MonteZuma Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 However, in my opinion, given how the church managed to survive for so long and more importantly through vastly changing political atmosphere's, and coupling that with the place where it origionated, I highly doubt it is a 2000 year old scam.The fact that a religion is old does not mean that it is the one true religion. It doesn't mean that a religion has any logical validity at all. Of course that is why christianity and probably most other religions rely on 'faith' and ignore logic whenever convenient. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, priests do not make that much money. Yes, the !@#$%^&*le does have its share of power and a decent wage, but not enough to make it realistic over this amount of time.I don't see many poverty-stricken priests. In any case, I gave up a career that would have made me wealthier in return for a career that is making me happier. Maybe the type of people who join the priesthood do it for other reasons? Access to young kids for immoral rumpy pumpy seems to be one of those reasons for some priests. You can't measure someones faith by their financial sacrifice - and you can't measure the 'correctness' of a religion by the wages of priests.
madhaha Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 Contentious art in courthouse sparks international debate. Man in silly wig is fired. Actual relevance to the rest of the human race: 0.00001 on the madhaha (log) scale. No-one died. There were no riots. This man will now stand to make a lot of money from talk shows/news articles and his name will be remembered by scholars/philosophers for years to come. Does this merit several billion posts where people post their opinion and flame each other or can we say the story has run its course and we all lived happily ever after? The debates going on here are all philosophical and ideological. Not political. Seeing as my attempt to get this forum renamed to the "Politics and Philosophy" forum went down screaming in flames, I think this thread is a lost cause. Ok, enough talking, you can get back to fighting now
MonteZuma Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 ...The debates going on here are all philosophical and ideological. Not political. Seeing as my attempt to get this forum renamed to the "Politics and Philosophy" forum went down screaming in flames, I think this thread is a lost cause.Oxford English dictionary: Politics. a. The science and art of government; the science dealing with the form, organization, and administration of a state or part of one, and with the regulation of its relations with other states (hence, imperial, national, domestic, municipal, communal, parochial, foreign politics, etc.). Also the politics, public or social ethics, that branch of moral philosophy dealing with the state or social organism as a whole (obs.). Sure the thread might be a little o/t now - but only a pedant would care. The moral philosophy behind the relationship between church and State is very much a political issue. Monte
»1587200 Posted November 21, 2003 Author Report Posted November 21, 2003 Sry feef, I stand correted. I was wrong about the everyone speaking hebrew, but, they did speak greek in addtion to aramaic. Alexander the Great (who no one will dispute lived...) had in the past developed a road system and trade routes for the whole area over there (which also contributed to the expansion of the roman empire at the time), and which in turned established greek as a language of the land.
»1587200 Posted November 21, 2003 Author Report Posted November 21, 2003 The gospel's on the other hand were written earlier than originally thought. Im going to quote from The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and his interview with Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D. - "widely concidered to be one of the country's foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus, which are called the four gospels. He recieved his doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, later serving as a senior reserch fellow at Tyndal House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of a ... group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. For the last dozen years he has been a professor of New Testament at the ... Denver Seminary. "and we can support that by looking at the book of Acts, which was written by Luke. Acts ends apparently unfinished -- Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We dont' find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death. "That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part -- the gospel of Luke -- must have been written earlier than that. Ance since Luke incorporateds parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even Earlier. "If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50's. If Jesus was put to death in A.D 30 or 33, we're tlaking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so."
madhaha Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 Also the politics, public or social ethics, that branch of moral philosophy dealing with the state or social organism as a whole (obs.). Sure the thread might be a little o/t now - but only a pedant would care. The moral philosophy behind the relationship between church and State is very much a political issue. Who's the pedant here? Me or the person that uses a definition that is even marked obscure in the dictionary? If you've been reading the last few posts you'd notice that things are beyond "a little off topic", they aren't addressing any issue being presented by other parties at all. This thread is fast becomming an excercise in ego massage. "I can go into more unneccessary and irrelevant detail than you!". If you have to talk about something with such a tenuous link to politics, please have the grace to stick to answering one another's questions instead of reciting everything that you've learnt in religious studies ever.
Live-Wire Posted November 22, 2003 Report Posted November 22, 2003 This judge doesn't own the building, what rights does he have to do what he wants with the interior design. Lets be reasonable people. There are three versions of the Ten Commandments in the (Old Testament). They are at Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. 2nd Commandment; Verses 4-6: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." OOPS! The Sistine Chapel DONE -*BAD WORD*-ED UP! Painting a likeness of heaven above? HEATHEN. 3rd Commandment; Verse 7: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." God -*BAD WORD*-, you're ALL going to -*BAD WORD*-. 4th Commandment; Verses 8-11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." I don't get it ... do Christians carefully overlook this rule, and kinda sweep it under the rug? Ever mow your lawn on a saturday? Oops, you're going to -*BAD WORD*-. Here is a good one for you anti-death penalty people: 6th Commandment; Verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill." Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."Exodus 22:20: "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."Deuteronomy 13:1-10 states that a person who tries to convince an Israelite to convert to another religion must be killedLeviticus 20:27 calls for the execution by stoning of all mediums and spiritists. Oh, and if you have sex before you're married... Deuteronomy 22:13-21 concludes that your girlfriend be stoned to death. I would say you're all going to -*BAD WORD*-, but most of you haven't boned a chick, dead or alive. ZING. The ten commandments was first a Jewish thing, so back off crazies. This country was also not founded on Christianity. When you say founded, I can only assume you mean the Cons!@#$%^&*ution, and if you read any of the federalist papers, you'll realize it was pretty clear there was a direct intention to NOT make it a Christian government. If by "christian" you simply mean they follow rules like the ten commandments, and general morality, I'm going to have to go ahead and call that a blatant disregard for defining what you're talking about - if they follow rules like thou shalt not kill, I think that'd make it much closer to a Jewish government, who has no "central authority" like Catholicism for example. Do you mean that they intended people to go to church on sunday, confess their sins, pray with rosary beads, put wafers under their tongues, cross themselves? I don't see jack squat about that in any legal do-*BAD WORD*-ent ever - so I'm going to have to go ahead and firmly, !@#$%^&*uredly, repeatedly, and redundantly deny your claim that the United States government has any affiliation with Christianity in any way. Anyway, would you care for me to explain how Christianity became "the most widespread religion in the world" ... because it sure isn't from the nice deeds of some guy named Jesus. See... Christians killed everyone else, and the plague helped the fall of Islam right along. Yum. In 2000, the world was: 33% Christian (and dropping)20% Islamic (and growing)13% Hindu (not changing)6% Buddhist (not changing)(SOURCE) While it may be incorrect to say that Christians have been wrong, its equally incorrect to say the other 67% of the world is wrong. See, no one denies that Jesus existed - its the fact that he was the supposed son of God. See, no one denies that Count Dracula existed either - his name was Vlad the Impaler, you can do your own research on him. Now, I find it just as hard to believe Jesus was the son of God as it is to believe that good 'ol Vlad was a bloodsucking immortal. Arguing about any religion as right or wrong is pointless, because people can believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and no matter of yelling and arguing can change that, and yes, arguing about it is stupid. However, I refuse to let people get away with many completely incorrect statements or blatantly making !@#$%^&*umptions they can not make - please stop making them (way too many ppl have done it, I can't point out every one). Its stuff like this that gets my goose... ... about 75% of the adults in both the U.S. and Canada are Christians. Many individuals and religious groups have much more strict definitions for membership. Many conservative Christians believe that one has to be "born again" in order to be counted as a Christian. Using this definition, only about 35% of Americans would be counted as Christians. This difference in definitions between conservative Christians and the rest of the population causes much confusion. Some of the approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada believe themselves to be the only true Christian denomination. Thus, depending on the definition used, the percentage of Christians in the U.S. are 0.1 to 75% of the total population. Plus, I'm completely comfortable calling any religion or group that blatantly oppresses their people wrong. Do you agree with this? I want you, before continuing, to say YES or NO out loud. Good. Some groups oppose .... homosexualality? Its... a sin... to... have a mutually agreed upon relationship with ... anyone? Umm... human rights violation. And if the 10 Commandments say that no god may be worshipped before the God of Judiasm (which is what he is, btw. Zing.) - it would be illegal to be part of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Wicca and hundreds of other religions. How can you put up a do-*BAD WORD*-ent that says "Jews, Christians, and Muslims only. All others, HEATHEN!" You can't put up the 10 commandments in a government building because that blatant oppresses people. On the other hand, these people can still put it up in their homes, or even on their front lawns.
madhaha Posted November 23, 2003 Report Posted November 23, 2003 The Bible contradicts itself in many (MANY) places and the holy books and scriptures of other religions are equally politically incorrect and self contradictory in our current world. Much of this is glossed over and/or ignored or put down to "can ber interepreted differently". This is a good thing or we'd have to devote most of the Earth's surface area to sacrifical animals. Particularly amusing are holy texts in visual media.
MonteZuma Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 Mad:Who's the pedant here? Me or the person that uses a definition that is even marked obscure in the dictionary?You. Do you even know what "obscure" means in a dictionary definition context? Obscure doesn't mean rare. In this context it means indistinct or indeterminate. You are the one trying to be so -*BAD WORD*-ed precise about what should and shouldnt be said in a friggin gamers forum. "I can go into more unneccessary and irrelevant detail than you!".I bet you can't. If you have to talk about something with such a tenuous link to politics, please have the grace to stick to answering one another's questions instead of reciting everything that you've learnt in religious studies ever.Why? This isn't just about politics. This is about some dude who wants to flaunt his religious beliefs in a public place. You are trying to make this all about politics (according to your definition of politics anyway) when in fact this issue is much bigger than that. The fact that this thread evolved into a discussion about the bible is hardly surprising. If you don't like it, ignore it. Monte.
madhaha Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 You do know that prize idiot is just a term right? You don't actually win anything for flaunting your stupidity...
MonteZuma Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 You do know that prize idiot is just a term right? You don't actually win anything for flaunting your stupidity...Based on your inane comments and your post count I don't think anybody could ever come close to you in an idiot contest - no matter how hard they tried.
madhaha Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 For someone who is a supposed advoacate of conversation, you sure do a good job of killing it. Care to let someone else talk now?
»nintendo64 Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 Let's Avoid the flaming, and try to keep the insults out of the discussion. -nintendo64
MonteZuma Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 For someone who is a supposed advoacate of conversation, you sure do a good job of killing it. Care to let someone else talk now?WTF? Do you have a degree in hypocrisy or is this just raw talent? Anyway...getting back on topic.... Livewire:This country was also not founded on Christianity.... ... so I'm going to have to go ahead and firmly, !@#$%^&*uredly, repeatedly, and redundantly deny your claim that the United States government has any affiliation with Christianity in any way. Read the Declaration of Independance. Go back further and check out the passenger list on the Mayflower. Look at every State cons!@#$%^&*ution. Christianity is definitely one of the features that shaped America. It was part of America's foundation. And..... Read your current president's Inauguration Speech (and every other president's speech!) and I think you'll find an affiliation. Look at the Pledge he recited before taking office. And look at your Pledge of Allegiance..... The wierd thing about the PofA is that although it was written by a Baptist Minister, the words "under God" were not added by him, but by your Congress in the 1950s. Eisenhower explained why: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Last year, your Senate unanimously endorsed the PofA, including the reference to God. You still deny the affiliation? Monte.
»nintendo64 Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 I am an atheist, which is weird in a country where around % are christians. I used to be one by tradition, but my quest for reason put a stop to it. I still believe the Church promotes good will laws which are focused towards the commom wealth. The only problem with the church is its administration, since we all humans commit "sins" then what stops those people from acting wrongly? nothing, they are just flesh and bones like us and thirst for the same. -nintendo64
Lupper Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 The Bible contradicts itself in many (MANY) places and the holy books and scriptures of other religions are equally politically incorrect and self contradictory in our current world. Much of this is glossed over and/or ignored or put down to "can ber interepreted differently". This is a good thing or we'd have to devote most of the Earth's surface area to sacrifical animals. Particularly amusing are holy texts in visual media.hey mad. i would suggest that you quote from sources... showing how they contradict each other. first of all, perhaps if you noticed, "political correctness" and the Bible do not mix. In fact, the government is constantly placing borders around it's principles. Want proof? Look at the new version of the Bible.. called the "Politically Correct Bible" or something like that. IF you guys have NO IDEA where you're getting your sources from, please use an "I THINK this..." rather than "IT IS". It doesn't hurt to add an extra two words which can seriously change your argument does it? it just tells us that you are not 100% sure or backed up when you use "I think" separation of church and state? tell me where it states in ANYWHERE especially in the cons!@#$%^&*ution that it advocates separation of church and state... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." <--- first amendment. it only states that the Congress shall make no laws that restrict or do ANYTHING to religion.. nothing. zip. it's illegal. We are constantly seeing Christians being persecuted in the states for just doing things like praying. Want proof? In a public school in St. Louis, a teacher spotted the suspect, fourth-grader Raymond Raines, bowing his head in prayer before lunch. The teacher stormed to Raymond's table, ordered him to stop immediately and sent him to the principal's office. The principal informed the young malefactor that praying was not allowed in school. When Raymond was again caught praying before meals on three separate occasions, he was segregated from other students, ridiculed in front of his classmates, and finally sentenced to a week's detention. Before snack time in her kindergarten class in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., little Kayla Broadus held hands with two of her classmates and recited this prayer: "God is good, God is great, thank you, God, for my food." The alert teacher pounced on Kayla, severely reprimanded her, and reported her to the school administration. In short order, the principal sent a sternly worded letter to Kayla's parents advising them that Kayla was not allowed to pray in school, aloud or with others. The school board then issued a triumphant press release crowing about its victory over a kindergartner praying before snack time. Works Cited: Coulter, Ann. “Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?†National Post. 26 September 2003: A14. From the Ray Moore case, I can quote from the article that the act of removing the monument was an "act of judicial tyranny." Works Cited: Chief justice vows to fight monument removal order. 22 Aug. 2003. Montgomery Alabama. 29 Oct. 2003 . The states are constantly doing illegal stuff, yet they wish to impose their own "freedom" onto nations such as Iraq. Well it's true to some extent. BUT look at religious persecution. In a deeper look, take a look at the lumber issue with Canada. According to NAFTA, they are NOT allowed to place tarriffs on the lumber coming into the states. But they do it. They have done it in the past and they have now just completely ignored the world court. In the past rulings (i think around 4 times), the USA have been guilty. Now they do it again.Well the Americans now are making lots of money.. Cases like these takes 3 years for the World Court to slap the Americans on the wrists for saying, "You're WRong." and when they do get slap, what is their punishment? nothing. they are the world biggest power. who can punish them?Oh how smart the Americans are. They know that it takes 3 years just to get a lumber company here in canada out of business.. and it takes 3 years for this to be solved in the World Court. Right now, a bunch of lumber companies are closing down because of the STates.. Well that's my 2 cents. sorry for the digression.. laterz
Aileron Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 For technical purposes the sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not murder". It was translated as "Thou shalt not kill" for layman's purposes under the understanding the the technical defignition would be used. Thus, things like capital punishment and war have the possiblity of being acceptible if proper justification is given. Ill also put this idea by you - seperation between church and state is itself a christian idea. I don't remember the passage, but when Jesus was inquired about the of taxes vs sacrifice, His reply was "give to Ceaser's what is Ceaser and give to God what is God's". As for how religious texts contradict themselves, actually they don't. The reader needs to have a higher understanding of the text in order to see that they don't. I will site a popular one. In the old testiment the bible says "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"; in the new it say "turn the other cheek". On first glance, it appears to be a direct contradiction. However, one must realise what these messages are. The former is a requirement. Basically, what it means is that the punishment for a crime should not exceed the crime itself. Basically, it would be wrong to gauge BOTH eyes of the guy who only got ONE of yours. Also, it is a message to a society rather than an individual. While individuals should try to be as good as possible, societies, being composed of both good and evil citizens, should aim towards the moral center. The second is a request. While seekers of justice are required to not punish in a greater degree than the crime, it would be nice of them to forgive the crime entirely. Since all people are sinners, a certain amount of extra behavior is required just to get back to center, let alone exceed it. Thus, the line between request and requirement is blurred. However, the point is that this is not a direct contradiction.
Lupper Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Where does it imply that Jesus wanted separation? The fact is that Caesar wanted to tax them. So Jesus said, give it to him. That's really all there is to it.It is not because he wanted to separate Christianity from the government. But I would think that it is because He did not believe in material wealth. That's perhaps a strong possibility, as you can see in His daily life, he rarely depended on it. It's true that in the old testament, it did say an eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Remember that Jesus abhored the old testament pharisees who memorized rules after rules.. as in being hypocrites (and sadly, there are many today as well). Jesus basically narrowed all those rules down to two: Love your neighbour. Love God. Before, the rules were seriously wacked in the old testament. Back when Moses was the leader of the Israelites, he was pressured to make many compromises, and thus the rules have not always been according to God's standards. That's why Jesus made it so much simpler. I'm not quite sure on what your last two arguments are about. I think i understand the last one a bit.Could you clarify?
Aileron Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 I'll use a numerical score as an analogy. I recognize that this is an oversimplification and somewhat silly, but it is the best way I can get the point accrossed. Well, suppose for a minute that God kept a score in a numerical fashion. The point is that supoosing a crime happened to you, your reactions would be on the following gauge: x -1 multiplier for if you punished the criminal more than he hurt you.x 0 multiplier for if you punished the criminal by the same degree as he hurt youx 1 multiplier for if you forgave the criminalx 2 if you turned the other cheek Obviously, the multiplier would be multiplied by the degree of the crime and added to your lifetime score. Now comes the tricky part. When He made the statement in the Old Testiment, it was to society as a whole. Societies are composed of everybody and should attempt to include everybody, both the good and the evil. Thus, they start with a score at 0 and their ideal score is also 0. Thus, a societies ideal action should be eye for an eye, because it neither increases or decreases their score. Individuals on the other hand, start with a score at some negative constant and have an ideal score at some positive number. Thus, individuals need to forgive. However, it is not wrong for somebody to demand an eye for an eye, it is only wrong to demand more than that.
madhaha Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 List contradictions? From which version? King James? I believe the "politically correct" version you're referring to is the God awful (excuse the pun) mess called the "New English Translation". While the King James had discreprecies, at least the tone was well set and the passages read like poetry. Does anyone personally know people who strictly observe Leviticus Chapter 11 (the section on food abominations). Here is the "skeptics" version although please note that I understand that some of (a lot of) the annotations throughout the site can easily be refuted or are just plain wrong. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/11.html Interestingly, all freebie versions of the bible that I get given now omit the old testament but retain things like the 10 commandments.
Aileron Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 That was a commandment to the Jews specifically. Besides, that passage has a point there. I don't like pork. It tastes awfull, its fatty, and stringy. I can see that a person who doesn't eat pork will be healthier than somebody who doesn't. Maybe it is evil. Same thing for s-*BAD WORD*-fish. Besides, I think the point is that you shouldn't eat the hooves, scales, and fins specifically.
madhaha Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 Shows how bad your reading skills are. "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat." Its saying eat fish. But not anything else that lives in the water. "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:" So not s-*BAD WORD*-fish, crabs, lobsters, shrimp, jellyfish etc. It also has some strange nonsense about not eating rabbits because they "cheweth the cud" which of course they don't.
madhaha Posted November 30, 2003 Report Posted November 30, 2003 -*BAD WORD*-, all of Leveticus is probably now politically incorrect. Anyone know if Jews follow Lv 15:30 whereby a woman must offer a 2 doves to a priest for sacrifice every time she has a period?
MonteZuma Posted December 1, 2003 Report Posted December 1, 2003 The discrepancies in the bible, even within parts of the bible written by the same authors, are obvious. To think that they weren't obvious to the authors themselves (or to God if you are that way inclined) is naive. So the question is why was the bible written with such obvious contradictions? I suspect that the bible was never meant to be interpreted literally and that it is not the word of God. It was written by people who tried to explain things that they could not understand and I suspect they used an awful lot of metaphors. If I was christian, I might think that the authors were trying to understand what God had told them to write. Otherwise I'd say that they were just telling a story based on their crude beliefs and understanding at the time. Monte.
Aileron Posted December 1, 2003 Report Posted December 1, 2003 Actually, madhaha, I read INTO it. If God said do not eats s-*BAD WORD*-s, hooves, fins, etc. , the profit would respond "well duh". Since the history of the bible was passed down through a few generations before it was written. Thus, if a father said do not eat s-*BAD WORD*-s, hooves, fins, etc. , the son might have tried to translate it into something he considered meaningfull. Since nobody eats those things, the commandment would be almost irrelevent. To make it relevent somebody probably changed it to what we see today. Yes, by all accounts the bible shouldn't be taken literally. The message has been shifted so many times that to do so would be foolish. What Christians, with exception to a few idiot denominations, do is follow the bible as a whole. However, that does not disprove my point that the bible doesn't contradict itself, at least as a whole. Those cases that seem to are merely seperate cases that appear similar. It really requires a greater understanding of the balance of things to see that it doesn't contradict itself. Actually, the cases that do are more often than not to pushes towards the central virtue of an issue. Besides, you could say the same thing for secular morality. Both appear to contradict themselves in many cases. However, the point is that the contradiction is never absolute, and if one tries, you can find a point in which you are breaking neither concept.
Recommended Posts