Maybe there’s some reason for hope: Christianity on the decline in the U.S.
- Thread starter divine
- Start date
Re:that link you posted; God works in mysterious ways bruh (and apparently has a lopsided view of rape).
So now in your pathetic attempt to justify your myth you try to bring in a couple of the THOUSANDS of GODS invented by men.You sound like a fool. The gods had different names and characteristics. Gods are regional inventions of man. Plain and simple.
I already addressed your Roman historians. They didn't live when your so called zombie god lived, they lived decades after him and are useless in this talk.
O*d*I*N(I think the name is banned here) also had a hall where they judged the dead. They also had folk that interacted with humans. Stop fucking reaching into other religions that have jack fuck all to do with your myths.
Your ignorant ass continues to overlook Egyptian religion right in the general area that predates your horseshit. It is 1,000 years older and doesn't mention your invented god. WHY NOT? Your god isn't carved on one tomb wall or artifact in the cradle of civilization prior to its invention. Why not?
Why didn't the aboriginals in Australia hear about your horseshit? Why did the Incas sacrifice to the sun? What about the Aztecs? Pacific Islanders? Most of Africa? Ancient Europe which has religions that predate your god also. The oldest religion known to man was that of Africans worshiping a snake and is 60,000 years old. What about the India? I guess Hindus have it wrong also. And don't try to turn any North American god into yours. Nobody buys that shit.
Again, your god isn't carved in one artifact in Ancient Egypt prior to its invention.
Where ever the white man sailed bringing your religion and god he didn't find it. He found other gods. This is how your poisonous filth of a religion spread. Nobody would have had to convert if your god already was known or existed in the region.
This is truth. A geographical God cannot be the only true god. This is another reason Abrahamaic religions turn me off. They are very disrespectful of other people and their culture.
That's how they do. To try to associate native American religion and native African religion to xtianity just shows how lost some can be. Especially if you know how our ancestors were brought here and stripped of their religious faiths and had this bullshit replace it.
Just a little list of gods of different cultures and times:
[/B] http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm
These cats don't believe in thousands of gods yet can't understand why you don't believe in theirs.
So now in your pathetic attempt to justify your myth you try to bring in a couple of the THOUSANDS of GODS invented by men.
wow. now you're just being dishonest. first you say nobody else ever heard of this God...then when i say its possible that they have, and post real information on REAL beliefs from ancient people that coincide with the God of the bible...and you say its not real because those other gods were fake too.
so let me get this straight...even when ancient people HAVE heard of God have thesame underlying belief system with the same details, THEY are WRONG TOO.
dude, you CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. each time you set the goal, i post SOMETHING legitimate for you to consider, but instead of you saying okay that's fair, you CHANGE THE GOAL LINE.
oooh, got to give you a big fat FAIL on that Genie. i can't believe you had the gall to type that bullshit. what is the point of ANY HISTORIAN speaking on past persons if their presentations are dismissed cause the folks they're talking about LIVED IN THE PAST??? that's the WHOLE POINT OF BEING A HISTORIAN, asshole! to speak on past historical figures with ACCURACY! that had to be THE DUMBEST thing you have said in this entire thread! you're bordering on academic stupidity and logical FUCKERY on that one!
besides, your lack of knowledge concerning these folks just showed. Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus, Cornelius Tacitus' references were from collections of Roman history from Jesus' day, Plinius Secundus an admitted anti-christian wrote of his disdain for all things related to Jesus.
admit it. there is legitimate factual historic presidence for the existence of Jesus. you are covering your ears and screaming NA NA NA NA NA i'm not listening like a little kid.
O*d*I*N(I think the name is banned here) also had a hall where they judged the dead. They also had folk that interacted with humans. Stop fucking reaching into other religions that have jack fuck all to do with your myths.
Your ignorant ass continues to overlook Egyptian religion right in the general area that predates your horseshit. It is 1,000 years older and doesn't mention your invented god. WHY NOT? Your god isn't carved on one tomb wall or artifact in the cradle of civilization prior to its invention. Why not?
