Do Christian's have to explain God.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

TheNewDemoman:

Godavari:

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Okay, you see what you did right there? You just made claims about God. Therefore, you must understand God. You have no basis to talk with authority about the way God operates or his motivations if you can't explain his nature. So yes, you absolutely do have to explain God, because he needs explanation if you want to be able to justify your arguments for him. If you don't explain God, all you're doing is shouting a bunch of incoherent arguments that even you don't understand. If you can't explain him, how can you argue for him? How can you speak with authority about what he wants for humanity or how he's telling us if you don't understand him. You are making the claim, and you have to back it up for it to be valid.

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

First thing, "evolutionist" is not a word. And secondly, what the hell? We didn't become a sentient bird race because that's how we evolved. Evolution isn't guided towards the best possible thing - it's guided in the general direction of whatever happens to work. As it turns out, a bipedal, mostly hairless primate with an abnormally large brain happened to work. The problem here isn't the scientists' ability to explain evolution, it's with your ability to comprehend it (which seems to be almost inexistent).

We can understand some things.

Not everything.

Then you have two obligations:

1) Don't make claims about God regarding those things you don't understand.

2) When you make claims about what you do understand, explain it.

Is this too difficult?

TheNewDemoman:

coolicus:

TheNewDemoman:

See this is what I mean. When a person can't discuss. They simply insult and pretend they are above everyone else.

Sure things change in a small amount. But can a protozoa evolve into a fully rational being, with emotions? If that is true than by God, I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

You sir are entirely ignorant of evolution. You don't understand it. I don't think you even try to.

It makes me feel a little sick to be honest - not at you but at the environment you have be raised and taught in.

You are a defender of creeds and not a seeker of truth.

You are the embodiment of the ignorance that comes with dogmatic religious beliefs.

Go to talk origins and read the stuff if you care. Watch the videos by AronRa if you care. If you don't bother to look at those things don't talk about evolution again if you don't want to be a colossal hypocrite.

Look I do try. It just doesn't make any sense -_-.

We evolved over eons into what we are now. I can't wrap my head around it. If that is I flaw in my mental capacity, then fine. I watch the freakin videos. They just seem to raise more complex questions. I am not going to debate anymore, everyone of these forums end with me arguing with someone, about deep theology.

Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

I seek truth, and I have found mine.

Reality is independent of any one persons conceptions of it. There is what is true and then there is what is wrong. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so. What is true is true and it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it.

Pascals wager assumes that there is either Jesus or no Gods. When you take up Pascals wager you are in reality betting against infinity. Perhaps to play it safe you should research which religion has the worst afterlife for unbelievers and believe in that God so you have covered your ass against the worst possible outcome. Hey maybe there is a God out there and maybe just maybe he is the kind of God who rewards critical thought and examination of beliefs. Maybe he rewards skepticism. Maybe he flies around in an alternate dimension on a magic tea pot playing pokemon yellow on his divine gameboy colour.

You know what? I don't think there is so rather than wasting my life trying to force myself to believe something I have no reason to accept I think I am going to live life for every day that comes my way. I think I am going to try and learn as much as I can about the universe in which I find myself in and not worry that I might find something that could affect my pet superstition. I think I will try to do what I consider to be good to the best of my ability not because I expect or anticipate a divine reward but because I am being good for the sake of my fellow humans. I hope that I will never be cowed into putting aside my reasoning and logic for fear of some contrived God figure from thousands of years ago is going to throw me into pit of fire if I don't believe and love him.

If there is such a God I suppose there is nothing I can do about it like an Ant cannot help being burnt under the magnifying glass of some mischievous kid. But right now as I am of sound mind and judgement even if I knew such a God existed I wouldn't worship him. That kind of being is not deserving of the slightest bit of respect. I'd rather burn or have whatever torture that kind of being could dream up than sacrifice my integrity to join a legion of fawning sycophants for the kind of being that makes Hitler look like the nicest guy in the world. What is the final solution compared to a God who would let those killed suffer eternally because they had the wrong answer? The most malignant, vile, disgusting being you could possibly imagine. That is what. I'm infinitely better than that kind of being and so are you.

If you are happy in your faith go bananas but don't dispute things which you have no working understanding of. And don't preach as true things which you believe because they are comfortable to you.

Oirish_Martin:

TheNewDemoman:
See Matt I like you you make statments and make no evidence.

You made the thread, you opened without evidence.

Put the effort in to actually back something up, and people will follow suit. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone opens asserting something without evidence, then any one responding is under no obligation to provide evidence for their point of view either.

