Search

Crucifixion, God's Cruelty and the Holocaust (Page 1)

Myron wrote:

(In reference to this page)

1) I think Humphreys is correct below while kingdavid avoids responding to KH charge of anachronism

If Christ refers to suffering then his figure of speech should be translated today as "take up your electric chair" or "take up your gas chamber". 2000 years ago cross and crucifixion was defamatory and denigrating mode of execution. Surely it was a slip of Christ's tongue or more properly of some christian scribe.

2) I am astonished that you use kingdavid as your nome de plume. Not only did King David never exist, but bible scribes, like in their "translations" Jerusalem Bible of 1956, de-hitlerized the David of Kings James and Syriac Bibles, and turned him into later-day-public works director ala FDR in 2 Sam 12:31 at the time of the very beginning of the Iron Age.  King David giving to Arabs American super-computers (i.e. iron tools) and giving them huge amounts of rare hardwoods in semi-desert Palestine to burn in brick kilns

Myron

My Response:

Myron,

I'm honestly not comprehending what the argument is that Humphreys is making. He seems to be saying that the idea of Jesus' crucifixion didn't exist in the first century, therefore any references to it had to be anachronisms. But what's his evidence that it didn't exist in the first century? Paul refers to it around 54 AD, so how could it be an anachronism from several decades later? If you're reading his argument another way that I'm not seeing, could you clue me in?

As for my name, it's actually not a reference to the Biblical King David, but has to do with two stories I wrote several years ago for my daughters, in which our family were all medieval royalty. Most of the members of my family use the character names from the story as our screen names.

Myron responded:

Dear David,

I must congratulate you for being essentially a good and honest and fair man and Christian; You wrote:

-----
quoting Ken Humphreys:
Was Saint Paul an unabashed liar? From this verse in Romans it would appear so:/

'For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?' (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

However in context Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come" (that is, from God's judgment). But like Paul we can "take the passage captive" to make a point.
---

I applaud Humphreys here for reading the situation correctly. Most non-Christians who reference this passage either accidentally or purposefully take it out of context. And he is also correct that some Christians also "take the passage captive" and use it to justify telling lies, and those who do are wrong to do so.

Most of people are unlike you including Kenneth and Holocaustians:

- Ken sees nothing good in Christianity and any religion.

- This is like the anti-Holocaust Revisionist sites (e.g. nizkor.com) which never ever see anything good in Holocaust revisionism (e.g. in sites such as air-photo.comor codoh.com or ihr.org)

I was devout Catholic until about 5 years ago without the slightest doubt, attending masses every Sunday at the local Ukrainian Catholic Church (under the egis of Vatican), until I was struck by opposing renditions of 2 Sam 12:31 about the holocausts created by King David who was redone surreptitiously into FDR by Jews-pleasing Dominicans in the Jerusalem Bible (1956)

Three years ago when I reed Revelations I was done with my 60 years of Christianity.

Coming back to bashing Ken: it is irresponsible for him to see only BAD things in religions. There is no doubt that Christianity did a lot of BAD things but it has also done a lot of good. For the last 2000 years it was a potent anti-anxiety medication, it was a cover-up for homosexuality male and female, it tempered alcoholism, spread of venereal diseases, PROVIDED HOPE and peace of mind FOR THE SIMPLEMINDED and metaphysically inclined . Especially during last century, it got involved into charitable works. Thus as V. Lenin aptly said or repeated, Religion is an opium for the masses.

And imagine world without morphine sulfate! The only effective pain killer would be a bang with wooden mallet to a head swaddled in blankets.

As is, I side with Ken and thanks to you for correcting him where he needs corrections

Myron then wrote:

Dear David,

I will try explain once more:

Crucifixion was a deprecating type of death and punishment, and not an equivalent of "innocent" and common suffering. Even after the crucifixion of Christ, this type of punishment remained ignominious. Thus Christ could not tell to his listeners take up your gas chamber, or gallow, or tar and feathers because such teaching would imply that his listeners are common criminals or revolutionaries.

More importantly, please explain 250,000 deaths from Tsunami and this "mercy" of the Merciful God.

David, you ask "Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?"

