Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How can we know that God is?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post

    So from your own definition of conscience ( meaning "with knowledge"), if someone has no knowledge of a particular thing (like stealing) , does it means that if someone steals, it's not morally wrong? For instance, when white Europeans came to settle in America, some of the American Indians they encountered had no knowledge of personal property, as they live in tribal society in which everything was shared. IOW, the notion that this horse belongs to me, was strange to them. When they did take a horse from a white man, they of course would be accused of stealing. Yet from their own culture, they weren't stealing. It was just how they live. A horse just belonged to everyone, and anyone. So who was morally right??

    Have you got a whole set of scenarios lined up needing case by case settling? Don't you get tired in your brain and body typing out a new "what if" without limit.

    Well I tried to get you to see something and it would be fool-hardy to continue to answer according to *fool-hardiness" from your side.



    Comment


    • Originally posted by Esther View Post

      Have you got a whole set of scenarios lined up needing case by case settling? Don't you get tired in your brain and body typing out a new "what if" without limit.

      Well I tried to get you to see something and it would be fool-hardy to continue to answer according to *fool-hardiness" from your side.


      Your non-answer is proof of what I stated in a previous post, which I will repeat for your benefit: Your position on the question of morality completely fails to explain that a) morality changes over time, b) is different from culture to culture, and c) cannot exist without the existence of humans.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post

        But you were telling us how MOST people think on a matter. The matter of a man's sanity, so you were appealing to the majority. And I could tweak my statement - atheism is a deviation from the norm. Or a deviation from what most sane people believe.
        In this country maybe, but not universally. In the UK, last time I looked, only about 10% were regular church attenders.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Alien View Post

          In this country maybe, but not universally. In the UK, last time I looked, only about 10% were regular church attenders.
          So? I was speaking of historical and worldwide numbers...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post

            So? I was speaking of historical and worldwide numbers...
            You used the present tense throughout, so I don't know here "historical" came from. Anyway, this is a total sidetrack, sorry to have started it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              That reply rather neatly returns to the question posed by Alien here: [I have cited the pertinent section]

              At least someone understands where I was going with that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                You used the present tense throughout, so I don't know here "historical" came from. Anyway, this is a total sidetrack, sorry to have started it.
                But it is not unusual. It seems that every time ancient Israel prospered they turned their back on God. The West is very prosperous at the moment. I have six churches within spitting distance from my house. I would drive or walk by them on the Sunday mornings after 9/11 - they were packed, not only standing room, but people outside listening to the sermons. That did not last more than two months.

                I think this quote by Lewis applies to me, most men and even nations:


                "My own experience is something like this. I am progressing along the path of life in my ordinary contentedly fallen and godless condition, absorbed in a merry meeting with my friends for the morrow or a bit of work that tickles my vanity to-day, a holiday or a new book, when suddenly a stab of abdominal pain that threatens serious disease, or a headline in the newspapers that threatens us all with destruction, sends this whole pack of cards tumbling down. At first I am overwhelmed, and all my little happiness look like broken toys. Then, slowly and reluctantly, bit by bit, I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in at all times. I remind myself that all these toys were never intended to possess my heart, that my true good is in another world and my only real treasure is Christ. And perhaps, by God’s grace, I succeed, and for a day or two become a creature consciously dependent on God and drawing its strength from the right sources. But the moment the threat is withdrawn, my whole nature leaps back to the toys. Thus the terrible necessity of tribulation is only too clear. God has had me for but forty-eight hours and then only by dint of taking everything else away from me. Let Him but sheathe that sword for a moment and I behave like a puppy when the hated bath is over—I shake myself as dry as I can and race off to reacquire my comfortable dirtiness, if not in the nearest manure heap, at least in the nearest flower bed. And that is why tribulations cannot cease until God either sees us remade or sees that our remaking is now hopeless."












                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                  That hardly precludes the fact that such appointments were in part political.
                  Yet the military governor was not precisely what you stated.


                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Of course - they are historiographal, if not purely historical in the modern sense.
                  They are by no means historiographical nor can they be considered historical in the original meaning of that word - they make no enquiry.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Assuredly. He was also admonished for the incident with the imperial standards - his record was not squeaky clean. And that is before the attack on the Samaritans that got him recalled.
                  As Helen K Bond notes in her monograph on Pilate the two accounts mentioned by Josephus:

                  have the same structure built around cause and effect: an action of Pilate provokes the people; this causes a Jewish reaction which in turn necessitates a counter-reaction from Pilate. Such a scheme is developed furthest in the episode of the standards. Throughout the narrative we are continually presented with a series of actions and reactions between the two actors in the drama, Pilate and the people, each dependent on the previous response. [...] we are told only that Pilate brought in the standards by night. Josephus is not interested in telling us why Pilate brought new standards into Jerusalem or upon whose authority he was acting. [...] the Jews are entirely peaceful and passive; they go to Caesarea and, without aggression, implore Pilate to remove the standards; even after five days and nights they refrain from violence, accepting death rather than the violation of their laws. Pilate, astonished by their religious devotion, accepted. their arguments and removed the standards. Through this narrative, Josephus indicates that a passive demonstration showing respect for and submission to the governor can achieve its aim. [see Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 100, CUP 1998, p 55-56]


                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Now who is engaging in speculation? Now who is indulging in presenting opinion instead of evidence? And you didn't even bother to acknowledge that it was a personal assessment.
                  What I wrote concerning the role of the Praefectus at this period in the history of the province is how the machinery of Roman provincial government worked.

                  Following the removal of Archelaus and the region being taken into direct Roman control the supreme Jewish authority of the Sanhedrin now came under direct Roman control since only men who could be relied upon to pursue a policy favourable to Rome would be chosen as its leaders. This dependence of the High Priest on Roman goodwill is demonstrated by the fact that his ceremonial vestments were placed under Roman control Just as under both Herod and Archelaus the vestments continued to held in the Antonia in a stone vault sealed by the Jewish authorities to avoid any contamination from gentiles; access to them was now dependant the goodwill of the Roman commander of the garrison. He permitted the priests to take them only for the week needed for purification before use at each of the great Jewish festivals and on the Day of Atonement. That robes sacred to the cult of Yahweh were now in gentile custody caused some resentment among many Jews.

                  However, in accordance with its normal practise of leaving as much local administration as possible in the hands of the native authorities, Rome permitted Jewish laws to continue and the political Sanhedrin was retained as the administrative and judicial body for local Jewish affairs. The Roman governor however, retained sole power to execute Jews for political offences. Religious violations and/or infringements were of no interest to Roman provincial administrators, those were left to be determined by the Sanhedrin.

                  As a province Judaea continued to pay a land-tax [tributum soli] but its annexation into the orbit of Rome automatically made the Jews liable for the tributum capitis [i.e. the personal tax paid by provincials]. The collection of the indirect taxes was done by Jewish tax farmers and these men earned the hatred and contempt of many of their fellows for not only being in the service of a foreign power that came to be regarded as an oppressor, but also for enriching themselves, often by extortion. Tacitus also tells us that while Germanicus was in the East in 17 CE the "provinces of Syria and Judea, being worn out with their burdens, begged of a reduction of tax" [Annals ii. 42].1

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                  More opinion without a shred of evidence to back it up.
                  For the early part of his governorship Pilate had no legate in post in Syria to whom he could turn in an emergency. Both Suetonius and Tacitus write that Tiberius gave provinces to men whom he never permitted to leave Rome. Both suggest that his motivation was the fear that prominent men should not be out of his sight but it could be that he was testing out a new form of centralised government whereby provinces were governed from the capital.

                  Regardless of the reasoning behind the emperor's decision as far as Pilate was concerned the situation on the ground could have been disastrous had any serious unrest erupted. Any decision would have either required a senior Roman military commander in Antioch making a decision that was, technically, ultra vires, or the sending of messengers to and from Rome to receive a direct order from Vitellius. In the intervening weeks of the latter course, chaos could ensue.2

                  1 See Mary E Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, Brill Leiden, 1976
                  2 See Bond [ibid]



                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    That is a meaningless statement without the provision of endorsements from dozens and dozens of academics.
                    Or the view of academics who have poured over the opinion of dozens and dozens of them.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    You forget. The gospels were written after Paul's epistles. We do not know what was "common among Christians" in the late 30s and early 40s CE. No one left us an attested historical record.
                    You forget. The epistles carry numerous creedal statements in them, with the oldest being the one in I Corinthians which virtually everyone, across the ideological scale, from conservative evangelical to atheist, agrees comes from very shortly after the death and Resurrection.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    The closest in thinking might have been the Ebionites but they were declared heretic by early Christians.
                    You need to start opening your eyes and pay attention.

                    The Ebionites likely represented the Jewish Christians who had rejected the Apostolic Decree. Unfortunately, we know little about them, since the Church Fathers (the primary source) had a bad habit of lumping all Jewish Christians, such as Nazarenes and Essenes[1], into the "Ebionite" category, which makes determining their beliefs problematic at best. Further, the earliest reference to them dates to c.180 A.D. (Irenaeus)[2], so it is even more difficult to determine what their original beliefs were.

                    OTOH, we have Paul's letters which start from around 50 A.D. only 20 years after the Resurrection. And as has been noted, they contain earlier creedal statements, including the one in I Corinthians.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    I have merely noted that without any attested historical evidence of this creed, all such comments are speculative.
                    Face it H_A, they could find something confirmed as dating from 31 A.D. with that creed on it and you would be seeking to discount it in some way. Nothing will ever satisfy you because you just can't permit it. You base too much of your disbelief on the notion that there is no record of Jesus until several decades after his death -- as if this was an issue for persons living in the Classical age[3] -- so you have a knee jerk dismissal of everything that demolishes that belief.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    That is where some academic thinking disagrees with you.
                    This is where you should have provided it rather than your typical unsupported "you're wrong"

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Then to what was Paul converting?
                    As you have already been told "To believing that Jesus is the Messiah. If you don't think that counts, then go tell the Jews who stoned Stephen or those who started kicking Jewish Christians out of synagogues." in spite of the fact that you have dishonestly claimed otherwise -- a really bad habit you have Frau "Volumes"

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Jesus lived and died an observant Jew . He founded no new religion.


                    Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:16-20

                    Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Scripture Verse: Mark 6:15

                    And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Scripture Verse: Acts 1:8

                    But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    As already noted earlier, Luke also has Jesus sending the disciples forth to teach and convert (9:2; chpt. 10)

                    Yup, no indication at all.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    It does not automatically follow that there were Jews in the audience. In that text Paul referring to circumcision in general.
                    The Christian community in Corinth was comprised of both Gentiles and Jews, so yes, a letter meant for the community would have also included Jewish Christians.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Do they prove an overwhelmingly Jewish presence among his proselytes?
                    Why is an "overwhelming" Jewish presence required? I Corinthians 7:18-19 demonstrates that there were a number of Jews in the congregation. He addresses a few of them by name, such as "Sosthenes our brother" (Corinthians 1:1).

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    I ask again to what religion was Paul being converted?
                    As you have already been told "To believing that Jesus is the Messiah. If you don't think that counts, then go tell the Jews who stoned Stephen or those who started kicking Jewish Christians out of synagogues." in spite of the fact that you have dishonestly claimed otherwise -- a really bad habit you have Frau "Volumes"

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Or are you alleging Jesus was a Christian?
                    Do I think that Jesus was a follower of Himself?

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    These texts are composed after Paul's writings. As for the additional instruction regarding all nations, that cannot be ruled out as a later interpolation.
                    On who's say-so? Pardon me if I don't accept pronouncements from on high sans a scintilla of corroboration of a hausfrau who pretends to be an actual historian (although it seems you have dropped that ridiculous claim after getting caught making scores of amateurish mistakes). The only reason for discounting them is because they contradict your narrative -- and that is anything but a legitimate reason.




                    1. and their relationship to Christianity is murky as well

                    2. Justin Martyr may have referred to them 40 years earlier but that is debated.

                    3. The Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, was written around 340 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri, which contains most of the New Testament, is dated even earlier: somewhere around the middle of the 3rd century. For comparison, here’s a summary of the copies we have of secular historical works:

                    "The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century—four centuries after they were written. Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies." --Greg Koukl
                    Last edited by rogue06; 04-10-2022, 07:26 AM.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      It is not a pronouncement it is a statement of fact. There is no corroborative evidence of any earlier creed.
                      Indeed, the creed that Paul cites in I Corinthians 15 does appear to be the earliest one. There is "no corroborative evidence of any earlier creed."

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      The provision of nine sources from nine academics, and one medical practitioner does not constitute a "legion of scholars" and nor does it come anywhere close to the boast you made earlier of
                      I've provide a number of others since that posting, but this is exactly the sort of crap I've learned to expect from you. Unable to supply ANY refutation other than your say-so, you start nit-picking. Sort of like how you would dismiss a world renown expert's opinion on a subject because he once improperly interred some bones at Masada.

                      This is your M.O. Your shtick. And it serves to expose you as anything but a would-be wannabe historian. You are a charlatan

                      Looks like a good time to shake the dust off of my feet.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alien View Post
                        Well it looks like my thread has totally drifted away from my original subject, as I predicted. That's fine, carry on, most of it has been interesting. What's happened though is that all this has reminded me of some other stuff that might prove of interest. I would have posted it here, but instead I'll probably start another thread, this time limiting the responses to "on topic" replies. Don't hold your collective breath, I'm still thinking about it.

                        Anyway, thanks to those that stayed on topic and a brief message to the others from Bad Janet. (Maybe you should hold your breath).

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVga3yOsL4g
                        You asked a question of me

                        Originally posted by Alien View Post
                        Rogue, I don't have the education to join in this discussion with any authority, but I have heard of the idea of "Paulianity" (just a way to refer to it of course) and a quick search reveals that there is quite a body of opinion that Paul did at the least create a new "direction" in Christian thought, and came into conflict with the Jerusalem church (what was left of the original disciples) over it, finally winning out and the Jerusalem church fading away. Of course you will say that your experts are right and these experts are wrong, and I have no way to contest it nor do I challenge you now. I would be interested in your thoughts and anyone else that knows what s/he is talking about. It would be quite the thing if true, especially if the original teachings of Jesus were corrupted.
                        to which I gave a response:

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                        The most immediate problem with that view is, of course, the Council of Jerusalem's Apostolic Decree mentioned in Acts and apparently alluded to in Galatians 2, which shows that the Jerusalem Church endorsed this direction.

                        Now, you can, like H_A, choose to scoff and declare that it is only Luke's say-so that this took place but then you have to contend with at least one serious problem with that position.

                        If the earliest readers of Acts in Antioch had read about a wholly fictional account about the Jerusalem Council sending "Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas" with Paul and Barnabas to their city (15:22) in order to confirm a letter that Paul and Barnabas carried (15:27) regarding an Apostolic Decree, there would have been a loud denunciation to this effect. They would have called B.S., and after being exposed as a fraud, Luke-Acts would have been rejected by Christians as a whole.

                        But it wasn't. In fact, Antioch became one of the most important centers for early Christianity and there is no trace of any sort of controversy over it.

                        That doesn't mean Paul didn't have an influence over the later development of Christianity. When your letters constitute nearly 30% of the New Testament, that is going to happen. Having said that, this is still a far cry from H_A's fantasy of Paul trying to start his own cult. And that is why I made the comment that the religious movement is known as Christianity, not "Paulianity."

                        Two final notes, it does appear that there were some from that community that disagreed with that decision and made their opinions known, and the Jerusalem Church faded away as a result of the Jewish-Roman War (66-73 A.D.) with whatever traces that were left being exterminated during the Kitos War (115–117 A.D.) and Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-136 A.D.). IIRC, in the latter, followers of Simon bar Kokhba specifically targeted Christians as rivals -- followers of a false Messiah. After that, tradition holds that whatever remnant that survived fled to, IIRC, Antioch.
                        Did you ever reply?



                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          Interestingly the only two individuals who have been "scouring" the internet are tabibito and you. And you have managed to replicate quotes from several of the individUrals he originally cited.
                          Obviously your search came up empty handed or else you would have posted it

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post

                            And Putin is doing the same. You should worship him, next time you go to church.
                            Dang it. Looks like the toilet is leaking again.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              In which case it would be likely that Paul himself developed the creed from that teaching. However, important teachings (if my information is accurate) usually took the form of creeds as an aid to memorisation.
                              The formula used in the creed, not to mention the different terms used and such, indicate that Paul is indeed citing something rather than merely developing what he heard.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alien View Post


                                This is addressed to everyone. It's something I asked of a Christian on Tweb years ago, and I think it has more impact this way round.

                                You are an Israelite soldier, but otherwise yourself today in terms of your feelings and morality. In front of you stands an Amelekite woman, her baby in her arms. Behind her a two year old child, not sure what is going on but terrified, tries to hide in her skirts. She throws herself to her knees and begs you to spare her children. Your sword drips with the blood of her husband that you just killed. You have been told by your superiors that God has commanded the extermination of all Amelekites, men and women and all children of all ages. You believe in God and don't doubt that commandment came from Him. You think of your own wife and kids at home that you would die to protect. You hesitate. What do you do?
                                A good old hypothetical question along with the problems such questions bring...


                                Personally, I will need more than my military commander telling me that God wants me to kill unarmed women and children.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X