How a literal 7 day creation can work with evolution claims without changing a word of either

JacksBratt · Nov 18, 2022

Jonaitis said:
We are all examples of evolution. It has nothing to do with changing species, but a family tree from which a variety of species descend from. In other words, a coyote didn't evolve from a wolf, but they both belong to the same genus that descend from its parent group, Caninae. The farther backward you classify the taxonomy of living organisms, the more living animals today fit in certain groups in regards to characteristics, dna, structure, habitat, diet, etc., eventually narrowing all life on Earth down to single universal common ancestor. You probably believe in adaptation, but how far will adaptation continue over the course of time when certain "kinds" no longer remain looking like its relatives? So evolution is happening right now, you just can't see its long term results yet, but you are looking at the long term results in the present of all living organisms' most recent ancestors. Genetic changes is happening already to the human species too, and has been speeding up in the last several centuries thanks to the advancement in technology. We can observe these changes that may continue to shape what could possibly become sub-species, and another group branching down each sub-species into who knows what. Of course, a long period of time is required for major differences in its diverse posterity, and so we have geological evidence that there was such a length of time to support our discovering how life developed on this planet. So evolution will always continue until life is obliterated from this planet, which, in my opinion, may not happen, especially if we seek a new earth.

What does Jesus walking on water have to do with this discussion? That was a miracle: a supernatural event defying natural laws under human observation. However, if creation can be observed and studied, then it is not necessarily a miracle. Creation does not defy the natural order of things, because it is an organic system. We must recognise the difference. It sounds more like you don't care to learn about the things science has discovered, because it may deny very core elements in your convictions. So now you have force to either avoid the inevitable victory of discovery by clinging to a theological position or admit that there were interpretative problems held by some of our well-respected forefathers. Sometimes tradition can get in the way of seeing the truth, and you know that as a Protestant. Don't let that recognition be limited to the function of the Christian and Church, but even the way Scripture should be properly understood. Augustine is a well-established theologian among Protestants, and yet he held a non-literalist position like many others in his day, but no one bats an eye.

You also seem to believe that Moses was a real figure too. I am not sure about his real identity anymore, but nonetheless, hold "his" writings to be essential to the biblical canon. His story has many elements and motifs found in other parts of Mesopotamian literature. His birth account is nearly identical to the birth legend of Sargon the Great:

It is possible that whoever wrote under the name of Moses, God used. However, it may likely be that Genesis is not intended, then, to be taken as a literal account, but one that conveyed Israelite lessons. Creation story contains the significance of the Sabbath. Noah's story contains the significance of clean and unclean animals for sacrifice (Genesis 7:2). Abraham's story contains the significance of Israel's foundation in regard to their right to their homeland and their covenant community. Onan's story in Genesis 38:6-11 was significant to teach the responsibility of a levirate marriage (carrying on your brother's name after his death through his brother's wife). You will find key elements of the Law preached throughout Genesis, long before Moses received them by revelation, establishing the Covenant. In considering this, we must then realise how Genesis should be interpreted in its historical and theological aspects. The problem with modern conservative Christianity is the fact that the position inerrancy and infallibility has hindered honest discussions about the nature of Scripture and its proper end, avoiding obstacles that challenge our bias.

We are told that a single cell being "evolved" to form all the plant and animal life that we have today and have had.

The first problem is that this "being" had no "life".... Evolution skips that part. They won't even discuss it. It's not part of their theory.

Second.. this "being" Had to replicate or it would have simply grown old and died.

Third.. This being had to have food.. Miraculously, it had a method of consuming food utilizing the energy and expelling waste...

Fourth, for some reason, if the above three were true.. It could have survived any tragedy, if only one of it's kind survived. But.. for some reason it started Asexual reproduction. Now it not only needed two survivors.. but one had to be male and the other female.. Or.. it went extinct.

Fifth.. if a new "species" somehow shows up... it needs both a male and female to show up at the same time.. Not only that but they have to be compatible, sexually.. So, if a squirrel showed up at the same time as a bunny... they have no future.

Sixth.. at some point, this single cell being, switched and became a plant.. or... if it was a plant.. it became animal... That... is a leap.