You'll note then Matt went to a great deal of trouble to provide evidence which Demoman completely ignored.

ShadowsofHope:
I give the fuck up. Really. This is like speaking to a brick wall.

I'll remove myself from this thread before I say something I'll regret, thank you.

Same reason I stopped trying after the first thread this guy made.

EBass:
You'll note then Matt went to a great deal of trouble to provide evidence which Demoman completely ignored.

Balls. Sorry! I just feel that if someone doesn't really lead with evidence much, they're not exactly going to value it when presented to them either.

Still, providing it for the sake of utter demolition of an argument is always entertaining.

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
1 Peter 3:15

If they want anyone else to take the concept seriously, then it's probably a good idea to at least start explaining just why the notion of a Christian god is more likely than the infinite other unfalsifiable "theories" on reality which could be proposed.

They should probably also explain how some parts of the bible fit with the creature being a paragon of virtue.

TheNewDemoman:
Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process

Why do we have to explain God?

Before we even begin discussion. THIS IS NOT a forum discussing the validity or falsity of God's existance. Let us not get bogged down in deep theology

Aka. Let us abort all babies so they can go to heaven. (Seriously?!)

'Evolutionists'
Evolution is not a philosophy.

'Can not explain the big bang'
Evolution isn't supposed to explain the big bang

'nor the inner workings of evolution'
Google says otherwise.

'Why do we have to explain God?'
Because you keep saying there is irrefutable evidence of his existence, but can't produce any.

'Before we even begin discussion. THIS IS NOT a forum discussing the validity or falsity of God's existance. Let us not get bogged down in deep theology'

Yes, it is.

TheNewDemoman:

Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

I seek truth, and I have found mine.

This makes it sound you believe in your God because you are afraid that if you are not you will be going to hell. That is not faith that is being a hypocrite.

End note : I have totally nothing against religion. This is a personal thing that is different from person to person. With his reference to Pascal's Wager is that he believes in God out of fear for going to hell if he doesn't.

There's no straight answer to the question. It depends which level of arguing you're on. There's four basic levels of religious debate:

1st level: Religious people who claim that they cannot possibly be wrong.
2nd level: Religious people who believe they are right but know they might not be.
3rd level: Atheists who believe they are right but know they might not be.
4th level: Atheists who claim that they cannot possibly be wrong.

The only people obligated to explain anything are those on the 1st and 4th level. If you believe that God exists but also respect other people's rights to NOT believe in God, you don't have to explain God because you're not claiming they're wrong. You're only claiming they MIGHT be wrong because they can't possibly know for sure. And thus, you are never claiming that God has been proved.

But if you DO claim that atheists are completely wrong, then you're claiming God has been proved and thus need to show proof.

The same responsibility lies on the other end of the spectrum. If you don't believe in God but respect other people's rights to do so, you don't need to explain yourself because you're only claiming that God MIGHT not exist.

But if you don't believe in God and claim that he absolutely does not exist, then you DO have to prove that he doesn't exist.

The burden of proof lies on the one who claims that the opposition has no right to believe what they believe. If you claim atheists have no right to not believe in God, you have to prove God exists. If you claim Christians have no right to believe in God, you have to prove God doesn't exist. This isn't my opinion, this is objectively how arguing works. I took a class on this kind of thing and the professor indeed confirmed what I was suggesting.

In other words, you only need to explain anything if you belong in the 1st or 4th level. You can only ever be in the right if you are in the 2nd or 3rd level, because those are the only levels that acknowledge that they may or may not be right. So if you are in the ideal 2nd or 3rd level, you don't have to explain anything because you realize that arguing is futile, and you're not claiming that anybody is wholly "wrong".

You don't have to explain god, unless of course you want to be taken seriously.

TheNewDemoman:

I just keep wondering how we can change so much from a simple reptile, to a complex human with a range of emotions and sentience and intelligence.

and dirt is clearly a much better theory? we can explain our beliefs, there are things that point towards these ideas being plausible. we have done experiments and proved evolution can happen. where are you're experiments proving god happened? evolution and the big bang are plausible and we have tested said theories and signs point towards yes. these can be explained, so if you want to fight for your beliefs, you have to explain them, not say follow this because we said so. any religion can and has done that. for the most part, it shouldn't just be christians explaining God, it should be all religions explaining their God or multiple gods. christianity just gets put in the spot light because they try so much to get others to believe in their beliefs. more so than most other religions.

