Two guys died and this is what happened in the afterlife. But who witnessed all this?
Sorry, but it just looks like a children's story. You can't quote a source to prove the source. By that measure all fiction is fact.
Harry Potter is a real warlock because on page 233 it says "I am Harry Potter and I'm a real warlock". Is that proof?
Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 22. (Read 38463 times)
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
And many Christians have suffered much, are poor, and live with great difficulties. This life is not fair. So the question is more about Eternity and if there is more than just this short life we have here on earth or not? For those that feel this is all there is, then I guess the goal for them is to pursue the greatest life possible now. My concern, believing in God, is that it is so short sided and there will come a day of great regret.
The story that comes to mind is this one:
Luke 16:19-31
New International Version (NIV)
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."
Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ash! You're real! I deny you!"
There are other verses that say the same thing for those who "do not know God" if the word "deny" is an issue.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
I just think it is quite risky to think that one can claim ignorance as an excuse. Do you really think that will work?
Prove God's existence? That's easy. Science offers any theory a seat at the table. Theories are then reviewed and tested. Theories that are not testable and cannot be demonstrated are not considered theories at all. These are musings, guesses, or baseless ideas.
This has always been where science and religion depart. Religion depends on "belief". If nothing supports your assertion but you believe it anyway then you are just being superstitious. Science does not deal in superstition. It deals with provable facts.
For example, someone may believe they can read minds; after all, many people do. Now take them into a lab under controlled conditions and they can't do it. In fact, no one has ever done it under controlled conditions. That is why we know it can't be done. Still, the superstitious believer will have to construct elaborate reasons why the experiment failed. "The cosmic energy of the lab was interfering", or some such nonsense.
This is seen constantly in religion. Which is why believers invented Intelligent design. Because it is in no way a science you can say anything you want and draw a line back to the "designer", who must exist. Why does he/she/it exist? Because there must be a designer or the whole house of cards comes down.
This has always been where science and religion depart. Religion depends on "belief". If nothing supports your assertion but you believe it anyway then you are just being superstitious. Science does not deal in superstition. It deals with provable facts.
For example, someone may believe they can read minds; after all, many people do. Now take them into a lab under controlled conditions and they can't do it. In fact, no one has ever done it under controlled conditions. That is why we know it can't be done. Still, the superstitious believer will have to construct elaborate reasons why the experiment failed. "The cosmic energy of the lab was interfering", or some such nonsense.
This is seen constantly in religion. Which is why believers invented Intelligent design. Because it is in no way a science you can say anything you want and draw a line back to the "designer", who must exist. Why does he/she/it exist? Because there must be a designer or the whole house of cards comes down.
The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."
Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ash! You're real! I deny you!"
As Atheist I don't refuse to believe in God, I simply chose my version of truth that he is a fairy tale. I chose not to believe in a story of a all mighty being with infinite knowledge that is committing mass genocide, killing kids and babies. An all mighty being that impregnated a virgin by himself and late she gave birth to himself. Talking snake, woman created from a rib and so on. Reward for living life according to religious rules doesn't apply to atheists, since I had sex without being married, I eat what am not supposed to and so on...
So yes, God doesn't exist, there is no heaven or hell...
I think everything is too perfectly created to just assume it suddenly happened out of nowhere. I believe there is a higher power and how we live our lives has an effect after we die. I can't go along with the stupid idea of vanishing for ever.
The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."
Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ash! You're real! I deny you!"
As Atheist I don't refuse to believe in God, I simply chose my version of truth that he is a fairy tale. I chose not to believe in a story of a all mighty being with infinite knowledge that is committing mass genocide, killing kids and babies. An all mighty being that impregnated a virgin by himself and late she gave birth to himself. Talking snake, woman created from a rib and so on. Reward for living life according to religious rules doesn't apply to atheists, since I had sex without being married, I eat what am not supposed to and so on...
So yes, God doesn't exist, there is no heaven or hell...
The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."
Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ahh! You're real! I deny you!"
1) la manzana = apple
2) apple exists
Therefore, la manzana exists.
Would you refute premise 1 here?
Now you've changed the nature of your equation. You are using two well defined labels that have certain properties and equating them to each other here.
In the previous example you said god = absolute truth. Previously you have ascribed ominiscient powers to God, but never proved that absolute truth has omniscient powers.
The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing. That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.
I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am." I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.
If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent. Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself. To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.
Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2. You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction. You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.
Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be. Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system. When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.
Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth. To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth. If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it.
This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.Read it again.
The problem I had is that you responded to me as if my conception of god is the same as the typical Christian concept of god. It's not. So your entire response was almost totally irrelevant. I was simply commenting upon the plausibility of this widely held belief about the Christian god. I said to assume he exists "for fuck's sake" because I wasn't trying to hammer home a convincing argument outside if the plausibility of the claim.
The problem you have with premise 1 is sounding more like stubbornness now. If you believe absolute truth exists then you should having no qualms about what it's called as long as we each know that we're talking about the same thing. There is absolutely no good reason why I can't call absolute truth 'god' or 'x' or whatever else. It's the same thing as calling an apple "la manzana" in Spanish. It means the same thing as "apple" and they are interchangeable. I'm just using the word 'god' as an arbitrary alternative to 'absolute truth.' Thus, the reason you should have a problem with premise 1 is just as I said, i.e. you must not believe absolute truth exists.
1) la manzana = apple
2) apple exists
Therefore, la manzana exists.
Would you refute premise 1 here?
Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.
Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.
Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.
There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.
Well, if god is just a constant then it can't have any other properties that you ascribe to it. It is a label only. Like saying x = absolute truth. You can't then ex post facto ascribe a bunch of properties to x and assume the equation is still true.
Still waiting for empirical proof of God.
The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing. That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.
I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am." I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.
If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent. Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself. To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.
Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2. You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction. You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.
Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be. Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system. When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.
Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth. To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth. If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it.
This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.Read it again.
The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing. That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.
I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am." I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.
If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent. Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself. To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.
Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2. You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction. You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.
Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be. Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system. When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.
Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth. To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth. If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it.
This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.Read it again.
If one cannot believe in Jesus, is one ready to become Jesus?
The entirety of genesis 1-15 is about humans trying to become divine or become god and god punishing them for that. So, even of one does believe in Jesus, one is not ready to become Jesus.If he could achieve that, I could achieve that, anyone could. You don't have to but it is possible. When you are completely in the present, anything is possible.
The question becomes, if you had that chance, would you prefer to the bounds of a normal human life living normal human deaths? Or would you prefer to be as boundless and powerful as the universe itself?
Quote
God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.
God is absolute truth. It is everything. The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing. That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.
I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am." I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.
If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent. Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself. To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.
Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2. You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction. You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.
Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be. Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system. When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.
Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth. To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth. If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it.
This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god. 6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God? Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs. Or something like that. The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons. Or maybe they are just lying. Who knows?
Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God? God must have a strange sense of humour.
And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history? I guess they were just hallucinating?
Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.
Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.
Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.
There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.
The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing. That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.
I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am." I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.
Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent. Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself. To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.
Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2. You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction. You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.
True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be. Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system. When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.
It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth. To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth. If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it.
6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God? Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs. Or something like that. The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons. Or maybe they are just lying. Who knows?
Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God? God must have a strange sense of humour.
And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history? I guess they were just hallucinating?
Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.
Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.
Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.
There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.
6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God? Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs. Or something like that. The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons. Or maybe they are just lying. Who knows?
Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God? God must have a strange sense of humour.
And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history? I guess they were just hallucinating?
Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.
Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.
Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.
There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.
Jump to: