Why Can’t Atheists Read Genesis Like Other Historical Texts?

I firmly believe that if the Bible were not the Bible, and if atheists did not have so much contact with fundamentalist Christians who take a literalist view of the bible (or, conversely, liberal Christians who take a far more allegorical view of the bible), that the books of the Bible would be read with much more care and study. But as it is, many atheists seem to fall into the camp of treating the bible only through a modern lens.

Pope Pius XII discussed reading and understanding the early texts of the Bible:

What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

I tried to make this point in this post here, although my attempt was admittedly feeble and lacked depth. I added on a video from Fr. Baron who does a much better job describing the “ham handed approach” atheists often take towards these ancient texts. That video is below (and highly recommended):

It is in light of this that I easily get pulled into discussions on the Bible when I see tweets like this:


Ok, so let’s ignore the obvious fact that the Genesis account never says that Adam and Eve had just 2 sons (poor Seth, always the forgotten one).  Let’s also ignore the fact that Gen 5:4 explicitly says that Adam had “sons and daughters”@prophetAtheist, a person who I consider to be one of the good guys on Twitter (and who has shown me just how clumsy I can be in debate), more explicitly pointed out what @mattwaggy14 was trying to say:

What baffled me here was why the assumption was that Adam and Eve didn’t have any daughters.

This reply actually made me stop for a minute: was he actually advocating for more than a literalist reading of Genesis? It is one thing to argue that Genesis should be read in a literalist fashion (although that is, as Fr. Baron states, “a ham-handed approach”), but to imply that if Genesis omitted something that therefore we should believe it didn’t occur?

The possibilities of a reductio ad absurdum argument here are just too plentiful. Do we believe that Adam and Eve went to the bathroom? Never says so in Genesis. We don’t have an account of Eve dying – is she supposedly immortal according to Genesis?

I have a certain affinity for atheists. I respect their call to logic and reason and using the human intellect, but, on the whole, their approach to ancient texts like Genesis is thoroughly clumsy and not thought out. In discussing these early texts with a few different atheists, and in viewing countless other conversations and opinions, most atheists seem to approach these texts through the prism of modern expectations. There is little to no effort whatsoever to understand the context, the philology, common literary forms of the day, culture, etc.

Atheists seem to want to put Genesis, and those who believe it to be the word of God, into two buckets: “literalist reading” and “allegorical” reading (akin to legend). What they dismiss is the literal (not literalist) reading that accounts for the style of historical writing. From Catholic.com:

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

This doesn’t seem so hard to accept and understand. In academics we frequently cite the period, the civilization, the culture, the philology and cultural norms to understand texts, especially when those texts are more foreign to our modern way of writing and doing things. Why can’t we do these with the ancient texts of Genesis?  Keep in mind that Pope Pius XII advocates for more than just context and philology. Why can’t we use that reason, logic, and critical thinking to understand that the texts deserve, at a minimum, a fair reading before they are dismissed as pure fraud?

And just in case you didn’t click on that link above, I would recommend reading this on Catholic.com. Much better stated than I could ever hope to say.


21 thoughts on “Why Can’t Atheists Read Genesis Like Other Historical Texts?

  1. “It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. ”


    Historical record tells us that Julius Caesar was descended from the goddess Venus. And yet one can easily dismiss that as legend, despite the face that Caesar was real.

    I read all historical documents equally. And I don’t believe the supernatural claims in any of them without evidence beyond the written.

  2. By your logic, I should take the Táin Bó Cúailnge as a historical record of my people. Sure, it deals with real places in Ireland, and there are some practises mentioned that have historical basis, and all the prophecies given are fulfilled later on in the narrative. But the fact remains that reams of scientific and historical evidence show that the Tain is a collection of tales that give us a glimpse into the world of our ancestors. Nothing more. I love the Tain as part of my culture and study it as part of my people’s history, but I don’t go around telling people that I’m a direct descendent of the goddess Danu or that the Giant’s Causeway was actually built by giants.

    No atheist has a problem with honest study of a historical document, but if you insist on me taking you at face value when you say I’m the descendent of Japheth son of Noah, I’ll expect you to do the same when I tell you I’m actually a descendent of Queen Maebh and her horse.

    • First off, thank you for a thoughtful reply. 🙂 I was beginning to lose my faith in atheists (<– see what I did right there?)

      "No atheist has a problem with honest study of a historical document". Unfortunately my experience has been different. I know my experience is not representative of the entire atheist population and I hope people do not think I believe all atheists come with this mindset. That is part of the reason for my post – I respect the generic atheist appeal to reason and critical thinking. When I see that being blatantly ignored and carelessly handled (like the above example) I see individuals doing atheism in general a disservice.

      Regarding pulling out what is factual and what requires further understanding, my goal isn't to debate those specifics as, frankly, I am not specifically equipped to do so. I am not a biblical scholar, so it is with some trepidation that I even write on the topic. I think valid discussions can be had as to the specifics of what the Catholic church teaches that we pull away as factual from the creation scriptures and other early scriptures. I think there is further room for much discussion on those specifics with various biblical scholars who bury themselves in the history, language, etc.

      • I don’t know what you mean by ‘blatantly ignored and carelessly handled.’ From what I saw, the above poster raised a legitimate point, similar to mine, and you were clearly uncomfortable with the question, so you dashed off something about context and ignored the heart of the issue.

        You did the same with mine, refusing to even address the least of my points in favour of sneering at the vague concept of rude atheists and protesting that you can’t speak on any of these points because you’re ‘not a biblical scholar.’ Yes, you’re right, valid discussions can be had about these subjects, but you’re not doing your side much of a favour when you refuse to engage in them.

      • I apologize if I came across as evasive, that was not my intent. Let me attempt to address your comment in a more detailed manner.

        First, this: “From what I saw, the above poster raised a legitimate point, similar to mine, and you were clearly uncomfortable with the question, so you dashed off something about context and ignored the heart of the issue.” I attempted to address the poster’s point both in this blog and through Twitter. @prophetAtheist and I actually engaged in discussion over a 24 hour period which you are welcome to look at (the topic obviously drifted). I also reached out to @Mattwaggy14, but he did not engage which is certainly his prerogative.

        Again, I did address the poster’s point in the above post. A brief summary of his point and my rebuttal:

        – His point: how could Adam & Eve populate the world with only 2 sons
        – My rebuttal #1: the bible states that Adam had daughters and sons outside Cain, Abel, and Seth
        – My rebuttal #2: even in the strictest literalist reading of creation stories, an omitted fact does not mean it did not exist.

        More important, however, is to your point. I did not address the core of your point for two reasons.

        First, I assumed (possibly erroneously) that in essence we agreed on what was intended to be the main point of this post. If I were to summarize this post into a thesis statement it would be something like this: Many atheists read Genesis as either literalistic or purely allegorical/legend without considering a more conventional reading to historical texts.

        I have not read the text you referenced, but in reading your reply you seemed to agree, at least in essence, that ancient texts required a different reading than literalistic which was the same point I was trying to make. The objection you raised ” if you insist on me taking you at face value when you say I’m the descendent of Japheth son of Noah” spoke to the specifics as to what I take as factual elements and what is literary style of the time. I had no intention on discussing those individual elements in this blog post. I simply wanted to open up the possibility that there are other, more appropriate ways to read the text than strict literalism.

        My second reason for not addressing the point specifically is that while I know much of the “what” regarding what the church teaches to be factual elements, I have not researched or studied the why portion justifying why the church teaches certain elements are factual. Engaging in such a conversation would be rather short since it would end with me simply saying “I don’t know”.

        For the sake of giving you a response, my best guess would be that the church has relied on the methodology Pope Pius XII laid out and also used other elements from our faith to support much of what we take as fact. To this end, debating with someone who does not share my faith would not get us very far. But this is, frankly, just a best case guess.

        Finally (I know this is long), you said: “but you’re not doing your side much of a favour”. This will probably come across as trite, and that is a disadvantage to digital communication, but I’m really trying not to think of this in terms of sides. I would hope the people I am discussing with have the same goal as I do: honest conversation and a better understanding of difficult topics. Sure, I believe and you do not, so in that sense we have sides, but I honestly can say that this is not an “ha ha, I win!” type of debate. That’s why I emphasize that I am not a scholar nor theologian. I’m just a guy trying to learn more about his faith and to challenge its mettle.

  3. As an atheist, this is the type of conversation I would much prefer to have. It is clear that much of the Bible is written and intended as allegory, and as a basis for spirituality or philosophy works much better if you treat it as such. But in response to your question of why atheists can’t read the texts that way, I would ask “why can’t Christians do this first?”

    I think much of what you see in the “new atheists” are people responding to Christians who want to take the Bible literally and believe the rest of us should as well. When the Christians don’t respond to their own who say that science classes should teach creationism alongside or instead of evolution, then non-Christians have to respond. In a world where the Old Testament is placed in proper context, there’s no need for conflict between science and religion.

    • To your question “why can’t Christians do this first?”, trust me, many Catholics feel the same way. I do understand and get why many atheists are drawn into this binary way of looking at the text – that’s part of the reason I wrote this post (and another one like it) – to let some atheists know that the Catholic position is far more nuanced and careful in its reading.

      As a Catholic I find much of fundamentalist Christianity to be as frustrating as atheists do. My main goal with Twitter and this blog is to test my beliefs. My second goal is hopefully let people know that not all Christians are of the fundamentalist ilk or of the ultra-liberal ilk. There is a more coherent theology (in my opinion) in Catholicism. I would invite you to read this post which talks a bit about my thoughts on this: https://talkingatheism.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/atheists-should-love-this-tweet/

      One slight, small clarification – if you asked me how I read the creation stories, I would not say that it is an allegory. I talked about this here (but be warned, I’ve re-read the post and do not think it is very well written): https://talkingatheism.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/atheists-should-love-this-tweet/

      • The whole subject of how one reads the Bible varies a great deal based on what it is you believe you are reading. Is it a historical text containing a morality tale, or is it THE VOICE OF GOD? If it’s the latter, it’s definitely going to color your interpretations even if you grant that it was written in the time and voice of its recipients.

        The problem you run into is that to treat the Bible as a historical text while still professing it to be God speaking to us grants you only slightly more credibility than the people who try to talk about dinosaurs on the ark. Your post about the creation story illustrates this. You go to lengths to compare it to a marginally-accurate movie about a historical figure and then drop in an author’s note to state it is the flawless Word of God. I understand the point you were making, but that still strikes me as a contradiction.

        Often times differences between flavors of Christianity are no more than differences in opinion about which portions are allegory and which are not. In the end, God has provided no guide or rule as to how to tell. Studies of the historical texts may provide clues, but if you start out committed to the opinion that the Bible is flawless, how do you incorporate scholarly work that calls the authorship or origins of the Bible into question?

      • I’m not sure if I could agree with your comment more. Yes, the analogy in my other post does break down significantly in that Braveheart is not the inspired word of God. My goal with that post and this post was to simply break the dichotomy of literalism/pure allegory and try to demonstrate that there is a more nuanced and careful way of reading the bible as well as to chide (in a friendly way) atheists who treat the Bible in a childish way but treat other historical texts with more care and consideration. That dichotomy is present in what you said here: “Is it a historical text containing a morality tale, or is it THE VOICE OF GOD?” As a Catholic, I don’t believe that God simply dictated the bible and a human wrote what was dictated to him, but rather that God inspired a person to write a text for the people of their day. Through that person’s inspiration God conveys his message. For example, the Pauline letters. I doubt Paul sat down and said “I must write down this direct message from God for all of millennia”. Rather, Paul wrote letters to the church’s in various regions. These letters were aimed and targeted to those people. But God used those letters and inspired Paul, whose intention was to write for those people, and used his words as an infallible revelation.

        I understand this last part would not hold water with an atheist since it requires the assumption of God & Christianity being valid, but the first part is what I am focusing on. The letters from Paul can be read in a scholarly fashion because the writer was addressing people of his day. The theist can read the letters in both the scholarly fashion as well as a theological fashion. Similarly, Genesis is more than a morality tale, and less than a straight dictation from God, yet still a literal truth.

        This doesn’t help us get to the answer of what is fact and what is literary style. I do recognize that other denominations may treat this differently and it is for that reason that I think a discussion like this has to necessarily point to the Bible’s origins. Just as the Bible was not simple dictation, its origins weren’t from God coming down from heaven and handing someone a collection of books. If I were to make an overly simplistic argument I would simply ask: if we want to know how the books are to be read (from the perspective of a theist), shouldn’t we ask the institution that established the official canon of books?

  4. That is an interesting take on “the Scripture is inspired by God”. If you’ll allow me to characterize that, what you’re talking about is a scale where on one end you have someone taking direct dictation from God, and on the other you have a man writing with no influence from God whatsoever. In short you range from Voice of God to Voice of Man. The implication is that the farther along this scale you move, the more you can hear of God’s intentions, and the less you hear of Man’s.

    What you assert, what you believe, is that the needle on this scale is sufficiently in the God direction that the writer can’t corrupt the message; what comes through is a flawless representation of God’s will in the Man’s voice. If this is the case, can it be anything but dictation? If it’s not dictation, then the claim that it’s flawless is quite a stretch. If it’s mere inspiration, then it’s not trustworthy. I’m certain Scott Roeder felt he was inspired by God when he planned and carried out the murder of George Tiller.

    As for asking the institution responsible for the canon, why am I to believe they have any superior source of knowledge about Biblical interpretation? The church is made up of men. If they were capable of demonstrating a form of supernatural wisdom they could easily convert the world to their cause. But they have demonstrated their fallibility, repeatedly. I would prefer to trust the historian who has no vested interest in the Bible being found to be the word of God.

    • The best way I heard this described was by Fr. Baron when he said that the scriptures are the voice of God through the words of men. I would disagree with your characterization in that it implies that the more that God is present in the words, the less man is present and vice versa whereas I would argue that both are fully present. God moves, inspires, and to an extent directs the words of the man, but without dictating or taking over the man’s writing. From the perspective of the man, he is writing for a purpose, not taking a dictation or even necessarily believing that he is currently inspired by God to write (I would venture a guess that David thought he was simply writing several songs of praise and lament in the psalms).

      Regarding the institution responsible, I think I will do a post this week on this. The reason it is important is that a single institution developed a canon which is largely used by the vast majority of Christians and becomes the subject of most of our debate. Why these books? Why did they believe these were inspired? It is a busy week for me, so we’ll see if I can eek it out…

      • I’ll look for that post.

        In the meantime, and as long as we’re invoking movies, have you seen “Oh, God!” starring George Burns? There’s a scene in that movie where God is talking to the protagonist about a certain TV preacher. He says, (and I’m certain this isn’t exact, it’s been decades since I’ve seen it,) “He was preaching my word, but he ran out of my word a long time ago. Tell him I’d like him to shut up.”

        That to me is the essence of the problem with being inspired by God. Someone who claims to be can attract as many follows as someone who actually is. Personally, I always felt that Paul was the Pat Robertson of his age. He seemed to be making it up as he went along, and never in tune with Jesus’ actual teachings.

      • I’m interested in learning more about how you felt that Paul was never in tune with Jesus’ actual teaching.

        It may be a big topic, so I don’t want to ask too much – any hints?

  5. You’re correct, it is a big topic. And I will qualify this as my own opinion, nobody is required or expected to agree with it. I had to brush up a bit for this response, so don’t consider it comprehensive.

    In my own reading of the Bible it always seemed to me that Jesus’ message was one of a relationship with God, direct and personal. If you loved Jesus you would try to become like him, and it would show in what kind of person you became.

    Paul’s message would have been of more interest to someone who wished to act as a gatekeeper to God, to establish a church. And of course that’s what Paul was doing. Moreover, he was not a tolerant man, and in many ways the opposite of Jesus. In one example, Paul is very clear about what kind of person you should and shouldn’t spend your time with (1st Corinthians 5:11) while Jesus sought out all types. Paul said people should work before they would be fed (2 Thess) while Jesus fed all comers. Paul seemed to hate women and want them set apart (1 Cor 14, Collossians 3, et al) while again, Jesus sought them out. In regards to homosexuals, Paul spoke against them specifically while Jesus said nothing. I feel that many of the prejudices at work in the US today come from Paul, not Jesus, and we would live in a much better world had the canonical Bible excluded his letters.

    I find it interesting that in trying to brush up on this I found I’m not the first to notice it. In particular, Thomas Jefferson said that Paul was the “first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” This was something I hadn’t looked into in some time, but I easily found dozens of pages on the subject, from Christians and non-Christians alike.

  6. The issue addressed by your posts and follow-ups in the comments, doesn’t actually reflect the title. You seem to be more interested in atheists reading the Bible as you do with the prior assumption that a god does exist, and therein lies the problem.
    I personally have studied the Bible from both of the directions you talk about. I was raised by a fanatic fundamentalist father, which led me to agnosticism. Then, after a stint in the Army, while attending college at a small private Catholic university (from which I got my BA in History), I took every possible course on the Bible that they offered, and when my late wife (a devout Catholic whom I met in college) and I were dating, I went through catechism classes with her priest. He was a very good man who eventually told me that I was doing so for the wrong reasons, and we eventually agreed that we were wasting each other’s time, because the more I looked at the Bible from a scholarly and literary perspective, the closer I came to my present full-blown atheism.
    However, when more intelligent people read arguments or points that I, and many other atheists, make they see only the fundamentalist roots of my/their Bible knowledge. This does not mean that the purely literalist idea is the only way I have ever looked at the Bible, it is merely a reflection of my intended audience, which, for the most part, is the fundamentalist who doesn’t have the capacity or knowledge to be approached in a more learned way.
    The problem is not how the Bible is read, it is the underlying assumption that it is talking about an actual all-powerful, supernatural, entity. Spinning the inaccuracies, contradictions, and illogical nature of the book doesn’t change its being the only reference for the existence of the Abrahamic god, and a flawed one at that. The early Church’s prohibition on laypeople reading the Bible was a recognition of this problem, which has shown itself in the Reformation and subsequent division of the church into tens of thousands of different sects, and in the fact that most atheists come to their non-belief after actually reading what the Bible says instead of reading what they have been taught it says.
    With all of that said, I do want to say that, personally, I find the Catholic church and Catholics in general to be the more sensible and logical of the Christian sects, despite their stated intolerances, political interventions and checkered past, and am glad to see that the new pope seems to be a bit more tolerant and enlightened than most of his predecessors. But, none of this changes the fact that at its very core, it holds the same basic, untenable mythological belief in a god which is based on a book which is, for the most part, poorly written, and very poorly edited.
    Sorry to take up so much space, but, as you alluded to above, this is a more complicated matter than can be addressed in 140 characters or less.

    • It is a well thought out reply, so the space you used was well used.

      Regarding your comment, yes, I do approach the bible from a position of theism which naturally colors my opinion just as an atheist approach from non-believe necessarily colors that opinion. The starting position will have some bearing on how the text is read and understood.

      I do agree that many atheists have looked at the bible in more than just the fundamentalist light, however, in conversation it would be a rarity to see this. That is part of my complaint.

      “Spinning the inaccuracies, contradictions, and illogical nature of the book doesn’t change its being the only reference for the existence of the Abrahamic god, and a flawed one at that.”

      I may be misunderstanding what you are saying here, but this is one of my chief complaints. The bible is not the only reference for the existence of the Abrahamic God – if this was the case then there would be no case for an Abrahamic God until nearly 400 A.D. since there was not canonized bible until then. Of course the individual scriptures existed, but no specific bible…

      • I agree that many atheists that one is likely to come across go at the Bible from a fundamentalist point of view, but I would contend that this is due to the fact that such a view is the predominate religious view, especially in this country where, by the last figures I saw, I believe it was 48 or 49% of Americans believed in the literal interpretations of the major Genesis stories, so it would be from this background that these people come. I would also say that because of this fundamentalist majority it is that approach that they most often have to take to make their point. But, I can also see where that would be especially infuriating for someone such as yourself; possibly even more so than for the atheist.

        However, my point is that it doesn’t matter whether it’s viewed from a Fundamentalist standpoint, or from a more philosophical and/or scholarly viewpoint, the Bible is the only source of reference for the underlying beliefs, and is a flawed, therefore, unreliable source.

        I also agree that it is too simplistic a statement to treat the Bible as a single document as the only reference for the existence of the Abrahamic God, stating it in such a simplistic way just shows the simplistic nature of the fundamentalists with whom I usually have to contend with, and I apologize for treating you as such with such simplistic comments.

        It would be better stated that the collected works which form the Bible are the only references.

        However, that doesn’t change my underlying contention that these documents themselves, when taken individually or as a collection, form the only basis for the belief, and that the documents paint a contradictory and illogical picture which gives no solid foundation for the god they propose.Therefore, they cannot stand as solid evidence for anything other than a pre-existing belief.

        The main point I was trying to present with the quoted statement is that for these documents to be presented an an actual and trustworthy representation, whether literal or parable, for the god they assume, then they would need to do two very different things: First the core tenants proposed would need to be independently verifiable by evidence completely outside of and removed from these documents, and second they must be shown to be reliable as evidence, which is where their self-contradictions, inaccuracies, and illogical statements and presumptions come into play.

        In the former case, (evidence based) they have repeatedly failed because no independent, verifiable evidence has ever been produced for their basic claims e.g. a divine omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being, Heaven, Hell, etc.

        And in the later case, the moment any sort of infallibility comes into play, such as a single contradictory statement, then they lose their standing as inspired proof and can no longer be considered as any more reliable than any other religious text because at that moment they become the product of men who make mistakes, and have an agenda, and not the product of a perfect divine being.

        Whether the documents are to be taken completely literally, partly literally, or even completely as parables or fables, they fail as evidence for a god, if they fail to be reliable and verifiable. It is at this point where faith, and Pascal’s wager come in, and neither of those can stand against reason once it’s in place.

        The flaws of faith would be way too large a discussion for this venue, and I’m sure you have come across the response to Pascal many times, so I won’t waste space for that here.

        I do hope my rambling here better explained what I meant, and wasn’t a waste of your time.

        As kind of a side note: My late wife’s priest, a man for whom I have always had a great deal of respect, once told me in a conversation that life would have been much simpler for everybody had Jesus just written an autobiography. While I had already gone away from believing in God by that time (and he knew so), I have always thought that little comment was such a wonderfully simple yet intelligent statement about such an incredibly huge problem.

  7. I am sure you know that I would have to disagree with this statement:

    “It would be better stated that the collected works which form the Bible are the only references.”

    As a Catholic, we do not take a “bible alone” approach to our belief. If we did, we would have a difficult time explaining the first 400 years of our church history, not to mention the thousands of years of Judaic history from which we come.

    Whether a fundamentalist likes it or not, they are handcuffed to the reality that their beliefs spring from Tradition and extra-biblical sources. The lives and lessons of saints and church fathers mold their very belief system, even if their collective group has distorted it over the centuries.

    When looking to the topic of “why do I believe”, the bible does not serve as my chief reason (personally speaking). My belief in God, and the Abrahamic God of Christianity (and specifically Catholicism) is validated by its utter completeness and beauty in providing meaning and explanation to not only the physical world (for physics and science are compatible with my beliefs), but also for those philosophical and metaphysical questions that all humans necessarily ask.

    I do understand why atheists approach the bible from the fundamentalist viewpoint – they are the loudest viewpoint. But my argument is that this is like proclaiming all of math to be wrong because someone fails to add 2+2 correctly. I agree with most atheists that the fundamentalist reading of the bible is narrow. But my problem is when the atheist, who often proclaims himself or herself as a champion of reason and logic, unreasonably and illogically invalidates all Christianity by pointing out the problems in a flawed reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s