Is Slavery Moral?

[Abraxos]

Council of London 1102, called by Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury. Prohibited slave trading, and slavery itself disappeared shortly afterwards. The feudal system established by the Norman conquest paved the way for it.

Yeah, later it was Christians who started the first antislavery movement in history. Internationally, it also begun to take force through Christian activists like the English evangelical philanthropist, William Wilberforce campaigning the ending of slavery. Around the early 1800s, two-thirds of the members of the American abolition society were Christian ministers.

The ending of slavery came about solely because of the Christian belief that all men are created equal, a revolutionary idea that was not a self-evident truth pre-Christianity. It was the Christian religion, building on Jewish tradition before it, that introduced the bedrock principle that all human beings are equal - maybe not in physical trait or material possessions, but in dignity, in honour, in value, and in spirit.

This is something that the OP hasn't figured out yet.

 

[cvanwey]

It makes me wonder what you are reading.

Oh, he read the Bible. The same as you

 

[jardiniere]

If you do not want to accept the definition that you gave me of the words, but think you can define them as you want, then we have a problem.

The whole of the accusation against the character of God lies in the choice of the word condone which means approve of. That is the dictionary definition you gave me. If you want to now reject that standard definition, how can one talk to you as you make up whatever meaning suits you?

And there is no doubt. The OP is meant to accuse God of evil and so "condone" which means approve of instead of "tolerate" which does not entail approving of the matter. If the OP had used "tolerate" it would carry nor moral complaint against God. The goal was to accuse God of moral evil and so it was important to use condone which entails moral evil that tolerate does not. No doubt of the intent. They are not the first to accuse God of evil. It started in the garden and continues to this day.
That is not the situation. And no one gave their approval or tolerance to those who lied to the Gestapo. Irrelevant example.


You are contradicting yourself or simply refusing to admit the dictionary definition you gave me is true. You say the Bible does not approve of slavery but that you do think it approves (condones) it. The dictionary definition of condone includes approval. So you are contradicting yourself.

Condone may include approval, but since it's not a necessary component of the definition of condone I see it as allowing in this instance, but not approving it. You think condoning something must be approving it as morally upright. I just don't, because it's usually done with reluctance. It's obvious the bible accepts and allows and tolerates slavery to the point of setting up rules on who you can and cannot enslave, and how to treat those you do enslave. This is more than tolerating, this is condoning: the approval of a morally wrong or offensive behavior, with reluctance. Straight up dictionary interpretation. Why the bible is this way is probably one of the most significant reasons I believe the bible is not God-breathed. If I have better morals than the moral progenitor God, then either God doesn't exist, we all make up our own morals, or the men who wrote the Bible were quite mistaken in their belief of what God wants from his people.

This is an important discussion to have, because while the bible condones slavery, it is still clear that it should be regulated, and that slaves should be somewhat well treated-especially in the new testament. This, while not being a full step towards non-slavery, is still important in that it does insist that slaves are people too, and should have some dignity. Something I don't think was considered in all slave keeping societies.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Condone may include approval, but since it's not a necessary component of the definition of condone I see it as allowing in this instance, but not approving it.

But that is you personally deciding what you want the word to mean. It does not mean that for the rest of the world. This makes communication difficult. One needs to use a different word that communicates CLEARLY "allowing, but not approving" and condone is not it.

You think condoning something must be approving it as morally upright.

No, that is what the word "condone" means. As I said, next time someone has allowed something they disapprove of to go on tell them they "condoned" is and see if they understand your private meaning for the word. Their response to you will be testing your position in real life.

I just don't, because it's usually done with reluctance.

The personal feelings of anyone sanctioning an act do not matter. If it is condoned, it is approved of whether reluctantly or enthusiatically.

It's obvious the bible accepts and allows and tolerates slavery to the point of setting up rules on who you can and cannot enslave, and how to treat those you do enslave. This is more than tolerating, this is condoning: the approval of a morally wrong or offensive behavior, with reluctance.

No it it not more. As I said, there are laws above divorce in most civilized nations but that does not mean they all approve or nor condone divorce. Same for prostitution and other matters. In Thialand child prostitution is probably legal. Does not mean they condone it.

Why the bible is this way is probably one of the most significant reasons I believe the bible is not God-breathed.

Which is exactly why I am convinced that the Bible does not condone slavery. Your whole position rests on a personal interpretation of the word "condone" and they you use it to reject the Bible. It went like this..

A. You said that condone as allowing slavery in this instant but not approving of it.
B. Then you said that the bible does more than merely tolerating slavery but approves of the offensive behaviour.
C. Therefore, according to you, the bible does not come from God.

You did a bait and switch on yourself. First "condone" does not mean approval, but then you said it does and you therefore reject it. Setting up rules to protect people is not condoning a behaviour as large as slavery same as setting up rules to conduct war to reduce civilian death does not mean nations all approve of war per se.

If I have better morals than the moral progenitor God, then either God doesn't exist, we all make up our own morals, or the men who wrote the Bible were quite mistaken in their belief of what God wants from his people.

Your information is lacking. The world is not black and white and setting up nations is not a matter of making rules that will eliminate all evil and enforcing them and still creating a good society. Your view of setting up a nation is way too simple.

This is an important discussion to have, because while the bible condones slavery, it is still clear that it should be regulated, and that slaves should be somewhat well treated-especially in the new testament. This, while not being a full step towards non-slavery, is still important in that it does insist that slaves are people too, and should have some dignity. Something I don't think was considered in all slave keeping societies.

The Bible does not condone slavery as we have seen. That is a word used as a weapon so people can reject the Bible, feel themselves superior to it and feel free of its claims and warnings on their behaviour.

 

[Par5]

It makes me wonder what you are reading.

I have been reading posts from Christians that very often say that slavery as described in the bible is not slavery and that there are no contradictions in the bible and that wiping out a nation by slaughtering every man woman and child is not genocide but some kind of righteous justice.
What have you been reading?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have been reading posts from Christians that very often say that slavery as described in the bible is not slavery and that there are no contradictions in the bible and that wiping out a nation by slaughtering every man woman and child is not genocide but some kind of righteous justice.
What have you been reading?

OK, I guess we have been reading different posts. IT happens. I take it back. Those posts I had skipped becauses they are written by people who never thought about this but merely parrot what they were told. They do exist on all sides of the issues but are not really worth talking to as you are not talking to their mind but pushing buttons so they can respond with the correct memorized sentence. Yawn! I like to talk to minds that actually think, not just repeat memorized material.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Council of London 1102, called by Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury. Prohibited slave trading, and slavery itself disappeared shortly afterwards. The feudal system established by the Norman conquest paved the way for it.

Since it did not stick, it does not count. Slavery in the British Empire lasted a fairly long time and was eventually outlawed by the efforts of Christian men in 1807. I mean the above it OK, but not sure of how it affects the discussion. The Slavery act of 1807 is what counts.

 

[cvanwey]

OK, I guess we have been reading different posts. IT happens. I take it back. Those posts I had skipped becauses they are written by people who never thought about this but merely parrot what they were told. They do exist on all sides of the issues but are not really worth talking to as you are not talking to their mind but pushing buttons so they can respond with the correct memorized sentence. Yawn! I like to talk to minds that actually think, not just repeat memorized material.

You may want to check out post #280, and respond. Those are not memorized and parroted A matter of fact, I asked some very specific and direct questions, based specifically upon your prior responses.

Thanks

 

[Noah Ark]

If the master who owned the slaves treated them with kindness, good shelter, medication, good food, good salary, good rest time/vacation, wouldnt the slaves be happy ?

But its just because many slaves owner treated them bad then people blame God for slavery. Is God to be blamed for that ?

 

[cvanwey]

If the master who owned the slaves treated them with kindness, good shelter, medication, good food, good salary, good rest time/vacation, wouldnt the slaves be happy ?

But its just because many slaves owner treated them bad then people blame God for slavery. Is God to be blamed for that ?

I know you are very late to the party. But I'll bring you up to speed, and save you 200+ posts......

If God is all powerful, simply write a rule stating not to own other humans as property. But instead, God allows/condones/permits/other the continuation of such acts, and tells the owners, 'as long as your beatings don't kill them in 48 hours, yer good.'

There, now you are caught up.

Thanx

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I know you are very late to the party. But I'll bring you up to speed, and save you 200+ posts......

If God is all powerful, simply write a rule stating not to own other humans as property. But instead, God allows/condones/permits/other the continuation of such acts, and tells the owners, 'as long as your beatings don't kill them in 48 hours, yer good.'

There, now you are caught up.

Thanx

That is the accusation. It is not a description of the actually biblical situation, however. Being all powerful does not mean he is a tyrant as some insist any all powerful good Being would be. What is not noticed is being all powerful and good means one is NOT a bully because while bullies might be powerful, they are not good. All powerful AND good puts restrictions on what one can do to ensure good in society.

 

[cvanwey]

That is the accusation. It is not a description of the actually biblical situation, however. Being all powerful does not mean he is a tyrant as some insist any all powerful good Being would be. What is not noticed is being all powerful and good means one is NOT a bully because while bullies might be powerful, they are not good. All powerful AND good puts restrictions on what one can do to ensure good in society.

And yet, He imposed 600+ Mosaic laws. None of them telling humans not to beat their slaves, which He refers to as property for life Peculiar...

 

[Noah Ark]

If God is all powerful, simply write a rule stating not to own other humans as property.

God has entrusted the poor people to the Rich.

Remember the story of poor Lazarus and the Rich man


The rich man ignored the clear teachings of Moses and the prophets on his obligation to care for his poor neighbors. By literally stepping over the wretched beggar Lazarus on his front porch time and time again, he blinded himself to the humanity of one created in the image and likeness of God and with whom Christ identified Himself as “the least of these my brethren.” He ignored God every time that he ignored his neighbor. This blindness became so characteristic of the rich man that, once he departed this life, he was unable to behold the brilliant glory of God and could perceive only a tormenting flame.

Listen to Jesus's message to the ignorant rich people :
Mat 24:41 .....Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

A great one... Our government does not torture individuals for eternity, for lack in belief in the supernatural (i.e) a resurrection claim.

No it isn't. It blames God for making hell instead of the guilty who do deeds that deserve that place. What does the supernatural have to do with it? (The question was who made hell?)

Then when are you going to make yourself believe you can fly? Since believe is controlled by free will, and free will is the ability to control your thoughts.

No, I already said faith is based on evidence for the wise man. How a jury DECIDE to believe a man is innocent or guilty? By controlling their free will alone? No, they hear the EVIDENCE.

Wrong again my friend...

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Are the condemned for not believing? Let's take a look at real judgement before God.
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. Faith in Christ means sins are forgiven. Otherwise a man is judged by what they had done in the body.

(and..)

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Believe what? And the result of believing? God forgives sin. You seem to miss that part.

You, my friend, are inventing your own morality (which is better than the one asserted from the Bible

No, I am not. I know you are trying to compliment me and I appreciate it, but God and the morals expressed in the Bible are far superior to mine or any man's.

I have two specific pieces of 'evidence.' The two verses above Believe or be condemned. What is your definition of condemned? I know what the Bible's definition is BTW, I like how you slipped in 'per se' You are funny.

But you see you are mistaken about that verse. If one believes the claims of Christ and the forgiveness from God believing those claims offer, one is forgiven from sin. Being forgiven from sin means one is no longer condemned. You miss this vital part. If one does not accept those claims, then the real wrong deeds one did in life will be judged. It is not believing that saves, it is being forgiven because of believing.

You have drastically missed my point... I do not believe, because I do not believe in the supernatural. For that, do I deserve to burn forever in a lake of fire? Simple yes or no question...

No, you will not be condemned for not believing if that is the one thing you did in your whole life that was not agreeing with God. If your life is perfect without any wrong doing, then you have nothing to fear. Again, all will stand before God and give an account of the deeds done in the body but those who believed and then obeyed the teachings of Christ will have had those deeds erased from the record of their deeds.

I know you want to blame God for condemning you for not believing because that sounds so petty. But that is not what you will be judged upon. You will be judged for the wrong deeds you did in the body. You, yourself, need to consider if your deeds, 100% of them, are right and perfect and flawless. If not, God has provided an answer. If you don't like the answer, there is no other.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And yet, He imposed 600+ Mosaic laws. None of them telling humans not to beat their slaves, which He refers to as property for life Peculiar...

Again, you like to use words that accuse God of evil by saying "imposed" as those no one living there would like the law, "do not steal" or "do not murder." Does the government where you live impose its laws on you by insisting no one is allowed to steal your stuff or your family or you? Are they imposing some kind of tyranny by insisting that no one is allowed to murder anyone else? Do you think the law that tells a man to return found items or animals to their rightful owner unjust or that the owner feels imposed upon for getting his property back? It is clear, cvanwey, that you want to accuse God of evil and so choose loaded words. You reveal your motive.

 

[devolved]

And yet, He imposed 600+ Mosaic laws. None of them telling humans not to beat their slaves, which He refers to as property for life Peculiar...

You can't interpret past in hindsight of a knowledge framework that exists today.

I'll give you a simple example. Let's say you live in a tribal setting, and most women die for some reason. You are left with predominantly male tribe, which in that particular historic context would mean the death of that tribe.

As an alternative, there was no social context for "picking up dates" elsewhere. You either voluntarily surrendered yourself to other tribe and try to find a woman there to carry your lineage, which in many cases meant "slavery" in terms of voluntary subservience. One would essentially join a servant class.

Or you would gather up your troops and stolen some women and brought them back with you as wives, which again meant "slavery".

Of course, if you failed in your enterprise and the tribe fended off your attack and captured you as a prisoner... you were not kept in prison. You would either be killed, you become a slave.

Our past is fairly brutal. Not so long ago, the worst punishment was not death, but "banishment". Meaning that you had no tribe, and likely would end up being a slave or going insane. There's a long road of human development, of which religion played a giant role when it comes to establishing moral standards that allowed space for human enterprise beyond basic human survival. When you look back and compare models, you need to compare the environment in which such models are relevant.

Slavery in context of the past was embedded in "natural order" of tribal human behavior. I would argue that Christian religion provided a shift in cultural context that allowed for eradication of slavery and prejudice, even though in some contexts it was used to justify racism-driven slavery system.

 

[Par5]

Again, you like to use words that accuse God of evil by saying "imposed" as those no one living there would like the law, "do not steal" or "do not murder." Does the government where you live impose its laws on you by insisting no one is allowed to steal your stuff or your family or you? Are they imposing some kind of tyranny by insisting that no one is allowed to murder anyone else? Do you think the law that tells a man to return found items or animals to their rightful owner unjust or that the owner feels imposed upon for getting his property back? It is clear, cvanwey, that you want to accuse God of evil and so choose loaded words. You reveal your motive.

Speaking for myself I don't blame your god for anything. I don't believe in the biblical god so I can hardly blame something I don't believe exists. Ehe acts of violence and the keeping of slaves as recorded in the bible were acts carr

Again, you like to use words that accuse God of evil by saying "imposed" as those no one living there would like the law, "do not steal" or "do not murder." Does the government where you live impose its laws on you by insisting no one is allowed to steal your stuff or your family or you? Are they imposing some kind of tyranny by insisting that no one is allowed to murder anyone else? Do you think the law that tells a man to return found items or animals to their rightful owner unjust or that the owner feels imposed upon for getting his property back? It is clear, cvanwey, that you want to accuse God of evil and so choose loaded words. You reveal your motive.

Speaking for myself, I don't blame the god you believe in for anything, and I don't accuse it of being evil for the simple fact that I don't believe in your god. If such a being did exist and the actions attributed to this god and the things it told its followers to do as recorded in the bible were true, then I would consider this being to be evil. However I don't believe in the biblical god and any acts of violence recorded in the bible, if they actually occured, were acts by men and men alone.
You though do believe in the biblical god and the words contained in the bible, and deny it all you wish, but the bible clearly shows that the god you believe in condoned slavery. It also states quite clearly that your god ordered acts of genocide, something I am sure you will deny, although I would like to know what you would call slaughtering every man woman and child, sparing no one. The bible is also full of contradictions, something else no doubt you would deny. So my criticism is not of the biblical god but of people who follow such a being believing it did indeed do such things and who defend those things that any decent human being would consider abhorrent.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Speaking for myself I don't blame your god for anything. I don't believe in the biblical god so I can hardly blame something I don't believe exists. Ehe acts of violence and the keeping of slaves as recorded in the bible were acts carr

When you use accusing words to describe the Bible in total error, yes, you are blaming God. You are fooling yourself if you think not believing in God makes a difference. You can test if you are blaming God but using those same words when someone you know does something that fits. This is what I said regarding "condone." Next time someone allows something they dislike, tell them they condoned it and see if that works out fine.

Speaking for myself, I don't blame the god you believe in for anything, and I don't accuse it of being evil for the simple fact that I don't believe in your god.

Your words of blame have been recorded and will be read out on that day to the one you accused of evil. You see, it is the person who is the subject of the sentence, not the speaker, who is to say if the words are accusing of evil. Anyone can fool themselves into thinking they are not accusing another of evil by refusing to see what the words they use mean. It is the subject who knows if they have been accused of evil.

If such a being did exist and the actions attributed to this god and the things it told its followers to do as recorded in the bible were true, then I would consider this being to be evil.

But you do not understand them and what is worse, you change the meaning and pick words that deliberately make God look evil.

.
You though do believe in the biblical god and the words contained in the bible, and deny it all you wish, but the bible clearly shows that the god you believe in condoned slavery.

No one thinks that but those who want to accuse God of evil or those who do not understand matters of justice and from my viewpoint, do not want to understand. It is a childish idea to ask "why can't God just make people good" or "why can't God tell the people not to have slaves" and think there won't be any. Reminds me of the US under prohibition. Let's make a law making the bad thing illegal and that will solve the problem.

 

[cvanwey]

No it isn't. It blames God for making hell instead of the guilty who do deeds that deserve that place. What does the supernatural have to do with it? (The question was who made hell?)

God sends people to hell, whom do not accept Christ's stated way of salvation, which means one is obligated to accept a supernatural claim, which means one must accept/believe in the supernatural. So yes, God sends folks to a place of eternal damnation and torture, for lack in belief of a supernatural event. If I just so happen to attempt to try and live a moral life, following the Bible to the best of my abilities, at least as a moral compass (the golden rule, etc..), but just can't accept the supernatural claim, because I do not believe in the supernatural, along with not seeing enough evidence to support the resurrection claim, if the Bible is actually correct, then I go to hell, in accordance to scripture.

So yes, the government does not eternally torture people for lack in belief of the supernatural. And yes, Yahweh does, if true.

No, I already said faith is based on evidence for the wise man. How a jury DECIDE to believe a man is innocent or guilty? By controlling their free will alone? No, they hear the EVIDENCE.

No, faith is believe without evidence. Faith is pretending to know something one does not actually know. Faith can be applied to any unfounded belief. Free will is the ability to control your thoughts. Make yourself truly believe anything without just cause... (i.e.) Make yourself believe China doesn't exist, for kicks. If you can, you have just demonstrated free will.

Are the condemned for not believing? Let's take a look at real judgement before God.

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. Faith in Christ means sins are forgiven. Otherwise a man is judged by what they had done in the body.

Believe is mentioned three time in these verses. Believe or be condemned. It is an ultimatum. Well, like already stated, since I do not have the ability to completely control my thoughts, like I cannot make myself believe I can fly or believe China does not exist, I just don't think a resurrection actually happened. And since I don't, according to the Bible, I'm doomed, regardless.... No 'judgement' is required. No belief, no heaven; if true.

Believe what? And the result of believing? God forgives sin. You seem to miss that part.

I'm afraid it is you, whom are missing the part... So let me provide a quick example.

Person A tries to follow the moral teachings of the Bible, as a guideline, but thinks the resurrection was a metaphor.

Person B tries to follow the moral teachings of the Bible, as a guideline, and thinks the resurrection is real, and accepts the action for grace, because of course, person B believes a resurrection happened.

Which one(s) go to heaven, and why?

As stated, without belief, person B has no chance, no matter what.

No, I am not. I know you are trying to compliment me and I appreciate it, but God and the morals expressed in the Bible are far superior to mine or any man's.

I trust by now, that under Christianity, you are starting to understand that 'morals' are virtually irrelevant. The deciding factor is belief. Not believing in something is neither moral or immoral, but instead, amoral. Belief is based upon one's own needed evidence. If I don't believe my friend, when he told me he saw a UFO yesterday, does that make me moral or immoral? No. Morality is the ability to distinguish between good/bad behavior. Belief does not fall within such a scope. One either believes, or doesn't.

I have NO doubt you believe. My point is, I don't, because I do not accept supernatural claims. Therefore, according to Christianity, I'm screwed, if actually true

But you see you are mistaken about that verse. If one believes the claims of Christ and the forgiveness from God believing those claims offer, one is forgiven from sin. Being forgiven from sin means one is no longer condemned. You miss this vital part. If one does not accept those claims, then the real wrong deeds one did in life will be judged. It is not believing that saves, it is being forgiven because of believing.

Could have fooled me, each verse explicitly mentioned belief three times Again, you are placing your own rational twist, to make it make sense, and more palatable to you. I'm reading the verses for face value. No belief, no heaven. Pretty simple.

No, you will not be condemned for not believing if that is the one thing you did in your whole life that was not agreeing with God. If your life is perfect without any wrong doing, then you have nothing to fear.

This would again be false. Deeds and works are not what bring salvation. According to scripture, it is belief in salvation, (via a resurrection claim). I do not accept a resurrection claim, due to seemingly poor evidence. I'm furnace fuel (if true).

I know you want to blame God for condemning you for not believing because that sounds so petty. But that is not what you will be judged upon. You will be judged for the wrong deeds you did in the body. You, yourself, need to consider if your deeds, 100% of them, are right and perfect and flawless. If not, God has provided an answer. If you don't like the answer, there is no other.

I suggest you really study scripture again. Belief in salvation is key. Works and deeds are virtually irrelevant. Otherwise, you are basically some form of a Catholic. Yahweh's version of a sin, is basically anything done against His commands. Not believing is apparently the pinnacle or cardinal sin of these commands. The rest, becomes a mute point.

 

[Par5]

When you use accusing words to describe the Bible in total error, yes, you are blaming God. You are fooling yourself if you think not believing in God makes a difference. You can test if you are blaming God but using those same words when someone you know does something that fits. This is what I said regarding "condone." Next time someone allows something they dislike, tell them they condoned it and see if that works out fine.
Your words of blame have been recorded and will be read out on that day to the one you accused of evil. You see, it is the person who is the subject of the sentence, not the speaker, who is to say if the words are accusing of evil. Anyone can fool themselves into thinking they are not accusing another of evil by refusing to see what the words they use mean. It is the subject who knows if they have been accused of evil.

But you do not understand them and what is worse, you change the meaning and pick words that deliberately make God look evil.
No one thinks that but those who want to accuse God of evil or those who do not understand matters of justice and from my viewpoint, do not want to understand. It is a childish idea to ask "why can't God just make people good" or "why can't God tell the people not to have slaves" and think there won't be any. Reminds me of the US under prohibition. Let's make a law making the bad thing illegal and that will solve the problem.

What part of, "I don't blame the god you believe in for anything, and I don't accuse it of being evil" are you having difficulty understanding? I've already stated that any atrocities recorded in the bible, if they actually happened, were the actions of men and men alone. Me blaming some god I don't believe in would make as much sense as me blaming Santa Claus.
I am not changing the meaning of anything, I am simply stating what the bible says. I am not changing what it says.
Anyway, when the bible talks about the slaughter of a nation's, men women and children sparing no one, I understand what that means. It's called genocide, although you still haven't said what you call it.
When it talks about slavery I know what it means no matter what spin you put on it to the contrary.
So you see, I don't have difficulty understanding certain things in the bible. There are things in the bible I don't understand, but that is when it is not dealing with reality, but slavery and genocide I certainly do understand. I understand both are totally wrong.