It should be pointed out that religious people that don't understand science particularly well and frequently start or inflame online debates without being on even intellectual footing with anyone else in the thread aren't granted a 50/50 shot at "winning the thread" by Baby Jesus, the Laws of Nature, or anything else. Actually when someone gets into a debate online or IRL with a lot of people that all understand the topic better than that one person, they're going to get mauled 10 out of 10 times, the only thing different about a debate about religion is that it's the only type of debate where claiming ignorance on all issues while attacking someone else for not being able to explain all of the modern science in a particular field (to someone that doesn't even understand what they were saying in the 19th century) is considered by some to be a real argument.

Hey guys, thanks for all your answers I appreciate the explanations and sources a lot. I am no creationist by the way. I completely reject the notion of "poof! there it is" (to the tune of Whoomp! There it is by Tag Team).

TheNewDemoman:
Snip

Demo, we had this discussion already. Your knowledge of math and science is inadequate for this particular argument. You must understand the concepts before you attack them, or you end up just putting together a string of arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity (a form of an argument from ignorance).

The biggest example is that you claim,

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang.

Those concepts are not related in the slightest. You clearly lack knowledge in this subject.

As I said in a past topic, please consult your school's science teacher (home school and some religious schools do not count, they tend to be extremely biased).

TheNewDemoman:

Kiefer13:
Because if you want people to take your beliefs seriously, you're going to have to back them up.

In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

Clarification request: Are you stating that good science doesn't adjust its anaylsis regardless of the evidence that comes out?

TheNewDemoman:
[I understand science at a basic level. I understand psychology better.

Really?

Try this one on for size: confirmation bias.

In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

Actually, that is science.
It is good science.

In fact, nothing better describes science than basing their conclusions on what the evidence dictates.

TheNewDemoman:
Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

Pascal's wager deals with "maybe," and that's fine, since it's all about placing your bet. Here are the premises of Pascal's wager:
1) God maybe exists. (no problem here)
2) If God exists, the he definitely rewards those who believe in him, and punishes those who don't. (wtf?!?)

Here's an updated, non-retarded set of premises for Pascal's wager:
1) God maybe exists.
2) If God exists, then maybe he rewards those who believe he exists, and punishes those who believe he doesn't exist.
3) If God exists, then maybe he rewards those who don't believe he exists, and punishes those who believe he exists.

Let's say God wrote the Bible. That just raises the question, "why did God write a book that says he supports slavery, says he supports genocide, says he accepts human sacrifice, quotes himself as saying that all gay people deserve the death penalty, and says that he tortures everyone who doesn't love him?" The only sensible reason he'd do that is to test us, and we'd pass the test by not believing in the Bible. This would make the above premise 3 more likely than premise 2. So by taking Pascal's wager to its logical conclusion, we can see that atheists are more likely to go to heaven than Christians.

The_AC:

TheNewDemoman:
Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

Pascal's wager deals with "maybe," and that's fine, since it's all about placing your bet. Here's the premises of Pascal's wager:
1) God maybe exists. (no problem here)
2) If God exists, the he definitely rewards those who believe in him, and punishes those who don't. (wtf?!?)

Here's an updated, non-retarded set of premises for Pascal's wager:
1) God maybe exists.
2) If God exists, then maybe he rewards those who believe he exists, and punishes those who believe he doesn't exist.
3) If God exists, then maybe he rewards those who don't believe he exists, and punishes those who believe he exists.

Let's say God wrote the Bible. That just raises the question, "why did God write a book that says he supports slavery, says he supports genocide, says he accepts human sacrifice, quotes himself as saying that all gay people deserve the death penalty, and says that he tortures everyone who doesn't love him?" The only sensible reason he'd do that is to test us, and we'd pass the test by not believing in the Bible. This would make the above premise 3 more likely than premise 2. So by taking Pascal's wager to its logical conclusion, we can see that atheists are more likely to go to heaven than Christians.

The problem with Pascal's wager.

What if god DOES exist but is highly ironic and you can only get in to heaven by being an atheist?

I feel bad for you, Demoman, saying your beliefs and being shot down each time by multiple people.

On the subject:

Christians have to explain God, much like atheists have to explain why there is no God. Feel free to spend all day saying why or why not, but don't feel you have to disprove someone else just because you have a reason behind it.

TheNewDemoman:
Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

Yeah about that...

The basics of it are the main problem man

aPod:
Hey guys, thanks for all your answers I appreciate the explanations and sources a lot. I am no creationist by the way. I completely reject the notion of "poof! there it is" (to the tune of Whoomp! There it is by Tag Team).

Heres another good video, oh and demoman you should watch it as well, it explains and debunks all the misconceptions of evolution.

Trolldor:
The problem with Pascal's wager.

