Would Jesus allow his Church to Teach Falsehoods?

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Did Jesus start a Church?
yes.

Did he want this Church to be united in doctrine?
yes.

Did Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the leaders of the Church into all truth?
yes.

Did Jesus instruct us to follow those he sent?
yes.

If the apostles appointed successors, and these successors are still teaching and leading Christians, why would you assume that Jesus has abandoned them?

and now, after a number of straightforward questions, we come to the big "if."

"If" the apostles appointed successors, and "if" they were the ones you have in mind, and "if" they have successors, and "if" those successors are still leading Christians, what could we conclude? Nothing, unless all those "ifs" were not "ifs." :D
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
59
Oklahoma
✟24,729.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Did Jesus start a Church?
yes, just not your Church, not the RCC. He started His church which consists of all of Christianity even Catholicism.

Did he want this Church to be united in doctrine?
Yes, but due to the pride and stubborn men, due to a system which has painted itself into a corner by declaring immovable doctrine based on unfounded truths, this can not be.

Sadly, it was not even so in the days of the Apostles.

Acts 15:37; And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Acts 15:38; But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

Acts 15:39; And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;


Did Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the leaders of the Church into all truth?
He did not specify that the Holy Spirit would only lead the leaders of the Church. In fact it is stated clearly in Actis 15 that the Holy Spirit was even given to the Gentiles:

Acts 15:8; And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;

Acts 15: 9; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Did Jesus instruct us to follow those he sent?
According to you, no. When He addressed the apostles, He was only giving them commandments. He was not speaking to you and I.

Did He not say to beware of False Teachers?

If the apostles appointed successors, and these successors are still teaching and leading Christians, why would you assume that Jesus has abandoned them?
Show me where the apostles appoint successors.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Not necessarily. An individual can be forgiven by God if he has perfect contrition.

I know he can be forgiven by God. I asked however what would happen if the priest didn't forgive the individual.

You know no such thing.

THe Church teaches interpretations of scripture that differ from your personal interpretation.

Unfortunately for you, Jesus promised to lead the Church into all truth, and he told you to listen to the Church.

Why aren't you doing that?

I'm not exactly sure what this is quoted as me when it was racer that said this. But I'd like to respond anyway.

First, the problem with the church is the fact that it's interpretation is different from what the bible teaches. Second, the church is made up of those individuals who are obedient to God. The Catholic church deviates from scripture in favor of man made doctrines. To say that the catholic church is right because they are the church and as such are the ones being lead in truth takes away from the authority of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Did Jesus start a Church?
Yes.

Did he want this Church to be united in doctrine?
Yes

Did Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the leaders of the Church into all truth?
I don't recall the scripture being exclusive to the leaders only. I thought that was a promise extended to everyone who searches for the truth. You know that's that whole knock and the door shall be opened, seek and ye shall find thing.

Did Jesus instruct us to follow those he sent?
I'd need to see the scripture you're talking about before I answered this.

If the apostles appointed successors, and these successors are still teaching and leading Christians, why would you assume that Jesus has abandoned them?
First we'd need more than the word of the catholic church that says that the apostles appointed successors. Secondly, even if they did, that doesn't mean that these individuals stayed true to God. It's not about God forsaking them, but them forsaking God.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,568
3,558
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟242,472.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's fine. I accept that. But surely if transubstantiation is transubstantiation, it won't lose its effect even if I don't believe in it, right?

I mean, Jesus did break his body, and he did spill his blood. He didn't break his body when he broke the bread; he did it when he died on the cross. Surely the breaking of the actual body is more important than the breaking of the bread?

And I am sure all Christians will agree on the breaking of the body, and what it means to them to have Christ break his actual body for us. In that sense don't we agree more than we disagree?
We should be very careful in thinking the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ....

The difficulty of grasping the concept of eating Jesus Christ's actual Body and of drinking His literal Blood is acknowled in Scripture: "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can understand it?...' From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more" (Jn. 6:60, 66). Nevertheless, the Bible confirms that Holy Communion is the real Body and Blood of our Savior and goes on to say that if anyone sees the Eucharistic elements as merely symbolic, punishment will result: "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the convenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29).

The Eucharist is not optional. We are unequivocally commanded to partake of it:

"If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever" (Jn. 6:51).

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (Jn. 6:53).

"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life (Jn. 6:54)...as well as by "do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk. 22:19 ; 1 Cor. 11:24), and "This do" (1 Cor. 11:25).

...the discussion on the utilization of Eucharist as only a form of remembrance. The Greek construct of the type of "remembrance" in these verses is anamnesis and this encompasses far more than merely some passive mental recollection of an historical event. What is involved in anamnesis includes active participation in Jesus Christ. To more fully understand what this means, we must turn briefly to the concept of deification.

Theosis (Deification) is the process of our becoming more like God. This is a movement of the soul toward God that Apostle Peter describes as "that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

In other words, just as we participate initially in God's divine energy at baptism and Chrismation through God the Holy Spirit, we also actively participate in His divine energy, and become more like Him, via Holy Communion. This is the "remembrance" indicated in "do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24).

~~"West of Jesus" by Anthony (a reference book)
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
59
Oklahoma
✟24,729.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Also, we know that the early Church understood this passage to be literal, and they received their teaching from the apostles.
To continually make this assertion when it has been directly quoted from early church fathers that this is not true is not quite on the up-and-up.

You continually making these assertions to us do nothing but reaffirm to you that your delusions are true. For those of us who can see are not deceived. We know better.
Jesus was talking to the apostles. I don't think there is any reason to believe that he meant his message for others.
Really? So, since he was only speaking to the apostles, we are not bound by the same commandments as they?

Or are we bound by His commandments, but excluded from His promises?
The role of the apostles and their successors is unique. They bear the message. We are to listen to and obey their message.
So, why did they write letters to the churches?
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To continually make this assertion when it has been directly quoted from early church fathers that this is not true is not quite on the up-and-up.

You continually making these assertions to us do nothing but reaffirm to you that your delusions are true. For those of us who can see are not deceived. We know better.


Then prove it. You know as well as I do that I am being honest and clear. Don't make accusations that you aren't prepared to defend.

Really? So, since he was only speaking to the apostles, we are not bound by the same commandments as they?

We don't have the same authority that they do. We are to listen to and obey their teachings.

Or are we bound by His commandments, but excluded from His promises?

We are bound by his commandments but not excluded from his promises. Promises made to the apostles are not necessarily promises made to us, however.

So, why did they write letters to the churches?

To spread the good news, teach, and inspire.


FYI:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#cyprian
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
All religions teach falsehood.


you realize the definition of religion is a set of beliefs? Belief that Christ is the Son of God is a religious belief. In fact it was quite a controversial one due to the big rise of Arianism right after Christ died.

You have a set of religious beliefs whether you believe it or not. As longs you believe in Christs divinity, the Trinity, and his power of atonement and miracles you have a religious set of beliefs.

What the OP is asking is if the Church is led by the Holy Spirit it would impossible for it to go into apostasy. Thus if the Church does go into apostasy his promise would be null and the gates of hell would have prevailed, which Christ promised would not happen after he gave the keys to Peter.

In think the abortion and divorce issue is a good example. Many protestant communities started allowing things like abortion, divorce, gay marriage, birth control, womens ministries, etc. This would be a sign that the holy spirit is not guiding them because they are allowing secular pressure to make their decisions on morality.

We should be very careful in thinking the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ....
True, this was warned by the Apostle Paul and St. Ignatius. St. Ignatius went so far as to say people who deny the bread and wine are perishing in their own disputes.

"They abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the bread and wine is the flesh of our savior"

There is a reason why the Pagan Romans accused the Christians in the apostolic era of commiting cannibalism.

After the 16th century people denied Christs presence in the Eucharist and many even abolished the practice all together. Later on even baptism was attacked. Is this just a coincidence?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
59
Oklahoma
✟24,729.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Then prove it.
Again? When do you suppose you might actually prove something, instead of continually spouting unfounded and unprovable assertions?

I can prove my argument, so therefore I will. For those who can read and think for themselves, I will post the truth for them to see and discern.

ST. AUGUSTIN:
HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
SOLILOQUIES

Tractate XXVI.

Chapter VI. 41–59

. . . . Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

. . . A man can come to Church unwillingly, can approach the altar unwillingly, partake of the sacrament unwillingly: but he cannot believe unless he is willing.

If we believed with the body, men might be made to believe against their will. But believing is not a thing done with the body. Hear the apostle: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” And what follows? “And with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”514514 Rom. x. 10. That confession springs from the root of the heart.

3. . . . For we do not run to Christ on foot, but by believing; nor is it by a motion of the body, but by the inclination of the heart that we draw nigh to Him.

Chapter 5.—It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense.

9. But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”18541854 2 Cor. iii. 6. For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

Chapter 10.—How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.

14. . . . But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God 561 and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor.

Chapter 16.—Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

24. . . . If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”18671867 John vi. 53. This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Is that clear enough for you?

You know as well as I do that I am being honest and clear. Don't make accusations that you aren't prepared to defend.
You have know idea what I do and do not know. Please stop acting as if you have the authority to declare what others do and do not know. You really only damage your own credibility when you do this It comes across as childish.

