|
Basics
Dec 17, 2014 18:38:29 GMT -5
Post by bazzcargo on Dec 17, 2014 18:38:29 GMT -5
I cannot get any more basic than Is There A God?
I exist, therefore God must exist.
|
|
|
Basics
Dec 18, 2014 10:32:21 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Dec 18, 2014 10:32:21 GMT -5
There are three primary means by which the universe could be thought to exist: nothing became something, it has always existed, and that it was created.
Why we would choose one of those three as a premise for our existence can be traced through our individual beliefs. For example, a believer might express a belief in God prior to saving faith. An atheist might express a belief in Science, and consider the "evidence" that he/she has as indicating a long process of development and events.
Scripture speaks about this, stating that God has placed the knowledge of His existence in everyone. There are three primary ways He does this:
1. Through Creation itself. Most can look at Creation and see the order, the beauty, and the control that maintains a balanced universe. We are told Christ is the Creator, and beyond that, He is the One that maintains that order.
2. Through internal witness. God has placed an internal witness in mankind of His existence. Many who say they do not believe in God or gods do not see that when it comes to disbelief in something, nothing receives the attention that disbelief in God receives. We don't see people with agendas to stamp out belief in Bigfoot, UFOs, or other issues where we might be called to belief or unbelief. Rather, it is, from a Christian perspective, a rebellion against that internal witness which demands the one thing humanity naturally, and from their youngest years rebels against...authority. Rebellion is not something that might happen in our lives, it is a certainty. Probably the single greatest word used by mankind is...no.
3. Direct revelation. We see in Scripture a number of ways God has revealed Himself and interacted with man. It begins in the Garden where God is in face to face communion with mankind. That communion is broken by rebellion, and Mankind loses that communion. We see God speak to man through Prophets. And we see God speak to man through His Word.
When we ask questions about the eternal destiny of those that have not heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we have to remember that the Gospel of Christ was not revealed to man until roughly 2,000 years ago. Prior to that, and even today, we look to the "Gospel" of the specific era or Age, and what God's revealed will for man was at that time. Today, that guy in deepest darkest Africa, you know, the one everyone always asks about (he must be quite old by now, I would think), is not without hope of relationship with God, because he is going to be held to the same standard of obedience that man has always been held to. That is, obedience to the revelation of God they have been provided with. Paul speaks about Gentiles who performed the Law in their hearts despite the fact that they, unlike Israel, had not received the Law (the written Scriptures nor the Covenant of Law).
Now my question for those that rebel against that internal witness, and against the testimony of Creation, is if they really believe that there is no God...why does the issue bother you?
I often ask those that are active on forums who say they do not believe in God, "Why are you here?" Why not a UFO forum? A Bigfoot forum? A Muslim forum?
Why a Christian Forum? I think the answer is simple, because only Christian Doctrine and the Gospel of Jesus Christ threatens the security of their belief system. And there is a reason for that, which is the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, and the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. How Christianity impacts the world cannot be denied. Lives are changed.
Is there a God? Most of the world's population thinks so. And when we see the lengths some people go to try to deny that, and then examine that which they present as a means of proof, the reasonable response is that God's existence is once again affirmed, at least in our own hearts. We don't forget that our belief involves faith, but there are numerous reasons to see, as you have said, that our existence demands the existence of a Creator.
|
|
|
Basics
Jan 4, 2015 5:42:01 GMT -5
Post by bazzcargo on Jan 4, 2015 5:42:01 GMT -5
'Now my question for those that rebel against that internal witness, and against the testimony of Creation, is if they really believe that there is no God...why does the issue bother you?'
I cannot answer this.
'Why a Christian Forum? I think the answer is simple, because only Christian Doctrine and the Gospel of Jesus Christ threatens the security of their belief system. And there is a reason for that, which is the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, and the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. How Christianity impacts the world cannot be denied. Lives are changed. ' Or possibly it is the belief system they are most familiar with and therefore the easiest they can raise an argument against.
Can one belief system claim a monopoly on God?
|
|
|
Basics
Jan 14, 2015 12:37:40 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Jan 14, 2015 12:37:40 GMT -5
'Now my question for those that rebel against that internal witness, and against the testimony of Creation, is if they really believe that there is no God...why does the issue bother you?' I cannot answer this. 'Why a Christian Forum? I think the answer is simple, because only Christian Doctrine and the Gospel of Jesus Christ threatens the security of their belief system. And there is a reason for that, which is the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, and the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. How Christianity impacts the world cannot be denied. Lives are changed. ' Or possibly it is the belief system they are most familiar with and therefore the easiest they can raise an argument against. Can one belief system claim a monopoly on God? Sorry, didn't see this until today. I don't view it as one belief system claiming a monopoly, but rather the Word of God designating the monopoly. Meaning that the Bible is the only direct revelation that I view as legitimate. The truth is, when we examine the many different "Christian" groups today, we do not see one belief system but many, and how closely they might be viewed as similar is dependent on doctrine. In other words, an Evangelical might view a Catholic group as a completely different belief system, and that is true, but, there are Biblical correlations we could make. It is God that declares a monopoly on people, and we see that He makes provision for even those not exposed to the Word of God, and so we do not say only "Christians" will be saved, because we have the history of the Bible to validate that God will save from among "outlying" peoples. I will just add that for those that have been exposed to the Gospel, God will hold them accountable for the understanding He has provided those individuals. I tried to explain this in the previous post, and see it as a general pattern God has always followed.
|
|
|
Basics
Jan 30, 2015 19:59:44 GMT -5
Post by Bazz Cargo on Jan 30, 2015 19:59:44 GMT -5
'the Bible is the only direct revelation that I view as legitimate.' The Bible does share with other holy scriptures, the Torah and so on.