Seventh, all of this would take time.. and.. many many many slow transitions.. which don't exist.

The atheistic Darwinian "theory" of evolution is a vision of blind faith in impossibilities.

My faith, the faith on which I found my eternal life, which is based on the miraculous life of Christ Jesus, far outweighs the house of cards on which the "theory" of evolution is built.

This faith is so strong that, not only can it accept the truth of the gospel, but also holds the entire biblical scripture to be just as true.

When I went to Joggins Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia, I saw petrified trees that ran right up through the layers of rock. Perpendicular to the layers.

This meant one of two things..

1/ The sediment happened fast and fell around trees that were still upright.. all turning to rock... at the same short time.

or

2/ Some sediment happened around a tree and somehow the tree did not rot over the hundreds of thousands of years that the sediment supposedly piled up around it.

I'll go with #1..

It kinda blows the whole "millions of years" theory apart.

JacksBratt · Nov 18, 2022

drich0150 said:
I agree with all of this.. so why not give out kids something that allows them to sustain their faith?

I agree. We need to equip our kids with the tools they need to counter the agenda of the great deceiver.

It's not going to help if we just say "OK, I give up.. we'll forget the whole "six literal day" idea...

We need to reinforce the truth that, not only did Christ do all the miracles, as written, in the gospel.. but.. This same Christ was the one that actually did the creating.. He did the speaking.. He is the "I AM"

If you are going to say that you are saved by the Life, death and resurection of the sinless Jesus Christ.. then.. it's just as important to state that the miracle of Genesis is just as truthful.

JacksBratt · Nov 20, 2022

drich0150 said:
I agree with all of this.. so why not give out kids something that allows them to sustain their faith?

Double post..

Aussie Pete · Nov 21, 2022

drich0150 said:
Here is a brief summary.
basically gen 1 is a 7 day over view, and ending day 6 with man made in the image of god (no soul). This version of man could have very well evolved, and been waiting outside the garden this whole time. Chapter 2:4 is the being of the garden only narrative. this narrative happens at the same time the 7 days of creation are happening. the true beginning of chapter two starts verse 4 and describes mid day on day 2 to be the start of the garden only narrative, and ends mid day three. So everything in the garden happens in one of god creation days. remember most all of chapter 2 is garden narrative only. meaning aside from the very first part of chapter 2 that describes day 7 the day of rest the rest of chapter two describes what only took place in the garden. it STARTS with the creation of a man named Adam. Adam was made of mud and given a soul. from Adam God made eve. then next thing of note there is no time line between chapter 2 and chapter 3. so while Adam and eve via the tree of life they did have access to, remain the same in the garden with god. everything outside the garden ‘evolved’ till about 6000 years ago where chapter three describes the fall of man. this is why the genologies stop 6000 years ago. So again at the very beginning of creation of earth on day 2 God makes adam and from adam made eve and they were placed in the garden with god by the end of day three and remain in the garden with god for potentially hundreds if not billions of years, while everything outside the garden is made to evolve. till about 6000 years ago when they were kicked out of the garden for their sins to then mix in with man made on day 6/evolved man

I go into much more detail in the video explain each day:

"Made to evolve" is an oxymoron.

drich0150 · Nov 22, 2022

JacksBratt said:
We are told that a single cell being "evolved" to form all the plant and animal life that we have today and have had.

The first problem is that this "being" had no "life".... Evolution skips that part. They won't even discuss it. It's not part of their theory.

Second.. this "being" Had to replicate or it would have simply grown old and died.

Third.. This being had to have food.. Miraculously, it had a method of consuming food utilizing the energy and expelling waste...

Fourth, for some reason, if the above three were true.. It could have survived any tragedy, if only one of it's kind survived. But.. for some reason it started Asexual reproduction. Now it not only needed two survivors.. but one had to be male and the other female.. Or.. it went extinct.

Fifth.. if a new "species" somehow shows up... it needs both a male and female to show up at the same time.. Not only that but they have to be compatible, sexually.. So, if a squirrel showed up at the same time as a bunny... they have no future.

