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.
The care for little ones really matters, so it is a guide to wisdom.Ah, so you agree that these letters to the Corinthians had instructions for the Corinthians and shouldn't necessarily be taken as advice for any and every Christian everywhere. Thank you.
The supposed difference. I don't think there's any evidence for it.It is being debated whether he or others were a "slave" or a "bond servant". The difference is choice vs. being forced into slavery against their will.
Why do you think it is clear? I honestly don't understand why you think it is so straightforward. Straightforward and clear would be "thou shalt not have sex outside of marriage". The Bible does not say that, therefore it is not "clear". The second source you provided says that in order to think fornication meant something specific, it needs to be in context as a specific act. Where is porneia used in context to refer to specifically sex outside of marriage. Your source calls for it, just like I have been, but you haven't produced it. It is most certainly not clear, and is murky at best.
I already addressed that passage somewhere else in the thread. I won't make you look it up though, because I'm not going to bother looking for it either, so I'll just repeat myself since my reply never received an answer.
First, is everything that Paul wrote to the Corinthians supposed to be for everyone for all time? Look at 1 Corinthians 11. Should women never cut their hair short? Should men make sure to cut their hair short? Should men keep their heads uncovered when praying? Should women keep their heads covered when praying? Do these rules apply for all time, or do we look at the context of what was going on and who specifically he was talking to in order to determine whether these are rules for all time or not?
Second, in chapter 7 itself, he recommends that people stay in the state their in. If you're single, stay single, if you're married, stay married. The only reason to get married is if you're going to burn with passion. So should most Christians try to lead a celibate lifestyle forever and ever? Is he talking to every Christian that will ever come after he wrote that? Is he even talking to every Christian of the time period, or just the Corinthians?
Third, what were their options? If they wanted to have sex, it was either get married or go see a prostitute, or rape I guess, but we don't need to mix that in. People didn't date back then. Marriages were arranged between the girl's father and the husband. He wouldn't ever say, "go get a girlfriend" because they didn't have a word for "girlfriend". You went straight from being single to being engaged. So they were put in a position with only two moral choices, because the other choice of courtship didn't exist.
And lastly he wasn't talking to people who planned to get married and who might have sex before the big day. He was talking to people who were supposed to try and remain celibate for their whole lives and never plan on marrying. So he wasn't saying, "if you burn with passion, get married so that you don't slip up and have extra marital relations". He was saying, "if you can't handle being celibate your whole life, then the married life is for you". You're assuming the first interpretation because you aren't considering who his audience was and what advice he was giving about the choices they specifically faced.
And to put us back in the direction of the real question at hand, "does the Bible forbid fornication because that would make it also forbid rape?", I'll restate my other question to you that went unanswered.
Look at 1 Corinthians 7 again. It states that a woman shouldn't deny relations to her husband except for mutually agreed upon time periods reserved for prayer and fasting. If a husband wants sex, and his wife says no, she is sinning. If he has sex with her anyways, but doesn't beat her in the process, is he really at fault? He is doing what the Bible says is what a man is supposed to do in that he is not denying sex to his wife. However, she is not doing what the Bible says to do. Without a clear reference to rape itself, and considering the fact that no one back then knew that all rape was violent whether there was physical harm or not, why should a man think he is doing anything wrong if he forces his wife to do her wifely duties? Rape didn't become a law for a long, long time. And even when it did, it took a long time for people to realize that a wife can be raped by her husband (some people still disagree on that). So why the silence when it comes to rape? It is one of the most harmful sins anyone can commit, and we're supposed to piece together that we shouldn't do it ourselves?
That's why NV brought rape and slavery up in his OP. Because we had to learn over time that those things were wrong, when the Bible has no qualms about stating very matter of factly plenty of other things that we ought to do and ought not do.
You're right. People had other options than marry or pay. You didn't address most of what I said about Paul's letter though.Are you trying to say that people who were single back then if they wanted sex only went to prostitutes? Men and women when courting or bound to a relationship never had sex until they were married? Paul spoke and said rather than burn with passion. Marry someone. Yes he was referring to the single person and that is the point of this conversation. We already know adultery is sinful. Paul says it is best to be single so you can focus on serving God. But if your passions are to strong then get married so you don't sin. You actually think that it was only sinful to have sex if you pay for it? What you were,in fire and went looking and found a woman who was willing to give it up for free? ,That's ok? But the moment you lay down a silver piece it's not? Paul does not differentiate at all about what to. He gives one example and one only. Burn or marry. That's it. I don't buy there was no other option than a prostitute or rape. I think you need to find some sources to support that single people only had sex back then with prostitutes or rape.
Your source said that we understand what it means in context. There is no context in the Bible that talks about extra marital sex. Or at least, I've asked, and you haven't produced yet. It is a word with a lot of meanings and a lot of uses. In the same way some people are on here arguing that the word used for "slave" is the same for "bondservant" and you know by context which they mean, it is the same for porneia. I've seen it used when talking about adultery. I've seen it used when talking about harlotry. I've seen it used when talking about incest. I've even seen it used when talking about idolatry which isn't even sexual. I've also seen it used for sexual impurity in general, but nowhere do I see extra marital sex between single people condemned as being sexually impure. You need to demonstrate that instead of simply saying "everybody knew what it meant".And the Greek word did mean fornication and was understood so. You can say otherwise, but it is covered in the roots and offshoots of the word and has been understood so for as far back as you care to look.
Look at it this way, your wife is supposed to obey and do her duties as a wife. In a society where women didn't work outside of the home, we can use "doing the dishes" as an example of a wifely duty. If your wife refuses to do the dishes, and you can force her to without beating her, have you dishonored her? And yes, I am comparing doing the dishes to rape because a long time ago, people didn't see a difference between dishes and sex in terms of whether they were duties of a wife, and they didn't see any more harm occurring than the wife not enjoying herself.I must tell you the thoughts you,bring up with the rape your wife thing just shows how far away you are from really understanding the bible. If you did you wouldn't have even suggested such nonsense.
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
1 Peter 3:7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1pe.3.7.ESV
Forcing your wife to have sex with you even being sneaky about it does in no way show honor to her. Its wrong.
No. That is not how claims work. If you make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. I don't have to disprove your claim. You don't get to just imagine things up and then use them as part of your argument.
I know. You said that context tells us when it means "slave" and when it means "bondservant". Where does the context tell us that it means "slave" or does it never mean "slave".
I didn't say God ignored slavery, I didn't say Christians ignored slavery, I didn't say you ignored slavery, I said that the book that doesn't mention slavery ignores slavery by the definition of "ignore".
Of course I was wrong to say "the Bible" since the OT talks about how to buy, sell, capture, and treat your slaves in detail, so it isn't the whole Bible, just the NT.
Showing Christians doing good things is no more evidence that Christianity supports those good things than me showing you Christians doing bad things is evidence that Christianity supports doing bad things. I don't need to even bother looking up terrible things Christians and churches have done in the past do I? We don't need to muck up this thread with any more negativity than we've already got, right?
Even if your imaginary law was real, think about this: Roman captivity didn't change what Jews believed did it? It was still part of Jewish doctrine that you could buy and sell and beat slaves.
So even if there were no Jewish slave owners at the time their belief about slavery needed to change, and the NT put forth no effort to do such a thing.
As soon as Romans said it was okay, and I can show evidence for laws about Jews owning slaves in ancient Rome in the 300s if you want, they owned slaves.
It was still part of their belief system, and no one said to change that. On top of that, if you are also right that the NT only talked about bondservants and didn't mention slaves, then it never said to not beat your slaves, did it?
Christianity converted all types of people. And since the writings from the church founders never told them to change their beliefs about slavery, because it only talked about bondservants, then they were free to keep them, whatever they may have been.
You're right. People had other options than marry or pay. You didn't address most of what I said about Paul's letter though.
Burning with passion is the problem that Paul points out, and that is not extra marital sex. He states that you might burn with passion if you try to maintain a completely celibate lifestyle, so don't try to maintain a completely celibate lifestyle. If you're looking for a spouse, dating around, but not burning with passion, then Paul isn't talking to you. There is no basis to think that he is.
Your source said that we understand what it means in context. There is no context in the Bible that talks about extra marital sex. Or at least, I've asked, and you haven't produced yet. It is a word with a lot of meanings and a lot of uses. In the same way some people are on here arguing that the word used for "slave" is the same for "bondservant" and you know by context which they mean, it is the same for porneia. I've seen it used when talking about adultery. I've seen it used when talking about harlotry. I've seen it used when talking about incest. I've even seen it used when talking about idolatry which isn't even sexual. I've also seen it used for sexual impurity in general, but nowhere do I see extra marital sex between single people condemned as being sexually impure. You need to demonstrate that instead of simply saying "everybody knew what it meant".
Look at it this way, your wife is supposed to obey and do her duties as a wife. In a society where women didn't work outside of the home, we can use "doing the dishes" as an example of a wifely duty. If your wife refuses to do the dishes, and you can force her to without beating her, have you dishonored her? And yes, I am comparing doing the dishes to rape because a long time ago, people didn't see a difference between dishes and sex in terms of whether they were duties of a wife, and they didn't see any more harm occurring than the wife not enjoying herself.
You have to think about rape while imagining you know nothing about its harmful effects because that is how it was thought of before recent times, and then what I said makes a lot more sense. It took over a thousand years for someone to actually outlaw rape even though many, many nations were theocratically governed because people didn't see the harm that we know about today. Even when they outlawed rape, it didn't apply to wives for a long long time.
That's the point of bringing up rape and slavery in this thread. People didn't understand psychological harm, and it wasn't until we learned about it ourselves that people realized how bad these things were and started doing something about them. If the morality of the Bible was guided by God, then it would have transcended human knowledge of harmful things and stated that they were immoral without us understanding why at all. But the Bible left it up to us to figure these things out on our own. Look at the what the OT Law says about rape. Whenever it is mentioned in the Law, it is always associated with financial loss for a man. It never referenced the actual harm to the woman and it never protected any women other than virgins.
No, my claim is that we shouldn't assume a change unless there is evidence for one. Slavery was okay for the Jews at the time, so they wouldn't be choosing to abstain from the practice. Slavery was okay for the Romans, so they would have no reason to outlaw it. The only thing that is safe to assume that changed in a client state is who they pay their taxes to. You have zero evidence that it was outlawed, so your claim should be ignored. And regardless, the gospel wasn't just for Jews, it was for everyone. So your idea that "the Bible was referring to bondservants because it was only talking to Jewish masters" is incorrect. Did Paul talk to gentiles? Yep. So your argument is invalid.Yet you also are "claiming" Jews could own slaves in the same exact manner they had before Roman occupation. Clearly occupation would affect everything not let things remain exactly as they had always been.
Right, so the NT ignored slavery because it never bothered to mention it.I can't find any context in the NT that is concerning "slave". In every example it's a bond servant which is voluntary and yes most servants agreed to do it for money or to be taken care of so there would be a debt of sorts especially if they wanted to leave service before their time was completed.
First of all, I never said Christians ignored slavery. In fact, in what you quoted I quite explicitly said, "I didn't say Christians ignored slavery". But, no, you showed that some Christians helped to free some slaves. That does not prove that Christianity did anything. Christianity is defined in the Bible (NT). It is not defined by what people who call themselves Christians do... or does it? Because I could write a few pages about that.I have already proven Christians did not ignore slavery.
If I want to look up what Christianity allows, doesn't allow, and commands, where might I find that information?Judaism allowed slavery, Christianity does not.
It would be off topic, yes, but it would be illustrative of how you show proof. If someone does something, and they call themselves a Christian, then that proves Christianity supports that thing, right? If that's wrong, then all of your examples mean nothing. But just to be a fair sport, look at The Synod of Ganga, and their canons about slavery. You remember how the OT actually gives amnesty to runaway slaves? Well these Christians took that away. Probably because of the writings in the NT that tell slaves to obey their masters (even if their masters are Christians).It would be off topic and irrelevant. You think Christianity supported slavery yet there is no evidence of that claim. All evidence points to bond servants not slaves.
What? The Romans didn't allow the Jews to believe what they wanted to? Reread what you quoted.Doesn't mean the Roman's allowed that. That's also why they had to deliver Christ to the ROM's. There not allowed to kill him themselves.
No, it doesn't mean it was ignored by all Christians, and I never said it was. But the actions of some people who call themselves Christians doesn't define Christianity. Are you going to pull a "no true Scotsman" on me and say if they did things that we call "bad" today, then they weren't true Christians?That remains an argument from silence. There are lots of things the NT is silent on. That doesn't mean those things were ignored by Christians.
There's nothing that condemns it either. And although it is spoken of in a parable, and acknowledged as something that happens so that people can relate to it, it isn't condemned. Parables are real life things that happen that have a spiritual meaning. I get that there's a meaning for stating them, and that meaning isn't what I refer to when I bring it up. The real life thing that the parable is based on is real. The NT acknowledges the beating of slaves, and not only refuses to condemn it, but since Christians are the "good guys" in the allegory, it gives a nod and a wink to it being acceptable behavior because it is just.There is nothing post cross that supports beating of anyone. Your only examples will be spoken when the first covenant was still in effect and only spoken as parables not literal events.
I was trying to find the awkward way to phrase the NT in terms of what they had to read and listen to sermons about. They didn't compile it into "the Bible" yet. I just meant "the NT" and the NT ignored the subject of slavery, according to you.I'm no expert of the ECF's writings so I'm not going to just accept your "claim" that none spoke against slavery or the Jews practices of it.
I read you link and the other one. I didn't see any evidence for the theories presented. The first link looked at early interpretations of the book in question, but that isn't any more insightful than our personal interpretation.I agree with everything stated, but you left an important detail unaddressed.
There is the possibility that Onesimus was a slave for life and then had his term reduced upon conversion (analogous to a gentile slave in the Old Testament era converting to Judaism to shorten his enslavement). Recall that Paul says that Onesimus was once useless but is now useful. Aside from being wordplay on his name, this could be a reference to the fact that Onesimus converted after being enslaved (as I understand the story, Onesimus was a runaway slave who heard the gospel from Paul; see the Wikipedia on Onesimus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesimus).
But you would only burn with passion if you were trying to live a life of celibacy. Again, I find it highly ironic that you say that these verses directed at the Corinthians are directed to everyone for all time and mean something they don't explicitly say, and yet you'll say, "he was only talking to the rich man, not everyone for all time".Burning with passion was the problem the solution was marriage. Why was the solution to the problem marriage. Why even suggest it? The solution was not to have sex with whomever. The solution was to have a spouse because within that relationship you can release that passion. It was the only solution offered by Paul.
It doesn't just say, "don't deny him" it says the man has authority over her body. I'm not saying that Paul says "rape her" but he doesn't say not to, and it does sound an awful lot like the man has authority to make her body do what he wants, so why shouldn't the man? Remember to throw out all of your knowledge about how harmful rape is in your response. Just think about dishes.Again your sex with your wife thing ignores scripture. Yes you are not to defraud each other with sex. But Paul does not offer the solution is to have sneaky sex or even force sex. Are you trying to make that claim? Or are you trying to say that the bible says its not rape if you force your wife to have sex? I don't understand your point. This would go contrary to what the bible teaches. The word,of,God was ahead of the times with how to treat your wife. Look at Ephesians. The husband was the head of the house and yet he was told to sacrifice himself for his wife. He was told to love her. The bible tells us to esteem each other higher than ourselves. Paul describes love in I Corinthians 13 if you need to see what love was to mean to the husband. Forcing your wife to have sex would not fulfill anything taught in scripture. You are WAY off base on this one.
Actually, there have been. Not many, but there is "Does porneia mean fornication" by Bruce Malina. jstor.org has it on file, but you have to register to read it (free). Theres a retort on there too by Joseph Jensen, but Jensen starts by trying to claim the OT had a problem with it, even though that clearly isn't true. I've showed that in this thread more than once. And if the Jews didn't have a problem with extra marital relations (many, maybe most, still don't) and the Romans and the Greeks and the yada yada didn't have a problem with it, who are these people you've mentioned that knew it meant extra marital sex whenever someone in the NT said "porneia"?As far as porniea is concerned my source quoted other things and had other sources. Here are some other sources for the idea that the Greek word meant fornication as well as other things.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html
http://static.westside.webfactional.com/abundantLife/092002/3.html
This site refers to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
I could go on an on with links but that becomes tedious. You won't find any ancient word studies of that word that doesn't indicate fornication isn't part of the words understanding. You might find some more liberal modern indicator but they ignore what has been understood through the ages that the word means fornication as well as other sex acts.
Too bad so many people, including Christians, think they understand God, since that it what is needed to always correctly interpret the Bible.
What is the atheistic supreme transcendent standard to test your OP?
We could only know this by appealing to some other norm. What other norm do you appeal to?
What do you measure God's Law by in order to know that it is deficient?
So you say "modern ethics > biblical ethics". On what grounds?
But you would only burn with passion if you were trying to live a life of celibacy. Again, I find it highly ironic that you say that these verses directed at the Corinthians are directed to everyone for all time and mean something they don't explicitly say, and yet you'll say, "he was only talking to the rich man, not everyone for all time".
How many Christians even attempt to lead a life of celibacy? How many plan on having a spouse from the time they are kids because their parents teach them that is what people do? Why are you ignoring that people are better off spouseless? It could just as well mean, "if you're going to burn with passion if you live a life of celibacy, then set out to find yourself a wife". Since it never says, "wait till you're married to do it".
It doesn't just say, "don't deny him" it says the man has authority over her body. I'm not saying that Paul says "rape her" but he doesn't say not to, and it does sound an awful lot like the man has authority to make her body do what he wants, so why shouldn't the man? Remember to throw out all of your knowledge about how harmful rape is in your response. Just think about dishes.
Actually, there have been. Not many, but there is "Does porneia mean fornication" by Bruce Malina. jstor.org has it on file, but you have to register to read it (free). Theres a retort on there too by Joseph Jensen, but Jensen starts by trying to claim the OT had a problem with it, even though that clearly isn't true. I've showed that in this thread more than once. And if the Jews didn't have a problem with extra marital relations (many, maybe most, still don't) and the Romans and the Greeks and the yada yada didn't have a problem with it, who are these people you've mentioned that knew it meant extra marital sex whenever someone in the NT said "porneia"?
More importantly, though, we ought to look at what "fornication" meant when it was used to translate "porneia". The original use was for prostitution, and prostitution alone starting in 1300. Sexual immorality in general was added over time after it was used in the KJV. Check out this link that has a ton of excerpts from old usages of the word "fornication". The page looks sloppy, but the excerpts are real and all in one place (instead of me pasting 20 links here). Just because we mean "sex between unmarried people" today, doesn't mean that's what it meant all this time or when it went into the Bible. I found it while looking for word studies on "porneia" but it's still interesting.
All that being said, I'm going to drop the "no sex till marriage" argument and let you have the last word. As another bit of a concession, I don't see any justification for a man to control another woman's body who isn't his wife, even if extra-marital relations are okay. I still stand by the fact that it being a sin is murky at best. If the Bible says something explicit, then I recognize that. Nothing explicit is said about extra marital sex, and I don't think a vaguely written letter to the Corinthians is enough to infer instructions for everyone for all time. The last word on the subject is yours.
The NT is rather silent on slavery in that there is no specific prohibition against having slaves or servants. However As another poster stated in Revelation that one of the condemned things is slavery. I think there is another case to be made from the book of Philemon.
Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required,
Philemon 1:8 ESV
http://bible.com/59/phm.1.8.ESV
Paul could have,commanded Philemon to let Onesimus go, but he didn't. He wanted to appeal to Philemon on the basis of love not just on command. I think here this is consistent with Paul's teaching in the churches in how to treat people with love.
Bondservents were not to be treated as Bondservents but as brothers in Christ. Which was a radical change.
More to come.
So while the bible does not condemn servitude/slavery it does demand that all are treated kindly, fairly and equally and that they not be looked at as unequal, but equal to their masters.
But if voluntary then he is a bond servant under a contract. The whole premise of some of the positions here is to claim Christianity supported literal slavery but thusfar no evidence proves this and Christian history proves that Christians were opposed to literal slavery.
All unsubstantiated assumptions. There is zero evidence of such a "transference" of Jewish rule on slavery into Christianity.
All of it is pure speculation.
There is no suggestion of that at all. Nothing Paul speaks about suggests anything more than servitude/servants.
I read you link and the other one. I didn't see any evidence for the theories presented. The first link looked at early interpretations of the book in question, but that isn't any more insightful than our personal interpretation.
Now I see as a clue the fact that Paul offered to pay off a debt. I only know of bondservants being indebted to their masters. I don't know how a real slave can become under debt to his master.
But the only clue that would point to him being a runaway slave is that he was in jail away from his master's home. But if he was a servant and allowed to travel from the home he could get into trouble for any number of reasons. He was "worthless" after all.
According to you, Paul could have invoked his authority to free a slave, yet chose to put the idea out there as a suggestion in a loving tone. Meanwhile he harshly rebukes church members for consensual sex acts which he deems immoral. Do you find consensual homosexuality to be more in need of correction than slavery?
Paul's ethics were inferior to ours, so I don't think he got them from a wise and benevolent God. Therefore his writings are not divinely inspired. Since they were included in the canon, it follows that said God did not oversee the canonization process and thus he does not endorse the Bible. It follows that if an almighty God exists, he/she/it is not Jehovah.
Then why does Peter tell slaves to obey even their cruel/harsh masters?
I totally missed that... But that is extremely convincing. I looked it up since he only mentioned it in Wikipedia, but here's a better source on Nexum. @ewq1938 you should read this too since we've been discussing whether Rome outlawed any practices of the Jews in terms of servitude. As it turns out, they outlawed indentured servitude, so if they talk about a slave, it can't be a bondservant. An excerpt here:Also it was pointed out by hedrick in post #154 that indentured servitude did not exist in the time and place that Paul lived.
But you would only burn with passion if you were trying to live a life of celibacy. Again, I find it highly ironic that you say that these verses directed at the Corinthians are directed to everyone for all time and mean something they don't explicitly say, and yet you'll say, "he was only talking to the rich man, not everyone for all time".
How many Christians even attempt to lead a life of celibacy? How many plan on having a spouse from the time they are kids because their parents teach them that is what people do? Why are you ignoring that people are better off spouseless? It could just as well mean, "if you're going to burn with passion if you live a life of celibacy, then set out to find yourself a wife". Since it never says, "wait till you're married to do it".
It doesn't just say, "don't deny him" it says the man has authority over her body. I'm not saying that Paul says "rape her" but he doesn't say not to, and it does sound an awful lot like the man has authority to make her body do what he wants, so why shouldn't the man? Remember to throw out all of your knowledge about how harmful rape is in your response. Just think about dishes.
Actually, there have been. Not many, but there is "Does porneia mean fornication" by Bruce Malina. jstor.org has it on file, but you have to register to read it (free). Theres a retort on there too by Joseph Jensen, but Jensen starts by trying to claim the OT had a problem with it, even though that clearly isn't true. I've showed that in this thread more than once. And if the Jews didn't have a problem with extra marital relations (many, maybe most, still don't) and the Romans and the Greeks and the yada yada didn't have a problem with it, who are these people you've mentioned that knew it meant extra marital sex whenever someone in the NT said "porneia"?
More importantly, though, we ought to look at what "fornication" meant when it was used to translate "porneia". The original use was for prostitution, and prostitution alone starting in 1300. Sexual immorality in general was added over time after it was used in the KJV. Check out this link that has a ton of excerpts from old usages of the word "fornication". The page looks sloppy, but the excerpts are real and all in one place (instead of me pasting 20 links here). Just because we mean "sex between unmarried people" today, doesn't mean that's what it meant all this time or when it went into the Bible. I found it while looking for word studies on "porneia" but it's still interesting.
All that being said, I'm going to drop the "no sex till marriage" argument and let you have the last word. As another bit of a concession, I don't see any justification for a man to control another woman's body who isn't his wife, even if extra-marital relations are okay. I still stand by the fact that it being a sin is murky at best. If the Bible says something explicit, then I recognize that. Nothing explicit is said about extra marital sex, and I don't think a vaguely written letter to the Corinthians is enough to infer instructions for everyone for all time. The last word on the subject is yours.
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?