Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I believe in a Spiritual connection. But the god of this world is Satan, so The Father has no direct connection with Sin. It's just not possible for the two to exist together. But through the Spirit, God is the master of those who accept his rule. Satan is the master of the rest.
Nope.
No list of miracles includes natural events.
A nice, breezy idea though.
Perfect for a Unitarian Universalist church.
My question is this: do you guys (YECs, mostly) understand that by undermining the natural world you are demeaning more than 99.9% of God's creative effort? And reducing the things that God is responsible for?
Of course not, because I'm using actual definitions, instead of making them up like you do.
"admit"? I've pointed out for a long time, over and over to you that these words (like most words) have multiple definitions. I've also shown how you are, and have been, equivocating between different defintions.
The two definitions for "creationist" mark is equivocating between are:
"evolution denier" and,
"anyone who believes God created, even through evolution "
Again mark tries to attack by using the word "admit", as if my posting of the definitons of these words (done to expose his equivocation) was someing that needed to be "admitted".
Here are the defintions, again, for reference:
noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. Universal common descent (UCD)
6. The biological descent of humans from non-human ancestors.
Deception, by mark pushing his made up definitions. Darwinism does not include metaphycial naturalism, and common descent is not an assumption.
The scientic understanding of evolution includes common descent. Maybe consider taking a college class before continuing to disagree with the experts about something you don't understand?
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. ...The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
...means that you are excluding most Christians from the body of Christ. Not just the TE's, but OECs, day agers, gap creationists, progressive creationists, excluding even church fathers like Augustine and Origen who disagreed with a literal interpretation of Genesis. You tell all these Christians, many of whom consider themselves creationists of one type or another, that you don't consider them Christian.
Such a vicious dismissal of so many of our brother and sister believers as "non-Christians" shows that you are more concerned about pushing your interpretation than you are about helping spread the Gospel and strengthen the body of Christ. It shows that you care more about pushing your interpreation than you do about actual doctrinal issues. Hint - the method that God used to create is not a salvation issue.
No your not, your arguing in circles.
What a sad attempt at a dodge. You stated above you reject people who don't fit your literal interpretation of Genesis as non-Christian, even if they see God as the creator. Which method God used to create is not "essential doctrine".
No, you haven't. That's why I had to repeatedly clarify the definitions, even in this post.
So then you agree you are using "evolution" to mean UCD? Nice to know, since you said that you don't dispute evolution. Maybe next time avoid the equivocation by stating that you don't dispute adaptation, but that you are a UCD denier.
Metherion pointed this out - that you:
1. relentlessly try to sneak metaphysical naturalism into the definition of Darwinism, by pointing to a cherry-picked and irrelevant quote from over 150 years ago.
2. Try to exclude UCD from the definitions of evolution, as if you've never taken a college class on evolution. .... um, hey, you may not have taken a college class on evolution....
3. Exclude believers from the body of Christ because of your personal hang ups.
3. Insist that your interpretation of Genesis is "essential doctrine", even though it is neither universal nor the only traditional view.
metherion said:And what I would do with one of those is just what I would do with you: Realize I’m not being listened to, that everything I’m saying is being swept aside with no consideration, and end the game they are playing by refusing to give them any more of my time.
mark kennedy said:No sir, you are the one who has swept aside my carefully prepared discussion of Darwinism, Evolutionary Biology and Creation. You have done so without even commenting on the more substantive elements of my responses even though I have answered most of your posts line by line.
Oh really? And what is that "clear standard" is not "mark's own personal interpretation"?
Evolution which is actually two definitions, 'the change of alleles in populations over time' and the Darwinian assumption of 'universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means' Creationists do not deny the former, nor to they categorically reject the latter.
What about the Evolutionary Creationist stance; Universal common descent exclusively by the providential creativity of God?
My question is this: do you guys (YECs, mostly) understand that by undermining the natural world you are demeaning more than 99.9% of God's creative effort? And reducing the things that God is responsible for?
Hi crawfish,
What a non-sensical statement.
As one who believes in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, I give God the glory for all that He has made. Denying the worldview that the earth is so many billions of years old doesn't in any way deny the glory of God, in fact, it upholds a greater glory in that I believe that He made it all perfectly to start with and not that there needed to be some time allowance for the creation to perfect itself.
I don't in any way deny the natural world or anything in it, I just deny that those who draw certain conclusions about its age from the study of the natural world, have come up with the correct answer as to why things are what they are and appear as they appear.
Here's what Paul warned about in such things: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.
Philosophy = Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
Paul warns us against 'hollow and deceptive' philosophy that is based on human tradition and the 'basic principles of this world' rather than on Christ. My 'philosophy' starts with Jesus being the one through whom all things are made. The universe, the earth, and all that exists. My philosophical foundation is that God has explained clearly all that I need to know about righteousness, salvation and the creation of all things. Every other teaching about these things is based on the basic principles of this world. I wholeheartedly reject those things and am instructed to do so lest I be deceived and made captive of the teachings of this world.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Hi MM,
Thanks. It's good to see that you're still around. I have also noticed that you are more careful in picking your battles and more quickly getting to the point that you've said what you believe and explained your position clearly and then leave it alone.
God is good!!!
May he continue to bless you richly.
In Christ, Ted
(OK, NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING)
But we're not discussing an atheistic or deistic view of UCD, we're discussing a theistic view of such, you're arguing with theists stop treating us as if we're not.The operative term in Universal Common Descent is 'universal'. The Darwinian concept is based on the Darwinian argument against special creation.
It all comes down to a poor theology of science, I personally haven't seen any YEC with a good one, either it appeals to science being a tool of the devil, or it is inherently deistic and believes that we can test for God.Don't get me wrong, if you think evolutionary biology and the requisite disciplines of natural science have made their case and it dovetails with the clear testimony of Scripture go in peace, I have no problem with you.
Well in the case that we do take Gen 1 to be a hymn of praise we have made a distinction in genre between Gen 1 and historical narrative, ie. it doesn't make any impact on viewing any other part of scripture as historical narrative. This holds true even of my own stance that it is a monotheistic treatise expounding on the purposefulness in God's creation.The problem with UCD is that it knows no bounds. If you simply dismiss Genesis 1 as a poetic hymn of praise with no bearing on real world history how does this reflect on the rest of the historical narratives, particularly the Gospels.
Theistic evolutionists who reject interference of God aren't holding up the theistic part of their name.Evolutionist creationist is an oxymoron at best since the secular world and theistic evolutionists at large reject any inference of God. Except for these boards you will not see the term 'evolutionary creationist', for good reason, they are contrary terms.
Let's see, believing that God created the heavens, earth, life, Adam and the new creation promised in the Revelation we are somehow demeaning God's creation. On the other hand if we embrace the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent we are affirming God's creation by giving him credit for nothing.
Hi crawfish,
What a non-sensical statement.
As one who believes in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, I give God the glory for all that He has made. Denying the worldview that the earth is so many billions of years old doesn't in any way deny the glory of God, in fact, it upholds a greater glory in that I believe that He made it all perfectly to start with and not that there needed to be some time allowance for the creation to perfect itself.
I don't in any way deny the natural world or anything in it, I just deny that those who draw certain conclusions about its age from the study of the natural world, have come up with the correct answer as to why things are what they are and appear as they appear.
Here's what Paul warned about in such things: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Philosophy = Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
Paul warns us against 'hollow and deceptive' philosophy that is based on human tradition and the 'basic principles of this world' rather than on Christ. My 'philosophy' starts with Jesus being the one through whom all things are made. The universe, the earth, and all that exists. My philosophical foundation is that God has explained clearly all that I need to know about righteousness, salvation and the creation of all things. Every other teaching about these things is based on the basic principles of this world. I wholeheartedly reject those things and am instructed to do so lest I be deceived and made captive of the teachings of this world.
However, if your question still stands, no, I do not.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Well then obviously, I wasn't talking to you. There are plenty of people who hold to a literal Genesis and a young earth who don't agree with you, though. I get told quite often that if evolution is true then it means God had nothing to do with it...which is very curious to me. Yours is the more rational opinion.
The whole "hollow and deceptive" philosophy is held by different people at different levels. Some limit it to evolution; some resist psychology, and some go at the idea wholesale and reject medicine as a whole. Remarkably, a lot fewer seem to reject the individualistic, materialistic and consumerist philosophies so prevalent in our country today.
In any case, I don't have a problem with people who believe in a young earth. I have problem with people who want to shut the conversation off and exclude people who think like me.
If you don't give him credit for both then you're shrinking His influence. If you can't accept that God could work through common descent and evolution then you also cannot accept that God works through other natural phenomena like weather patterns or childbirth or quantum physics.
The existence of natural law is one of God's greatest miracles. I'm just sorry you don't seem to believe that.
But we're not discussing an atheistic or deistic view of UCD, we're discussing a theistic view of such, you're arguing with theists stop treating us as if we're not.
It all comes down to a poor theology of science, I personally haven't seen any YEC with a good one, either it appeals to science being a tool of the devil, or it is inherently deistic and believes that we can test for God.
Well in the case that we do take Gen 1 to be a hymn of praise we have made a distinction in genre between Gen 1 and historical narrative, ie. it doesn't make any impact on viewing any other part of scripture as historical narrative. This holds true even of my own stance that it is a monotheistic treatise expounding on the purposefulness in God's creation.
Theistic evolutionists who reject interference of God aren't holding up the theistic part of their name.
Your complaint however is that Theistic evolutionists don't take into account God's interference in their science, well I'm sorry but since God is untestable as he holds all things together (Col 1:17) the theistic response is that we praise God for what he does and understand it through science, the secularist who denies that God holds all things together does so on the basis that he understands how things work through science.
You're avoiding my complaint and reaffirming your misconception. I don't care what some would use UCD as demonstrating (that is using it to state that which it cannot, that God is not involved in creation) to the theist and therefore to those who are arguing with you UCD speaks of God's involvement in creation.UCD excludes God as cause, now ultimately you contend that God is still the primary mover but He is removed from the cause and effect chain of events going all the way back to the Big Bang. I know what evolution is as science and I know what it is as UCD and they are not the same.
Well of course not because we fundamentally affirm that God created, to do otherwise would deny the the Theistic part of what we believe.You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. I have never seen a Theistic Evolutionist able to disagree with that statement
No, the sole purpose of Theistic Evolution in a theological context is to state that God is creator and inherently involved in his creation even if science seems to say otherwise.even though the sole purpose of it in a theological context is to argue against Creationism. What I think you guys need to do is to sort yourselves out because your problem isn't with me.
Theology of science is how we approach science in the knowledge of God.You guys have a real problem discerning things that are obviously different, speaking of them as if they naturally belong together. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'theology of science' but I think it's another way of saying 'natural theology'. There is a good one out there that has stood the test of time, Aristotle, Newton, Paley and more recently Meyer and Behe all had a very similar one. It's come to be known as Intelligent Design.
SureCreationism is very different in one important respect, it's a Biblical doctrine based on the canonical teachings of Scripture. We are not talking about isolated texts taken out of their natural context but the clear meaning of broad sweeping testimonies that transcend Scripture, literally, from Genesis to Revelations.
You have conflated Creationism with YEC. And yes I do believe that how some YEC view science is inherently deistic, I didn't say that all view it as deism, it reminds me of the somewhat apt description of people who are against abortion and for the death penalty "All that matters is life before birth, we don't care about the rest." Too often I have run across people across the whole origins debate that have the view that all that is important is whether God created and how he created. And it is, it is inherently deistic.How do you get deistic from Creationism, they are two extremely different views. A deist believes the world, and or the universe, was created like a watch, wound up and left to function mechanically.
Theistic Evolutionists should believe that God both created and is in control of the universe through his providential care.Deistic describes Theistic Evolution pretty much to a tee and Intelligent Design to a lessor degree but Creationism? You are clearly taking two concepts, deism and creationism and pretending the two are the same thing when they are clearly poles apart.
So Genesis 49 isn't prophecy? The Bible does have more than one genre per book, there are songs throughout the rest of the historical narratives; Ex 15, Jdg 5, 1Sa 2, 2Sa 1, 2 Sa 22, Luk 1. There is history in books of Prophecy; Is 36-39, Jer 52, parts of Daniel. And there are songs in books of Prophecy; Is 52-53, Hab 3.Genesis has always been and always will be understood as an historical narrative, otherwise, what are the genealogies doing in there? That's the thing, you don't get to change the meaning by reinterpreting it. If you want to do an exposition of the text and cross reference it with the requisite New Testament witness I would be happy to entertain your thoughts on the subject. Never the less, Genesis is written in the genre of an historical narrative and calling it something else won't change that
I had a mindblank, the word I was wanting to use is providence.I don't know if it's a good idea theologically to call God's interaction with His creation 'interference' but I think God acting in time and space can seem like an interruption of the natural order. I say that even though it's not really, for God, it's perfectly natural to do what only God can do. This has been the confirming aspect of all of Scripture, invariably when a new era of revelation commences it is confirmed with signs, miracles and wonders. Of course, no Christian can escape this, TE or otherwise.
I don't think Theistic Evolutionists are trying to remove the miraculous aspects of Scripture the way the Modernists have over the last hundred years or so. Never the less, there is a clear implication for the totality of Scripture if Creation is reduced to naturalistic cause and effect phenomenon. That is something TEs should be quick to address and yet they almost never do.
You are not challenging any part of my theology, you are making incorrect statements and I'm trying to point them out to you.Complaining that I am challenging your Christian convictions won't solve any of the conflicts between Darwinian UCD and Christian theism. Not because I have a problem with you but because Darwinians have a problem with God as the cause of anything.
And part of that God doing what only God can do is sustaining and providing care for his creation.Science, at least since the Scientific Revolution, has been focused on natural phenomenon. This has created a logical and even disciplined separation between the cause and effect relationships determined through empirical testing and theology. I don't expect them to take God's miracles in Creation or elsewhere into some special consideration, God doing what only God can do is beyond the reach of empirical testing.
Amen.Science may well inform our understanding but just understanding the Gospel is a miracle human intellect cannot discern apart from God's direct intervention.
Because the evidence supplied doesn't match up with what they want it to, not because we are opposed to the idea that God is creator, or him as designer. I have had YEC just as much tell me that I can't apply God as creator or God as designer in the way I want to mainly claiming "that makes God unloving," or "that's a silly design choice." Yet we are still the created beings what gives us the right to say to God that's unjust, he does all things to his counsel, not ours.(Romans 9:21)My complaint is that Theistic Evolution is diametrically opposed to Creationist thought, even the most general inference of God as Designer receives deliberate and unrelenting criticism and little else.
What I think is happening here is neither good science or soundly theological reasoning. What I think is really happening is that Darwinism has disguised itself as science.
Yet you achieve neither.I think TEs have been sold a fallacious philosophy that has left them hanging out on a limb and laughs as they hang in the lurch and those thin limbs creek. I'm not trying to push you further out, I'm trying to reach out and pull you back in.
I do realise that. Do you?I think you need to realize that Creationists are not the enemy. I think you had better because the culture war is over, we have abortion of demand, Gay marriage is quickly becoming a civil right and Creationism categorically barred from any and all academic or scientific consideration.
Um, sorry but according to my watch the degradation of society, loosening of morals and attack on the faith started about the time of the reformation, it was a bit of a double edged sword, it called into question the Church and therefore God.I think you should understand now because you are going to find out later, your next.
I defend theism, I have no care for the philosophy of naturalism.It might seem fine and dandy now but the philosophy you are defending is opposed to anything remotely theistic.
You're just as much attacking Creationism as you accuse us of doing and that's the problem here.I think you should realize that if you are a Christian then you are by conviction a Creationist and attacking Creationism is self deprecating. Don't blame me when these 'evolutionists' you think you have so much in common with turn on you like starving wolves in winter.
Mark, I have a question considering you are far more well read on the subject. Is there any true hard evidence for ucd, or is it mostly assumption to back a theory?
You're avoiding my complaint and reaffirming your misconception. I don't care what some would use UCD as demonstrating (that is using it to state that which it cannot, that God is not involved in creation) to the theist and therefore to those who are arguing with you UCD speaks of God's involvement in creation.
Well of course not because we fundamentally affirm that God created, to do otherwise would deny the the Theistic part of what we believe.
No, the sole purpose of Theistic Evolution in a theological context is to state that God is creator and inherently involved in his creation even if science seems to say otherwise.
You have conflated Creationism with YEC.
And yes I do believe that how some YEC view science is inherently deistic,
Theistic Evolutionists should believe that God both created and is in control of the universe through his providential care.
So Genesis 49 isn't prophecy? The Bible does have more than one genre per book, there are songs throughout the rest of the historical narratives; Ex 15, Jdg 5, 1Sa 2, 2Sa 1, 2 Sa 22, Luk 1. There is history in books of Prophecy; Is 36-39, Jer 52, parts of Daniel. And there are songs in books of Prophecy; Is 52-53, Hab 3.
Genre is defined by content, not content by genre and books need not be one genre.
So yes I will affirm that Genesis is predominantly historical narrative in genre, Gen 1 however is not and neither is Gen 49.
I had a mindblank, the word I was wanting to use is providence.
You are not challenging any part of my theology, you are making incorrect statements and I'm trying to point them out to you.
And part of that God doing what only God can do is sustaining and providing care for his creation.
Because the evidence supplied doesn't match up with what they want it to, not because we are opposed to the idea that God is creator, or him as designer. I have had YEC just as much tell me that I can't apply God as creator or God as designer in the way I want to mainly claiming "that makes God unloving," or "that's a silly design choice." Yet we are still the created beings what gives us the right to say to God that's unjust, he does all things to his counsel, not ours.(Romans 9:21)
Um, sorry but according to my watch the degradation of society, loosening of morals and attack on the faith started about the time of the reformation, it was a bit of a double edged sword, it called into question the Church and therefore God.
I defend theism, I have no care for the philosophy of naturalism.
You're just as much attacking Creationism as you accuse us of doing and that's the problem here.
Naturalism is not UCD can we get that straight?First of all UCD rejects God's involvement not even tolerating God getting honorable mention as Designer. I don't dodge these questions, I seek them out. Now Theistic Evolutionists try to make it seem like it's the same thing as Creationism but they beg the question of why they continually argue against Creationism and now want to pretend to be defenders of it. Utterly absurd.
Except TE is Creationism it states that God created and is in control.No sir, I strongly disagree based on the thousands of exchanges I have had with them over the years. What makes Theistic Evolution distinct is that it is specifically focused on arguing relentlessly against Creationism, even in it's most benign form known as Intelligent Design. I what you were saying were true the level of animosity for Biblical Creationism would be largely academic and it would be nearly identical to ID. That is simply not the case,
I quick search of my recent posts would show that I'm Reformed, argue for God's immanence in his creation, and argue against dispensationalism, King james onlyism and sabbatarianism.Theistic Evolutionists argue against Creationism, what they believe beyond that is almost impossible to say because they do little else.
I pointed to YEC specifically as having those two theologies of science, you reply by generalising it to all creationists, you either conflated the two or are misrepresenting what I am saying.Stop right there, I have done no such thing.
See I have that same problem with YEC, perhaps you'll remember my signature from a while back (paraphrasing because I can't find the copy I posted on Facebook);Which is absurd, deism is a believe that God in fact created and then did nothing. That describes Theistic Evolution since you credit Him with creating evolution and that's about it as far as I can tell.
Tell me if you need more clarification, I have always used 'some' or contrasted between more than one point of view.Those two points are going to have to be cleared up because they are utterly false statements I find intolerable.
Which is classical deism:
Classical deism held that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual intervention. Deism
Wikipedia,
The fact is that Creationists do not reject God's interaction with humanity either in creation or in our lives. You have applied two extraordinarily opposite terms together and it's utterly absurd.
You missed my point, the writers of scripture wrote what God wanted them to write without regard to modern concepts of genre.Genesis is an historical narrative focused on four events in the early chapters and then four individuals and their lineage in the subsequent chapters. Call it what you will, Genesis is clearly written as an historical narrative and any poetic, lyrical or metaphorical elements fall well within that general description.
I'm not really wanting to stress Gen 49 as a direct parallel with Gen 1 as you seem to think I do, if you want a parallel of what I think is going on Jdg 4-5, Ex 14-15 and Gen 1-2 would be the ones I draw.Genesis 1 is history past, at the time when Jacob blessed his sons it was predictive prophecy, which is history future. It was also predicted that the children of Israel (Jacob's other name) would be slaves in Egypt and that God would deliver them miraculously. The telling of the blessings are being recorded as historical, in that, it's records the predictions and associated blessing at their inception. Genesis 1 is a simple description of a series of events during Creation week and have not of the marks of poetic hyperbole of any kind.
Well they also don't say that they are one genre per book.Your at least focused on the Scriptures but you are trying to mean something that they just don't say.
I am talking about the continued sustaining act of God, nothing happens that is not his will, if he were to step away from creation as it were creation would no longer exist, that constant act which brings himself glory.If you read the article on Deism there are two views of providence mentioned, that of Ben Franklin and that of Thomas Jefferson. Franklin believe that 'the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature'. Jefferson was a strict deist that rejected miracles of any kind, I assume by providence you mean something closer to the former or am I mistaken?
The start of this conversation was about a misunderstanding of how TEs understand UCD.No your not, your calling Creationism deism which is not only wrong, it's utterly absurd. Your also trying to make a strawman argument that I'm conflating YEC with Creationism in spite of the fact I have made it crystal clear I do no such thing.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.Yes but after it is created in the first place and what God created couldn't be more explicit in Genesis 1.
I think you need to go back and look at the conclusion and application of Mendel's work, especially it's application since 1900.I have the opposite problem, the evidence supplied doesn't indicate Universal Common Descent, it indicates limits beyond which a species cannot evolve into an altogether different species.
Yep.I am also painfully aware of the fact that all of us are guilty of worshiping and serving the creature more then the Creator (Romans 1:18-21)
Probably not, as I said two edged sword.Ouch! Got not argument for that one since I pretty much agree. On the other hand consider this, would we have had a Scientific Revolution if the Protestant Reformation didn't happen?
So enlighten me upon the Christian view of the transitional fossils.UCD is essentially naturalism since it's predicated on naturalistic assumptions. You might not care for it but UCD is based on it, as much as if not more so then the actual evidence.
Well I consider myself a Creationist and you are adamant that my position isn't, I'm just calling them as I see them.Not only have you wrongly characterized my position as deistic but with equally absurd boldness claimed I am in opposition to Creationism. That makes no sense at all since I am continually being criticized for being a Creationist.
Oh and here I was wanting the same thingI would really like to get into this discussion but your too busy beating your strawman senseless to address my actual arguments. The only question in my mind is whether or not you believe what your saying.
Whereas I have the issue of you treating my position as if it is mutually exclusive with itself.The way you are blending mutually exclusive concepts as if they were the same thing is one of a number of issue I have with Theistic Evolution, namely, the fallacious nature of it's logic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?