Why didn't the aboriginals in Australia hear about your horseshit? Why did the Incas sacrifice to the sun? What about the Aztecs? Pacific Islanders? Most of Africa? Ancient Europe which has religions that predate your god also. The oldest religion known to man was that of Africans worshiping a snake and is 60,000 years old. What about the India? I guess Hindus have it wrong also. And don't try to turn any North American god into yours. Nobody buys that shit.
Again, your god isn't carved in one artifact in Ancient Egypt prior to its invention.
Where ever the white man sailed bringing your religion and god he didn't find it. He found other gods. This is how your poisonous filth of a religion spread. Nobody would have had to convert if your god already was known or existed in the region.
i think i have answered this ad naseum, and your best response is: well, i don't believe that because i don't want to.
any rational person who was looking to broaden his ideas would've already concluded that he didn't know everything, and the responses i've given speak well to the issues you've raised. ant honest person would've said: "wow, i didnt know the Iroquois had a religious system very close to the one mentioned in the bible" but not YOU Genie!
YOU counter with: "well, that doesnt matter cause the Iroquis stuff was fake to!" LOL, so with you, even when possibly proven WRONG you won't suffer the notion!you sir, are an antichrist, and as such, you WILL NOT CONSIDER the things i present.
and ain't no white person brought anything to the Ethiopian Church man. that thing existed in Africa untouched by european influences.
as for my Bible, we ARE talking about my religion, right? what other source would i use for the basis of MY BELIEF SYSTEM? you don't use The Three Musketeers as source material for discussing MacBeth, do you?
here, have some more:
2 Peter 3
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
that's YOU, Genie! YOU are spoken of in the Bible! bet you didn't know YOU were in there, did you?
um, LOL...it ain't geographically limited anymore, is it? do you all fail to see that Christianity is NOW a worldwide faith? or that everyone everywhere has at least HEARD of it? there are about twice as many Christians as there are Muslims, we talkin' about ONE THIRD the population of the planet.
the best selling book in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD is the BIBLE, selling more than 2.5 BILLION and maybe even 6 BILLION copies. it has transcended every cultural, class, and economic boundary it has faced. and while all those other gods you all have talked about are now limited to antiquity, the God of the Bible is actively worshiped daily by billions of people worldwide.
why would it matter if it started off geographically, when the very book that speaks of it says it willslowly be taught all over the world...and it IS RIGHT?
Look up the history of man bruh.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061130_python.htm
Taken from the oldest humans the SAN people out of Africa. No mention of your god. The original man doesn't know your god. 70,000 years they go back with nothing about your shit until the WHITE MAN brought it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to your book of magical fuckery.......the bible.
The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)
This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.
This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?
Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
Who found the empty tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
Who did they find at the tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER
Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:
1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.
2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."
Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."
Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061130_python.htm
Taken from the oldest humans the SAN people out of Africa. No mention of your god. The original man doesn't know your god. 70,000 years they go back with nothing about your shit until the WHITE MAN brought it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to your book of magical fuckery.......the bible.
The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)
This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.
This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?
Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
Who found the empty tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
Who did they find at the tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER
Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:
1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.
2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."
Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."
Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!
Look up the history of man bruh.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061130_python.htm
Taken from the oldest humans the SAN people out of Africa. No mention of your god. The original man doesn't know your god. 70,000 years they go back with nothing about your shit until the WHITE MAN brought it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to your book of magical fuckery.......the bible.
The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)
This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.
This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?
Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
Who found the empty tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
Who did they find at the tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER
Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:
1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.
2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."
Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."
Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!
concerning the snake clan: that is one interesting and entertaining article.
the good thing about reading and comprehension is that it allows you to UNDERSTAND what is being presented.
this article says all through out it that it is theory, not fact, and not regarded as the final word on Shei*la Coul*son's discoveries.
now don't get me wrong, i LOVE archeology and all that it brings to light. if you belive Sheila Coulson you'd HAVE to rely on FAITH in her discoveries. that's christian territory there, Genie.
concerning all of this, i have one question for you about your argument, that ancient people didn't know God, and therefore he can't be real.
why does the age of my religion MATTER one way or the other? you haven't proven that NO ancient man knew God by any means, and this article is not the end all be all on the subject. as it stands archeology doesn't know enough about ancient peoples to say what IS and AIN'T the oldest religion IN THE HISTORY of mankind.
besides, my religion is only about 2003 years old. it is relatively new in comparison to other religions.
but it is known all over the world by all modern people. it has endured governmental suppression, its practitioners were hunted and killed, before the roman government tried to control it they tried to stamp it out.
don't you find it a bit miraculous that out of ALL ancient religions this one is SO very durable and persuasive?
again, what do you say to the fact that one out of every three adults ON EARTH believe to some extent in a christian God?
as for the virgin Mary being real: what you presented was that only Matthew and Luke reported it, but you didn't present anything that said they were WRONG or that their accounts are insignificant. so what was the point?
Matthew and Luke were the only apostles interested in linking Jesus' lineage to kings of the past, there is no reason for Mark or John to mention it, and as Paul's concern was the dissemination of the religion itself, there was no need for him to speak on the virgin birth.
Matthew's big blunder? LOL...so Jesus once rode on one donkey. there is nothing damning about that, it is not a blunder at all on Matthews part. reading it in the original greek and translating it to english most likely brought about that change, but it doesn't alter the story at all. why does such a minor inconsistency warrant such close scrutiny?
but even though you're pouring through the scripture for malicious reasons, i like the fact that you are at least reading it. you are delving into it, and the good thing about that is you may emerge with things you weren't expecting to, so by all means continue.
concerning the snake clan: that is one interesting and entertaining article.
the good thing about reading and comprehension is that it allows you to UNDERSTAND what is being presented.
this article says all through out it that it is theory, not fact, and not regarded as the final word on Shei*la Coul*son's discoveries.
now don't get me wrong, i LOVE archeology and all that it brings to light. if you belive Sheila Coulson you'd HAVE to rely on FAITH in her discoveries. that's christian territory there, Genie.
concerning all of this, i have one question for you about your argument, that ancient people didn't know God, and therefore he can't be real.
why does the age of my religion MATTER one way or the other? you haven't proven that NO ancient man knew God by any means, and this article is not the end all be all on the subject. as it stands archeology doesn't know enough about ancient peoples to say what IS and AIN'T the oldest religion IN THE HISTORY of mankind.
besides, my religion is only about 2003 years old. it is relatively new in comparison to other religions.
but it is known all over the world by all modern people. it has endured governmental suppression, its practitioners were hunted and killed, before the roman government tried to control it they tried to stamp it out.
don't you find it a bit miraculous that out of ALL ancient religions this one is SO very durable and persuasive?
again, what do you say to the fact that one out of every three adults ON EARTH believe to some extent in a christian God?
as for the virgin Mary being real: what you presented was that only Matthew and Luke reported it, but you didn't present anything that said they were WRONG or that their accounts are insignificant. so what was the point?
Matthew and Luke were the only apostles interested in linking Jesus' lineage to kings of the past, there is no reason for Mark or John to mention it, and as Paul's concern was the dissemination of the religion itself, there was no need for him to speak on the virgin birth.
Matthew's big blunder? LOL...so Jesus once rode on one donkey. there is nothing damning about that, it is not a blunder at all on Matthews part. reading it in the original greek and translating it to english most likely brought about that change, but it doesn't alter the story at all. why does such a minor inconsistency warrant such close scrutiny?
but even though you're pouring through the scripture for malicious reasons, i like the fact that you are at least reading it. you are delving into it, and the good thing about that is you may emerge with things you weren't expecting to, so by all means continue.
Matthew and Luke who wrote this weren't apostles.
Your religion did more harm to others. We can study the Americas, Africa and other places to find that. Look what it did to our people here. It stripped our people of their real faiths.
The key word here is faith. FAITH. You have faith in your religion. Faith doesn't have to have fact to back it up. Most people I debate on RELIGION(not god) say it all comes down to faith. They can't prove anything. They know their religion is 'new'. They know of the thousands of other gods. They just rely on faith.
The worship of Isis lasted around 3,000 years or so. The Aboriginal religion in Australia lasted 10's of thousands of years. Vodou has its links going back 10,000 years.
People have faith than those same types of people have faith in the 'new' believe system.
Similar threads