Sixth.. at some point, this single cell being, switched and became a plant.. or... if it was a plant.. it became animal... That... is a leap.

Seventh, all of this would take time.. and.. many many many slow transitions.. which don't exist.

The atheistic Darwinian "theory" of evolution is a vision of blind faith in impossibilities.

My faith, the faith on which I found my eternal life, which is based on the miraculous life of Christ Jesus, far outweighs the house of cards on which the "theory" of evolution is built.

This faith is so strong that, not only can it accept the truth of the gospel, but also holds the entire biblical scripture to be just as true.

When I went to Joggins Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia, I saw petrified trees that ran right up through the layers of rock. Perpendicular to the layers.

This meant one of two things..

1/ The sediment happened fast and fell around trees that were still upright.. all turning to rock... at the same short time.

or

2/ Some sediment happened around a tree and somehow the tree did not rot over the hundreds of thousands of years that the sediment supposedly piled up around it.

I'll go with #1..

It kinda blows the whole "millions of years" theory apart.

did you even read the OP or did you just cut and paste some argument you've been refining over the years?
Because none of this refutes anything I said here.

drich0150 · Nov 22, 2022

JacksBratt said:
We are told that a single cell being "evolved" to form all the plant and animal life that we have today and have had.

The first problem is that this "being" had no "life".... Evolution skips that part. They won't even discuss it. It's not part of their theory.

Second.. this "being" Had to replicate or it would have simply grown old and died.

Third.. This being had to have food.. Miraculously, it had a method of consuming food utilizing the energy and expelling waste...

Fourth, for some reason, if the above three were true.. It could have survived any tragedy, if only one of it's kind survived. But.. for some reason it started Asexual reproduction. Now it not only needed two survivors.. but one had to be male and the other female.. Or.. it went extinct.

Fifth.. if a new "species" somehow shows up... it needs both a male and female to show up at the same time.. Not only that but they have to be compatible, sexually.. So, if a squirrel showed up at the same time as a bunny... they have no future.

Sixth.. at some point, this single cell being, switched and became a plant.. or... if it was a plant.. it became animal... That... is a leap.

Seventh, all of this would take time.. and.. many many many slow transitions.. which don't exist.

The atheistic Darwinian "theory" of evolution is a vision of blind faith in impossibilities.

My faith, the faith on which I found my eternal life, which is based on the miraculous life of Christ Jesus, far outweighs the house of cards on which the "theory" of evolution is built.

This faith is so strong that, not only can it accept the truth of the gospel, but also holds the entire biblical scripture to be just as true.

When I went to Joggins Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia, I saw petrified trees that ran right up through the layers of rock. Perpendicular to the layers.

This meant one of two things..

1/ The sediment happened fast and fell around trees that were still upright.. all turning to rock... at the same short time.

or

2/ Some sediment happened around a tree and somehow the tree did not rot over the hundreds of thousands of years that the sediment supposedly piled up around it.

I'll go with #1..

It kinda blows the whole "millions of years" theory apart.

did you even read the OP or did you just cut and paste some argument you've been refining over the years?
Because none of this refutes anything I said here.

JacksBratt said:
I agree. We need to equip our kids with the tools they need to counter the agenda of the great deceiver.

It's not going to help if we just say "OK, I give up.. we'll forget the whole "six literal day" idea...

We need to reinforce the truth that, not only did Christ do all the miracles, as written, in the gospel.. but.. This same Christ was the one that actually did the creating.. He did the speaking.. He is the "I AM"

If you are going to say that you are saved by the Life, death and resurection of the sinless Jesus Christ.. then.. it's just as important to state that the miracle of Genesis is just as truthful.

again read the OP I do not give up on the whole literal 6 day creation narrative. In fact that is the whole point of what I shared here is that one can believe in a literal 6 day creation And evolution at the same time without changing any of it.

drich0150 · Nov 22, 2022

Aussie Pete said:
"Made to evolve" is an oxymoron.

actually it's not. it may contradict what you think evolution is, but to evolve naturally or with the help and direction of an outside influence is not impossible. in fact look at how we have made fruit and vegetables evolve. google what a banana or watermelon use to look like and what it looks like now. Are you saying While man can influence the evolution of things on this planet god can't?

Aussie Pete · Nov 22, 2022

drich0150 said:
actually it's not. it may contradict what you think evolution is, but to evolve naturally or with the help and direction of an outside influence is not impossible. in fact look at how we have made fruit and vegetables evolve. google what a banana or watermelon use to look like and what it looks like now. Are you saying While man can influence the evolution of things on this planet god can't?

I disagree wholeheartedly with your definition of evolution. It's not the scientific definition. It's not what most people imagine when you use the word "evolve". God can do as He pleases. He could even create the whole earth, complete with flora, fauna and humanity in just 6 days. Just like He said that He did.

JacksBratt · Nov 22, 2022

drich0150 said:
did you even read the OP or did you just cut and paste some argument you've been refining over the years?
Because none of this refutes anything I said here.

Yes I read the OP... Sorry.. I did not cut and paste.. just was in a mood and went on a bit of a rant..
I apologize.

JacksBratt · Nov 22, 2022

drich0150 said:
did you even read the OP or did you just cut and paste some argument you've been refining over the years?
Because none of this refutes anything I said here.

again read the OP I do not give up on the whole literal 6 day creation narrative. In fact that is the whole point of what I shared here is that one can believe in a literal 6 day creation And evolution at the same time without changing any of it.

I understand.. You want to keep the six literal days and keep evolution.
I don't hold to that view.. at all and I don't find a need to try.

JacksBratt · Nov 22, 2022

drich0150 said:
actually it's not. it may contradict what you think evolution is, but to evolve naturally or with the help and direction of an outside influence is not impossible. in fact look at how we have made fruit and vegetables evolve. google what a banana or watermelon use to look like and what it looks like now. Are you saying While man can influence the evolution of things on this planet god can't?

Are you saying that changing normal peas into "sugar snaps" and "snow peas" is "evolving"..
Changing something from how it used to look.. is not evolving.

To me, taking a single cell being and ending up with a monkey, a palm tree, a whale, and poison ivy... over time... Is evolution.

There is absolutely no evidence of that.

Why would God make all those things as described in Genesis.. Only to then further change them with His outside influence, to create other beings?

drich0150 · Nov 23, 2022

Aussie Pete said:
I disagree wholeheartedly with your definition of evolution. It's not the scientific definition. It's not what most people imagine when you use the word "evolve". God can do as He pleases. He could even create the whole earth, complete with flora, fauna and humanity in just 6 days. Just like He said that He did.

What is my definition of evolution?
What is the scientific definition?
What is what most people believe?
How does my definition differ?

drich0150 · Nov 23, 2022

JacksBratt said:
I understand.. You want to keep the six literal days and keep evolution.
I don't hold to that view.. at all and I don't find a need to try.

Do you understand most people do need to reconcile evolution with a literal 7 day creation? That we are loosing 70% of the children we sent to college by the end of the second year and 80% by the time the graduate? That most of these broken faith come from an inability to reconcile their faith in the bible and God with what they learn in science?

Do you also understand the church can not sustain this level of attrition and survive much longer?

Aussie Pete · Nov 23, 2022

drich0150 said:
Do you understand most people do need to reconcile evolution with a literal 7 day creation? That we are loosing 70% of the children we sent to college by the end of the second year and 80% by the time the graduate? That most of these broken faith come from an inability to reconcile their faith in the bible and God with what they learn in science?

Do you also understand the church can not sustain this level of attrition and survive much longer?

What unbelieving rubbish. The gospel is still the power of God to save. If the real gospel was preached, people would be saved. Intellectual argument does not save anyone. Paul preached Christ. The church does well to do the same.

Teenagers are notoriously rebellious anyway. And the god of this world, Satan, blinds the eyes of those who are perishing. If people were not so spiritually blind, they would see the glory of God in creation.

Romans 1:
"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse."

It's not that people need to be intellectually convinced. It is that they deliberately and willfully reject the truth that is right in front of them.

JacksBratt · Nov 25, 2022

drich0150 said:
Do you understand most people do need to reconcile evolution with a literal 7 day creation? That we are loosing 70% of the children we sent to college by the end of the second year and 80% by the time the graduate? That most of these broken faith come from an inability to reconcile their faith in the bible and God with what they learn in science?

Do you also understand the church can not sustain this level of attrition and survive much longer?

We have been through this before.. If you are that concerned about "attrition" in the churches... Why not just tell them that they don't have to believe in the resurrection, Christ doesn't have to be the messiah, He can be just a "superstar" special friendly good guy, tell them that Hell doesn't exist and tell them that Islam, Buddha, and other religions don't have to "come to the Father" through Christ..

I think it's time to .... start teaching the simplicity of knowing Christ... Christianity is not a religion.. it's a relationship...

There is a reason that the narrow gate is rarely entered.....

Teaching evolution, in order to stop this attrition... is just proof that people don't want truth.. they want their ears tickled.

Aussie Pete · Nov 25, 2022

drich0150 said:
What is my definition of evolution?
What is the scientific definition?
What is what most people believe?
How does my definition differ?

I don't know your exact definition of evolution. However, if human interventions (such as selective breeding or gene manipulation) are involved it is not evolution.
There is some disagreement among scientists as to the exact definition of evolution. The definition tends to change as they find out that the traditional view is wrong. However, it generally involves random processes, a vast amount of time and so-called natural selection.
I don't know and don't care what most people believe.
See my first point.

drich0150 · Nov 28, 2022

Aussie Pete said:
What unbelieving rubbish. The gospel is still the power of God to save. If the real gospel was preached, people would be saved. Intellectual argument does not save anyone. Paul preached Christ. The church does well to do the same.

Teenagers are notoriously rebellious anyway. And the god of this world, Satan, blinds the eyes of those who are perishing. If people were not so spiritually blind, they would see the glory of God in creation.

Romans 1:
"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse."

It's not that people need to be intellectually convinced. It is that they deliberately and willfully reject the truth that is right in front of them.

so your answer is ignore the 80% of life long christians/Children who enter college with conviction and 100% faith, but after 4 years of indoctrination loose their faith and stop believing, because teens will be teens? because your version of the gospel somehow is immune to the logic our children are being taught to follow?

Let me ask you this.. are their more old people in your church than young? Is this not a problem for you?

Aussie Pete · Nov 28, 2022

drich0150 said:
so your answer is ignore the 80% of life long christians/Children who enter college with conviction and 100% faith, but after 4 years of indoctrination loose their faith and stop believing, because teens will be teens? because your version of the gospel somehow is immune to the logic our children are being taught to follow?

Let me ask you this.. are their more old people in your church than young? Is this not a problem for you?

Are we supposed to reject God's word because the world lies and deceives? I'm 71. I've seen the gospel compromised and watered down continually over the last 50 years or so. It has produced shallow "conversions" without a solid foundation.

The god of this world has the education system firmly in its grasp. If someone's faith is so easily shaken, I have to doubt that it was real faith in the first place. Spiritual things are understood spiritually, not by human wisdom and logic.

I was not raised in a Christian home. My dad was an atheist. I was taught both creation and evolution. I was not born again, but evolution made no sense to me. I suspect that if the flaws in evolution's arguments were presented fairly and without bias, kids could make a better and more informed decision. That won't happen, of course.

drich0150 · Nov 29, 2022

Aussie Pete said:
Are we supposed to reject God's word because the world lies and deceives?

Who said anything about rejecting God's word?

Do you not understand that what I've done here is provide a way for everything the Bible says in genesis chapters 1, 2 and 3 to be taken completely literally? without changing a word of it.

what needs to change is the INTERPRETATION of God's word.. And that's all I've done here. I took every blessed word and reinterpreted them to now fit the science. allowing God's word to remain fully intact, and completely unchanged.

To equate your specific reading or interpretation of the Bible as "God's Word" is tantamount to calling yourself God. which to say the least is blasphemous.

Your interpretation which maybe how most see and read the creation narrative is NOT god's word.

Aussie Pete said:
I'm 71. I've seen the gospel compromised and watered down continually over the last 50 years or so. It has produced shallow "conversions" without a solid foundation.

