|
| MONDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
A British Member of Parliament, Mark Pritchard, a Conservative Party member, gained time in the British Parliament for a debate on what he termed "rising Christianophobia." Mr. Pritchard argued that there is an obvious reluctance on the part of officials, the media and even Royal Mail to mark Christian festivals and traditions. He said that while the reason given for marginalizing Christianity is often to avoid offending people of other faiths, this was a "bogus cover" for the secularist and politically correct agenda. Support for the M.P. and his views came from a wide variety of churches and church organizations, especially from the Evangelical Alliance. An ex-government minister, David Burt, who is a member of the Council of the Evangelical Alliance, argued that Britain's cohesiveness as a nation in the past owed much to a public framework of Christianity. Mr. Burt said the Church can survive Christianophobia but that the nation would be much poorer if Britain's faith heritage is marginalized. He said, "The church does not need contemporary Britain, but does contemporary Britain need the church? You bet it does." The government minister who responded for the government, Parmjit Dhanda, is a Sikh who is on the left wing of Britain's ruling Labor Party. His response was a vain repetition of the usual meaningless mumbo jumbo that politicians feed us when they have really nothing constructive to say. He called for greater tolerance, adding that Christianity had played a significant role in community cohesion and education. That is just typical eyewash. The British government is fully involved in the rampant secularization of the nation and the almost total exclusion of anything remotely Christian in the public forum. Under the guise of promoting good community relations it will protect almost any expression of any religion except Christianity. One of the first actions of the present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was to rule that such terms as "Muslim terrorist" and "the war on terror" must not be employed by anyone in his government-such expressions may wound tender Muslims who don't like their co-religionists designated terrorists, no matter how many people the kill. This is the same bunch of politicians who, during the years of terrorism in Northern Ireland, never wearied of lecturing the people of the province about the scandal of "Christians" fighting each other-when the killers were mostly either Roman Catholics or "Loyalist" despisers of Christianity. In other words, any situation will do to bash the name and public image of Christianity. Any excuse is good enough to limit its rights under the law. To see how much toleration this government will ultimately show, just watch how it will move against churches and Christians who refuse to embrace its pro-Sodomite agenda. Parmjit Dhanda's "toleration" will then stand in its true colors. Here in America there is the same official phobia of anything Christian. Actually such opposition may purge the true Church and strengthen it. The gospel owes nothing to human government for its power but human government owes everything good in it to the gospel. The nation is the real loser in its campaign to marginalize Christ and His gospel. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
The same press that regularly holds up to ridicule almost anything that a Bible believing Christian may say, especially on matters of a metaphysical nature such as the origin of man and the universe, soberly reports the most egregious nonsense from heathen religious leaders. The Dalai Lama, leader of Tibet's Buddhists, is a case in point. Consider the following from The Times of London: Faced with Chinese plans to seize control of his reincarnation, the Dalai Lama has come up with two revolutionary proposals - either to forgo rebirth, or to be reborn while still alive. The exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader proposed yesterday to hold a referendum among his 13-14 million followers around the world - before his death - on whether he should be reincarnated or not. If the majority vote against it he said he would simply not be reborn, ending a lineage that tradition dictates dates back to the late 14th century, when a young shepherd was appointed the first Dalai Lama. If the vote was in favour he said that he might appoint a reincarnation while he was still alive, breaking the 600-year-old tradition of being reborn as a small boy after his death. His proposals not only raise some mind-bending metaphysical questions: they put China's atheist Communist leaders in the unusual position of claiming to be the protectors of Tibetan Buddhist tradition. I do not want to pursue the political ramifications at any length. I think it probable that political considerations are making the Buddhist leader play mind games with the Chinese Communists. He may yet prove that he has adopted a dangerous ploy, for if history proves anything it is that Beijing has usually a blunt and very bloody answer to any challenge to its authority. What interests me is the mad notion not only that the Dalai Lama will be reincarnated-an absolute fallacy-but that he can choose whether to be reincarnated before he dies! He terms this "appointing a reincarnation." In almost anyone else the press would label this for what it is-madness. In any other line of succession, if a leader chooses his successor he claims no wisdom other than he has as a man. And that is all the Dalai Lama can do. Oh, I know that millions of Tibetan Buddhists look on him a divine being, but we know that his present shenanigans prove that he is no more and no better than any other human leader or ruler. His ploy is to play his religious card with utter ruthlessness as he tries to do an end run around the Chinese-who had been threatening to do the same around him! It's time we in the west recognized all this nonsense about reincarnation for what it is: a diabolical deception aimed at getting men away from the message of God's love and mercy in Christ. The lie of reincarnation is the ultimate rejection of divine grace and the assertion of human works as man's final hope. In the end, it is a religious fallacy that leads those who fall into it to a hopeless destiny of everlasting separation from God. It is not some earned reincarnation sinners need but a gracious regeneration by God's Spirit, a justification by which we may stand accepted in the righteousness of God's Son. That is what we need and that is exactly what God freely offers in the gospel of is grace. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
Here's a report from the Associated Press that ought to awaken Bible believers everywhere: The tall, tan pastor stood at the pulpit of his Baptist church on a recent Sunday morning, cleared his throat, and nervously proclaimed the following: First, he believes in God. And second, he believes in the Bible. Robert Walker Jr.'s audience, a crowd of about 100 faithful parishioners, shuffled uncomfortably as he spoke, surely wondering why their pastor of a decade was offering up these disclaimers. But it didn't take long to figure out why. Over the next few minutes, Walker told his flock that science contends that sixth century scholars wrote the Old Testament, but that it was still written with "divine spirit." It was his way of telling them that science and religion aren't always at odds. "We can embrace God and Scripture and science together. And it's enough to say when they agree - and sometimes they do - we should embrace it. And they agree that our Earth cannot last forever. And that we are charged with the responsibility of taking care of it." With that, there was another rustle in the crowd. And Peachtree Baptist Church had opened its two-month Sunday sermon series on the environment. The congregation is one of 130 members of the local chapter of the Interfaith Power and Light movement, a group that tries to engage the faithful into environmental activism. And thanks to a recent spurt in environmental interest, similar chapters are springing up through the South. "We try to engage faith communities to do just this - encourage their congregations to talk actively about environment and faith," said Jennifer Downs, the chapter's outreach coordinator. "We don't want this just to be a political conversation. Scientists won't be able to solve this by themselves." The chapter offers tips on low-energy care of church organs, sermon suggestions and hands out kits that encourage people that encourage greening through holidays. This is amazing. For a pastor to say he believes the Bible and then inform his congregation on the basis of the opinion of something called "science" that the Old Testament was written by 6th century scholars-making it a bundle of lies and false claims from start to finish-is utter hypocrisy. No enemy of Scripture is more reprehensible than the one who claims to be a Bible believer but uses that profession as a cloak to deny the Bible. Let me make it clear: no matter how theological liberals howl to the contrary, their theories about the origin of the Bible are unfounded, ridiculous and absolutely unfaithful to the facts of the case. So why did a Baptist pastor reject the claims of the Bible about itself? Evidently because it didn't give him enough support for a radical, green agenda. He wants to paint God green and the Bible clearly doesn't support his radical agenda. There is no marrying of the earth-worshiping, tree-hugging environmentalist movement and the Word of God. If you believe one, you must reject the other. I believe the Bible. I reject the clamors of the Greens as a base political ploy in the interests of a worldwide socialist agenda. And I utterly repudiate any deception in the name of Christianity that seeks to lend the authority of God and His word to the humanistic/ heathen religion of environmentalism. We are not green-either in the sense of being global warming tree huggers or in the sense of being easily fooled by preachers who turn the truth of God into a lie. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
Yesterday I reported on a question put to Republican presidential candidates in a recent debate. The questioner asked if they believed the Bible. He received answers from three candidates, the only ones to whom the moderator put the question. The point, however, is that the question was put and answered in a public debate before an important presidential primary. By contrast, Britain's ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, recently said: "It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system. If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally. You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter." Blair is an Episcopalian who is soon to announce his defection from the Church of England to the Church of Rome. He has been speaking of his "deep religious faith." His aides say that he carried a Bible with him wherever he went and read it daily, especially the last thing before going to bed at night. Blair has confirmed that his beliefs influenced his political decisions. Actually, I have to wonder about a lot of this. Tony Blair was a consummate politician and his political decisions were almost entirely decisions that arose out of political expediency or out of a left-wing socialist philosophy. He could never have justified promoting a whole slew of practicing homosexuals to positions of power because he was influenced by the moral standards of Scripture. His government was as morally corrupt as any you could meet with and Mr. Blair's "deep religious convictions" did not influence him one bit toward removing it as a cancer from the body politic. However, he makes a valid point when he notes the difference between the U.S. and Britain or for that matter between the U.S. and Europe generally. Whereas in the U.S. questions about faith and Scripture are legitimate and even a vital part of the public debate, in the U.K. and other European countries, any politician who speaks of God and His word will be treated as a "nutter," a lunatic who needs to be locked up. A political leader who reads the Bible is looked on as a threat to the welfare of the nations. He may read pornography or Marxism and be hailed as a scholarly statesman but if he reads God's word he is deemed to be mad and certainly not to be entrusted with the nation's security. In Britain, according to one commentator, less than one third of the population believes in God in anything like a Christian sense. Another third believe in something, though they know not what. Half the population seems to think religion is harmful and fewer than 20% think it beneficial. In this climate you can see why during his years in office, Tony Blair kept largely silent on all mention of God. As Alastair Campbell, Blair's equivalent to George Bush's Carl Rove, said, "We don't do God here." One excuse made for excluding God from public life is the fear of religious extremism. That is a valid fear. Nobody wants to encourage another Muslim zealot to fly a plane into a building with name of Allah on his lips. Still, it says a lot about the fall of Britain when there is no distinction between the truth of God in Christ and the fallacy of a religion like Islam. Britain used to be a nation whose whole civilization was built on the Christian revelation. Today it is a nation adrift from its moorings, a nation without God, a nation that is all too clearly fulfilling the awful prophecy of Psalm 9:17. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
I start today with a word of warning. I don't do party politics or state party political preferences on this program. But I will hold every political party and every politician to the standard of God's word. With that in mind, we will step into the strange world of presidential debates as a few humble men present themselves as God's answer to the needs of America. "Do you believe every word of this Book?" That was a plain question for the Republican candidates who are running for President. The Book was the Bible. The answers were predictable but still enlightening. The answers were predictable but still enlightening. Former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a Roman Catholic, did what politicians do best: he tried to speak out of both sides of his mouth. "The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it necessarily literally true in every single respect. I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive; I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical; I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context. I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale." Now there you have a whale of a story! "The reality is, ‘I believe it' but ‘I don't believe it necessarily literally true.'" Come on, Rudy! Do you believe it or do you not? Perhaps the question should have been clearer: Do you believe that what the Bible presents as fact is fact; that what it presents as history is history; and that what it presents as truth in the moral and spiritual realm is truth? And how far will you be guided in your private and public life by the truth of this Book? That would have been a better question. I think even Rudy Giuliani would be hard pressed to do his political wriggle and talk his way around giving a straight answer. Ex-Southern Baptist preacher, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas Governor, answered, "It's the Word of revelation to us from God Himself. The fact is when people ask if you believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it. As the only person here probably on this stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, but I'm not supposed to. Because the Bible is the revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever gonna fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, drew applause when he said, "The Bible is the Word of God, absolutely." The moderator asked, "Does that mean you believe every word?" Romney answered, "Yeah, I believe it's the Word of God. I might interpret the Word differently than you interpret the Word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try and live by it." As a Mormon, Romney can't believe the Bible in anything like its plain sense-which makes it all the more ironic that his reply stated so as to sound so evangelical. It seems that even when dealing with Scripture, what politicians believe and what they say about it depends on whose vote they are trying to win. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
Homosexual perverts have long demanded a place of acceptance in the Christian church. I do not mean that they desire to be treated as other penitent sinners. They do not. The church of Christ welcomes sinners to Christ and takes into its fellowship those whom God has delivered from all kinds of sin. Indeed, you may make the point that Christ's church is made up exclusively of sinners-sinners saved by grace; sinners who by that grace have turned and are continually turning from their sin; and sinners who are seeking by that same grace and through faith in Christ to live in victory over sin. Homosexuals demand exclusive treatment. They demand acceptance by God and by the Church as they are, without confessing their perversion as sin and without repenting of it or repudiating it. They demand entrance to the Church and even its ministry while continuing to practice what the Word of God abominates. Some liberal churches-for liberal, read apostate churches-that have little regard for the sanctity of Scripture have accepted homosexuals on their own terms. This is hailed as "enlightened," "kind," and "loving." It is none of the above. It is a shameful, humanistic rejection of God's created order and of His revealed word. And it is the worst possible response for the homosexual sinner for it locks him in to the sin that is keeping him back from receiving God's grace on God's terms. Only if it is enlightened, kind and loving to condemn a man to hell can the attitude of apostate churches to homosexuals be defended. For most churches, the unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture is what determines their response to homosexuals. So an Australian publisher has produced a so-called Gay Study Bible. A female NT scholar of some repute is an editor and has lent her name and reputation to this vicious attack on God's Word. The Gay Study Bible is as plain a perversion of Scripture as sodomy is of sexuality. It tells us that the sin of the men of Sodom was having sinful relations with angels. That is an absolute invention, a lie of the first order that flies in the face of the story and even of the words of Christ about the nature of angels. But none of that matters to the editors of Satan's Sodomite Bible. They will sacrifice even Scripture to promote the foul agenda of a perversion that has cost millions their lives already and will cost millions more. Does any of that slow up the Sodomite supporters? Not at all. Ruining lives and damning souls is to them an acceptable price for gaining their stated objective of forcing homosexuality into mainstream society and even into the Christian Church. However, all the sodomites in the world, even with the help of a renegade NT scholar, will never be able to overthrow the powerful and consistent testimony of Scripture against the body-destroying and soul-destroying sin of homosexuality. The Scriptures of Truth hold out the only real message of love and grace to sinners, including homosexuals, namely redemption in Christ by virtue of His blood atonement. Satan's Sodomite Bible is just the latest futile attempt to thwart the progress of word of grace. It is doomed to failure, not just because many bookstores will not stock it but because like every other Satanic attack on Scripture it will be repulsed by the omnipotent hand of Him who ultimately wrote the Bible. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
The secular media frequently tell us that America's population is around 80% Christian. Often this assertion is made to justify discrimination against Christians and the erosion of their rights, the theory being that anything a "Christian" does may be seen as threatening to a minority while what a minority does is unlikely to pose a threat to such a strong majority. Even if America were 80% Christian this thinking would be way off base. But is America anything like 80% Christian? Christianity Today published the findings of a survey they conducted and they posit five kinds of Christians. Here they are: Active Christians 19% Believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ-Committed churchgoers-Bible readers- Accept leadership positions-Invest in personal faith development through the church- Feel obligated to share faith; 79% do so. Professing Christians 20% Believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ-Focus on personal relationship with God and Jesus-Similar beliefs to Active Christians, different actions-Less involved in church, both attending and serving-Less commitment to Bible reading or sharing faith Liturgical Christians 16% Predominantly Catholic and Lutheran-Regular churchgoers-High level of spiritual activity, mostly expressed by serving in church and/or community-Recognize authority of the church Private Christians 24% Largest and youngest segment-Believe in God and doing good things-Own a Bible, but don't read it-Spiritual interest, but not within church context-Only about a third attend church at all-Almost none are church leaders Cultural Christians 21% Little outward religious behavior or attitudes-God aware, but little personal involvement with God-Do not view Jesus as essential to salvation-Affirm many ways to God-Favor universality theology. As soon as you read this survey one things stands out with startling clarity: the vast majority of those who claim to be "Christian" have, by biblical standards, absolutely no right to the name. In other words, America is far from 80% Christian. The truth is that America is a vast mission field. The vast majority of its citizens are not saved and desperately need to be saved. Those who are saved should seek to reach them with the gospel, bring them under the sound of the gospel and labor before God in prayer for the visitation of His Spirit with power to make their evangelistic efforts effective. Christianity Today speaks of some things churches need to do, such as community-oriented service, to be effective in the modern setting. What they really need is the power of God falling on a people truly separated unto the gospel. In other words, it takes real Christians to reach the vast mass of empty professors who are trudging the broad road to destruction. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
In the first case of its kind, a wife of a New York State pastor who is suing for divorce has asked the courts to treat his church as a personal asset. She wants her share of the net worth of the church when her divorce comes through. She says her husband put $50,000 of their savings into the church to get it going. She alleges that he uses the church funds as his personal piggy bank, that he sets his own salary and that he has misused church tithes and other funds, even paying his mistress out of them to the tune of either $750 per week or per month. The pastor has said that he is merely an employee of the church who receives a salary for his services and that therefore the church cannot be treated as a marital asset. However, a New York Supreme Court Justice has agreed to hear her case and has asked for the value of the church to be appraised. This is a scary development. Let me state categorically: a church and its finances cannot be a personal or marital asset. For a NY court to consider making a church an asset to be divided in a divorce settlement is a scandalous innovation, a departure from legal precedent and a threat to the rights of every local congregation. If a court were to allow this crazy claim, what may be next? Who knows? I have sympathy with a woman whose preacher husband has kept a mistress. Such a man should be drummed out of the ministry and never allowed to return to it. I can understand her desire to make sure she receives her fair share of the community property and wealth built up over 31 years of marriage. But she is wrong to try to make a local church a marital asset. If her husband has been guilty of all she alleges, there are laws under which he should be dealt with. For example, if he invested her money in starting up the church without her knowledge or consent, a court may hold him responsible and keep this in view in splitting the remaining assets. If he has misused church funds, the police and courts have the power to investigate and charge him. If he is guilty I would hope he would be made to face the full rigor of the law. But to make his church a marital asset is preposterous and dangerous. To give the courts the right to filch the giving of a congregation and distribute it in ways for which it was never intended is an unwarranted intrusion by the State into the Church. The separation of Church and State works both ways. This NY case threatens to overthrow one aspect of that separation. Perhaps this is just another of America's seemingly endless trivial lawsuits. I hope so and I hope that the judge looking at it will dismiss it. But I fear it may also be a trial balloon, a testing of the waters or however you want to describe an attempt to find out just how far opponents of the rights of churches can push their agenda. We need to send the message loud and clear: keep the State out of the business of the Church. Keep its greedy hands off the money people give sacrificially for the ministry of their churches. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
A court has struck down Pennsylvania's version of a "hate crimes" law, ruling that what officials there call an "Ethnic Intimidation Law" restriction was "unconstitutional and therefore null and void." The challenge to the law arose because a group of people who testified on public property at a large homosexual event had been arrested and charged and faced going to jail for up to 50 years. The charges were dismissed but Repent America believed that the "Hate Crimes" law under which the charges had been brought should be challenged as unconstitutional. When that case reached the courts the judges by a 4-1 majority agreed with petitioners and declared the law unconstitutional and therefore void. The court's decision has been hailed as a victory for constitutional government. I believe there can be little doubt of that. However, I am not so sure that it is a victory for the rights of Christians to preach publicly what the Bible says about homosexuality or false religion or a host of other controversial subjects. The challenge to the law was based on a constitutional technicality, an important technicality but a technicality none the less. The petitioners said the passage of the bill, which originally criminalized agricultural crop destruction but was altered to become the first proposal in Pennsylvania to recognize "sexual orientation" as a protected class, failed to follow Article III of the state constitution. That provision prohibits the complete overhaul of a bill in the course of its passage. The court agreed but it also said, "It is well established that a legislative enactment enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and it will not be declared invalid unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution." In other words, if the legislature had introduced the bill without contravening the constitutional requirements for passing it, the court would most likely have let it stand, even though it plainly discriminates against Christians' right to free speech. That is an ominous thought. America is in the midst of a "Hate Crimes" onslaught from the far Left, who by the way are most hate-filled people in the country. They are determined to stamp out every semblance of opposition to their sodomite agenda and legislatures around the nation are buckling to them. Nobody has the right to take the law into his own hands and beat up a homosexual. There are laws in place to guarantee as far laws can do so the safety of the individual. The intention of the criminal who mugs or robs does not make the crime any more or less heinous. All should be treated equally under the law. We don't need "Hate Laws." They are a smokescreen to cover another agenda, namely, the eradication of the constitutional right, especially of Christians, to oppose the evil of homosexuality and to do so in the public square. Don't let the small victory in Pennsylvania blind you to the real danger that faces us. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007 | 16 years ago |
|
|
Christiantoday.com reports news from Norway and its Lutheran Church that shows just how deep into sin many of the once Christian churches of the world have fallen. Here is the salient part of the report: The Lutheran Church of Norway voted last Friday to allow members in same-sex partnerships to serve in ordained ministry. The vote came towards the end of a difficult week of debate on the issue during the Church's General Synod, held last Tuesday to Saturday. The Church remains deeply divided over homosexuality, with many feeling that the acceptance of homosexuals in the clergy goes against Scripture. Last Friday's compromise vote was testimony to the lack of clear consensus on homosexuals within the Church. While the long-standing absolute ban on employing homosexuals in the clergy has been lifted, the ultimate decision on whether or not to appoint them has been left to individual bishops to make. Here is apostasy. The Church of Norway and every other church that takes the same attitude toward the acceptance of practicing sodomites has cast off God's law and has bowed down to another god. They may continue to use the names and titles of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but they have given up both God and truth as they bow at the shrine of all inclusive antichristianity. With sickening hypocrisy, the Lutheran Church of Norway and other such apostate institutions make a vain show of wrestling with Scripture, as if they really cared what the Scripture said. They don't. There is absolutely no difficulty in understanding the Bible's attitude to homosexuality. No, what these hypocrites do under the guise of studying Scripture is to look for ways in which to evacuate the Bible of its plain meaning and replace it with the mumbo jumbo of modern godless secular religion. And what has been the response of the so-called conservatives in the Church of Norway, those who on Scriptural grounds oppose allowing homosexuals into the Christian ministry? They dialoged, to use a word compromisers employ to cover their weakness, and then they reached a "compromise." Now, I put it to you that there is just one response that true Christians should make to what the Church of Norway has done and that is to separate from it completely-either eject the apostates or, if that is not possible, abandon them and establish a biblical witness for Christ and His gospel. There is no other way. This is the path of obedience for every Christian whose church has gone into apostasy. I once read a modern parable. Two skeletons were in a cupboard and one said to the other, "If we had any guts, we'd get out of here!" I hope you get the message. If Christians had any guts they would never consent to remain in churches like the Lutheran Church of Norway. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