What if god DOES exist but is highly ironic and you can only get in to heaven by being an atheist?

Well, I guess that's one of the tl;dr versions. =)

TheNewDemoman:
I just keep wondering how we can change so much from a simple reptile, to a complex human with a range of emotions and sentience and intelligence.

That is the beauty of natural chaos my friend. I like to quote a line from Terry Pratchett here: "Things just happen, what the hell."

Fact of the matter is IF you subscribe to the belief in Evolution, you pretty much know that we only got this far, into our current forms, through sheer luck. WE happened to develop on this planet, in this climate range, with this food available to us, and bla bla bla. All these minor little factors that only really occur by chance in the grand scheme of things all add up to make...well...us.

I personally find that a much better belief than God. You can either believe that you are insanely fucking lucky to even exist, in which case you treat everything as a gift because if ANYTHING had happened even remotely differently, you wouldn't have it. And you wanted to make your own mark on the world, to pass things on to the future to make things better for them.

OR you can believe you were put here by God, who loves you indefinitely but expects you to live up to his standards and if you don't you burn for eternity.

Not to upset any religious types here, but which options sounds better?

I'm aware this got off topic, so I'll revert back:

OP: You have to explain God, because if your asking the world to put their faith and their life in His hands, they're not going to do that unless you give them a damn good reason to. Simply saying "cause he knows all and loves us" isn't going to sway most people. They're gonna need some evidence.

TheNewDemoman:
Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process

Why do we have to explain God?

Before we even begin discussion. THIS IS NOT a forum discussing the validity or falsity of God's existance. Let us not get bogged down in deep theology

Aka. Let us abort all babies so they can go to heaven. (Seriously?!)

Why do I have to explain The Flying Spaghetti Monster? He knows all, and come on he has great noodly appendages! Ya I know he got a bit drunk off his beer volcano before he made the world and which is way it is a bit screwy, but hey we get to drink from that same beer volcano when we die, also the best video games come from conflict let his noodlyness be praised!
Also how else would pirates(his chosen people) ever have come about. They wouldn't that is why.

Geologists can not explain advanced gravitational theory. This is obviously because their is no evidence for gravity. No we are not somehow attracted to the earth we are being pushed down by our intelligent backers many noodly arms. I call this theory intelligent falling. If we were really attracted to large objects why do men like skinny women, think about that stupid geologists.

So as you can clearly see you must accept The Flying Spaghetti Monster as your lord and savior. No more explanation beyond I say so is required. Obviously disagreeing with me means you are close minded.

Do you want people to give two shits about what you're saying? Your answer to that question has positive relationship with the answer that you are looking for.

TheNewDemoman:

coolicus:

TheNewDemoman:

See this is what I mean. When a person can't discuss. They simply insult and pretend they are above everyone else.

Sure things change in a small amount. But can a protozoa evolve into a fully rational being, with emotions? If that is true than by God, I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

You sir are entirely ignorant of evolution. You don't understand it. I don't think you even try to.

It makes me feel a little sick to be honest - not at you but at the environment you have be raised and taught in.

You are a defender of creeds and not a seeker of truth.

You are the embodiment of the ignorance that comes with dogmatic religious beliefs.

Go to talk origins and read the stuff if you care. Watch the videos by AronRa if you care. If you don't bother to look at those things don't talk about evolution again if you don't want to be a colossal hypocrite.

Look I do try. It just doesn't make any sense -_-.

We evolved over eons into what we are now. I can't wrap my head around it. If that is I flaw in my mental capacity, then fine. I watch the freakin videos. They just seem to raise more complex questions. I am not going to debate anymore, everyone of these forums end with me arguing with someone, about deep theology.

Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

I seek truth, and I have found mine.

You have admitted to two very important things.

1)You are incapable of understand the arguments put forth by your opposition.

So stop trying to say the other is wrong, because you don't understand what they are saying. This is called arguing from ignorance. This gets people no where, also this is why I do not debate the best electrical, or mechanical set up for a machine. I know nothing about machines so me arguing would get me and my mechanic no where.

2)"I seek truth, and I have found mine" This means you are closed minded. You already know what the "truth" is and don't really care about any more outside information.

This being the case please stop trying to have debates, because in reality they are not debates, but you trying to preach then getting all defensive, angry, and insulated when people disagree with you. This also means that you need to stop lying to yourself. You are not trying to understand our arguments or the world around you. Please just admit that to yourself, and you will spare yourself many many hours of frustration wondering why all the mean people on the internet call you an ignorant person.

my suggestion to you is just stop posting and go to church. Surround yourself with people with the same "truth" as you. The rest of us will be concerning ourselves with reality. As well as gauging in meaningful debate where one can learn from the person they are arguing with.

ShadowsofHope:

..I give the fuck up. Really. This is like speaking to a brick wall.

I'll remove myself from this thread before I say something I'll regret, thank you.

EBass:

Oirish_Martin:

TheNewDemoman:
See Matt I like you you make statments and make no evidence.

You made the thread, you opened without evidence.

Put the effort in to actually back something up, and people will follow suit. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone opens asserting something without evidence, then any one responding is under no obligation to provide evidence for their point of view either.

You'll note then Matt went to a great deal of trouble to provide evidence which Demoman completely ignored.

ShadowsofHope:
I give the fuck up. Really. This is like speaking to a brick wall.

I'll remove myself from this thread before I say something I'll regret, thank you.

Same reason I stopped trying after the first thread this guy made.

Odude:

TheNewDemoman:
Snip

Demo, we had this discussion already. Your knowledge of math and science is inadequate for this particular argument. You must understand the concepts before you attack them, or you end up just putting together a string of arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity (a form of an argument from ignorance).

The biggest example is that you claim,

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang.

Those concepts are not related in the slightest. You clearly lack knowledge in this subject.

As I said in a past topic, please consult your school's science teacher (home school and some religious schools do not count, they tend to be extremely biased).

So I wasn't the only one in the OPs previous thread that realised this.

As was seen in that thread, OP makes sweeping generalisations about subjects they don't fully comprehend (including their own religion's history) and then expects every reasonable person in opposition to Kowtow.

Belated:

1st level: Religious people who claim that they cannot possibly be wrong.
2nd level: Religious people who believe they are right but know they might not be.
3rd level: Atheists who believe they are right but know they might not be.
4th level: Atheists who claim that they cannot possibly be wrong.

The burden of proof lies on the one who claims that the opposition has no right to believe what they believe.

:Edited:

That's why I'm Agnostic, I'm content to wait until the answer is revealed upon expiration. From my understanding though Atheists have a really strong case, which sucks in my opinion - not that they could be right but what that means about this whole experience.

Do you profess belief in god?
If no, you are an atheist.

Atheism is a passive position, the absence of belief in god. It is not an active disbelief.

shreedder:

you need to stop lying to yourself. You are not trying to understand our arguments or the world around you. Please just admit that to yourself, and you will spare yourself many many hours of frustration wondering why all the mean people on the internet call you an ignorant person.

my suggestion to you is just stop posting and go to church. Surround yourself with people with the same "truth" as you. The rest of us will be concerning ourselves with reality. As well as gauging in meaningful debate where one can learn from the person they are arguing with.

I think I said something similar in the previous thread.

It was misunderstood by the OP as well.

OT: Think I'll be saying this a lot whenever TheNewDemoman posts.

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang

Not to sound offensive, but read a book on the subject will you. The big bang and evolution are two widely different subject. Sounds like you just archived it all under science.

Trolldor:
Do you profess belief in god?
If no, you are an atheist.

Atheism is a passive position, the absence of belief in god. It is not an active disbelief.

Not sure I understand, you're saying if you don't believe you're automatically an atheist?

Usually I'm a Apathetic Agnostic, but on good days I'm a Weak Agnostic and then sometimes a Strong Agnostic.

I don't know if there is or isn't, but I don't allow myself the luxury of belief to assuage my irrational fear(s) about a possible afterlife that at this point in time is unverifable (except through personal experience ) as that would conflict with my belief that I am a logical, pragmatic person.

Agonisticism refers to knowledge, not belief.

You are an agnostic atheist if you do not believe in god, but can not be sure of the evidence.
You are an agnostic theist if you believe in god, but can not be sure of the evidence.

ShadowKatt:
snip

Shadowkatt does a great job of answering your question. This thread is closed and answered.

Anoctris:

shreedder:

you need to stop lying to yourself. You are not trying to understand our arguments or the world around you. Please just admit that to yourself, and you will spare yourself many many hours of frustration wondering why all the mean people on the internet call you an ignorant person.

my suggestion to you is just stop posting and go to church. Surround yourself with people with the same "truth" as you. The rest of us will be concerning ourselves with reality. As well as gauging in meaningful debate where one can learn from the person they are arguing with.

I think I said something similar in the previous thread.

It was misunderstood by the OP as well.

OT: Think I'll be saying this a lot whenever TheNewDemoman posts.

I have, but I think it needed to be repeated especially after reading the post I responded to.
Also you are probably right, he will probably not understand what I am saying.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked