upheld God's glory?”
Is the relation not prima facie obvious to you? Adam’s breaking of the covenant means the punishment for Adam’s sin must be enacted. For Adam not to have been punished would mean God has broken His word. The relation to Romans 3:25-26 is that God’s forbearance of punishment of sins (which by definition refers to scorning God’s glory) could imply He has broken His word. He would be unjust for having broken His word, having allowed one to sin with impunity. That’s why Christ’s death was necessary: it propitiated God’s wrath and vindicated His justice by vindicating His word. He did punish our sins – by punishing Christ, to whom our sin was imputed and from whom we access righteousness whereby we are justified (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). God’s righteousness is predicated on upholding His glory by “not denying Himself,” by upholding His word (which was given in the first place to uphold His glory).
”What does it mean to say an "ought" statement is true?”
The same thing it means for an is-statement to be true: for a statement to be the case, for a statement to accord with the nature of reality. So the statement “one ought to not murder” means “it is the case that one ought not to murder” or “that one ought not to murder accords with the nature of reality.”
"He would be unjust for having broken His word, having allowed one to sin with impunity."
I don't see how you can take Genesis 2:17 and apply it to everyone. And even if it said that God had an obligation to punish all sinners, that still wouldn't mean that God had an obligation not to punish righteous people.
”What does it mean to say an "ought" statement is true?”
"The same thing it means for an is-statement to be true: for a statement to be the case, for a statement to accord with the nature of reality. So the statement 'one ought to not murder' means 'it is the case that one ought not to murder' or 'that one ought not to murder accords with the nature of reality.'"
For an ought-statement to correspond with reality would mean that someone's likes have already been universalized, would it not?
“I don't see how you can take Genesis 2:17 and apply it to everyone. And even if it said that God had an obligation to punish all sinners, that still wouldn't mean that God had an obligation not to punish righteous people.”
I don’t apply Genesis 2:17 to everyone. It’s an example of why Romans 3:25-26 (which does apply to everyone) states what it does.
God’s obligation not to punish the righteous is for the same reason as why God’s obligated to punish sinners; otherwise, He breaks His word. What did God promise to the covenant keepers of the 10 commandments, for example (Exodus 20:5-6)?
”For an ought-statement to correspond with reality would mean that someone's likes have already been universalized, would it not?”
I’m not sure that follows. You’d have to expound on your reasoning. What my point is, however, is that the premise “the Bible is the case” leads to the conclusion “the ought statements within the Bible are the case.”
"I don’t apply Genesis 2:17 to everyone. It’s an example of why Romans 3:25-26 (which does apply to everyone) states what it does."
How would Abraham know, in Genesis 18, about something God wouldn't reveal until the New Testament? Or is this revealed in some other verse before then?
"I’m not sure that follows. You’d have to expound on your reasoning."
What does "ought" mean if it doesn't mean one should act according to another's likes/preferences/will?
“How would Abraham know, in Genesis 18, about something God wouldn't reveal until the New Testament? Or is this revealed in some other verse before then?”
Why does it matter if the Old Testament contains how Abraham knew, so long as he knew and such is consistent with latter revelation to us? God could certainly have revealed His character to Abraham by other means than which has been revealed to us in Scripture. In fact, such is implied when we see the adjectives Abraham uses to describe God (cf. Genesis 15 - “sovereign”).
”What does "ought" mean if it doesn't mean one should act according to another's likes/preferences/will?”
I see. Then yes, ”For an ought-statement to correspond with reality would mean that someone's likes have already been universalized;” namely, God’s will.
"Then yes"
If God can universalize His will, why can't others?
- ss
"If God can universalize His will, why can't others?"
Others can. But the comparison is disanalogous - there is no epistemic foundation others have on which to base their moral claims.
What epistemic foundation does God have that others don't?
- ss
He's the cause of all things.
What does causation have to do with this?
- ss
"What does causation have to do with this?"
It has to do with the basis of God's omniscience, which has to do with one's epistemic foundation:
http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/short-theistic-argument-worth.html
And what does omniscience have to do with universalizing one's will?
"And what does omniscience have to do with universalizing one's will?"
You are repeating the same question I answered:
//...there is no epistemic foundation others have on which to base their moral claims.//
The implication is obvious: God knows that which is moral because He is omniscient.
I'm comfused. Is morality the universalizing of God's will or some other thing that God knows about through His omniscience?
- ss
Insofar as His omniscience is grounded in His sovereignty, yes.
Well, I think we just about covered everything we were talking about. I very much appreciate your responses.
- ss
Post a Comment