And how does what I say water anything down if it provides an avenue for belief where it was closed before?
and again I do not change god's word if you think I do.. then you have not read or still do not understand what you are arguing against.
If this is the case then I invite you to reread the OP and or watch the video.

Aussie Pete said:
The god of this world has the education system firmly in its grasp. If someone's faith is so easily shaken, I have to doubt that it was real faith in the first place. Spiritual things are understood spiritually, not by human wisdom and logic.

Who are you to judge your master's other servants?
Science is a stumbling block that 80% of our children fall upon..
If you had the ability to remove this stumbling block in just one person's path, why wouldn't you do this?
Would you want one of your life's stumbling blocks removed?

Aussie Pete said:
I was not raised in a Christian home. My dad was an atheist. I was taught both creation and evolution. I was not born again, but evolution made no sense to me. I suspect that if the flaws in evolution's arguments were presented fairly and without bias, kids could make a better and more informed decision. That won't happen, of course.

then this theory is not meant for you. I have said over and over and over and over and over again that is you are one of the 20%ers who can faith their way through the creation narrative great. I am not trying to change anything for you. rather this message is for those who need help getting past a faith breaking stumbling block, that is destroying 80% of our young people.

and while this may mean nothing to you, this will mean the end of the church.. It's already started in whales and England.

England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals

Data shows Leicester and Birmingham have become UK’s first ‘minority majority’ cities in new age of ‘super-diversity’

www.theguardian.com

Aussie Pete · Nov 29, 2022

drich0150 said:
Who said anything about rejecting God's word?

Do you not understand that what I've done here is provide a way for everything the Bible says in genesis chapters 1, 2 and 3 to be taken completely literally? without changing a word of it.

what needs to change is the INTERPRETATION of God's word.. And that's all I've done here. I took every blessed word and reinterpreted them to now fit the science. allowing God's word to remain fully intact, and completely unchanged.

To equate your specific reading or interpretation of the Bible as "God's Word" is tantamount to calling yourself God. which to say the least is blasphemous.

Your interpretation which maybe how most see and read the creation narrative is NOT god's word.

And how does what I say water anything down if it provides an avenue for belief where it was closed before?
and again I do not change god's word if you think I do.. then you have not read or still do not understand what you are arguing against.
If this is the case then I invite you to reread the OP and or watch the video.

Who are you to judge your master's other servants?
Science is a stumbling block that 80% of our children fall upon..
If you had the ability to remove this stumbling block in just one person's path, why wouldn't you do this?
Would you want one of your life's stumbling blocks removed?

then this theory is not meant for you. I have said over and over and over and over and over again that is you are one of the 20%ers who can faith their way through the creation narrative great. I am not trying to change anything for you. rather this message is for those who need help getting past a faith breaking stumbling block, that is destroying 80% of our young people.

and while this may mean nothing to you, this will mean the end of the church.. It's already started in whales and England.

England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals

Data shows Leicester and Birmingham have become UK’s first ‘minority majority’ cities in new age of ‘super-diversity’

www.theguardian.com

I do not understand your problem. Faith is not an intellectual pursuit. I believed the facts of the Bible long before I was born again. For many years, I had a Sunday School knowledge, typical for my generation. I believed that Jesus was God, died and rose again. It meant as much to me as Nero being emperor of Rome.

The gospel is still the power of God to bring about salvation. Sure, the church is in decline in many nations. I was compelled to attend an Anglican church for 3 years, in the mid 1960's. That turned me off church, not the education system. In 3 years I did not once hear the gospel. It was dead religion.

The Bible warns us that these days would come. People are looking for excuses to reject Jesus. Our responsibility is to preach the gospel. The Holy Spirit's job is to convict the hearers of sin. It's not an intellectual argument.

I get a weekly report from Professor James Tour, Rice University. He is an evangelist among his many other pursuits. He is usually witnessing to other scientists or those studying science. He leads someone to Jesus almost every week. He has much to say about origin of life and evolution, but that is not what he preaches when leading people to Jesus.

How a literal 7 day creation can work with evolution claims without changing a word of either

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency