Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Xianity And Revolution


Lycorth

Recommended Posts

"everytime Hell is spoken of, it is spoken of being eternal."

That is true, but you can't find anything that says this was intended for men.

"haven't made a case yet, but that's because you believe God can't be accused."

You haven't made your case, you seem to think that forcefully repeating your conclusions is making the case- that is a form of circular reasoning.

 

But yes, you have correctly assumed that I don't believe God can be accused. You just don't know all the reasons why I believe that. I think you have too much invested in your own belief to effectively debate these things.

 

"Sin is more powerful than God."

If this were so, then there could be no forgiveness. Since even man can forgive, sin isn't even stronger than man's love, let alone God's, or God Himself.

 

"if sin exists, then either God isn't powerful enough to will it away"

Problem: Sin is not merely imagined trespass, it is real trespass. You can't will away the damage and hurt that you inflict upon another. And BTW, the Bible teaches that it is against other men that we inflict the damage of sin.... but the cause is our rebellion against God.

 

 

Sin causes the need for payment to bring something "equal" again. Restored. Somebody has to pay. aha, we have stumbled onto salvation theology.

ok.next.

 

Try "willing away" hurt and damage you inflict in your next important relationship. Doesn't work? Didn't think so.

 

As you can tell, I don't put much faith in the efforts of "magic". Been there, done that, know what it is. Rejected.

"We need to behave in conformity with the way the world works."

You said truth here. I believe this also. Um... is there only one single world we are dealing with, however? In your ideas of magic, it isn't just the physical world and mere physics you are talking about. What do you mean by "world" ? I would accept a definition as "reality". "the way [reality] works" is what I, personally, would mean.

 

"God, however, can easily dispense with all that."

Can He? And still be considered just? How do you do away with punishment for wrong and still have justice?

 

"just and merciful "

which you have not well explained with a human system. In what way can you hope to be both merciful and just in judgment? By what basis does one exercise mercy? What separates mercy from indulgence? where is the line of boundaries for indulgence?

 

so far, you have not offered means by which to judge what is a "superior" morality, since we are making such distinctions here. You are quick to pass judgment on Christianity, but by what means and standard are you doing this? ...so that another can judge for themselves and not take your word for it...

 

"Don't be a bitch."

Nuh-unh, Var-babe, you are not getting off easy with this one, this time. Define "terrorism" in a way that human systems have consensus on it. Then apply it to the accusation you have made.

Hypothetical:

Say that you are a materialist, and believe that this life is all there is...does life imprisonment qualify as "terrorism" in that case? Answerable to eternal punishment for the theist?

 

"we need to be constantly aware of our actions and constantly make improvements."

 

true. However, what is the standard against which we measure just how we are doing, by what do we determine that we are "improving"?

 

"I've never even heard of it. What makes it so "basic" - because it's Xian in origin?"

 

**smile** it is basic to Western thinking in the rights and duties of individuals in relation to government.

 

There is a reason that Western democracy grew from English common law and concepts, and not Eastern Europe. There was a coalescence of what took place in the secular and theological areas of English history that produced our freedom with form system. While I value my root Magyar concepts of individuality, etc.... they would not have produced the democratic governmental system we now have.

"The Middle Ages are proof enough "

of what?

 

 

"you'd be just fine with that winning me over to your side, despite how much you say you don't want to convert me"

what I would be fine with and what I demand are two different things. anyway... I don't know where to categorize you, and am not sure that would be any of my business at the moment. I am not sure about what the process of conversion involves if you want to know the truth. The jury is still out on that one for me. I am not strictly Calvinist or Arminian. I don't know how much is in our hands and what all is involved. I know in part on this one. Maybe that explains why I can be so laid-back with you.

 

Remember the original true grit lady thread? I am interested in opening dialog with those who are having difficulty while in the Church...who are struggling with faith and doctrine and are being shut-down and told not to doubt, etc. ex-Christian.net is excellent for reading your stories, not for me gaining "converts".

Regardless of what you think about me, I am not in this for power-tripping. Me win you over? hardly.

 

However. I do like to sharpen my reasonings. This tends to be an internal thing for someone like me...which is why I leave it to that for you. I would like to suggest to you that you have not as thoroughly looked at all the arguments as you say you have.

 

"say otherwise go against the plain text "

I want to point out to you that the basic cause of error in scriptural interpretation is to take just one verse out of context and try to weave a whole doctrine around it. Truth has balancing sides to it to create the equity of its application in life. This is how proper bible study should be. Otherwise you only get one portion of the proverbial "elephant".

 

Maybe in your little fantasy world I haven't made a case yet, but that's because you believe God can't be accused. You assign him all sorts of contradictory things, such as his "being Love" then proceed to basically state that I have no right to question him because he's God and I'm not.

 

Different performer - same old song and dance.

 

Sentence passed and the accused condemned - God is unjust.

 

What is the essence of eternal torture? What are its intended uses? Where does it say that God intended man to endure eternal torture?

From carm.org:

 

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).

 

I won't bother cutting and pasting their other cited verses, but everytime Hell is spoken of, it is spoken of being eternal. If human souls were only there temporarily, thrown in Hell as punishment but then consumed and eventually destroyed, it would be pointless to refer to Hell as being "eternal." To refer to Hell being eternal clearly implies that the souls of the damned will not be consumed but will last there eternally, as per the teaching of all traditional Xian sects.

 

http://www.carm.org/uni/eternal_hell.htmIt is going to get sticky for you right now:

In law, there is force to comply or just consequences are threatened {fines, incarceration,etc}. Is the fact that a nation has law unjust in your opinion? Explain this.

 

If God has law, and the abrogation of that law is committed, is He unjust to exact the punishment? How is He more unjust than government of man? How can you condemn the action of Justice in the case of lawbreakers in society? Force is used in all cases.

 

Is force automatically unjust? Do prisoners for crimes against humanity give consent to their incarceration, trial, and condemnation? They do not. There are many times people do not give their consent for things that must be in order to have justice and right prevail. That is why we have the concept of "criminals".

 

No, still not sticky - because you have just highlighted another problem with your "all-loving and all-powerful" god:

 

Sin is more powerful than God.

 

Why? Well, look at your explanation. It works fine as basic explanation of human law and punishment and the need for both. However, humans are subject to things beyond our control. We can't snap our fingers and have our will magically enacted - we need to base our actions and the things we make upon the circumstances created by things out of our control.

 

Like crime. We need some sort of system of justice and punishment because crime is something good-willed humans can't will out of existence. The most noble human being doesn't possess that capability. Despite my theory as to why some people can perform "magic" (the ritualized concentration and projection of one's will to cause change in conformity with the magician's will) people have to labor to bring about results is they want to see something done. We need to behave in conformity with the way the world works.

 

God, however, can easily dispense with all that. Hell exists because sin exists, and sin exists... why? Why does a good and loving god permit sin to exist? Why does an all-good and all-powerful god permit a condition to exist that will force him to punish millions of his creatures when he can simply will that condition out of existence? Why go through all the rigamarole of Jebus, faith, dogma, the Great Commission, and judging millions of souls when he can simply restore the innocent paradise of the Garden of Eden? If he is all-good, he should desire this; if he is all-powerful he can do this.

 

But if sin exists, then either God isn't powerful enough to will it away (meaning that sin is more powerful to God and God must therefore act subordinately to it) or God simply doesn't exist. Ignoring the simpler and more logical answer, if God isn't powerful enough to dispose of sin, yet is said to be so according to the Babble (God's revealed word), the God is also a liar and we have more reason to distrust him and declare his supposed authority unjust. No one is morally bound to obey a liar, one who claims to be all-powerful and all-good yet still fails to demonstrate such behavior.

 

And even if he isn't powerful enough to destroy sin and will it out of existence, as stated, Hell is eternal according to the Babble. No human ruler would try to keep someone alive for years as a punishment, when the punishment clearly warrants death. The punishment, however horrible, is always temporary. God should certainly understand that and should only be proscribing a temporary punishment for sin, not eternal. That's just being plain cruel.

 

But, Hell has to be eternal for another reason - many people would even endure horrific but temporary punishments to be allowed to sin and still get into paradise. If Hell isn't depicted and taught as being everlasting torture without end, it loses its fearfulness. It goes from being this eternal torture chamber to a temporary inconvience.

 

And Hell isn't like the death penalty, though both have "eternal" consequences. Death is forever, and Hell is said to be forever also. Yet, when we put someone to death, that's it. One act and it's all done - we know we aren't continuing to execute or otherwise torture the condemned. Hell is ongoing - a constant thing. Constant torture.

 

And as a side note, many "sins" are hardly wrong. Almost none of them can actually be demonstrated to be immoral. They are considered immoral simply because the act of committing them constitutes defying the will of God, the ultimate egomaniac. In fact, only murder and theft are wrong because they can be demonstrated to be wrong and detrimental to society, and neither of these can possibly warrant eternal punishment. They do not do so in our world and our most enlightened wouldn't keep people alive to torture them indefinitely. Even the most vengeful of us would weary of that before long. But God doesn't - he sends the damned to Hell for good and never lets them out, no matter how much they've suffered. The prison system is supposed to be correctional, to teach the inmates a lesson and then turn them loose. Hell isn't about punishment even in the sense of correction - it's just God getting his rocks off by torturing "sinners" forever because they did the most evil thing in the universe, and that's to defy the will of God.

 

*****I want to look at your above arguments on hell and sin separately. later-truegrit********

 

"he could've done better."

This is an interesting accusation. Said by a human when all human efforts "to do better" inevitably fail in efforts to set up just or good systems that are supposed to be for benefit of all.

 

Still, as explained above, God could've done better.

 

"We judge things by human standards because we are humans. And a god who is supposedly of superior moral fiber should exercise superior morality."

And this "superior morality" looks like "what" exactly? Are all human standards equal? What makes something superior?

 

In regards to this discussion, "superior" means that which can deal with the problem in a just and merciful fashion. The only thing just and merciful in regards to Xianity is to dump it, since it can be too easily shown to offer cruel and sick ideas to a world which needs healthy ones. "Superior" can also mean "better than what we can offer" yet if the results advocated by God are basically what a tinhorn dictator would offer, they are hardly superior.

 

Just this statement alone, "terrorism [is] wrong" shows how little you have looked into this. Terrorism is rationalized by many cultures and nations. We say it is wrong in certain circumstances and to different degrees- some elevate it to saint status. So much for your assessment of "most folks, ancient or modern".

bzztt.wrong.

 

Don't be a bitch. I've looked into it plenty - it's just that you don't like my findings.

 

To tell people that they have to believe in Jebus or else suffer eternal torture in everlasting fire is terrorism. For you to argue otherwise shows how little you truly understand your religion.

 

So much for your assessment.

 

======

 

I never said human minds were perfect. As evidenced by the dumb things we create (like Xianity), we need to be constantly aware of our actions and constantly make improvements. We're not perfect, so we can be excused in general for not getting it right all the time - unlike a supposedly perfect god, who should've made a perfect world to begin with, given his characteristics an' all.

 

"it was clear that I am citing Titus 3:1."

You said nothing of "Lex Rex" which was written by Samuel Rutherford. Have you read it? Know about it? It is a Reformation document, but good for Catholics and former Catholics to read. It is basic to our modern views of Democracy, and influenced such later thinkers John Locke, Blackstone, etc.

 

I've never even heard of it. What makes it so "basic" - because it's Xian in origin?

 

Xians only truly understand free societies and the laws that govern them when they leave Xianity behind. The Middle Ages are proof enough of that (and don't try to tell me they weren't True Beleivers because, as one who studied the Middle Ages intensely at one time, they clearly were).

 

"to not rock the boat lest you get "in trouble."

Do I strike you as that type?

 

Yes. I get the impression you'd throw yourself off a cliff if your god said it was just. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

 

 

 

Good. Yet I know that every word you type is to glorify your god and you'd be just fine with that winning me over to your side, despite how much you say you don't want to convert me.

 

A Xian who doesn't want to make converts is an oxymoron.

 

Perhaps you may not be guided solely by blind faith, but a mixture of blind faith and fear. And heavy indoctrination.

 

Besides, you've made plenty of presumptions about me, such as that I don't understand the Babble or haven't thought this or that through, etc. Oh well - I was just like you, once. So sure I had all the answers, so sure I knew it all, and all because I found the correct Xian sources to back up my claims. But they argued from the assumption their god exists.

 

When you put God to the ultimate test, that of existence or non-existence, the rest come undone naturally. Once it is proven God isn't real, his Hell, his terror, and his so-called authority vanish like smoke on the wind.

 

I can make my topic precisely on Xians and revolution because the Babble explicitly forbids it, yet many Xians have rebelled. Xians who say otherwise go against the plain text of the Babble.

 

Nice cherry-picking of verses at the end. But I can do that too. Everyone has to, since to form one single belief in "conformity" with the Babble is impossible, since the whole thing contradicts itself.

 

And without Hell, there is nothing to keep the faithful in line.

 

"Once it is proven God isn't real, his Hell, his terror, and his so-called authority vanish like smoke on the wind."

Which is why you are working so hard to prove He doesn't exist -isn't real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(see here)

 

J.P. Holding? Are you serious? That gives you ZERO credibility. You might as well post a link to the Weekly World News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^..^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^..^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truegrit - Hello again. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, hopefully we can continue to keep this informative and civil at the same time. Please be aware that I will be able to reply only once every 24-48 hours, as I'm in my last semester of law school and classes have started back up again. (UGH.) However, I'll try to make them detailed enough to be worthwhile. Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

 

 

Bluescreen, "Mandate of Heaven - but it's Chinese, not Hebraic" might well be, but not in "either/ or" sense. Some ideas are very ancient, and they are found within numerous threads of human culture. I find that a plus with such ideas. This does not however, negate it in Christianity as Var is trying to make his premise in this thread.

 

<nods> I'm familiar with the reocurrance of many concepts across cultural boundaries, it's an interesting quirk of humanity. John Campbell and Jung both were fascinated by it. My only point about the Mandate of Heaven concept being Chinese in origin was to note that the concept is much more fully-fledged in the imperial Chinese culture than that of the Hebrews. The Neo-Confucians (either Xunzi or Mencius, I forget which at the moment and don't have time to grab my books) specifically developed the idea that an evil ruler lacked the proper character or nature to rule, and by lacking that nature, was really just an ordinary person with a crown on his head. And ordinary people who went rogue were fair game for the masses to restrain or destroy in self-defense.

 

In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke formulates a more conservative version of this idea, based on the idea that the evil ruler has struck first, so the people are merely defending themselves, rather than rebelling. If you take a close look though, the core of his argument revolves around defining his way out of the problem - he doesn't want to call it "rebellion" or "revolt," but he recognizes the need for a moral justification for overthrowing bad leaders. I suspect that this queasiness regarding the term "revolt" partially stems from the troublesome passages discussed in this thread, and partially the general fear of opening the door to frequent revolutions.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't really found either version of this concept to be developed in either the OT or the NT, since the only OT uprisings that are explicitly approved of are coups by newly anointed kings ousting evil ones. This may be a very weak form of the Mandate of Heaven, but unfortunately we never really see the common citizenry themselves destroying a wicked king, so the precedent regarding revolt by the masses is fairly weak.

 

In your discussion, I would like to point out that there is authority and there is anointed authority- in the case of the theocracy of old Israel. The Old Testament and all of the ancient cultures did have strict views of authority and what was considered usurpation.

 

I can see where you're coming from on this, especially with regards to the OT. The first problem I have with making this distinction is due to the wording of Romans 13, where it describes all rulers as "ordained" by God. This passage doesn't make a distinction, nor do the other 2 in the NT. There is some debate over the exact meaning of the word rendered as "ordained" in many English translations. The more literal rendition would be "ordered," which can be viewed more along the lines of "God controls all rulers," which does fall in line with other points in the Bible - implying that the removal of certain rulers is also happening in accordance with the divine will. This does create some wiggle room, however, we're still left with the same basic implication that all rulers are put into power in the first place by God. In this light, I see little practical effect of making a distinction between "anointed" and non-anointed authority, especially seeing as how "anointed" generally just means "chosen" anyway. <shrug>

 

If, for the sake of argument, usurpers are not selected by God and are therefore exempt from the commands of Romans 13, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-14, we're left to rely solely on trying to decide exactly who is a usurper and how we identify usurpers. Easier in a monarchic society, but this starts to become troublesome in a modern context. In a democratic or representative society, this becomes a problem - so long as the election is legitimate, how do we eliminate a wicked official? Other than not re-electing him later, of course. Too many elected officials who go rogue decide to make themselves permanent leaders, like Hitler. Others just do like Saddam and resort to sham elections. And sometimes, the majority likes the evil leader and won't vote him out!

 

"punish all who do wrong and to honor those who do right."

This is the job description, isn't it?

 

Ehh.... I don't know if you really want my unvarnished opinion on this one.... ;) Let's just say that's what it ideally should be, assuming we put aside the problems inherent in state-sponsored coercion and permitting some people to be above others.

 

"doesn't distinguish between benevolent and malevolent rulers"

 

This is true. In fact, it was made under the regimes that produced persecuting Caesars. It was the theologians looking at abuse in Christian-professing realms that made distinctions based upon exegesis of the whole of scripture later. A case to be made for revolution is hard to find in any ancient culture- although the practice was widespread enough. Jews were viewed as rebellious by their conquerors (as seen in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; later, the Maccabees). This is a complex topic when viewed in its proper context of concepts of authority and justice.

 

In many ways, it emphasizes the extreme seriousness of the Colonists when they embarked on this ground. Not everyone was convinced of the propriety of that.

 

True. The best places I've found so far seem to be among the Neo-Confucians (ironically enough) and the Daoists. Outside of China, the pickings are slim.

 

You do. Slavery is something I will be addressing in the Christian blogosphere that I roam about in. I will probably crosspost it. And it will be necessary to kindly bid you all here adieu once I start in on that. That, for me is the serious business of doing the theology of what I live by. The issues of women, of slavery, how the theologians debated those, and what I see as the word of scripture on it.... will take up all my time soon. So it is an interesting digression to me...

 

That's fine by me, it's not my specific intent to debate those massive topics here. Incidentally, you may find the book "Misquoting Jesus" to be interesting, as the scholar who wrote it makes a very persuasive case that the most sexist passages of the epistles are NOT authentic.

 

That is the way it works;but those who delegate can also revoke. And that is my point. So much for police officiers not acting in accordance with their duty. Just recently about half the force of a small community here was relieved of their postions- an illustration that it does and can happen happen. And should happen, IMO.

 

Good to hear that your neighbors did a little housecleaning. Yes, delegated authority can be revoked, but the problem I have with it the way Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13 put it is that the populace is forced to rely solely upon the good graces and right action of the ruler(s) to revoke that authority. If the ruler's corrupt, no remedy is left, shy of packing up and moving. This is extremely weak protection of individual rights, and human experience has shown relying on the Crown to protect the people from corrupt officers has a very poor track record. Also, I find this issue to be troublesome from a more philosophical worldview - it's a purely "top-down" view of society that places all the power in the hands of an elite class at the top, that proceeds to enforce its decisions upon those below. It doesn't leave much room, if any, for "bottom-up" reform. This strikes me as a harmful, archaic political stance.

 

No where that slavery is accepted can the slave leave his estate except under very limited circumstances.

 

Unless of course, the slave flees to safe territory... :woohoo:

 

That is why slavery had to come to be viewed as unjust to humanity before anything could be done about it. And then, only by those who accept that Christian views of ones fellow man are theri own conviction as well. The idea that all men, obedient or otherwise have rights by virtue of bearing the image of God and thus having dignity of their persons and rights equally, must be in place to do anything about slavery. And it took quite a long time after Americans had committed to such an idea for it to win out in our society- not without war to enforce the decision of the nation, either.

 

The only point I'll make here, since neither of us want this to turn into a full-fledged slavery debate, is to voice my disagreement with the statement that abolition rested purely on the Christian concept of the value of man. You're leaving out the nonchristian cultures of Asia that eliminated slavery on their own, or never had it to begin with. Same goes for many of the tribal cultures of North America. Also, don't forget that there were plenty of the Southern anti-abolitionists who based their arguments on Scripture.

 

But this is actually a whole 'nother thread. I will not be on this board with it, as I think the topic needs an essay form to do it justice.

 

Agreed, or it would at least need its own thread in a very formal debate environment.

 

You simplify this. There are routes to power that are not legitimate, and not all power is being upheld by the scriptures you cite.

 

To be fair, I think you're simplifying this as well, and I think this is bringing us back to some of what I discussed earlier in this current post. First, why aren't the three verses I cited supporting even these unquestionably bad regimes, when the text does not appear to exclude certain classes of rulership (i.e. evil) from their protection against revolt? Second, what routes to power are illegitimate - the problem of defining usurpation, particularly in a democratic context, with regards to a Biblical "right of revolt"?

 

In Nazi Germany the Churches, to their shame, often did use these to support Hitler, but not all. Not every Christian saw Nazi power as legitimate or "God-given".

 

Agreed. I recall Niehbuhr, Bohnhoffer, and a fair number of others opposing Hitler. I did not state or intend to imply that every Christian under the Third Reich supported the Nazi Party. I only wish that more of them had spoken out and mobilized resistance.

 

<snip> If the scriptures give any reason to view some rulers as unjust and unworthy of their position, then that must be viewed in context with the usualy types of rulers who are in place for purposes of human law and order.

 

I'm not sure I completely understand you here. Can you clarify before I try to tackle this part?

 

It is no different than the challenge all of us faces in modern times. With or without Christian tenets, there is the question of "by what authority do we decide a ruler is unjust an worthy of overthrow and rebellion?"

 

In general, yes, the only real difference is the boundaries provided by the guiding thought-system that affect the process of making this decision. Of course, these differences can completely change the face of the decision-making process! That's the rub.

 

Good job, Bluescreen, you brought up some of the more important points in this discussion. Here is where Christians talk of balance of scripture versus each one being a fiat, etc. As you no doubt know this remains a controversial and unsolved debate for Christians.

 

<bows> Thank you, Truegrit. I'm sure you can tell this is an area close to my heart. And thank you for being polite and respectful in your thoughtful post, it always makes debating pleasurable and productive. The controversy does generate some interesting reading, though - I recommend Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder, both Christians, with regards to this topic. Favorites of mine, and some of their work can be found online - especially Ellul, since English translations of much of his work either have grey copyright status or are being translated currently by netizens who claim only a Creative Commons right to their translation (or none at all). I will leave it unsaid for now what my own personal stance on this topic is, as well as my political philosophy, as I think that would be best for the debate. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which you have not well explained with a human system. In what way can you hope to be both merciful and just in judgment? By what basis does one exercise mercy? What separates mercy from indulgence? where is the line of boundaries for indulgence?

 

so far, you have not offered means by which to judge what is a "superior" morality, since we are making such distinctions here. You are quick to pass judgment on Christianity, but by what means and standard are you doing this? ...so that another can judge for themselves and not take your word for it...

This is mind-blowing indeed. You accuse him of being quick to pass judgment on Christianity when you are doing the exact same thing. You (and many others) have made God into an idol by giving it human qualities such as love, morality, judgment, etc., and then you elevate those human qualities to a level that can't be questioned by humans. If you elevate those qualities beyond human understanding, how is it you can know that God has any of those qualities if you are only evaluating it by human standards? By what means and standards are you doing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^..^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's typical Xian strategy, though - accuse any critics of "jumping the gun" and "not understanding" Xianity when they judge it, but then turn around and poo-poo anything a non-xian says that is critical and immeidately consider their side of things as insufficient and inherently wicked.

 

But what do you expect from a Jebus fangirl? :Wendywhatever:

:HaHa: I was actually expecting her answer to my question of where her standards come from to be, "the bible". Which, of course, comes from human perception and put into human language. :Doh: It really is amazing how many double-standards are issued forth from their minds.

 

It's okay to make the idol of God look like a loving deity, but it's not okay to make the idol resemble a monster. If they can judge the idol of God as depicted in the bible, so can we. If they proclaim that we just can't know God's will, then neither can they. For Pete's sake...the hypocracy of it all is amazing and it is just what happens when God is defined at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.