After stereotyping and exterminating virtually all people and mostly innocent animals, Noah's daughters made their father drunk and engaged him in illicit sex (actually incest). This means, and I have several thousand years to prove it to you, that Noah's Flood did not improve mankind a bit...Unsatisfied with Tsunami, the nasty Lord in a fit of anger gave us Kashmir earthquake as an encore.

Will anybody convert because of Tsunami or Kashmir?? I doubt it.

But I will, with great interest, read your answer

Myron

My Response:

Crucifixion was a deprecating type of death and punishment, and not an equivalent of "innocent" and common suffering. Even after the crucifixion of Christ, this type of punishment remained ignominious. Thus Christ could not tell to his listeners take up your gas chamber, or gallow, or tar and feathers because such teaching would imply that his listeners are common criminals or revolutionaries.

Or that they would be perceived as such, which they were. Jesus (at least per the story) knew that He would end up on the cross and that His followers would be persecuted for merely following Him, so His making a statement like that, while His followers at the time might have been puzzled by it, would not have to be an anachronism.

More importantly, please explain 250,000 deaths from Tsunami and this "mercy" of the Merciful God.

Okay. An earthquake that measured 8.9 on the Richter Scale of the West Coast on Northern Sumatra set off a series of other earthquakes lasting 12 hours, which led to the tsunami, which struck areas sufficiently populated that around 250,000 deaths were the result. God didn't cause it. It wasn't any kind of judgment. It was just a natural disaster. As for God's mercy, those who were forgiven for their sins were admitted into Heaven despite their not having earned it. I call that mercy.

David, you ask "Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?"

After stereotyping and exterminating virtually all people and mostly innocent animals, Noah’s daughters made their father drunk and engaged him in illicit sex (actually incest). This means, and I have several thousand years to prove it to you, that Noah’s Flood did not improve mankind a bit...

First of all, I take the Noah flood story as a myth, not history, which makes the question moot. But supposing hypothetically that it happened, the world before the flood was described as being "filled with violence". There is much violence in this world, to be sure, but I would hardly say it is filled with it. I have lived 38 years so far and not once been the victim of a violent crime. Neither has my wife or any of my children, parents, or siblings. Others have not been so lucky, to be sure. But the majority of people don't die violent deaths in this world, or ever commit a violent crime. It hardly seems filled with violence to me.

Unsatisfied with Tsunami, the nasty Lord in a fit of anger gave as Kashmir earthquake as an encore.

Your opinion, not mine. I don't believe that natural disasters are generally caused by God.

Ecclesiastes 9:12: For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Will anybody convert because of Tsunami or Kashmir?? I doubt it.

Maybe, maybe not. But the Tsunami and Kashmir weren't about converting people, either way.

Peace,

David

Myron responded:

Dear "David"

You wrote:

Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?

and this:

The Israelites were the people from whom the Savior for billions of people would arise, so their preservation was essential.

You essentially say that Savior "arose" and carried out his miracles and ministry, so the "preservation" - i.e. salvation of billions - would take place.

And you must admit that all His efforts were for nothing, because great majority of people for the last 2000 years did not buy his miracles nor story.   But as devout Christian I am sure you will not admit to that, and will find some explanation which I am eager to hear.

yours truly Myron

My Response:

You essentially say that Savior "arose" and carried out his miracles and ministry, so the "preservation" - i.e. salvation of billions - would take place.

And you must admit that all His efforts were for nothing, because great majority of people for the last 2000 years did not buy his miracles nor story.   But as devout Christian I am sure you will not admit to that, and will find some explanation which I am eager to hear.

Actually, I'm confused. How can you say that something which benefited billions of people was "for nothing"? The billions who have not been saved were not hurt by what Jesus did for the billions of others. You seem to be suggesting that if you do something great for many, many people, but do nothing for anyone else, then you haven't done anything at all. If I were to give huge amounts of money to several charities, and nothing to several other charities, does that mean that I ended up giving nothing?

David

Myron responded:

(regarding the Tsunami) I was told by George, my devoted Catholic neighbor (and also cocaine user), that all of them will go to paradise.  He said that all of them would die sooner or later anyway. George is 45 years old and in good health, afraid of being jailed because he might be killed by the Afroams (Afro-Americans) there.

George evangelizes on the streets and begs for money.

My Response:

I was told by George, my devoted Catholic neighbor (and also cocaine user), that all of them will go to paradise.  He said that all of them would die sooner or later anyway. George is 45 years old and in good health, afraid of being jailed because he might be killed by the Afroams there.

George evangelizes on the streets and begs for money.

Ummm....okay. I disagree with him.

David

Myron responded:

Dear David,

I do not know who you are, but you are the best (I mean THE BEST!) preacher and exegte I ever encountered! I still have doubts, but your explanations are the most rational I ever heard.

Jesus (at least per the story) knew that He would end up on the cross and that His followers would be persecuted for merely following Him, so His making a statement like that, while His followers at the time might have been puzzled by it, would not have to be an anachronism.

Here I must totally agree with you, it does not have to be anachronism, however your explanation triggers another question: Every preacher tries to be as clear as possible so that his message will reach even the simplest of the simple people. Why is it that Jesus spoke in many incomprehensible parables and "puzzled" people?  In order to sow doubts and watch them boil in tar for ever???

An earthquake that measured 8.9 on the Richter Scale of the West Coast on Northern Sumatra set off a series of other earthquakes lasting 12 hours, which led to the tsunami, which struck areas sufficiently populated that around 250,000 deaths were the result.  God didn't cause it.

So who did it? President of Indonesia or Satan or Bush or Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein?? You are a heretical and animist Christian who believes in Nature instead in the Almighty!!!

It wasn't any kind of judgment. It was just a natural disaster. As for God's mercy, those who were forgiven for their sins were admitted into Heaven despite their not having earned it. I call that mercy.

Again I must admit that you got out of tight corner with your concept of mercy. But I must note that probably 200,000 of these victims never heard about Jesus and The Ten Commandments (If they were Moslem they do not have to learn about them). How one can sin if one does not know what is or what is not a Sin? Why should the illiterate Australian Aborigine go to Hell or Purgatory if he/she never heard of our Heavenly Father and His concept of sin?

First of all, I take the Noah flood story as a myth, not history, which makes the question moot. But supposing hypothetically that it happened, the world before the flood was described as being "filled with violence". There is much violence in this world, to be sure, but I would hardly say it is filled with it. I have lived 38 years so far and not once been the victim of a violent crime. Neither has my wife or any of my children, parents, or siblings. Others have not been so lucky, to be sure. But the majority of people don't die violent deaths in this world, or ever commit a violent crime. It hardly seems filled with violence to me.

I agree with you almost 100%. I am 66 and a totally disabled (and retired for the past 7 years) physician. I was once beaten with a rubber truncheon by policeman in [non-U.S. location, withheld from webpage per Myron's request], once with wooden billy club in Jew York City, for one day imprisoned, and persecuted for 14 years in US for trying to save the lives of local drug addicts I encountered while working with police as medical examiner. Thus I encountered social/gov. violence but luckily not individual like you. But you sound heretical when you claim that what goes on in Nature is not under the control of the our Creator.

I don't believe that natural disasters are generally caused by God.

*Ecclesiastes 9:12: *For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time*,* when it falleth suddenly upon them.

You sound like a Satanist : "evil time" instead of ascribing everything to the Almighty ,and doubting about His powers.

Maybe, maybe not. But the Tsunami and Kashmir weren't about converting people, either way.

Peace,

Thank you for responding and at least partially setting my mind. I think I am kind of deist who believes in the Creator but no longer in the Bible or New Testament. The concept of infinity and theory of relativity make no sense to me as a historian and empiricist. Ptolemaic theory was believed by the smartest minds for millenia. Einstein would never have become so popular if he had not been Jewish. Another 100-200 years and his theory will be replaced by a new one, while Copernicus' will stay because it is empiric and not abstract.

My Response:

I do not know who you are, but you are the best (I mean THE BEST!) preacher and exegte I ever encountered! I still have doubts, but your explanations are the most rational I ever heard.

Thank you so much for the compliments!

Here I must totally agree with you, it does not have to be anachronism, however your explanation triggers another question: Every preacher tries to be as clear as possible so that his message will reach even the simplest of the simple people.

That they do, which I'm not sure is the best way to go since it encourages simplicity. I think people tend to be at their best when they are challenged, when something causes them to use their imagination and creativity in their thinking instead of just their memory.

One of the big cliches is people who go to church every Sunday, but when they're later asked what the pastor spoke about, can't remember anything the pastor said, like it just went in one ear and out the other. I think Jesus' way of teaching prevented that kind of thing from happening.

Why is it that Jesus spoke in many incomprehensible parables and "puzzled" people?  In order to sow doubts and watch them boil in tar for ever???

No, because I think that those who have a desire to understand will make the effort to understand. He did it this way in order to get them to think. It was a very common form of teaching back then, not only Jesus but other teachers like Aristotle used it. Instead of just telling someone something and having them memorize it, give them puzzles to figure out so that they can use their minds to acquire the solution themselves.

So who did it (caused the tsunami)? President of Indonesia or Satan or Bush or Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein?? You are a heretical and animist Christian who believes in Nature instead in the Almighty!!!

I'd love to blame it on Bush, but haven't quite figured out how yet. Maybe I should go ask Michael Moore. He'll figure out a way.

But seriously, I believe that God is quite capable of causing tsunamis without any help. However, being capable of doing something doesn't mean that you actually do it. I believe that God didn't cause the tsunami - not because I don't believe was capable of causing the tsunami, but because I can't imagine why He would have caused it.

Again I must admit that you got out of tight corner with your concept of mercy. But I must note that probably 200,000 of these victims never heard about Jesus and The Ten Commandments (If they were Moslem they do not have to learn about them). How one can sin if one does not know what is or what is not a Sin? Why should the illiterate Australian Aborigine go to Hell or Purgatory if he/she never heard of our Heavenly Father and His concept of sin?

I believe that all of us know right and wrong. It's part of being human. If someone is too young, or has some sort of mental or physical condition which makes them unable to understand right and wrong, and thus can't be held accountable - then God won't hold them accountable, and they won't be punished for any sins. But the rest of us are held accountable for what we do, and unless we repent of our sins, we will die in them. Now, as for people who haven't really heard of God, Jesus, the Bible, etc - I believe that such people can still repent of their sins and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross will still cover them. I would say that these people are accepting the holy spirit in place of Jesus.

But you sound heretical when you claim that what goes on in Nature is not under the control of the our Creator.

I believe that God is CAPABLE of controlling nature at any time, but for the most part, He simply created the world, got it spinning, and lets the processes work themselves out. It's the same with mankind. He created us and is capable of controlling us, but instead lets us work things out for ourselves, lets us choose to follow Him or not and to make and learn from our own mistakes. Which I'd say makes life a lot more interesting.

You sound like a Satanist : "evil time" instead of ascribing everything to the Almighty ,and doubting about His powers.

I believe that God has the power to do anything He chooses. He created and has complete dominion over our universe and everything in it. But I also believe that rather than making this some sort of play-set for Him to personally move all of the pieces around in, He gave mankind free will and a thinking mind, and created the planets to be able to revolve and rotate without His having to do it all Himself. And I'm very glad He did, since if I didn't have the ability to think and act for myself, I don't see much point in being alive.

Thank you for responding and at least partially setting my mind. I think I am kind of deist who believes in the Creator but no longer in the Bible or New Testament. The concept of infinity and theory of relativity make no sense to me as a historian and empiricist. Ptolemaic theory was believed by the smartest minds for millenia. Einstein would never have become so popular if he had not been Jewish. Another 100-200 years and his theory will be replaced by a new one, while Copernicus' will stay because it is empiric and not abstract.

I definitely have an appreciation for science, but I know that it moves and changes so much that little of it can be expected to be absolute. One idea that intrigues me - what if God, Heaven, Hell and all that aren't truly "supernatural" but are really just natural on a level we haven't quite grasped yet? Like what we think of as nature is just the lowest level of nature, and there are higher levels of it currently beyond our reach. I kind of feel like quantum physics and the ideas of multiple dimensions kind of point in that direction, that there are other (currently unexplainable) processes that exist behind the processes that we are able to observe. Something to think about.

David

Myron responded:

Jesus who is the ultimate TEACHER miserably failed at this profession/vocation, and failed to convince less convert that He is a messiah for the biased and "perideous" Jews and most importantly His teachings failed to convince billions of people for the past 2000 years who remained, and still remain, pagan or heretics.  Even lousy human teachers are able to teach the truth, to all except the most retarded, that two times two is four or confabulations (lies) such as about the 6,000,000 of the Gov. of the state of NY Martin Glynn published in October of 1919, or 25 years later and on (visit air-photo.com or similar sites) ,or tales about Santa Claus or delusions about UFO's.

You will probably respond like my priests about the Lord having given free will to humans. The Almighty knew, KNEW we will fail and He would have to boil us in tar, and would have to sacrifice His only Son. To me this whole story sounds terribly sado-masochistic. Am I right?

My Response:

Jesus who is the ultimate TEACHER miserably failed at this profession/vocation, and failed to convince less convert that He is a messiah for the biased and "perideous" Jews and most importantly His teachings failed to convince billions of people for the past 2000 years who remained, and still remain, pagan or heretics.

Actually, I'd say Jesus was the most successful teacher of all time. How many teachers have spoken only to a relatively small group, never personally wrote anything, but had their teachings spread exponentially for thousands of years until billions of people have come to live their lives by them? Can you name one teacher who has done better than this?

Even lousy human teachers are able to teach the truth, to all except the most retarded, that two times two is four or confabulations (lies) such as about the 6,000,000 of the Gov. of the state of NY Martin Glynn published in October of 1919, or 25 years later and on (visit air-photo.com or similar sites) ,or tales about Santa Claus or delusions about UFO's.

And lousy teachers are quickly forgotten. Even the great teachers usually end up reaching mere thousands, if that. You seem to be saying Jesus failed because there are billions who don't follow Him. Every teacher who has ever lived has had billions who don't follow him or her. It's better to count a teacher's success by how many they HAVE reached, not by how many they HAVEN'T.

You will probably respond like my priests about the Lord having given free will to humans. The Almighty knew, KNEW we will fail and He would have to boil us in tar, and would have to sacrifice His only Son. To me this whole story sounds terribly sado-masochistic. Am I right?

About it being sado-masochistic, no, I don't feel you are right. God gave us free will, yes. And free will automatically means that we are capable of disobeying God, and it also means that we have to endure the consequences for disobeying, and He provided a way to make it so that our sins can be forgiven if we repent of our sins, but we have to be able to see the serious consequences for it to mean anything for us, and Christ demonstrated those terrible consequences by going to the cross. Had He demonstrated it by merely suffering a stubbed toe, it would mean nothing to us.

As far as being "boiled in oil", I reject the idea that hell is a place of physical torture for three reasons:

1) All that is physical about us ceases to exist when we die, so what part of us could be physically tortured?

2) It makes no sense for the punishment to exceed the crime, and eternal physical torture for finite sins is definitely exceeding the crime.

3) It would mean taking passages literally that are clearly not meant to be literal. For example, hell is described as a dark place, but with flames. Wouldn't the flames light up the darkness? It makes more sense if the darkness and the flames are metaphorical, which such words tend to be in the Bible.

I believe that hell is a spiritual state of eternal shame, not a place of physical torture.

David

Myron responded:

Dear David,

Below is your text:

That the tomb in which Jesus was placed was found empty soon after His death. If the disciples made the claim of Jesus' bodily resurrection without the evidence of an empty tomb to back it up, the Romans and Pharisees could easily opened the tomb and removed Jesus' body for all to see. Christianity would not have lasted even a few days had Jesus' body been available for display. The early arguments against the resurrection seemed to concede the point that Jesus' body was not in the tomb.

You must, and should, agree that eyewitness testimony does not count because people habitually lie and/or confabulate and imagine.

However if we assume that Jesus was resurrected, and surely Roman authorities knew about it, then they would certainly report this unique event to Rome for investigation.

Since Rome did not notice the Resurrection, this suggests that it did not take place.  And more importantly, this is not even mentioned in Talmud.

Thirdly, this means that JC did not pay much attention to his resurrection, and did not bother to convince anyone about this allegedly glorious event except for Saint Thomas.

It really makes no sense for JC to go through the trouble of crucifixion and not to put the "fact" of resurrection into public opinion mind, thus allowing various heresies, and the doubts of your truly.

My Response:

You must, and should, agree that eyewitness testimony does not count because people habitually lie and/or confabulate and imagine.

Eyewitness testimony absolutely counts. When it comes to history, that's practically all we have. If we were to remove everything from historical texts that were based on eyewitness accounts, we'd be left with almost nothing. Even in courts of law, eyewitness testimony is held in high regard, unless other evidence contradicts it.

Yes, people do lie and fabricate, and we should give that idea serious consideration if the evidence goes against their testimony, or if we can find a serious reason that they would lie or fabricate, or some kind of evidence that they were doing so. In the event of the Gospel claims of resurrection, there is no good reason that they would lie about the resurrection, no evidence that they were lying, and no evidence going against their claims. And considering how much historical and archeological evidence has come to light in the last hundred years, that's really a pretty amazing thing.

However if we assume that Jesus was resurrected, and surely Roman authorities knew about it, then they would certainly report this unique event to Rome for investigation.

Since Rome did not notice the Resurrection, this suggests that it did not take place.

How do you know that Rome wasn't told about the resurrection?

And more importantly, this is not even mentioned in Talmud.

Nor would we expect it to be, since the Talmud was written by people who remained non-Christians and thus didn't believe in it. Those who became Christians based on Jesus' resurrection wrote about Jesus' resurrection, as we would expect. Those who didn't become Christians didn't write about it, as we would expect.

Thirdly, this means that JC did not pay much attention to his resurrection, and did not bother to convince anyone about this allegedly glorious event except for Saint Thomas.

More people than Saint Thomas became convinced. Hundreds saw Jesus after His resurrection, and billions more later became convinced by the accounts of those who wrote about it.

It really makes no sense for JC to go through the trouble of crucifixion and not to put the "fact" of resurrection into public opinion mind, thus allowing various heresies, and the doubts of your truly.

I believe that what we have is very convincing. We have four separate accounts based on eyewitness testimony, including one (Luke's) written by a historian. Plus we have the letters of people like Paul and James, who are apparently skeptics who became convinced. All in all, we have about a thousand pages, all written within 70 years of the events they tell of, which is a huge amount of historical record for something 2000 years old. I find that more convincing than practically any other historical account, even accounts that are generally not doubted at all (such as Caesar's assassination, or Alexander's conquests). Of course people are going to doubt the New Testament writings, but God isn't one to force people to accept what He has to offer. He wants us to choose for ourselves, not to have the choice forced upon us whether we want it or not.

David

Myron responded:

Dear David,

Please provide a better explanation. Even the lousiest teacher does not use Ebonics in an Ivy League school, or legalese in a Bronx high school where half of the student have problems comprehending  theNY Post or any newspaper.   Jesus surely spoke in obscure parables. Do you consider Him a lousy teacher, or would you say that He was the teacher par excellance, speaking in a universal language precluding various interpretations?

And the roughly 400 protestant denominations are mostly due to imprecise language.

My Response:

Please provide a better explanation. Even the lousiest teacher does not use Ebonics in an Ivy League school, or legalese in a Bronx high school where half of the student have problems comprehending  theNY Post or any newspaper.   Jesus surely spoke in obscure parables. Do you consider Him a lousy teacher, or would you say that He was the teacher par excellance, speaking in a universal language precluding various interpretations?

I think Jesus spoke in the way that allowed His audience to best understand what He was saying. He purposely made it puzzling and mystifying, since that challenged those listening to ponder what He was saying. Had He always spoken plainly and unobscurably, His audience would have forgotten much of what He taught. No, He didn't speak in a universal language that precluded interpretation, because there is no such thing.

And the roughly 400 protestant denominations are mostly due to imprecise language.

All man-made language is imprecise. Can you name any language where every single word has only one fixed, unalterable definition?

David

Please log in to post comments. Not a member? Register. It's free!