We don't have the same authority that they do. We are to listen to and obey their teachings.
Well, we only obey teachings that are in line with the Gospel of Christ as taught to the multitudes in Scripture.

We are bound by his commandments but not excluded from his promises. Promises made to the apostles are not necessarily promises made to us, however.
You contradict your own arguments. That's okay because it saves me the trouble.

Besides, I've clearly shown that the Holy Spirit was promised to the laity, not just the church leaders.
 
Last edited:
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

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
59
Oklahoma
✟24,729.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
59
Oklahoma
✟24,729.00
Faith
Pentecostal
When you say that you know that Catholic Church contradict the bible, then I know that you are wrong.
You are deceived.
You lean on your own understanding. Your personal interpretations are different than the Catholic interpretations.
When you decided that the RCC is the correct church, you relied on your own interpretation of Scripture. You are no more secure in your knowledge than am I. I have faith that God, through the Holy Spirit, will not forsake me and will cointinue to guide me to the Truth. You place your faith in an institution ran by men. i think I stick with Godl.

This does not make Catholic teaching unbiblical.
It does in some instances.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Again? When do you suppose you might actually prove something, instead of continually spouting unfounded and unprovable assertions?

I can prove my argument, so therefore I will. For those who can read and think for themselves, I will post the truth for them to see and discern.

ST. AUGUSTIN:
HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
SOLILOQUIES

Tractate XXVI.

Chapter VI. 41–59

. . . . Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

. . . A man can come to Church unwillingly, can approach the altar unwillingly, partake of the sacrament unwillingly: but he cannot believe unless he is willing.

If we believed with the body, men might be made to believe against their will. But believing is not a thing done with the body. Hear the apostle: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” And what follows? “And with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”514514 Rom. x. 10. That confession springs from the root of the heart.

3. . . . For we do not run to Christ on foot, but by believing; nor is it by a motion of the body, but by the inclination of the heart that we draw nigh to Him.

Chapter 5.—It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense.

9. But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”18541854 2 Cor. iii. 6. For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

Chapter 10.—How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.

14. . . . But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God 561 and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor.

Chapter 16.—Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

24. . . . If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”18671867 John vi. 53. This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Is that clear enough for you?


Not at all.

It is totally irrelevant to the point. Augustines belief in the real presence is not in doubt. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.




"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
-"Sermons", [227, 21]
"He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer 'Amen'".
-"Second Discourse on Psalm 32". Ch. 4. circa
"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.
Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.
"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:​
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Albion,

After all this time you are still calling me a "he/his?"

I am really sorry!:blush:

I think that there's something about the "Racer" name that strikes me as masculine, although there's no reason it has to, and when you and I haven't been posting on the same threads for awhile, I just forget.

MAYBE NOW, I'll get beyond all that. :)
 
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What Christ promised is that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth; He didn't promise that it would never make any errors.

He also promised that the church would persevere (that the gates of hell would not prevail against it); that is similarly not a promise that it could never make a mistake.

The church obviously is carrying on and is gaining new members daily. What Christ promised has, IOW, come to pass. That's all there is to it.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When you decided that the RCC is the correct church, you relied on your own interpretation of Scripture. You are no more secure in your knowledge than am I. I have faith that God, through the Holy Spirit, will not forsake me and will cointinue to guide me to the Truth. You place your faith in an institution ran by men. i think I stick with Godl.
I am not leaning on my own understanding.

I don't make my own dogmas.

I trust Jesus and I believe that he has not abandoned his Church.

You reject those sent by Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What Christ promised is that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth; He didn't promise that it would never make any errors.

Teaching errors would be inconsistent with being led into all truth. However, I agree that the Church makes mistakes in practive, but not in doctrine.

Jesus also gave the Church power to bind and loose. He told us to listen to this Church.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I am not leaning on my own understanding.
You chose which church you wanted to belong to, didn't you? (Yes)

I don't make my own dogmas.
You decided which church's dogmas you will follow

I trust Jesus and I believe that he has not abandoned his Church.
EVERYONE here agrees that he has not abandoned his church. :doh:

You reject those sent by Jesus.
Oh, you mean that part about IF Jesus had founded a denomination instead of a church, and IF the Apostles actually had chosen a line of successors and IF they chose theirs, then IF they are still around, you would follow them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
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

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟66,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-snip-

Show me where the apostles appoint successors.

See my thread Unfolding the Rolls of Their Bishops. After two days, there is still only one historically verifiable, unadulterated, noncontradictory, everyone agees upon line. Apostles to Polycarp.

Tertullian-- Apostles to Polycarp. Peter to Clement.
Irenaeus-- Apostles to Polcarp. Peter to Linus.
 
Upvote 0