Why would God choose one aspect of his work over any other? Most religions are geographic in nature, would not the word of God be made manifest in different ways to suit different circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 31, 2015 10:23:47 GMT -5
'the Bible is the only direct revelation that I view as legitimate.' The Bible does share with other holy scriptures, the Torah and so on. Only when "Torah" refers to the first five Books of the Bible could we say that it "shares" with the Bible, for it is the Bible (first five books). The "oral Torah" is not something I view as "Holy Scriptures," any more than I view the writings of Origen, Augustine, Edwards, or MacArthur as Holy Scripture. We see the Bible recognized by both Jews and Gentiles as Holy Scripture. Yet when we compare the teachings of the Bible with other documents considered by those of other religions as Holy Scriptures, we see direct conflict which cannot be reconciled. For example, while Islam recognizes the authority of the Bible, their own holy scriptures deny the teachings of the Bible. While we can see a harmony in doctrine concerning Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, both complimenting each other, the doctrine of Islam denies some very fundamental Christian and Biblical Doctrine. They view Christ as a man only, for example. They elevate Muhammad over Christ. They, like the Judaizers, teach an external religion in contrast to the internal faith of Christianity (which has it's roots in the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures). And when we look at all "holy scriptures" of other religions...we see that there is always a change in doctrine, as opposed to the harmony and fluency of Biblical Doctrine. Why would God choose one aspect of his work over any other? He does not. Consider the unveiling of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Starting at Pentecost, we see the Apostles and ministers of the New Covenant going forth to preach the Gospel. For those who had not yet heard, there was still a continuance, as there is today, of the general principles concerning God's dealings with man. Within every man is a knowledge of God. In our current culture, the internal rebellion which arises from our nature is nurtured by the education many receive today. The popularity of Evolution and it's advocacy in our educational facilities helps those who reject there is a God they are accountable to in establishing a doctrinal view that effectively replaces belief in God. But that doesn't change the fact that Christ is the central Figure in the Bible, and that redemption of Man has always been meant to come through Him. The Old Testament taught "Messiah is coming," the New Testament records that coming. The Koran seeks to replace that coming with their own "Messiah," even as Jews today still await the promises taught in the Old Testament. For both groups, there can be no true defection from the Bible, which establishes it's authority. Even in groups such as Mormons, while the defection is camouflaged, When we examine the Doctrine offered by these groups we see the apparent conflicts that arise. What all of these groups do is this: they cancel out the teachings of the Bible. What that presents is a god that has to change plans because the previous plan...failed. But Christian Doctrine can utilize the Doctrine of the entire Bible and maintain continuity in the Redemptive Plan of God from Genesis to Revelation. Most religions are geographic in nature, would not the word of God be made manifest in different ways to suit different circumstances? Culture is a valid point, however, Culture does not dictate Doctrine. There was a Missionary who sought to translate the Bible for an obscure Tribe, and because they did not have sheep, instead of translating lamb as lamb, he used "hamster." One of the Tribesman, after leaving the Tribe to be educated, realized the error and it was a source of great anger for the Tribe. Even they saw the significance of an accuracy in doctrine. The idea that the Bible must accommodate Culture is one reason why so many fail in their doctrinal views, because they are forced to reconcile, and even negate Biblical Doctrine in this effort. Possibly one of the best examples would be homosexuality: because our Culture (here in America) has become more tolerant of this lifestyle, efforts to reconcile the Bible and it's teachings to the Culture have led to a negation of what is actually taught. It is unfortunate that this issue brings about hatred between opposing camps, but the bottom line is that there is no way to reconcile or justify the homosexual lifestyle to the teachings of the Bible. Just as there is no way to reconcile and justify adultery. But because we do not see groups advocating a lifestyle that seeks to merge a Biblical view with adultery, homosexuality is a center focus for many people. How about drug use? We don't see people trying to say "I can be a Christian and actively use drugs." But we do see people trying to justify homosexuality and the Bible. We have to, like those that offer up "new revelation" in other religions, either say the Lord has changed His mind or that He was in error when revealing His will in prior revelation. And those are the only two options for those that embrace "new revelation." Even in certain "Christian" circles, we see "new revelation" embraced and endorsed. Charismatics stand out in this. Even Catholicism, which had adopted a view that Oral Tradition stands on a level with the teachings of the Bible, can be viewed as going outside of the teachings of Scripture. For this reason doctrines which come into conflict with the teachings of Scripture are readily accepted. The best example, in my view, are "indulgences," which allow for someone to receive remission of sin...with money. While there will be those issues distinct to certain cultures, when a culture dictates doctrine and seeks to conform the Bible to the Culture...it is always disastrous. The principles of the Bible are as important as specific Doctrine and if we maintain those principles we will find a balance. And I would suggest to you that Cultures could be examined and a direct link to departure from the teaching and principles of the Bible can be seen in the development of a Culture. Would we have the "Rock Culture" if Biblical Principles were adhered to? The Rap Culture? Would there be an advocacy of fornication, drug use, violence, and self glory? And how do these individual cultures impact our primary culture as a Nation? When I was younger, I was a Heavy Metal musician, and about as stereotypical as one could imagine. I remember when Nancy Gore wanted to label records for content, and thought that was absurd. What is ironic is that back then most musicians had restraint in their lyrics and were not overtly offensive (unless they wanted to stir up controversy). Today we see unrestricted and offensive content that should make us shudder. And when we understand the impact this influence has on kids we understand the way cultures are not only developed, but expand and continue. And sorry for getting so long, Bazz, but things have been busy with work and I am not currently on a "campaign" on any forums, during which time I am used to many more thousands of words, lol. Perhaps in summing up I would say we still go back to the most basic of principles in regards to God revealing Himself to every man, woman, and child. First, internally, secondly through that which He has created, and lastly through direct revelation. Keeping in mind Man's tendency towards error due to his nature (which is one of separation from God on a spiritual level), I think we can allow that while a culture and the "holy scriptures" of a religion greatly impact those who grow up under those conditions, that is not going to negate the Ministry God performs in the hearts of Man, meaning there is hope for all those who come under obedience to the revelation provided them. The Tribesman, Muslim, and even Christian...can, or not, be obedient to that spoken to the heart. In all religious groups there is going to be doctrinal error on some level or another, but just as the example seen in Scripture of a people displaced from God (Israel in Christ's day), there is still going to be the grace and mercy of God in regards to that error. It was sinners the Lord came to call to repentance, not the religious elite. While the saying "Ignorance is bliss" in many cases is true, understanding and enlightenment cannot be compared to that ignorance. The question is how far we are willing to go to endure the hardships that might arise in understanding better. Understanding is not something divorced from angst, but most would agree it would be better to understand, despite the difficulty associated with it, than to be without understanding. This could be illustrated in the example of the drug user: most understand the euphoria of drug use, and for the user this is something to be desired. However, as the years go by the user seldom recognizes his condition as can be witnessed by those on the outside. We see someone hooked on cocaine, emaciated, enthralled and enslaved to their source of "happiness," and in their minds the next hit is the focus of life, the center of their universe. So are they right? Can we say, "Well, for them...that is what is right. That is what is 'good'." We would be insane to say that. Now let's tie that back to our topic: from my view, it would be equally insane to tell the Muslim, "Yeah, it's okay for you to embrace the doctrine and practice, and culture, that derives from your holy scriptures." Or the Mormon, "Yeah, it's okay for you to believe you will one day be a god. Perhaps the Lord just didn't mean that to be revealed in the Bible, or...that He was Himself once just a man." Or to the drug user or homosexual, "Sure, we can make things that once was considered sin...not to be sin. After all, if our culture accepts it...Who is God to deny the 'happiness' of the individual?" But how about, "Adultery? Sure, there's no reason why someone cannot be unfaithful to their spouse." Even in my youth among the girlfriends I had...that was an issue. I knew nothing about the Bible but I definitely had an opinion about cheating, and my conscience played a part in my actions. And I better stop there. Hope this isn't so long you ignore it, lol. Again, haven't had the opportunity to debate recently, and this has become an important part of my life. When I go too long I sometimes over-compensate, lol. Thanks for the questions, Bazz, and hope my responses make sense. God bless.
|
|
|
Basics
Feb 1, 2015 15:57:44 GMT -5
Post by Bazz cargo on Feb 1, 2015 15:57:44 GMT -5
Nope, not too long, but there is a lot of detail which will need working through.
Part of what stops me from being able to be certain on some issues is my bafflement at why our species behaves in bonkers and self destructive ways.
|
|
|
Basics
Feb 2, 2015 10:38:27 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Feb 2, 2015 10:38:27 GMT -5
Nope, not too long, but there is a lot of detail which will need working through. Part of what stops me from being able to be certain on some issues is my bafflement at why our species behaves in bonkers and self destructive ways. For me that is not something difficult to understand. If we reverse the historical teachings of Evolution we will have the answer, which is a degeneration, or, devolution of mankind. Man was created in the image and likeness of God, yet when sin entered the world the relationship man shared with God was lost. As the Biblical record shows, Man has been in a continual process of degeneration which can only be stopped through restored relationship with God. Evolution has taught Man being a result of an upward evolution from a lower state, and only recently has Science and Scientists challenged that view. For example, it has been taught that through increased cranial capacity man has emerged as a dominant species, but now Science is beginning to show a larger brain capacity and greater strength in what they call Neanderthal Man. We see in Genesis that men lived longer. Thanks to Medical Science we live on an average the length of years described in David's Day (70-80 years). remove that Science and it is doubtful men would live that long on average. Diet is an important aspect of this, and we can thank Science, not only for an extended lifespan, but for a shorter one as well. By this I refer to the chemicals used as preservatives, for example, even those used in diet drinks now suspected of contributing to health issues. But we have to take it to the moral perspective to truly find Man's depravity. Personally, I think as a general rule most still retain enough of their original make-up to live decent and moral lives. But as we spoke of culture in the last post, this contributes greatly to how men live. Most can live sufficiently moral under good circumstances, but when circumstances become precarious we see Man's true nature come out. It is when conditions are bad and Man still maintains a moral perspective that we see the anomaly. Again, this is just a personal opinion. People are diverse and I don't think we can narrowly characterize anyone. Sometimes bad conditions can have the opposite effect, where immorality and depravity are rejected. But we can look into History's books and see what happens when, say, the food supply diminishes (such as in time of siege). I wouldn't want to be around under circumstances like that. Another aspect I would suggest, which is laughed at by the "scientific" mind today, is the existence of the spiritual realm. By this I am referring to demons. Historically the use of drugs in idolatrous worship was meant for the purpose of "communing" with the "gods". I read an article (which was a secular article) that showed that many of those that engaged in mass murder were on Psych Meds. The word translated in the King James Version, "sorcery," is the same word we derive "pharmacy" from. In view is not putting on a robe and a pointed hat, growing a long beard and waving a wand around. In view is drug use. Today, drug use is not only legal, but it is funded by the Government. Psychiatrists diagnose conditions in primarily people already dependent on drugs or alcohol, and exchange their drugs or alcohol for another drug which is supposed to correct the chemistry of their brain. Having been an alcoholic and drug addict in my youth (I was saved at 25), I was introduced to that world personally, as well as have had family members and friends who have also been indoctrinated into it. I would suggest to you that whatever it is that they diagnose...that is what that person will truly be after enough time having their brain chemistry "treated." How many, when they turn on the news and see a school shooting...think there might be demonic involvement? But the tie between releasing self control of the mind and demonic influence is, in my view, a very real threat. As we look at the degeneration of America, something some will not admit, because they think America is "progressing," we see more depravity taking place. Under the surface of this country is a nightmare existence for millions, and at the heart of much of that nightmare is drug and alcohol use. The slave trade that goes on today makes slavery of yesteryear look like a great improvement. Women suffer the worst in this, in my opinion, but we cannot discount the tragedy that occurs in the lives of so many people. Part of that tragedy is that many of those caught up in this nightmare enter in willingly. I know I did. And the root of all of this? Sin. It is an inborn condition we are all born with. That condition is easiest described as a lack of relationship with, and to...God. We are not born into that relationship, and can only enter into it willingly. That is why "our species behaves in bonkers and self destructive ways." Just prior to being saved, I was diagnosed with a condition I was told I would need to take medicine for. I started taking it, and felt glad that finally, now I knew...what was wrong with me. I think many people feel that way, they feel there is something wrong with them that sets them apart from everyone else, and if they just had a pill to correct that...everything would be fine. I felt like that when I was told of my condition. I started taking it, and circumstances were that a friend of mine invited me to come live with him a couple states away, and while I was down there I ran out of medicine. Within a few days the fog I had been under cleared up, I took stock of my surroundings, and thought "What the heck am I doing here?" I came back to my home, went back to work, and never took that stuff again. Seriously, the meds put me in a fog, caused paranoia, and basically kept me in a state where I was not in control. I was saved just some weeks after that, worked for the same company for almost ten years, and today own my own business. I have no doubts that if I had continued with the meds, I would likely still be a ward of the state, collecting SSI, and still contributing to the money-making and soul enslaving Pharmaceutical Giant. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it. Used to be 7-11s on every corner when I was a kid, but today it's a CVS or Walgreens. Many of the people on these meds, instead of a prescription, needed a helping hand or a kick in the hinder parts, whichever was more appropriate. They tried to put my nephew on meds for ADHD, but I advised my brother he was just a red-blooded American kid who needed a little discipline, and that was the prescription used. He graduated school, entered the Navy Reserves, is now married, and has one child and another on his way. He is successful in the trade he learned from me, and all of this without medication. His life would be radically different had he began the medications they wanted to put him on. So I see a tie between what is happening in our country and the world with drugs and alcohol, and the more drugs prescribed the worse it will get. Psychiatrists can diagnose anyone with anything, and if one is already addicted that just makes it easier. The drugs prescribed for "chemical imbalances" are, in my opinion, just as bad as illegal drugs, which may not be illegal nationally very much longer. In my own state, Virginia, they recently tried to de-criminalize marijuana use. Not make it legal, mind you, but make it so those caught with it "aren't treated like criminals." Sound reasonable? Not if you consider the fact that use is illegal now, and using these substances are illegal, therefore...criminal behavior. Thus the use of "de-criminalizing" rather than "legalizing." While it is true drug users and alcoholics can exist under "learned conditions," it is also true that prior to the pot-head or the coke-fiend mastering learned behavior there is a state in which their euphoria inhibits proper reasoning. Some of these drugs, such as cocaine, for example, heighten depraved behavior. I know this from experience. That marijuana is a gateway drug is not a fairy tale, is cold hard reality. How often does a drunk beat his wife to death? Why are we not shocked any more when a mother kills her child? Why are school shootings something we are becoming numb to? How many heard many of these "kids" were on psych meds? Why wasn't that in the evening news, and why haven't there been investigations into their involvement? Bonkers...? Perhaps. Demonic involvement? I think so. At any rate, the least we can say is that there is no question that there is a question as to who was in control when these atrocities take place. Was the "kid" with the shotgun under his coat in control? I am often amazed that in court trials, after a horrendous act has been committed, that the "sanity" of the person is investigated. Is there any question perpetrators of acts like these have to examined to see if they were sane at the time of the act? Is that really a question? "Yes, your honor, he was sane when he blew away sixteen of his classmates and three of his teachers." Scripture paints the picture of man's condition perfectly. Calvin classified it as total depravity, but I have to argue against that in it's fullest understanding. Personally, as I said, I think Man retains a certain amount of what he was created for. This does not negate that he is born out of relationship with God, but, as I also said, when circumstances are favorable Man can display a modicum of the glory of the crowning creation of God. Take away favorable conditions and we may have an entirely different story, though. But if we want to rise above the most basic condition of man, the only means for that is restoration of relationship with God. While we may never shed the impact of existence in fallen flesh while we remain here, we can overcome on a level which is not available to the natural man. What is tragic is when Man not only engages in self destruction, but when he wants to take others with him. Fall in with the right crowd and this could be the fate of anyone, despite favorable conditions. Good circumstances do not preclude evil, just as unfavorable conditions do not preclude overcoming adversity. We have many examples of both. And it is just my opinion that what we see in Man is, as I said, perfectly described by Scripture. Evolution has historically taught man's advancement, but the truth is that man is on that progressive downward spiral, though he may dress nicer these days. They say of serial killers that they would never be suspected prior to being caught. Perspective of Man's depravity is often skewed by preconception. Sherlock Holmes once remarked to Watson, who described the beauty of the landscape of the country they were passing through on a train, that for him he had a perspective of horror. Watson was shocked. But Holmes pointed out that unlike the city, atrocities could go on undetected, because there was no near witness, but only open countryside between the victim and the nearest witness that might come to the aid of that person. Holmes himself would be shocked, if he were real and still alive, at the horror of a woman being beaten, raped, and stabbed in the middle of the city with many witnesses...standing idly by. There used to be something in America that we are losing, if it is not lost already: fear. Fear of being thought to be criminal, depraved...unusual. Today being a criminal, in some cultures, is a badge of honor. To be out of the ordinary is desired. Violence is normal, the victim a nominal factor. How is that mindset bred? We could blame unfavorable circumstances, and perhaps hire a lawyer that might even generate sympathy for the criminal. It's not his fault he never had the chance to overcome those circumstances. It's not his fault. But should the lawyer lose his case, the lawyer will not sit in the cell, or the electric chair with the defendant. Just as the lawyer will not stand beside that person when they stand before God. How do we breed that mindset? All we have to do is remove the fear that once helped people to place right and wrong in a right perspective. Much of the education children receive today is doing that. Hollywood has replaced the good guy/bad guy scenario with the bad guy/worse guy scenario, such as in very popular movies like Riddick. Vengeance replaces a lawful mindset, and criminal behavior is acceptable if we can impress a moral perspective in the lawless behavior. But what happens when a person cannot rationalize a proper perspective, and the vengeance they take is displaced? For example, a person thinks abortion is murder so they kill an abortion doctor? Another example would be the man that beat another to death for molesting his daughter. So in the mind of someone who feels the "System" has wronged them...anything goes. Right? Why not? The "hero" is applauded in the movies for lawlessness, right? And doesn't every person cast themselves in the role of the good guy in their own movie? So perhaps the question might be...what kind of "realities" are we breeding in our children? And if their reality lacks fear, beginning with a fear of God, then we should not wonder when a "kid" takes a shotgun to school. Many children today are taught, not that Man is the crowning creation of God, but that he is just another animal, one species among many, who happened to be fortunate enough to have an enlarged cranial capacity. So how is the death of another human any different than slaughtering cattle for steaks? History will show us that if conditions degenerate far enough, Man's depravity will reveal a capability to truly see other humans as cattle. The loss of fear in our country has resulted in fear. Ironic, no? Sorry for rambling again, lol, but from a Christian perspective there is simply no mystery in why people are bonkers and self destructive. It is a matter of a nature we are born with, a nature not paralleled in the animal kingdom. Perhaps in the lemming we might see a parallel of not just self destruction, but the destruction of a multitude, though I doubt we would place an intentional aspect in that parallel. They say "misery loves company," and this is true. Self control among people begins with fear, but if there is no fear of adverse consequences, and worse, when those consequences are viewed as desirable for whatever reason, then there is little hope for Man. We cannot expect people to maintain self control when they are being taught this is an impossible goal. And I think we can see that being taught to the newer generations. I was going to watch the Super-bowl last night (not a big football fan but I like a good game now and then), and while trying to find it ran across the Simpsons, a show I use to watch when I was young. The show had Bart going to Hell, and it was made light of. Among consequences taught in Scripture concerning Man's condition, Hell is the end of the line. The separation of Man from God becomes permanent in Hell. He is born separated from God, and should he die in that state Scripture teaches it will be an eternal state. I have to wonder how many millions of people watched that program and had their fears of Hell allayed, and God put once more...on the back burner. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, Scripture teaches, both explicitly and implicitly. Is there a correlation between the increase in depravity in the world and the caricaturized perception of God? Is there a correlation of atrocity and tragedy with the increase of drug use? For me, there is no question. I have stood on both sides of this fence. Man stands already at a disadvantage when born, but in my opinion his chances for overcoming are becoming less and less with each generation. This is a trend that I view as starting at the Fall, and where it will end will have man exhibiting, without fear, his true condition and nature. Christ spoke about the time of the Tribulation, which He said would be worse than any time before it, and any time that followed. It's not hard for me to picture that, when I consider the state of Man today. And that is saying a lot, in light of the events of the 20th century. Millions upon millions slaughtered through Communism, Fascism, abortion...not to mention the deaths that occurred by those who were themselves self destructive. Bonkers? Yes. God bless.
|
|
|
Basics
Mar 26, 2015 18:07:41 GMT -5
Post by bazzcargo on Mar 26, 2015 18:07:41 GMT -5
"Culture is a valid point, however, Culture does not dictate Doctrine." Dictate no, influence, possibly both ways?
"there is no way to reconcile or justify the homosexual lifestyle to the teachings of the Bible." Umm... Why not?
I suspect the Bible is very much under rated. As a historical account of how great thinkers and early observers have put together guidance and wisdom and a little early science it is phenomenal. Things have moved on, we now have an understanding of how things work that two thousand years ago would have been called magic.
There have been a lot of changes, as a species we have started to change a lot of the old ways. Many societies are trying to give up slavery. Harmful drugs are illegal and only the failure of the law enforcement teams keep them available.
A lot of crimes and sins should be dealt with as a failure of society rather than rejecting 'victims.'
I have more to say but time is against me. Back soon, I hope.
|
|
|
Basics
Mar 26, 2015 18:09:03 GMT -5
Post by bazzcargo on Mar 26, 2015 18:09:03 GMT -5
Dictate no, influence, possibly both ways? Umm... Why not? I suspect the Bible is very much under rated. As a historical account of how great thinkers and early observers have put together guidance and wisdom and a little early science it is phenomenal. Things have moved on, we now have an understanding of how things work that two thousand years ago would have been called magic. There have been a lot of changes, as a species we have started to change a lot of the old ways. Many societies are trying to give up slavery. Harmful drugs are illegal and only the failure of the law enforcement teams keep them available. A lot of crimes and sins should be dealt with as a failure of society rather than rejecting 'victims.' I have more to say but time is against me. Back soon, I hope.
|
|
|
Basics
Mar 27, 2015 17:50:35 GMT -5
Post by Bazz Cargo on Mar 27, 2015 17:50:35 GMT -5
Is it right to build a society that only fits the narrow view of one section of an opinionated group?
Christians no longer burn little old women with mental health issues, the Crusades are over, the Inquisition is no more, time has moved on and we shouldn't try to turn the clock back to a place that never was.
Every day we learn more about how the universe works, what makes a person tick, what is the point of all this learning if we deny it and turn to an ancient text that is well meaning but based on misconceptions and false logic?
|
|
|
Basics
Apr 6, 2015 9:51:39 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2015 9:51:39 GMT -5
Sorry, Bazz, been busy and didn't see this until this morning. Sorry for the length in advance, lol, but your posts are so far and few between that I have to get in what I can when I can. Is it right to build a society that only fits the narrow view of one section of an opinionated group? A lot built into this statement, the question is...who are you speaking about specifically? I know of no group that is not "opinionated," and when we look at the "societies" that have been built one would be hard pressed to find a "Christian Society" within historical records. About as close as we can get is the early Church which was separate from the world as opposed to the caricaturized versions that have popped up on history's radar. The truth is that the true Christian presence was a presence alongside those "societies." When we look at the political hullabaloo we see in the media forefront, whether modern or historical, the assumption made by many is that they can pinpoint "Christian Societies" which they believe represent the Body of Christ. The Catholic Church, because of their power and influence, are the most popular group to place as meeting this requirement. However, it must be understood that in order for any group to be determined "Christian" there is the necessity that their Doctrine and practice represent...Christian Doctrine. And one is going to be hard pressed to make Catholicism meet that criteria, just as one would be hard pressed to make a nominal Muslim fit the bill of a Radical Islamic Terrorist. While the Catholic Church held power and even to this day wields great influence (said to be the richest organization on earth, having more money and real estate than any other group), when we look at their Doctrine and Practice we see some telling inconsistencies. All of which can be examined through an examination of what the Word of God teaches...and what they taught and practiced. Let me ask you, would you consider Jim Jones a Christian performing the will of God? Did God direct him to convince hundreds of people to commit suicide? When we have deviant behavior and doctrine in a small group, it is easy to classify them a cult and get on with life. But when the group extends to such a large group there are assumptions made which cripple critical analysis. Easy to say "of Course there is nothing in Scripture to justify Jones' actions," but where, I ask you, do we find justification for the atrocities committed by Catholicism and other historically mainstream media organizations? That is not to say that within Catholicism there is not found those that are sincere believers who are part of the Body of Christ, despite their association with a leadership which has usurped the reins of power. People often forget that Martin Luther was...a Catholic Priest. Christians no longer burn little old women with mental health issues, Christians...never burned little old women. What gives you that idea, lol. Because people who said they were Christians burned witches? Now find the Scripture which condones or authorizes such action. There is none. When people committed such actions what you will find are people ignorant of the New Covenant and true Christian Practice. Practice is always determined by Doctrine. What you have are people unlearned in the Word of God who mingle the Word of God which produces a hodge-podge theology, which results in Practice which falls outside of what is commanded of the Church. And when Scripture is tossed into a theological blender...the possibilities are endless when it comes to heretical Doctrine and Practice. It is no different than people who have a caricaturized impression of any group. Some think all lawyers or cops are bad...are they? And when it comes to religion we have to examine the doctrine in light of the practice. If someone has decided all Muslims are evil, are they correct? How about the Muslim that grew up in Islam but doesn't really have the first idea about what Islam is based on, the Koran? The same is true of people who grow up in a Christian environment. When we look at the beliefs of many so-called Christians, we find that many of their beliefs have no basis in the Word of God. How many Christians think "Cleanliness is near to godliness" is a Scripture verse? the Crusades are over, the Inquisition is no more, Find Scripture authorizing "Christian War efforts." What you will find in Scripture is that God has appointed rulers of secular government for the purpose of punishing evil-doers. The Church is never authorized for temporal battle. time has moved on and we shouldn't try to turn the clock back to a place that never was. That is precisely what is happening. America, while not what I would ever call a "Christian Nation," as some do, is the first God-fearing country that is built quite differently than all previous nations and empires. Conquest has always been the method of establishing power, yet we have become a powerful nation through our own enterprise. The trend today is for a morally bankrupt worldview that entertains the indulgence of the people. All nations and empires before us have always fallen due to corruption which begins in the family unit. Now I ask you, the America today, do you feel she is better off now that divorce is rampant (usually expected, many go fatherless, many expect everything to be given to them, and sexual preference lends itself to any whim? You can't seriously think that to have something like adultery frowned upon by a society to the extent it curbs the practice...is a bad thing, can you? But the point is that the unique character of America is steadily reverting to historical national depravity. That was a place in many histories, and it is not Christianity that turns this clock back, but those with liberal views. Every day we learn more about how the universe works, The assumption is that the data, knowledge, and popular position of Science...is correct. The knowledge we have still remains a scratch on the surface of what there is to know, yet some feel "we have arrived" when it comes to scientific knowledge. Evolution has been taught as fact despite the fact that much of it has been assumption, and still remains assumption to this day. Much of the "evidence" and argument has had to be reconfigured to accommodate new data. For example, it has been a primary point that men evolved from apes, yet now that has changed to man has been a cousin of apes. The evidence of this change can be seen in the poster that depicts men going from monkey to man, lol. If you look at the data concerning data of the "specimens" used to "prove" evolution of man, you will find that Evolutionists feel they have liberty, at any time, to change the data to better support the current view. While debating this not long ago an atheist provided a chart in which the dating of certain skulls had been radically changed over the course of less than ten years. What that means is that what was recently provided as "scientific evidence" was changed drastically, and this because...it didn't agree with science. Another would be a denial of the Flood account in Scripture: yet science tells us that much of north America was once under water (Cretaceous Seaway). Getting back to turning back the clock, indeed...it is being turned back. Teaching that men are simply animals is not what I would called "enlightenment." Black people might better understand what that means in a context of slavery, but the funny thing is...now many fall into that archaic mindset. And if man is just another animal and a result of chance...what's to stop someone from killing another? After all, it's not any different than putting a favorite pet down, right? Right? what makes a person tick, Another poor choice of defense, lol. I would suggest to you that psycho-babblery (yes I make up words on the spot) and their great knowledge of "what makes a person tick" has been one of the most damaging "advances" this world has ever seen. Many are crippled by the assertion that their actions are not their fault...they were simply born that way, or their chemical make-up demands the behavior they indulge in. Big money. BIG money. That's all it is, and many buy into it. Got a behavioral problem, we can fix that. Just take this pill three times a day and voila! Problem solved. The problem with that, though, is that many of these people would be better served by a kick in the rear and being forced to be held responsible for their actions. So is what makes a person tick really that which is taught by psychologists? By scientists? Want to know what makes people tick? Read the Bible. Want to understand human nature? Read the Bible. Seriously. what is the point of all this learning if we deny it Depends on what is learned. What is the point of teaching people they are just animals and products of chance? I can tell you the answer: to deny the reality of God. and turn to an ancient text that is well meaning but based on misconceptions and false logic? Show me the misconception. Show me the false logic. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss with people. I would caution you in advance, though, be careful you consult the context of any given proof-text, because the discrepancy is 95% of the time the error of the Bible critic and is easily reconciled by consulting the immediate context. If you should take up the challenge I would ask you to do me one favor: consider if the objections are something you have developed through your own study or if they are objections of other people latched on to because it agrees with what you want to believe. In other words, are they something you have actually learned, or are they merely something that you have placed your hope in because they are favorable to your mindset and what you want to believe. And this is the problem with the "learning" you present as being unquestionable: you have much faith in it, and the chances are that you have never really examined the issues in detail. This is precisely what many people do when it comes to religion. They have beliefs and then go out to find a group that best matches what they want to believe. That is why there is so much "Church-Hopping," lol. But I would invite you to critical examination of the issues, my friend, and to advance to a place where you do not just criticize the other side, but actually try to understand what it is they teach and believe. Much of the aggression between groups could be ended if the opposing sides better understood what, and quite possibly more important...why they believe what they do. Within that search for understanding is bountiful compassion not attained to by many. It is the cure for hatred and ignorance. It is a path to understanding which opens doors of opportunities rather than standing outside nailing accusations to. It's not often groups take the time to actually understand what their antagonist believes, and why they believe what they do, yet this is necessary in order for us to actually oppose that which we feel to be in error. Sometimes there is good reason for certain beliefs, but everything has to be taken to a rule of measure somehow. Christianity is easy, because we have a timeless rule of measure that, despite what critics assert, has not changed at all, not just in 2000 years, but many millennia before that. It is just a matter of placing all "learning" into it's proper context, and when that is done, the knowledge gleaned from such pursuits yields a more enduring and unobjectionable position. God bless.
|
|
|
Basics
Apr 6, 2015 10:20:10 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2015 10:20:10 GMT -5
Dictate no, influence, possibly both ways? I was referring to Biblical Doctrine. Of course culture can be seen to dictate doctrine in many historical groups. But it remains constant that Biblical Doctrine is never a victim of cultural influence. IF Doctrine changes then it ceases to be Biblical and then assumes the qualification of whatever group is in view. Consider multiple wives, what kind of doctrine might one look to for advocacy for that practice. Would it be Biblical because we see Biblical characters have more than one wife? Is there Christian Doctrine that would conflict with the practice? Because Scripture is quite clear that no sexual sin can be justified. No sin can be justified, only the sinner themselves, and this only through Christ. I suspect the Bible is very much under rated. As a historical account of how great thinkers and early observers have put together guidance and wisdom and a little early science it is phenomenal. Things have moved on, we now have an understanding of how things work that two thousand years ago would have been called magic. Scripture was never intended to deal with scientific issues, but is simply knowledge of God revealed to Man. Intended is Man's role in relationship to God. I would also like to know the scientific view of miracles. One must either deny the veracity of miracles or bring a scientific explanation for those spoken of in Scripture. Of course the greatest miracle, that of the dead rising again, is something science has no explanation for. Criticism of resurrection is necessary for those who would like to see Scripture set into a category of works of Man, rather than an effort of God to communicate with Man. So let me ask you this, Bazz, do you feel that when a man dies it is all over? That his understanding and existence is simply the result of electro-chemical function, and when the body dies, much like a computer unplugged...that's it? There have been a lot of changes, as a species we have started to change a lot of the old ways. To quote a very wise man"...there is nothing new under the sun." Mush of the advancement some would have us believe man is attaining stands in direct contradiction to what we can observe, such as man's lifespan greatly lessened in relation to the biblical account of man's longevity in ancient times. Where does Science stand in view of man's advancement? Well, in light of medical advancement we do see longer life in this day and age, but was that a product of advancement in an evolutionary context? Is the view of certain Scientists that man's brain capacity is diminishing something you have given thought to? Has not Evolution touted larger brain capacity as a direct correlation to man advancing to his current condition? And if that is diminishing, will evolutionists also inform their students of this devolution? Not a chance. It will just, like most of their "facts," get a new spin and what was previously taught swept under the rug. Many societies are trying to give up slavery. Really? See HereHarmful drugs are illegal and only the failure of the law enforcement teams keep them available. I get the impression you have set yourself in the position of determining what is "harmful." I can tell you from experience that all drugs are harmful. This would include alcohol. It has been said the money we spend on the drug war could be taken and all the poppy fields of the world purchased, lol, but we do not do them. Again we see, not the clock being turned back, but in fact the minute and hour hands in the same position they have been for millennia. The difference today? Well, we better understand the physical detriment of use of certain drugs. Smoking cigars, for example, was something that famous preachers of yore used to engage in without thought given to physical ramifications. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his Sherlock Holmes accounts, has Dr. Watson rebuking Sherlock for his cocaine use (as well as a smoky interior when Holmes was embroiled in deep meditation and smoking his pipe, lol). He also mentions opium dens. Public places where could go and lose himself in his addiction. What you might consider is what the state of the world without an effort to curtail drug use would look like. Secondly, by being the moderator of what is harmful or not you might consider the role you play yourself and whether that role stands in direct opposition the efforts of those who combat drug use. A lot of crimes and sins should be dealt with as a failure of society rather than rejecting 'victims.' On the contrary, my friend, you have just denied the responsibility of an offender and converted a criminal into a victim. Just because someone has a hard life as a kid, for example, doesn't mean they can be excused from being responsible for their own actions. The truth is...most people have a hard time as a kid, lol. Just part of growing up. And while I might be tempted to blame "society" for the decline in moral values, the fact is that each of us determine how we live and interact with others. I have a suggestion: to return people to reality...outlaw television and movies. I have more to say but time is against me. Back soon, I hope. Look forward to it, Bazz.
|
|
|
Basics
Apr 14, 2015 17:11:08 GMT -5
Post by bazzcargo on Apr 14, 2015 17:11:08 GMT -5
Umm... Why not?
Where is the sin?
|
|
|
Basics
Apr 16, 2015 18:04:37 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2015 18:04:37 GMT -5
Can we justify murder to the laws of our country? Same thing. It could be like trying to make Sauron the good guy in the Lord of the Rings. Scripture makes it clear that homosexuality is sin and no sin can be justified. Not in a Biblical sense. Men can justify things in their minds, for example, justifying a man beating the molester of his small child, and even gain the sympathy of those who hear of it. But the law is clear that such action would constitute murder, because the man took the law in his own hands. If we make the example include that the child died as a result, and the man lives in a state where this crime warrants and receives the death penalty, and the man's death would have been inevitable anyway, the Law is not going to say, "Hey, thanks for putting that guy to death for us, it sure saves us a lot of time and tax money." Will they? No, they will charge the man with the crime of murder, because he had no justification for his action. Where is the sin? [/quote] Well. despite the fact that our country now recognizes gay marriage, we understand it to be sin because if one is homosexual, they are engaging, usually, in sexual relations. It is no different than a heterosexual couple engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage. Both are equally guilty of sexual sin. As mentioned before, adultery too is sexual sin, and sadly most want to place a glaring focus on homosexuality, yet no-one stands on a soapbox about adultery. The truth is that homosexuals are the ones that bring much of this attention on themselves, since they have "come out of the closet" in such dramatic fashion in the last three decades. We don't se adulterers, or pedophiles, or those engaging in other sexual sins as vocal as homosexuals, who disguise their goal for "equal rights" with an agenda that not only demands acceptance, but seeks to normalize homosexuality. And I am sorry, but for those of us that understand Scripture as it is written, rather than what we want it to say, homosexuality will never be normalized in a Christian context. For a Christian to tell a homosexual that what he or she does is okay would be a result of either ignorance or lying, both equally tragic. That homosexuality is contrary to the will of God can be seen in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 6:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
The NIV might be a more understandable version for those who do not look at the Greek on a regular basis:
1 Corinthians 6:9
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
Footnotes: a.1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.I am more familiar with the NIV 1984 than the new one, and was not aware of this footnote before today. Anyway, notice those listed who are said not to inherit the Kingdom of God. Homosexuals are not the only ones on the list. I am sure you may be familiar with what Paul has to say in Romans, so I won't post that at this time, but if you would like to take a look at the statements regarding homosexuality let me know. And I would also point out, Bazz, that sin is not just a matter of actually performing intimate relations, but sin is charged when it takes place in the mind: Matthew 5:28
King James Version (KJV)
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.The Lord lowered the bar (or boom, however you want to look at it, lol) concerning culpability for sin. The religious took a position that if there was an external appearance of righteousness then the will of God was met. However, God has always had an intent of speaking directly to our hearts, and all He requires is that we listen. You see, a heterosexual Christian that burns with lust in his heart for a woman besides his wife is every bit as guilty of sin as the homosexual. The difference would be that if he tried to justify this sin he would be, just like the homosexual, departing from the teaching of Scripture. There is no justification for that sin either. I look at it like this, my friend, sin is an issue we all have to deal with. Christian and non-Christian alike. Homosexuality is at it's heart a matter of gratification for the individual, even as it is in heterosexual occurrences of sin. Scripture has not only established relationship that involves sexual intimacy as between men and women, it teaches that homosexuality, or adultery, or bestiality, or even lusting in our hearts for a woman that is not our wife (and this means whether one is married or not)...is contrary to the will of God. Paul speaks about lust in a person's heart in 1 Corinthians 7, not because he thinks it is an aberration in the lives of people, but because it is...natural. Celibacyis in fact a gift from God, but most people need companionship, and intimate relations. Consider: 1 Corinthians 7
King James Version (KJV)
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.Intimate relations apart from marriage is sin, that is just a basic Bible Principle. Here we see that Paul encourages men, if they cannot control their lust, to marry...a woman. Likewise for the woman (yes, we are now in an age where we admit that women have those feelings too, lol), if she cannot contain, she should find a husband. The point for posting this is this: it is natural for us to have the need for intimacy. That's just how we were built. And while circumstances that allow for men and women to lust for each other arise, and that too can be expected, that does not mean it is right for them to give in to that lust. And it is certainly not something that can be justified while maintaining the teachings of Scripture. Now am I going to start a crusade against homosexuals because I recognize Scripture's teachings? No, because the truth is...adulterers are a much bigger audience, lol, and it is hypocritical to single out certain sinners as opposed to others. For me, my interests do not lie in trying to get people to stop sinning, shoot, I have my hands full working out my own sin. Rather, my goal is to be used of God to introduce people to the God of the Bible, rather than the god someone grew up with, or created from, usually...horrible theology, whether that theology is from their own "study" or if it is theology passed down from their family. They say the single greatest cause of atheism in the world is...Christians. Not Christianity, mind you...Christians. The reason I see this saying as true is because most people have a general idea of what to expect from Christians, and the truth is, that is not balanced with equally important truths such as all Christians, when they are born again, begin as infants in the faith, are usually quite ignorant, usually quite sinful, and that results in usually...quite hypocritical. They will hold others to a standard they do not realize they themselves do not adhere to, because they too have only a general idea as to what walking with the Lord means. This is equally true of many who grow up in a Christian household, particularly if they go to a church regularly. Even if the teaching is sound, the child will hold that parent or parents to the standard taught in Scripture, and few parents actually meet that standard, because they are in the process of growth themselves. I look back at my influence in my nieces and nephew's life, which was considerable because we sent them to a Christian School and they spent a lot of time with us. I have many regrets, and see much of it as failure. Most of it due to my own character faults, such as...my sense of humor, Seriously. What can I say, too much M*A*S*H, Okay, I guess I have rambled on enough for this post. To sum it up, homosexuality, like any sin, can never be justified or reconciled to Christian Doctrine or Practice. If one seeks to justify it, then at the very least, understand that it is not in a Christian context, and understand that the teachings of churches that condone it are in conflict with the Word and will of God on the matter. I haven't seen any churches endorsing adultery or other sexual sins, but I can guarantee you that if adulterers united as homosexuals have, lol, then you would find churches who would do so. That doesn't mean they have the mind of Christ on it, though. And for me, Biblical Doctrine is important. It is important, as we seek to understand the God of the Bible, that we do so on His terms, not ours. Otherwise we simply create a god in our likeness and image, and God must be kept in that distinct and singular position of authority. Most Biblical Doctrine that goes awry can be shown to have at it's root a god that does not resemble the God of the Bible. Many see a stark contrast between God in the Old Testament and God in the New but I can assure you, He is the same God. Many Christians who make it a point to point out the sin of others do not realize that death has and always will be the penalty for sin. Not just spiritual death, but for the Christian as well, should he or she fall into sin, God may take their lives for it. While the grace of God has no bounds and His mercy endures forever, foolish is the believer or unbeliever alike that think they can trifle with Him. Because man is usually self centered he makes the error of thinking his thoughts equal those of God. The only way our minds and hearts can find conformity with God is by His grace. If there is anything we know that is correct and conforms to His will, we owe it to Him for that understanding. And this is what God does for everyone: He speaks to their hearts, and it is the response one has to God that determines the relationship that individual has with God. God loves the homosexual just as much as He loves the adulterer, or murderer, or IRS agent. But that does not mean God will allow sin to go unchecked in any individual's life, the Christian being the one held most accountable. The unregenerate may live a life of sin, and owe God gratitude only for not ending their physical lives early. The Christian might fall into sin, and owe God gratitude that He takes theirs. Better that I be put to death than that my life should center on my own self gratification. Did I say I had gone on long enough? God bless.
|
|