I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Adam in the New Testament is always portrayed as the first parent of humanity, that might not sit well with Darwinian predilections.
Adam is as good a name as any for a portrayal.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Adam is as good a name as any for a portrayal.
Adam's name is used synonymously with humanity in the Old Testament, 400+ times, no one else's name can be used for that. Just like Israel is used synonymously with the father of that nation, Jacob. Not just any name will do.

According to Paul sin came as the result of one man, Adam, the first parent of humanity. Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). This comparison cannot be drawn with any other figure from history.

You never answered my question, why does Luke call Adam, son on God?

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Adam's name is used synonymously with humanity in the Old Testament, 400+ times, no one else's name can be used for that. Just like Israel is used synonymously with the father of that nation, Jacob. Not just any name will do.

According to Paul sin came as the result of one man, Adam, the first parent of humanity. Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). This comparison cannot be drawn with any other figure from history.

You never answered my question, why does Luke call Adam, son on God?

Grace and peace,
Mark
Because it's in the genealogy he pasted into his text.
 
Upvote 0

Stillicidia

Revanche Flower
Supporter
Apr 22, 2016
919
233
Mystic Meadows
✟11,021.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Constitution
Well the best proof I suppose you can have might just be the truth on the matter.

Besides the unbelievable tale I would convey that God froze the dinosaurs by breathing on the earth, and have Satan sit on the earth alone for hundreds of millions of years left alone by himself,

There is a scripture in genesis 1:28 which says the words "replenish the earth" meaning that there was originally something God considered dwelling on Earth.

Then there is a thing before the great flood, that those peoples lived off the waters of the dews on the grass. Then the floods came, and we do not live off dew, hence those dew waters fell, and became the oceans.

There's some truth, donno if it's the proof you want.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So on the basis of a line in that genealogy you raise Adam to the ontological status of Jesus Christ?

Hi speedwell,

You know that would only be true if God created Jesus out of the dirt of the earth just as He created Adam. Do you believe that God created Jesus?

God bless you.
In Christ Ted
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Hi speedwell,

You know that would only be true if God created Jesus out of the dirt of the earth just as He created Adam. Do you believe that God created Jesus?

God bless you.
In Christ Ted
"Begotten not made." But Adam was a creature, in the sense of its Latin root creare, just like us. Even so, on the strength of a single word in a genealogy that Luke probably didn't even compose himself you want to elevate Adam's status to something more. You are going to have to explain to me exactly what theological axe you are grinding here.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So on the basis of a line in that genealogy you raise Adam to the ontological status of Jesus Christ?
No, Adam sinned and was the father of humanity, therefore when Adam ate we did not fast. When Abraham paid tithes, the writer of Hebrews tells us, Levi paid tithes to Mekezidek.

Son oh God in the Old Testament was a term applied to kings and high priests. The high priest asked Jesus are you the son of the blessed one? Do you know what he was asking?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Begotten not made." But Adam was a creature, in the sense of its Latin root creare, just like us. Even so, on the strength of a single word in a genealogy that Luke probably didn't even compose himself you want to elevate Adam's status to something more. You are going to have to explain to me exactly what theological axe you are grinding here.

Hi speedwell,

No ax to grind. I just found it a fairly oblique connection that you seemed to be making that 'if' the posters position was true regarding the genealogical claim, then that would elevate Adam to the status of Jesus.

God created Adam. According to His testimony, He took some dirt of the surface of the earth and, it would seem much like modeling clay, He formed Adam. He then breathed into the form that He had molded the breath of life. Thus Adam became a living creature formed and created by God.

Your position seems only to be that since Adam didn't have any parents, then that makes him like Adam. Tenuous at best. By your understanding, all of the angels would also be little Jesus's. They don't have any parents either.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Your position seems only to be that since Adam didn't have any parents, then that makes him like Adam. Tenuous at best. By your understanding, all of the angels would also be little Jesus's. They don't have any parents either.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
I assume that one of those "Adams" should be a "Jesus" but since Jesus had parents--one human parent, anyway--but no, I still don't see what you're getting at.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
"Begotten not made." But Adam was a creature, in the sense of its Latin root creare, just like us. Even so, on the strength of a single word in a genealogy that Luke probably didn't even compose himself you want to elevate Adam's status to something more. You are going to have to explain to me exactly what theological axe you are grinding here.
So the interpretation of Genesis does have a hermeneutic effect on the New Testament after all. Its not a figurative interpretation of an isolated text. Of course Luke wasn't the source for the genealogy he had James and Jude who had the exact same lineage, or he could have consulted with Barnabas or John Mark who were both Levites. Or do you mean the authorship of Luke because it would be a baseless rationalization born of desperation.

What theological indeed! First of all there is no interpretative challenge here, the context indicates father and son lineage. The father of Adam was God because God created Adam. Kings and hIgh Priests were said to be son of God with respect to rank. Jesus was, is and forever will be the eternal Son of God by nature.

This is as basic and straight forward as it gets. Its a little known seldom used interpretive guide called the context. I know you would use words like ontological and theological and what's the other, pleanary. But it doesnt change the clear meaning of Scripture.

Domes and drama over authorship and rationalizations that cannot rightfully divide the Word.

Take a good hard look at Romans 5 and tell me what Paul is saying about original sin without telling me what you want it to say. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting huh?

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
So the interpretation of Genesis does have a hermeneutic effect on the New Testament after all. Its not a figurative interpretation of an isolated text. Of course Luke wasn't the source for the genealogy he had James and Jude who had the exact same lineage, or he could have consulted with Barnabas or John Mark who were both Levites.
Or he got it somewhere else; there was considerable messianic expectation at the time and no doubt plenty of genealogies. So?
Or do you mean the authorship of Luke because it would be a baseless rationalization born of desperation.
I'm not sure what that means at all. Is there some question about the authorship of Luke? I am certainly not aware of it.

What theological indeed! First of all there is no interpretative challenge here, the context indicates father and son lineage. The father of Adam was God because God created Adam. Kings and high Priests were said to be son of God with respect to rank. Jesus was, is and forever will be the eternal Son of God by nature.
OK, Adam was the "son" of God in the sense that he was created by God, but surely you can't mean that he was the son of God in the same sense that Jesus was.

Take a good hard look at Romans 5 and tell me what Paul is saying about original sin without telling me what you want it to say. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting huh?
It's a profound and beautiful piece of writing. How can one imagine wanting it to say anything other than it does?
Look, I appreciate that you are spending some effort on this and I hate to be so dense, but I just do not grasp what you are trying to tell me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Or he got it somewhere else; there was considerable messianic expectation at the time and no doubt plenty of genealogies. So?I'm not sure what that means at all. Is there some question about the authorship of Luke? I am certainly not aware of it.

You suggested Luke didn't write it, obviously you meant the genealogists not the book. The fact is James, Jude, Mary and a lot of Judians had well established lineage.

OK, Adam was the "son" of God in the sense that he was created by God, but surely you can't mean that he was the son of God in the same sense that Jesus was.

I explained that, Jesus is The eternal Son of God, Kings and high priest were called son of God with regard to rank.
[/QUOTE]Take a good hard look at Romans 5 and tell me what Paul is saying about original sin without telling me what you want it to say. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting huh?[/QUOTE]It's a profound and beautiful piece of writing. How can one imagine wanting it to say anytQother than it does?

It says that in Adam all sinned and die, in Christ comes life and peace. There is no way that argument makes any since if Adam isn't the first parent of humanity

Look, I appreciate that you are spending some effort on this and I hate to be so dense, but I just do not grasp what you are trying to tell me.

I don't know how your missing it, the New Testament witness regarding Adam and original sin couldn't be clearer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I explained that, Jesus is The eternal Son of God, Kings and high priest were called son of God with regard to rank.
OK, here is what I have gotten out of this so far:
1. Luke includes in his Gospel a genealogy he got from somewhere to support the messianic prophecy that Jesus is "Son of David."
2. This particular genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, calling Adam the "son of God."
3. This casual reference is important to you as you seem for some reason to regard it as conclusive evidence that Adam had no parents.
4. But we already knew that Adam had no parents, it is explicit in the Garden story.

Oh, well. Let's move on to Romans 5, which you plop down in front of me with a snide flourish. It's the second time you've done it--you're beginning to remind me of Bob Ryan and his James Barr quote.

It says that in Adam all sinned and die, in Christ comes life and peace. There is no way that argument makes any since if Adam isn't the first parent of humanity
As so he was, according to the Garden story. I really don't understand why you brought in all of that business with the genealogy in Luke. The Gospel of Luke didn't exist yet when Paul wrote to the church in Rome. He didn't need it. Romans 5 is a riff on the Garden story, period.

I don't know how your missing it, the New Testament witness regarding Adam and original sin couldn't be clearer.
I still don't see what I'm missing. Romans 5 would never have been written the way it was without the Garden story. The whole passage depends on it being a story familiar and beloved to Paul's audience.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
OK, here is what I have gotten out of this so far:
1. Luke includes in his Gospel a genealogy he got from somewhere to support the messianic prophecy that Jesus is "Son of David."
2. This particular genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, calling Adam the "son of God."
3. This casual reference is important to you as you seem for some reason to regard it as conclusive evidence that Adam had no parents.
4. But we already knew that Adam had no parents, it is explicit in the Garden story.

It is explicit in the New Testament witness regarding Genesis, Adam is the first parent of humanity. My point is simply that in a genealogy that names father and son it names the father of Adam as God, because he was created and had no earthly parents.

Oh, well. Let's move on to Romans 5, which you plop down in front of me with a snide flourish. It's the second time you've done it--you're beginning to remind me of Bob Ryan and his James Barr quote.


As so he was, according to the Garden story. I really don't understand why you brought in all of that business with the genealogy in Luke. The Gospel of Luke didn't exist yet when Paul wrote to the church in Rome. He didn't need it. Romans 5 is a riff on the Garden story, period.

Where do you think Luke was getting his information? That said Romans 5 is indeed rooted in the doctrine of original sin inextricably linked to the Genesis account. According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12), Adam’s offense dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:
  1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
  2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
  3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
  4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
  5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
  6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
  7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
  8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.
The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

I still don't see what I'm missing. Romans 5 would never have been written the way it was without the Garden story. The whole passage depends on it being a story familiar and beloved to Paul's audience.

The New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms original sin, the historicity of the Genesis account and the creation of Adam. These are not isolated texts but a recurring, vital theme in the gospel, we are sinners because when Adam and Eve ate we did not fast. You can no more take Adam figuratively then you can take the second Adam, Jesus Christ figuratively.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Agree
Reactions: miamited
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It is explicit in the New Testament witness regarding Genesis, Adam is the first parent of humanity. My point is simply that in a genealogy that names father and son it names the father of Adam as God, because he was created and had no earthly parents.



Where do you think Luke was getting his information? That said Romans 5 is indeed rooted in the doctrine of original sin inextricably linked to the Genesis account. According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12), Adam’s offense dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:
  1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
  2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
  3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
  4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
  5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
  6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
  7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
  8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.
The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.



The New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms original sin, the historicity of the Genesis account and the creation of Adam. These are not isolated texts but a recurring, vital theme in the gospel, we are sinners because when Adam and Eve ate we did not fast. You can no more take Adam figuratively then you can take the second Adam, Jesus Christ figuratively.

Grace and peace,
Mark
Well, I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had something new, but you led me around Robin Hood's barn and to nothing but another version of the old, tired "Jesus quotes Genesis" argument. I thought we'd done with that chestnut. But you've got other problems as well. The Luke source is weak. Luke probably didn't compose that genealogy and he cited it for reasons other than to affirm that Adam had no parents. Even so, neither Luke's geneology nor Paul's letter constitute independent verification of Genesis because they both derive from it. You wouldn't get away with that writing a paper for a junior high school history class; I don't know why you think you can get away with it here.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I wonder how you are doing, LoveGodHateSin?

You have my prayers.

God be with you, my brother.

Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_creationism

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had something new, but you led me around Robin Hood's barn and to nothing but another version of the old, tired "Jesus quotes Genesis" argument. I thought we'd done with that chestnut. But you've got other problems as well. The Luke source is weak. Luke probably didn't compose that genealogy and he cited it for reasons other than to affirm that Adam had no parents. Even so, neither Luke's geneology nor Paul's letter constitute independent verification of Genesis because they both derive from it. You wouldn't get away with that writing a paper for a junior high school history class; I don't know why you think you can get away with it here.
Indeed, it's disappointing that original sin and Biblical exposition can be dismissed and ignored. The point I've made repeatedly about the genealogy in Luke is irrefutable in that context, and in the larger context of Romans 5. Adam is Paul's explanation for original sin.

That's the difference between you and me, I can turn to an exposition of the Scriptures to support my view. It need not be elaborate or buried in obscure semantics. I base my arguments on simple, straightforward insight based on the clear content and context of Scripture. The principle is a strong enough hermeneutic principle to apply to the entire New Testament witness concerning Adam. In fact it dovetails seamlessly with the Old Testament narratives and usage. Which leaves you with nothing but personal remarks that abandon the substance of the discussion and resort finally and inevitably to the fatal fallacy ad hominem, sorry to see you succumb yet again. That's when I know I have you, when there is nothing else left. How is it we end up here every single time?

You actually acknowledged the substance of the argument anyway:
OK, here is what I have gotten out of this so far:
1. Luke includes in his Gospel a genealogy he got from somewhere to support the messianic prophecy that Jesus is "Son of David."
2. This particular genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, calling Adam the "son of God."
3. This casual reference is important to you as you seem for some reason to regard it as conclusive evidence that Adam had no parents.
4. But we already knew that Adam had no parents, it is explicit in the Garden story.

So you at least are willing to admit the obvious, reluctantly but decisively. What I'm still waiting for is a response to the detailed exposition of Romans 5 including these passages:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
Since obviously Luke and Paul trace human lineage back no further the Adam I think we have spent more then enough time talking around the obvious. Now that we have come to a detailed doctrinal discussion of Paul in Romans concerning our universal Adamic nature stemming from, 'the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15). Resulting in judgment that followed, 'one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17) As the result of, 'one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18). 'One sin', 'one man' bringing the 'condemnation for all men', those are not opinions or private interpretations. Those are direct quotes from the Apostle Paul in his magnum opus regarding justification by faith. You have not only a detailed exposition of the immediate context of Romans 5 with explicit, incontrovertible proof text. I took care to include a larger overview of the context of the first eight chapters of Romans noting the central emphasis on the universal Adamic sin nature.

Your response is silence, acknowledgement or fallacious satire. All concede the evident and obvious testimony of Scripture, Adam was the first parent of humanity and his sin brought condemnation on us all. I didn't write it and no private interpretation can rationalize this away. Darwinism is a lemon that inevitably breaks down and leaves you stranded. Why don't you just junk it and find yourself something that actually works?

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0