Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 246
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by messianicdruid View Post
    Do you believe God obligated Himself to answer our prayers that do not conform to His will? Are you unable to accept "NO" or even "wait" as an answer?
    Hey there messianicdruid,

    Thanks for the detailed explanations. I will address the other issues after dealing with this one, which I think is the most important. The idea that God answers prayers with "yes, no, or wait" is meaningless because we would get exactly the same results if we prayed to anything, such as a jug of milk, as explained in this video:



    I think the logic of the video is true and irrefutable. What do you think? Please explain your reasons if you disagree.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by messianicdruid View Post


    I commend you for not attributing to the Creator the pagan concept of an endlessly torturing tyrant. Acceptance by all the christians would not make that true. The offensive doctrine was brought into the church by Augustine who apparently could not leave behind his pagan ideas of Hades. Hell is the grave.



    Hello Messianicdruid,

    In all fairness to Augustine, and all the other theologians who have promoted the idea of Hell being a place of eternal torment, that idea is well grounded in the book of Revelation. Hell being the grave is equated with the Lake of Fire, which is the second death. The Lake of Fire is a place of eternal torment for those who die and are not found in the Book of Life, along with the Devil and his minions.

    Rev. 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

    Rev.20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Rev. 20:14-15 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

    Rev. 20: 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    According to the Bible, the Lake of Fire was created by god as a place of eternal punishment for those who do not worship him, so by its own admission god is a "endlessly torturing tyrant". Also, the words forever and ever are reinforced by adding the words day and night, which supports the sense of being eternal.


    Take care,
    Rose
    Last edited by Rose; 12-11-2013 at 04:06 PM.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by messianicdruid View Post

    Do you believe God obligated Himself to answer our prayers that do not conform to His will? Are you unable to accept "NO" or even "wait" as an answer?
    Hello again,

    Are you saying that a parents urgent plea for the healing of their child does not conform to the will of god?
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Mystykal,

    It is impossible to list a single set of reasons for quitting "Christianity" because there is no such thing as "Christianity". There is only a large collection of competing contradictory "Christianities" as you well know.

    You say the doctrine is not "Christian". How did you determine that? What is your definition of Christianity?

    If you reject the doctrine of hell as eternal torment, you will still have to invent a different version, whether it be purgatorial, annihilation, or whatever. Or what, are you a Universalist?

    You make a category mistake when you contrast Christian vs. Greek. Christianity arose in the Greek world and most if not all of the NT books were originally composed in Greek. And besides that, the book if full of Greek mythology, as discussed in the thread called Greek Mythology in the Bible?.

    You complain that mainstream doctrines "makes no sense" - that's true, but if we use that as a criterion then we must reject the entire Bible.

    And of course, the doctrine of hell was not in itself a sufficient reason to leave. The most significant reasons are the second and third I listed. And the third is most significant of all. If God is absolutely untrustworthy, then all varieties of Christianity are fundamentally delusional and false.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hi Richard:

    You said "
    If God is absolutely untrustworthy, then all varieties of Christianity are fundamentally delusional and false.
    I aggree! So you see why I just think the list is worthless from your perspective as the whole lot of so called "Christian" doctrines are false according to you. I, however see the whole eternal hell fire thing as in the category of Greek mythology which must be separated from the whole Christian doctrine as it is ONLY found in the Greek NT and not in the OT as that type of a doctrine. It is NOT Christian! In order to be Christian it must match the OT as Jesus is just IHVH made human. Just because some Christian believes in something does not make it true! And just because it appears along side other myths in the Bible does not make it Gospel.


    You make a category mistake when you contrast Christian vs. Greek. Christianity arose in the Greek world and most if not all of the NT books were originally composed in Greek.
    Well maybe, maybe not. I personnally think that the Aramaic is older and that since Jesus was speaking in Aramaic the original was jotted down in Aramaic and later translated to Greek. But the real issue is the authenticity of the inspiration process as to whether it - the Bible - is written in a way to preserve the elements of truth in some form which when activated eons later by that same Spirit of GOD we get the truth to come out and shine - like a holograph! I think we must consider all possibilities instead of just writing the whole thing off as if there is NO GOD or that the Truth is not available in any form.

