Episcopal Church votes to curb gay bishops

[maycocksean]

People are not "homophobic" because they believe that God teaches that homsexual activity is a sin.

This is true. I held your own beliefs for a long time (in fact, despite all I've said, I'm not sure I still don't. As I said I'm in flux but it appears moving away from the position you hold). I didn't consider myself a homophobe then, and it's quite clear that you do not feel yourself as having "hatred" towards homosexuals. I've made all the same arguements you've presented. And I think it's important for other posters to understand how sincere you are when you say that you genuinely are not a homophobe.

But I wonder if you realize how casually those of us who are heterosexual conservative Christians treat this issue. We act as if, "hey, I struggle with sin too. I've got my sins." But I've come to realize that we have NO IDEA what a gay person is going through--especially one who wants to be a Christian and follow the Bible. As I already explained in my earlier post, you and I have a God-ordained outlet for the "natural desires" that we have. While we know we are sinners, born into sin, and all the rest, we can meet our basic, human needs in God-approved ways. Gays, according to you, can not. That is a huge statement. Huge. Not at all in the same category with you and I trying to not "lust in our hearts."

Irvine put it very well, I thought. We want to make homosexuality all about the sex act, but it's not. It's much, much more than that.

I suggest that if you are really interested, do the research and come to your own conclusion...prayerfully. As I said before, without the Holy Spirit's guidance, it will be impossible to come to the conclusion that God intends.

You do realize that you're implying that if we research this issue prayerfully we will come to the same conclusion you have. Actually, I guess you're not implying it, you're saying it outright. The thing is I have been praying throughout this discussion. And I have been reading the Scriptures that have been mentioned. And so far. . .I'm not convinced.

I did not join this debate with any illusion of winning.

Perhaps you should have tried to win. You might have taken a different, perhaps less smug-sounding approach. Right is on your side so who cares if people are hurt or offended, right? I do think it's possible to have a calm,objective discussion. But how it's approached determines whether the discussion stays calm and objective.

Again I respect your taking a stand for what you believe scripture teaches. If you are a Christian, what Scripture says cannot just be dismissed out of hand. It has to be considered. I just think you are either unaware or don't care about the impact of how that "standing up" is done.

 

[BVS]

People are not "homophobic" because they believe that God teaches that homsexual activity is a sin.

Yes, they are...

Because there is so much evidence to prove this teaching is wrong...it shows that those who agree with it don't want to educate themselves. Why? Because they want it that way.

I did not join this debate with any illusion of winning. The emotions surrounding this subject make it impossible to have a calm, objective discussion. However, I do feel it is important to call out when I see Holy Scripture being misrepresented and misquoted. I doubt I convinced anyone of anything, but I hope that a few of you at least looked at your Bibles to see what it actually says. If that happened, I am pleased. God can take over from there.

If you can honestly say, after all the research, and all the prayer, that God condones homosexual sex, then by all means - enjoy it and live a Spirit filled, Holy life. Personally - I think it is extremely clear that ANY sexual activity outside of male/female marriage is a sin - and I try to live accordingly. But you are free to disagree with me

It's not about homosexual sex. This is where you really don't understand the issue. I think if you took the time NOT to misinterpret the scripture and actually studied the context, you would understand. But the way you quote scripture has made me realize you don't understand. The fact that you left the important questions unanswered shows to me you don't know what you are talking about...and that's a shame.

A HUGE SHAME!!!

 

[Dreadsox]

It's not about homosexual sex. This is where you really don't understand the issue. I think if you took the time NOT to misinterpret the scripture and actually studied the context, you would understand. But the way you quote scripture has made me realize you don't understand. The fact that you left the important questions unanswered shows to me you don't know what you are talking about...and that's a shame.

A HUGE SHAME!!!

Context does not matter in a literal interprative stance.

Homosexual sex is sexual immorality. He explained that in one of the two threads.

It matters not the context of the relationship nor the context of the scripture. If context does not matter, and only the literal act or words remain, we can be like a pharisee....The letter of the law baby.

Again we are WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY of topic.......hehe

The Episcopal Church ordains openly Gay people to be priests. They are now saying you can be a priest, but not a Bishop. Basically, you are only good enough to run a parish.

 

[melon]

Melon makes some interesting insights and I respect his intelligence. However, with a quick google search you can find many articles that both support and defeat his argument. Most of those articles are way too lengthy to cut and paste into a forum. It is not an issue that can be discussed properly in a few paragraphs. I suggest that if you are really interested, do the research and come to your own conclusion...prayerfully. As I said before, without the Holy Spirit's guidance, it will be impossible to come to the conclusion that God intends.

I have read through a wide array of articles that have both mentioned and refuted my line of thought. My arguments seem to have the strongest backing of modern Biblical scholarship, whereas most of the articles I've read refuting my articles tend to follow logical fallacies that are merely an end-around to support tradition.

The irony about all of this is that even the religion I believed most of my life, Roman Catholicism, has even started to accept this modern Biblical scholarship. I'll give you a very strong example:

"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Catholic Bibles, as you may know, contain extensive contextual footnotes. This is the one applied to this passage:

"The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10."

So here we go. Temple prostitution and pedophilia: two practices most people would not hesitate to believe is immoral (and also take note that they bother to mention that two other supposedly "anti-gay" passages also are explicitly tied to temple prostitution and pedophilia).

So you might be asking yourself: if this is the case, why is the Catholic Church homophobic? That's because the Catholic Church bases its teaching on the medieval tradition of "natural law." As such, this is their teaching that forbids all sexual activity that cannot result in pregnancy in marriage. It forbids masturbation, artificial birth control (they only allowed the rhythm method starting in the 1930s; prior to then, it was a sin to schedule your sex life to avoid pregnancy), oral sex, anal sex, and any sexual activity outside marriage.

It's a good thing for most people that some of the older aspects of "natural law" were repealed, because it used to also believe that men created life, while women were merely incubators, and also believed that all life was inherently male, but that Satan would interfere and create female babies. Additionally, it was also against "natural law" to feel lust of any kind, including to your own spouse. Men were not to show signs of outward pleasure during sex--and was only to occur when it was time to have another baby--while women were absolutely forbidden to show pleasure of any kind.

It was believed in these days that all emotions--good or bad--were created by Satan. In practice, this meant that men were forbidden to show any emotion of any kind. This is how the word "stoic" became to be an adjective for "emotionless," because it was named after the Christian philosophy of "stoicism" (not to be confused with ancient Greek stoicism). Women were permitted to show emotion, such as cry, only because they were inherently weak and their mere existence meant that they were already spawns of Satan. It was expected behavior.

Because this was the philosophy of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the two most revered theologians of the Catholic Church, the underlying philosophy of "natural law" is still a very strong presence in today's Catholic Church.

And, so, really, it's quite an interesting place for gay Christians to be wedged in between. There's poorly translated Bibles on the Protestant end, and completely psychotic nonsense traditions on the Catholic end. Then, to top it all off, more liberal Christians are often completely unaware of all of this, so the crux of their arguments usually end up being that we ignore parts of the Bible anyway (such as the Pauline epistle that states that a woman cannot instruct over a man, which would effectively forbid any female teachers in a male/co-ed school), so why not ignore another part? Understood, but it's certainly not a way to win over more conservative Christians.

So there's where I come in with my arguments.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

A great interview on the situation.

http://video.necn.com/global/video/....com/news/necn/Shows/news_night/&rnd=87977468

 

[maycocksean]

Yes, they are...

Because there is so much evidence to prove this teaching is wrong...it shows that those who agree with it don't want to educate themselves. Why? Because they want it that way.

This is unfair. While it may be true for many people it's not true for everyone who believes homosexuality is a sin. Some of us weren't familiar with the evidence you're talking about. Some of us do want to educate ourselves. I've been willing to listen to both sides of the debate, and I'm beginning to change my views. If you can't see that, maybe you haven't really read my previous posts.

When we decide that a person who holds a certain view is beyond redemption that marks the end of communication and the end of the possibility of real understanding.

I guess I'm used to thinking this way because I'm black and I grew up in a predominantly white southern community. I saw inherent, deep down racism like you would not believe. I could tell you stories, believe me. . .But I also saw people with the most egregious racist views change. So I believe that it's possible in that arena and others.

Granted, AEON does not seem likely to change his mind. It would appear he came in with his mind made up already, and was here just to enlighten everyone on the Truth before bowing out gracefully with a rueful smile.

But it's not fair to say that others won't change their minds.

 

[maycocksean]

Melon, Iwant to thank you for your input. You've really had an impact on my thinking.

 

[Dreadsox]

So as I now see it...my church is just like the catholic church....get your ass in the closet.

 

[BVS]

I didn't say never...

When we decide that a person who holds a certain view is beyond redemption that marks the end of communication and the end of the possibility of real understanding.

This is true. And unfortunately this is how most literalists enter this debate.

 

[maycocksean]

I didn't say never...



This is true. And unfortunately this is how most literalists enter this debate.

But not this literalist.

I guess I thought you were implying that because you had said that anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin is automatically a homophobe. And I was arguing that, no, that's not always true.

Here's a parallel example, again from race. I might say anyone who opposes racially mixed marriages is a racist. In today's society this is most likely true. But not in every case. There may be a few people who genuniely believe that mixed race marriages are forbidden in the Bible. The thing is the person who is not racist but holds that belief is probably going to start questioning that genuine belief. Especially if they meet a Christian couple who are of mixed race, and they begin to see the disconnect. "These people love Jesus and yet they are going agaisnt the Bible." That's when they begin to wonder if they'd understood the Bible correctly.

At least thats how it happened with me with the issue of homosexuality.

I'll grant that there are a lot of homophobes who insist that they aren't, even as there are far too many people who claim they're not racist when they are.

I'm just saying there are exceptions.

 

[Irvine511]

Melon, Iwant to thank you for your input. You've really had an impact on my thinking.

and THIS is what FYM should be all about.

i think i'm going to start a thread asking people about specific FYM threads or posters who have had a huge impact on how they understand issues, any issues.

 

[BVS]

Here's a parallel example, again from race. I might say anyone who opposes racially mixed marriages is a racist. In today's society this is most likely true. But not in every case. There may be a few people who genuniely believe that mixed race marriages are forbidden in the Bible. The thing is the person who is not racist but holds that belief is probably going to start questioning that genuine belief. Especially if they meet a Christian couple who are of mixed race, and they begin to see the disconnect. "These people love Jesus and yet they are going agaisnt the Bible." That's when they begin to wonder if they'd understood the Bible correctly.

This is a parallel I use quite often in the debate of homosexual marriage.

And I have to say I respectfully disagree with you. If you oppose interracial marriage you are a racist, it doesn't matter your reasoning. The Bible is not an excuse. And just like when people used the Bible to justify their views on interracial marriage, or they use it to justify slavery, etc they were wrong. And just like they were wrong people who oppose homosexuality are wrong. There just isn't any excuse. If people did their research and educated themselves they would know.

 

[maycocksean]

This is a parallel I use quite often in the debate of homosexual marriage.

And I have to say I respectfully disagree with you. If you oppose interracial marriage you are a racist, it doesn't matter your reasoning. The Bible is not an excuse. And just like when people used the Bible to justify their views on interracial marriage, or they use it to justify slavery, etc they were wrong. And just like they were wrong people who oppose homosexuality are wrong. There just isn't any excuse. If people did their research and educated themselves they would know.

Oh no, I never said opposing interracial marriage isn't wrong. It IS wrong. (I'm black and married to a white woman, so believe me I know this firsthand. You wouldn't believe the things that Christians have told us about our marriage. One guy actually said, "Well, I guess it's okay if you don't have kids"! ?!???).

What I'm saying is that sometimes people can be wrong and be well-intentionedly (is that even a word) wrong. I'm not sure what your denominational background is but if you're not from a denomination that takes a more literal interpretation of the Bible, you'll have a hard time understanding how seriously we take that.
If we think the Bible says something, we can NOT just dismiss it no matter how much we dislike it. Now that in itself might seem absurd to you and I understand that. But if you put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative Christian (that's always the hard part) you would see that what you must first do is convince them that the Bible does not say what they think it says. You can't ask them to just ignore parts of scripture (even though, as many of already pointed out, they already do). If they're going to ignore a part of scripture you have to be able to justify it based on Scripture.

So with that in mind, you might be able to see how someone who doesn't know any better might genuinely believe the Bible opposes racially mixed marriage or homosexual marriage for that matter. I agree that "opposition to racially mixed marriage" is a racist idea just as "opposition to gay marriage" is homophobic. But there are people who believe that they must adhere to what scripture says above all. And they are not "beyond reach." You just have to be able to argue your point based on scripture.

I guess what I'm saying is not everyone is using the Bible as an "excuse." Some people would genuinely like to believe differently but feel that they "can't" because of what they THINK scripture teaches.

It's like athesists (the other group besides Conservative Christians that have the Truth) who would like to believe in God but "can't" because for them, the evidence just isn't there.

Not sure if I'm making things any clearer or just muddying the waters still more.

 

[yolland]

Again we are WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY of topic.......hehe

I hope this wasn't meant to catch my eye, because frankly I gave up a long time ago on threads which even touch on this particular issue staying on-topic. Just so long as things stay civil is more or less all I look for. But if it's really getting to you in this case, let me know.

p.s. I've been emailing the contents of your threads on this to my brother, who's a pro-gay-marriage/clergy Orthodox rabbi (yes, they exist!), as he's been watching the news on it with great interest. He was very surprised at how nuanced and considerate the bulk of the discussion is. ("You said this is a U2 site?? Well what the hell, why'm I bothering with all this fuckwit pilpul-varfing on the church sites then!") (It's Yiddish--"pilpul" means a heated but absurdly hairsplitting argument, "varf" means to throw violently, or to vomit.)

I guess I'm used to thinking this way because I'm black and I grew up in a predominantly white southern community. I saw inherent, deep down racism like you would not believe. I could tell you stories, believe me. . .But I also saw people with the most egregious racist views change. So I believe that it's possible in that arena and others.

You said a mouthful there (and I'd love to trade a few stories with you sometime, if the topic's not too painful and personal). But yes, absolutely, I saw my share of this too, and it absolutely served as a touchstone for me when I was going through my own struggles later with this, and all the other questions it was bound up in. It's humbling to go through some of the same things yourself and realize just how much unsettling self-questioning, social and intellectual disorientation, and tongue-biting in the face of anger from both sides all those people whose willingness to think differently you once took for granted...at least, I too often did.

I can understand where BVS is coming from too though, and I think he is also right, but at the end of the day these things are gradual processes...there isn't really some quantifiable moment at which you're no longer racist, or homophobic, or male chauvinist or whatever, especially when it comes to how you understand whatever creed(s) you live your life by. It's never really a question of whether your beliefs shape your life, or your life shapes your beliefs; both happen, you can't control that, and if you try too hard to stick to one side it tends to wind up unexpectedly stranding you on the other.

 

[BVS]

Oh no, I never said opposing interracial marriage isn't wrong. It IS wrong. (I'm black and married to a white woman, so believe me I know this firsthand. You wouldn't believe the things that Christians have told us about our marriage. One guy actually said, "Well, I guess it's okay if you don't have kids"! ?!???).

I realize you weren't saying it wasn't wrong. But my point is that 20 30 years ago Christian Conservatives used the same cut and paste methods with scripture to oppose such marriages.

I'm sorry it still exists...

What I'm saying is that sometimes people can be wrong and be well-intentionedly (is that even a word) wrong. I'm not sure what your denominational background is but if you're not from a denomination that takes a more literal interpretation of the Bible, you'll have a hard time understanding how seriously we take that.
If we think the Bible says something, we can NOT just dismiss it no matter how much we dislike it. Now that in itself might seem absurd to you and I understand that. But if you put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative Christian (that's always the hard part) you would see that what you must first do is convince them that the Bible does not say what they think it says. You can't ask them to just ignore parts of scripture (even though, as many of already pointed out, they already do). If they're going to ignore a part of scripture you have to be able to justify it based on Scripture.

I come from a very conservative Christian background. So I know exactly where this is coming from. The problem is the church. They aren't teaching the context of the scriptures and they are telling you that you can take any verse and use it as truth. The truth is this couldn't be further from the truth. And the ugly truth is that the church doesn't want to teach the context or want you to research the context because deep down people oppose what they don't understand. And it's easier to make homosexuality a sin.

This type of teaching and thinking produces folks like AEON who can produce a lot of verses but knows very little of the context.

 

[Irvine511]

("You said this is a U2 site?? Well what the hell, why'm I bothering with all this fuckwit pilpul-varfing on the church sites then!")

well, not only are U2 fans better looking than your average rock fan, but we're smarter.



and i think it's interesting how this room is very much a reflection of the band's, and Bono's, public priorities -- religion, social justice, global inequality, individual rights. not that these things aren't popular topics for everybody, but i think we can clearly tell this is a room full of U2 fans (all the passion, all the pontificating, all the, yes, righteousness).

in some ways, it reminds me of why i became a fan in the first place -- they sang about things that mattered, there was so much at stake in their songs because they only sang about things that are at stake and under seige. and they think we can all be better, which is ultimately what dialogue should do -- produce a synethesis of information that might posit a better way forwards to a better future.

 

[nbcrusader]

I realize you weren't saying it wasn't wrong. But my point is that 20 30 years ago Christian Conservatives used the same cut and paste methods with scripture to oppose such marriages.

Could you identify the Scripture used in the "cut and paste method" 20 - 30 years ago?

Was there really a theological basis for their beliefs, or did they have their prejudices, and also claimed to be Christians?

 

[nbcrusader]

I come from a very conservative Christian background. So I know exactly where this is coming from. The problem is the church. They aren't teaching the context of the scriptures and they are telling you that you can take any verse and use it as truth. The truth is this couldn't be further from the truth. And the ugly truth is that the church doesn't want to teach the context or want you to research the context because deep down people oppose what they don't understand. And it's easier to make homosexuality a sin.

What about those who know the context of the Scriptures and come to the same or similar conclusions? Not the context you were looking for?

 

[BVS]

What about those who know the context of the Scriptures and come to the same or similar conclusions? Not the context you were looking for?

I honestly don't know how that's possible. Because it would still require one to believe that man-made law somehow not man-made.

 

[nbcrusader]

I honestly don't know how that's possible. Because it would still require one to believe that man-made law somehow not man-made.

Are you suggesting that we color code Scripture of God's Word and man's word?

 

[BVS]

Could you identify the Scripture used in the "cut and paste method" 20 - 30 years ago?

Deuteronomy 7 and Joshua 23:12-13 to name a couple.

I've seen it preached, it's discusting.

 

[BVS]

Are you suggesting that we color code Scripture of God's Word and man's word?

It would make things a lot easier. Then you wouldn't have people quoting Leviticus all the time.

 

[nbcrusader]

Deuteronomy 7 and Joshua 23:12-13 to name a couple.

I've seen it preached, it's discusting.

I can't imagine hearing that from the pulpit.

 

[nbcrusader]

It would make things a lot easier. Then you wouldn't have people quoting Leviticus all the time.

What other books should we remove? I bet the abridged version will draw more followers.

 

[BVS]

I can't imagine hearing that from the pulpit.

I didn't actually see it live, it was in a documentary. But still very disturbing...

 

[BVS]

What other books should we remove? I bet the abridged version will draw more followers.

I'm not saying to remove it. I think it should be kept in for historical context.

 

[melon]

Could you identify the Scripture used in the "cut and paste method" 20 - 30 years ago?

Was there really a theological basis for their beliefs, or did they have their prejudices, and also claimed to be Christians?

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html

Basically, a lot of "Christians" misinterpreted prohibitions against interreligious marriages as prohibitions against interracial marriages.

It's not really much different, in my eyes, how a bunch of passages against archaic idolatrous sexual practices get misinterpreted as being prohibitions against all same-sex relations.

Melon

 

[melon]

This is true. I held your own beliefs for a long time (in fact, despite all I've said, I'm not sure I still don't. As I said I'm in flux but it appears moving away from the position you hold). I didn't consider myself a homophobe then, and it's quite clear that you do not feel yourself as having "hatred" towards homosexuals. I've made all the same arguements you've presented. And I think it's important for other posters to understand how sincere you are when you say that you genuinely are not a homophobe.

Yes, they are...

Because there is so much evidence to prove this teaching is wrong...it shows that those who agree with it don't want to educate themselves. Why? Because they want it that way.

I've read this argument, and have found myself sympathetic to both arguments.

I think what it does come down to is not whether one is a bigot or not, but whether such bigotry is active or passive in nature. It's still homophobia; that I agree with. However, I think it does come down to a matter that, for many people, it is of a passive nature that's not rooted in deep-seated hatred. Active bigots are certainly the most frustrating and challenging of people to deal with.

Melon

 

[yolland]

Deuteronomy 7 and Joshua 23:12-13 to name a couple.

Our rabbi (I mean, back in Mississippi; this was in the early '80s) actually held a class once for all the children in the synagogue to discuss the Tanakh passages that some Christians in our area would cite as reasons why "mixing of the races" was a "crime against God." (Mississippi's anti-"miscegenation" laws were not repealed until '87, though they'd been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 20 years earlier.) There were really quite a few passages--some that stick in my mind are:

Gen 11: The Tower of Babel story. Supposedly this showed that God disliked the idea of different races living together and mixing.

Gen 34: The rape of Dinah by Shechem the Hivite, in revenge for which her brothers kill all the Hivites' sons. (I guess the idea being, you can't trust Other folks around your women.)

Num 25 The Israelites are struck by a plague because Israelite men have been "whoring" after Moabite women and worshipping Baal with them.

Judges 3-6 Israel is repeatedly "delivered into the hands" of enemies by God after repeatedly intermarrying with the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites; "they ignored the Lord their God and worshipped the Baalim and the Asheroth."

1 Kings 11 "King Solomon lusted after many foreign women in addition to Pharaoh's daughter...In his old age, his wives turned away Solomon's heart after other gods..."

Jeremiah 13:23 "Can the Cushite change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" (This phrase was one I heard cited several times...which was almost funny, since in context it's so obviously the House of Judah that's being condemned as hopeless here.)

There were several others, too--I can't remember them all. (And I do remember hearing people quote NT passages a few times, like the one about God determining the bounds of men's habitations, etc.) But essentially, like melon said, what these particular Christians would do was take passages that we'd normally understand today as reflecting Jewish emphasis on maintaining our own religious practices and traditions by marrying other Jews, then say that the "real" reason behind them was to prevent intermarriage with racially inferior people, and that this was all part of God's plan. Though keep in mind, folks who thought this way didn't generally think in terms of there being much difference between the two--if you argued that the problem with marrying a Canaanite, say, was that they didn't observe Jewish law, not that they were Canaanite per se, they'd respond that no, the Canaanites followed reprehensible practices because they were an inferior race (meaning: like blacks) and that Jews back then were right to recognize that trying to "civilize" or convert them wouldn't work. (Need I add, these were usually the same people who insisted that Jesus had been "white" and that Jews had become darker-skinned only since that time through mixing with other races. Although a few were more sophisticated than that and allowed that no, Jesus probably hadn't been "white," but nonetheless it was still clearly God's plan that races stay separate--these were the folks who made the "I have no problems with blacks; I just think it's always wrong to mix with them" sort of argument.)

Unfortunately none of us got much of a chance to actually put the rabbi's lesson into practice, because since we ourselves weren't considered white (plus there was the "Christ-killer" problem) it wasn't like we had any clout with those folks on Biblical matters, anyhow. But it was a good awareness-raising measure, I guess--certainly some food for thought about the extent of chauvinism found in Tanakh. Many of those passages, while not constituting a sound argument against "miscegenation" (since conversions were always a possibility), evince a level of hysteria and disgust about the idea of intermarriage with pagan peoples--which was pretty much everybody else, obviously--that clearly goes beyond mere commitment to upholding Jewish law.

 

[BVS]

^ It never ceases to amaze me.