    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Last edited by Mystykal; 12-14-2013 at 06:03 AM.
    Mystykal

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Hi Richard:

    You said "

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    If God is absolutely untrustworthy, then all varieties of Christianity are fundamentally delusional and false.
    I aggree! So you see why I just think the list is worthless from your perspective as the whole lot of so called "Christian" doctrines are false according to you. I, however see the whole eternal hell fire thing as in the category of Greek mythology which must be separated from the whole Christian doctrine as it is ONLY found in the Greek NT and not in the OT as that type of a doctrine. It is NOT Christian! In order to be Christian it must match the OT as Jesus is just IHVH made human. Just because some Christian believes in something does not make it true! And just because it appears along side other myths in the Bible does not make it Gospel.
    Good morning Mystykal,

    Your rejection of certain Christian doctrines because the are "ONLY found in the Greek NT" seems very strange since the Greek NT is what defines Christianity. And you contradicted yourself because the OT says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about some "Jesus" who would be "IHVH made human"! Get real. The OT has no clear teaching about most of the stuff we find in the NT. It says nothing about Christ being born of a virgin, killed as a sin sacrifice, and resurrected on the third day! If you were to be consistent you would reject nearly the entire NT.

    And I still have no idea what you think you mean by the word "Christian." That's why I asked you define it. There are ten thousand contradictory versions that are each called "Christianity" so it is utterly meaningless to simply declare that the dominant form of the religion, which believes in eternal hell, is "NOT Christian." It might "not" be a lot of things, but seems absurd to say it is "not" Christian.

    And how can you say that you "agree" when I said that God is absolutely untrustworthy? If you agree with that, how can you claim to believe in the God of the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    You make a category mistake when you contrast Christian vs. Greek. Christianity arose in the Greek world and most if not all of the NT books were originally composed in Greek.
    Well maybe, maybe not. I personnally think that the Aramaic is older and that since Jesus was speaking in Aramaic the original was jotted down in Aramaic and later translated to Greek. But the real issue is the authenticity of the inspiration process as to whether it - the Bible - is written in a way to preserve the elements of truth in some form which when activated eons later by that same Spirit of GOD we get the truth to come out and shine - like a holograph! I think we must consider all possibilities instead of just writing the whole thing off as if there is NO GOD or that the Truth is not available in any form.
    So you think that all the books of the NT were originally composed in Aramaic? There is no evidence for anything like that, and much evidence against it. The only books of the NT that may have been originally penned in Aramaic would be Matthew and Hebrews, and we have no hard evidence for either. I think your real reason is that you have a prejudice against Greek in favor of Aramaic because you generally reject the NT and prefer the OT. From a Christian perspective, it always made sense to me that the NT was inspired in Greek because it represented the Gospel going from the nation of Israel (Hebrew) to the whole world (Greek).

    And it's funny that you mention the holographs, since they are based on an profound integration of the Greek and Hebrew. They would be much less impressive if they were Hebrew only.

    I do "consider all possibilities" and I don't "just write the whole thing off as if there is NO GOD". I've told you this ten thousand times. There very well may be some kind of "God". But that's not what were are talking about. We are talking about the kind of God portrayed in the Bible. I see no reason to believe in that kind of God, and many reasons not to.

    And where in the world did you get the crazy idea that I think "the Truth is not available in any form"??? I've never said or implied anything like that at all.

    It would be great if we could get past all these ridiculous confusions about what I actually have said. I enjoy talking with you and you have a fascinating point of view and there is much we could agree about if you would stop putting words in my mouth.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there messianicdruid,

    Thanks for the detailed explanations. I will address the other issues after dealing with this one, which I think is the most important. The idea that God answers prayers with "yes, no, or wait" is meaningless because we would get exactly the same results if we prayed to anything, such as a jug of milk, as explained in this video:



    I think the logic of the video is true and irrefutable. What do you think? Please explain your reasons if you disagree.

    All the best,

    Richard
    It sure gets quiet around here when I post this video. Has any Christian ever dared to try to refute it? If anyone has ever seen a attempted refutation of it please post it.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Your Full-Jug is just full of it.. Pour out half and then prayer will depend on whether you see it half-full or half-empty.
    How is your pathetic example any different than Dagon or Baal of the OT ?

    Isa37:19 And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them.
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Your Full-Jug is just full of it.. Pour out half and then prayer will depend on whether you see it half-full or half-empty.
    How is your pathetic example any different than Dagon or Baal of the OT ?

    Isa37:19 And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them.
    Pathetic? What's pathetic about logic, truth, and reality?

    If you think that the video is pathetic, you need to explain why. Merely saying it is "pathetic" tells me nothing. You have told me nothing of my error or why I should repent and reject the video.

    If I am wrong in my judgement about the video, you need to explain my error so I can correct it.

    The video explains why the idea that God answers prayer with a "yes, no, or wait" only creates an illusion of God answering prayer. Did you even watch it? If so, could you please do me a favor and explain why it is wrong, because as far as I can tell, it is true and no Christian on this planet has ever refuted it.

    Thanks in advance for your help Dux!

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411

    Words!

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning Mystykal,

    Your rejection of certain Christian doctrines because the are "ONLY found in the Greek NT" seems very strange since the Greek NT is what defines Christianity. And you contradicted yourself because the OT says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about some "Jesus" who would be "IHVH made human"! Get real. The OT has no clear teaching about most of the stuff we find in the NT. It says nothing about Christ being born of a virgin, killed as a sin sacrifice, and resurrected on the third day! If you were to be consistent you would reject nearly the entire NT.

    And I still have no idea what you think you mean by the word "Christian." That's why I asked you define it. There are ten thousand contradictory versions that are each called "Christianity" so it is utterly meaningless to simply declare that the dominant form of the religion, which believes in eternal hell, is "NOT Christian." It might "not" be a lot of things, but seems absurd to say it is "not" Christian.

    And how can you say that you "agree" when I said that God is absolutely untrustworthy? If you agree with that, how can you claim to believe in the God of the Bible?


    So you think that all the books of the NT were originally composed in Aramaic? There is no evidence for anything like that, and much evidence against it. The only books of the NT that may have been originally penned in Aramaic would be Matthew and Hebrews, and we have no hard evidence for either. I think your real reason is that you have a prejudice against Greek in favor of Aramaic because you generally reject the NT and prefer the OT. From a Christian perspective, it always made sense to me that the NT was inspired in Greek because it represented the Gospel going from the nation of Israel (Hebrew) to the whole world (Greek).

    And it's funny that you mention the holographs, since they are based on an profound integration of the Greek and Hebrew. They would be much less impressive if they were Hebrew only.

    I do "consider all possibilities" and I don't "just write the whole thing off as if there is NO GOD". I've told you this ten thousand times. There very well may be some kind of "God". But that's not what were are talking about. We are talking about the kind of God portrayed in the Bible. I see no reason to believe in that kind of God, and many reasons not to.

    And where in the world did you get the crazy idea that I think "the Truth is not available in any form"??? I've never said or implied anything like that at all.

    It would be great if we could get past all these ridiculous confusions about what I actually have said. I enjoy talking with you and you have a fascinating point of view and there is much we could agree about if you would stop putting words in my mouth.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hi Richard:

    I said I agree with the THEN... So that is IF A is true then The second part B is correct. I just do not believe that your version of A is correct - meaning I still think that GOD or the GOD Model holds. I do not think that your "milk jug" model is valid. I am sure you are familiar with the Prayer studies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1..._1974621.html#

    So, your insistence that you do not "write GOD off" is negated by your statements which say you know of "no evidence" for a god" - it's like you want it both ways! I do not allow that! Either you accept the GOD model as real or you do not! To leave yourself open to an idea while bashing the idea on every other level is well crazy! That is what you appear to be doing.

    The arguments for the virgin birth and all the Isaiah controversy is understood by me... I just think that the verse of "he shall crush its head" - the vishnu/Christ savior of the world spoken of in Genesis is a strong illusion to a saviour child being born. Along with all the other references in the OT to the point that Jews STILL believe in a coming saviour - is strong evidence for the Christ of the NT being IHVH in human form.

    As to the Bible being INSPIRED in Greek or any particular language... well I do not accept word inspiration so the language is not the issue and no I am not predjudiced against Greek as a language I am aware of the problems with Greek re-writing the OT notions of the concepts such as the Sabbath the eternal soul/punishment in hell and the notions of Angels/Demons which was developed long after the idea was accepted by the Jews. So my point is to say that Christianity is composed of a Greek mindset is erroneous at best. So the later Christianizaton of Jews and Greeks and then Romans creates a false "religion" made up of social customs not Biblical truth found in the OT foundation of all Abrahamic relogions which is the current belief as to where the TRUE GOD Model resides.

    http://therefinersfire.org/khabouris_codex.htm
    "All Aramaic manuscripts have a bookmark that dates them and includes the name of the scribe, where it was done, and the year it was done. Khabouris bookmark says: "Dated to the great persecution" which refers to the first widespread persecution under Nero, in 164 CE. This is not only my opinion; it's the opinion of the experts who are the custodians of the manuscript.

    I have spent 15 years showing people proof that the Greek NT is full of readings that are mistranslations from Aramaic originals - i.e., Leper vs. jar maker, the missing generation in Matthew 1 in
    all Greek copies that is restored by translating correctly one Aramaic word, and so on...."

    So your so called iron clad idea that the original Christians wrote in Greek is not fact! I am not sure either which one came FIRST Aramaic or Greek NT but I am quite sure that the Word of GOD is NOT WORD Inspired!. So the format does not matter as much as the ideas presented. And the ideas presented in the Greek do NOT match the earlier manuscripts! Making the Greek notions non-Christian! NOW I hope that is plain enough for you!



    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Last edited by Mystykal; 12-15-2013 at 05:06 AM.
    Mystykal

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Hi Richard:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    If God is absolutely untrustworthy, then all varieties of Christianity are fundamentally delusional and false.
    I aggree! So you see why I just think the list is worthless from your perspective as the whole lot of so called "Christian" doctrines are false according to you. I, however see the whole eternal hell fire thing as in the category of Greek mythology which must be separated from the whole Christian doctrine as it is ONLY found in the Greek NT and not in the OT as that type of a doctrine. It is NOT Christian! In order to be Christian it must match the OT as Jesus is just IHVH made human. Just because some Christian believes in something does not make it true! And just because it appears along side other myths in the Bible does not make it Gospel.
    And how can you say that you "agree" when I said that God is absolutely untrustworthy? If you agree with that, how can you claim to believe in the God of the Bible?
    I said I agree with the THEN... So that is IF A is true then The second part B is correct. I just do not believe that your version of A is correct - meaning I still think that GOD or the GOD Model holds. I do not think that your "milk jug" model is valid. I am sure you are familiar with the Prayer studies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1..._1974621.html#
    Good morning Mystykal,

    I am glad that you agree that my logic is valid. Now the only dispute is about the facts. I assert that God is absolutely untrustworthy. You disagree. Great! All you need to do now is tell me ONE REAL THING that everyone could actually trust God for. Sick children? Nope. Salvation from rapists? Nope. Anything? Nope. If God were actually TRUSTWORTHY about anything in reality, there would be no debate about his existence.

    As for the "prayer studies" that you linked - they don't prove anything about any god or even spirituality. On the contrary, they only show that certain brain states are associated with certain brain activities.

    You disagree with the "milk jug" argument (it's not a model). Why? Is it because you disagree with the Christians who say that God answers with a yes, no, or wait?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    So, your insistence that you do not "write GOD off" is negated by your statements which say you know of "no evidence" for a god" - it's like you want it both ways! I do not allow that! Either you accept the GOD model as real or you do not! To leave yourself open to an idea while bashing the idea on every other level is well crazy! That is what you appear to be doing.
    You have been repeating this misunderstanding for a long time and I have explained it many times. I do not believe in any god because I have no evidence - no reason to pick out one from the many suggested. But neither do I have evidence that conclusively proves there is no god of any kind. My integrity demands that I MUST REMAIN AGNOSTIC about things I do not know. Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist. This is really simple. I don't understand why you remain so confused about it. What choice do I have? Do you want me to LIE and say I believe in a GOD, or do you want me to LIE and say that I know with certainty there is no God? Why do you want me to lie???

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    The arguments for the virgin birth and all the Isaiah controversy is understood by me... I just think that the verse of "he shall crush its head" - the vishnu/Christ savior of the world spoken of in Genesis is a strong illusion to a saviour child being born. Along with all the other references in the OT to the point that Jews STILL believe in a coming saviour - is strong evidence for the Christ of the NT being IHVH in human form.
    You appear to be dodging my point. You rejected the NT doctrine of hell on the pretext that it is not found in the OT, but now you make up excuses for believing other NT doctrines that are not found in the OT. That appears to be logically inconsistent to me. It makes it impossible for me to follow your logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    As to the Bible being INSPIRED in Greek or any particular language... well I do not accept word inspiration so the language is not the issue and no I am not predjudiced against Greek as a language I am aware of the problems with Greek re-writing the OT notions of the concepts such as the Sabbath the eternal soul/punishment in hell and the notions of Angels/Demons which was developed long after the idea was accepted by the Jews. So my point is to say that Christianity is composed of a Greek mindset is erroneous at best. So the later Christianizaton of Jews and Greeks and then Romans creates a false "religion" made up of social customs not Biblical truth found in the OT foundation of all Abrahamic relogions which is the current belief as to where the TRUE GOD Model resides.
    You have invented your own religion. Why do you take the OT as superior to the NT? That makes no sense since the NT contains the revelation of Christ and the Gospel and many concepts that are almost, if not entirely, missing from the OT. Again, you position seems logically inconsistent. I simply cannot follow your logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    http://therefinersfire.org/khabouris_codex.htm
    "All Aramaic manuscripts have a bookmark that dates them and includes the name of the scribe, where it was done, and the year it was done. Khabouris bookmark says: "Dated to the great persecution" which refers to the first widespread persecution under Nero, in 164 CE. This is not only my opinion; it's the opinion of the experts who are the custodians of the manuscript.

    I have spent 15 years showing people proof that the Greek NT is full of readings that are mistranslations from Aramaic originals - i.e., Leper vs. jar maker, the missing generation in Matthew 1 in
    all Greek copies that is restored by translating correctly one Aramaic word, and so on...."

    So your so called iron clad idea that the original Christians wrote in Greek is not fact! I am not sure either which one came FIRST Aramaic or Greek NT but I am quite sure that the Word of GOD is NOT WORD Inspired!. So the format does not matter as much as the ideas presented. And the ideas presented in the Greek do NOT match the earlier manuscripts! Making the Greek notions non-Christian! NOW I hope that is plain enough for you!
    The idea that most of the NT was written in Greek is based on many facts, such as the fact that it often quotes the Greek LXX letter for letter, even when the LXX differs from the Hebrew.

    And the fact that most if not all the earliest fragments are Greek.

    We don't know when that manuscript was originally composed and we don't know if was originally translated from Greek or not. You have not presented any evidence for your assertions at all.

    And the Peshitta has only 22 books. Does this mean that you reject 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation? If so, why not reject it all? Why would you trust any book so obviously untrustworthy? Believers can't agree even about what books it is supposed to contain.

    You say "the format does not matter as much as the ideas presented." That makes no sense at all. The "ideas" are communicated entirely by the "format" - that is, the actual words that are written. Is this not what you meant when you said that "the ideas presented in the Greek do NOT match the earlier manuscripts"? You are obviously talking about the WORDS that were used in translation. And besides, that's all the Bible really is - a pile of ambiguous words that can be made to say anything anyone wants and so are fundamentally meaningless. You use the Bible like a meditational magic mirror or a Rorschach test - which is a fine and legitimate use, but it seems rather foolish to think that the random ink blot actually contains any meaning. You are merely projecting your own imagination upon the Bible.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •