Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you, Warden! Your comment summed everything up very nicely.
As Warden pointed out - as I have also -, the issue of slavery in the Hebrew Bible is much more complex than you are trying to paint it. I did not say that the Bible was ONLY anti-slavery. I very specifically pointed out that due to the composite authorship of the Hebrew Bible, and changing societal norms, that the issue of slavery was allowed, softened, and argued against by the various different tradents. There is no thing as an all-encompassing "rule" of slavery in the HB.
If you missed this, then you haven't read my posts. Warden has given you some citations, by the way, since you're not willing to do a little research on the subject yourself, but are content with seeing things as either black-or-white in the Hebrew Bible. When I called you "ignorant" on the matter, it wasn't meant as an insult. When I use that term, it simply means what the definition implies: that you are unaware of something. No insult meant. You need to get away from the uninformed mentality of a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins, and dig a little deeper. They are great writers, but woefully uninformed about the Hebrew Bible.
As for the many horrible things in the Hebrew Bible - I have already commented on that as well. It's an ancient text with ancient ethics. What do you expect? As for Zelphehad and the Israelites (they were not Jews yet, they were Israelites) - sure that was horrible. I don't deny that. I personally don't think those things ever happened, so it's difficult to say they "deserved" it. You may be confusing me with some sort of Fundamentalist Bible-thumper, which I am most definitely not. The issue is - once again - the ANE context of these law-codes. Do you think that the other law-codes of the ANE were any less severe? Not in the slightest! Does this justify them? No, of course not - but I'm not someone who is using the Bible as my moral guide.
Your issues have been addressed, but you haven't really taken the time to address our counter-arguments. If you wish to see the Hebrew Bible as teaching some standard theology throughout all the books, then this is an error in thinking. It simply isn't so. Until you realize that, you can pick out all the horrible things you want and it will only show that the ancient Israelites were - at times - capable of the same violent tendencies that all humans are capable of. You choose, however, to ignore the many beneficial laws and teachings of the Hebrew Bible.
No matter how you try to ease the appearance of the Bible's sanctioning of slavery, murder, and genocide, the fact still remains that the Bible STILL sanctions slavery, the beating of slaves, the selling of children into slavery, murder, and genocide. The Bible is what was used to condemn Jesus to die. The Bible helped make that happen. Jesus himself chided the Pharisees for other innocent lives they murdered. ALL sanctioned and directed by the influence of Moses, his false God of terrorism, and his false doctrine of terrorism.
Every single Christian, from laid-back Unitarian to foaming-at-the-mouth Fundamentalist, cherry picks the bible to focus on what they want to see - not necessarily what's there.
The world would be a much better place had that book never been assembled.
I dunno - I like having a day off from my work week ha ha! At least give it that...
Gotta love days off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
An interesting tidbit I came across recently in my travels was the fact that many social programs that exist in Judeo-Christian influenced countries which we take for granted do not exist in countries without that influence, for various reasons related to that influence. There's something to be said for that.
You might be surprised to learn, then, that the nations with the best social programs are also the most secular with low levels of religiosity. America, with its unusually high levels of religiosity has perhaps the worst social programs of any nation that has them. And in many cases, we have those programs despite Christians, not because of them. If you take a trip to the political forums, I'm willing to bet you'd find that those who consider themselves Christian are over there right now arguing against programs for the poor and disabled, saying things like, "If you don't work, you don't eat" and other standard arguments.
We are the ONLY industrialized nation without nationalized health care - no, Americans still have to figure out how they're going to pay for their treatments whether through exhorbitantly expensive insurance premiums or paying out of pocket for exhorbitantly expensive tests and procedures. That's why the World Health Organization ranks America's health care system at 37th - which places us dead last among 1st World nations, and even some 2nd World nations beat us out.
Not to mention that many of our social programs are extraordinarily hard to get. Disability is a classic case, a convoluted process that requires years and a good attorney to ever obtain. Of course, no one seems to care how you're supposed to support yourself if you can't work while you're fighting to get on disability. Yeah - fighting. That should tell you something right there. Our social programs are always a fight to obtain, a small declaration of war on the government that you must win if you plan to avail yourself of those programs.
And then once you win the fight, you realize that, not only are these programs designed poorly so that you cannot built yourself up while on them, they also provide only enough to keep you off the street, but you are still forced into destitution - unless you made a crapton of money before you became disabled, for instance, what you get per month wouldn't even equal a minimum wage job. There is no way you could live on your own on $800 per month. Other nations give you free houses and free cars if you end up disabled, but our system simply hands you permanent poverty through no fault of your own.
One must consider the history of poverty in relation to Christianity. In most European nations as well as in America there were poorhouses before there were social programs. If you were unemployed, if you were elderly and didn't have children to take care of you, or if you were disabled, you ended up in the poorhouse if you were not independently wealthy. Poorhouses were thoroughly miserable places to live and whether you were simply lazy or horribly disabled, it didn't matter. You were treated very poorly with harsh rules, forced labor, appalling living conditions, prison rations, and scorn from the staff. This was done on purpose because poorhouses were designed to be so miserable that people wouldn't want to stay there - getting a job would be preferable.
But what of the people who were too old, too sick, too disabled to work? Oh, well, the Christians had their own rationale for their poor treatment. You see, Christians then decided that if you were disabled or sick or dirt poor in your twilight years, that was YOUR fault. Somehow, in some way, you angered God and your disability or your loneliness is your punishment. You wouldn't be in the poorhouse if your morality was up to snuff, so if you were in one for a reason other than shirking work, it was because you are an immoral person. You did something - didn't matter what, didn't matter if there was proof - to get God riled enough to put you there.
If you think it's different today, it's not. Our social programs are still met with a lot of resistance and right-wing Christians are always looking for ways to cut funding. Just look at the irrational opposition to the Affordable Care Act. I mean, it's one thing to not want it, quite another to be so stupidly irrational that you're willing to destroy the country to prevent its implementation. But that's literally what we have.
Plus, our social programs are designed to mimic the poorhouses of old. Granted today you are afforded more freedom in the sense that you don't have to live in a big room with 100 other people, but the quality and the amount of help is not even at the subsistance level - just as it was in a poorhouse.
It is quite different in secular nations. If you want to know the real link between history and social programs, it has to do with attitudes coming out of WWII. I won't go into a long diatribe (because I already have), so I'll outline the basic theory:
European and Asian nations bore the brunt of the destruction. Cities were annihilated, civilians butchered, invading armies raped and pillaged their way through their conquests. There were genocides and holocausts, people by their tens of thousands starved to death every day. People burned their furniture to keep warm. The deprivation was astounding. What's more, they began to question the existence of God because - if there was a God, why didn't he do something about that horrible war?
America, of course, suffered NONE of that. The worst Americans had to deal with was rationing and long hours at work (which was actually good for the wallet since it got us out of the Great Depression). When the war was finally over, the other nations decided not to go back to the way things were and, understanding true deprivation, created very robust social programs. President Roosevelt was actually going to push a 2nd Bill of Rights that would have made things like health care and having a home actual rights, but alas he died and the idea died with him.
Given that the war lowered religiosity in those other nations quite dramatically and they have the best social programs while here the war did nothing to lower religiosity and our social programs are skeletal at best, well, if there isn't causation, there is definitely correlation between Christianity and social programs. But in the opposite way that you see it. Christians in this country believe that all assistance to the poor and disabled should come from charity instead of the government - but that's a foolish idea for reasons I won't get into here. Secular nations who aren't constantly paranoid of their own governments and who do not see the Bible as the highest law of the land have done MUCH better by way of their less fortunate than America ever has - and probably ever will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
It's just typical that slavery is ALWAYS brought up in these discussions. Yeh, we get it - it's easy to attack an ancient text for ancient practices. Too easy.
The reason why it is easy, Whoppers, is because slavery isn't an "ancient practice" as you've termed it. Historically speaking, America had slavery just yesterday - and guess what was used to justify it? Yep, the Bible. No matter what the Bible actually says or means, the reality is that having those verses in a holy book is dangerous because not very many interpret the scriptures the way you do, and many folks do practice Sola Scriptura.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
But we will never know what would have happened if the book had never been assembled. It was. It had a profound impact on Western Civilization, and that's that. We can only decide whether it needs to continue to have the same influence it has, and if it does whether it should receive the update it has sorely needed for a long time.
The major problems with Christianity comes from joining the New Testament with the Old and passing along the idea that Jesus and God were one and the same. Doing these two things essentially wrote Christianity a blank check to pick and choose whatever ancient Hebrew law it wanted to and bring it forward to the present day (i.e. homosexual issues and contraception).
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
>>>Rider's Pantheon
First, the law must stand. (established)
Second, the law must be fulfilled as stood.(placed into effect)
Third, Nothing happens until it is fulfilled to absolute completeness. (Fulfillment pending)
Fourth, explanation of the degree of difficulty of anyone capable of fulfilling the law as stood. (In other words, condemnation upon all who break even the least of the Commandments is judged as guilty) (Judgment)
Fifth, Condemnation=the penalty =death
Sixth, (execution) sentence of death carried out.
Seventh, rest for the soul and the beginning of the new life. (Spiritual)
That is what I see in that verse based upon the rest of the bible and the established works of God.
Explanation: Man could not be created "as god" without being separate from God. (Note the lower case and upper case letter G?)
Separation from God is death! That was the natural sequence of consequence in God's creation of our individual self with free will.
It was unavoidable and God knew it from the get go.
Rather then condemn the whole of His creation,(Mankind) to a lost state, He chose to redeem it by sacrificing only one individual by which salvation would come to the world as a whole. That individual was/is Jesus.
Only the God (upper case G) of the whole creation could redeem His own creation.
In the form of a man, as a son of man/Son of God, could the law find fulfillment as established by God Himself.
Not only did Jesus fulfill the law completed and accurately, He also paid the price of our condemnation and restored us to a state of complete forgiveness and........ to life everlasting.
He, then shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven, as the verse rightly states.
That, in short, in a nut shell, is all the works of God for the love of all mNKIND.
Blessed are we, weather we know it or not, acknowledge it or not.
You might be surprised to learn, then, that the nations with the best social programs are also the most secular with low levels of religiosity. America, with its unusually high levels of religiosity has perhaps the worst social programs of any nation that has them. And in many cases, we have those programs despite Christians, not because of them. If you take a trip to the political forums, I'm willing to bet you'd find that those who consider themselves Christian are over there right now arguing against programs for the poor and disabled, saying things like, "If you don't work, you don't eat" and other standard arguments.
We are the ONLY industrialized nation without nationalized health care - no, Americans still have to figure out how they're going to pay for their treatments whether through exhorbitantly expensive insurance premiums or paying out of pocket for exhorbitantly expensive tests and procedures. That's why the World Health Organization ranks America's health care system at 37th - which places us dead last among 1st World nations, and even some 2nd World nations beat us out.
Not to mention that many of our social programs are extraordinarily hard to get. Disability is a classic case, a convoluted process that requires years and a good attorney to ever obtain. Of course, no one seems to care how you're supposed to support yourself if you can't work while you're fighting to get on disability. Yeah - fighting. That should tell you something right there. Our social programs are always a fight to obtain, a small declaration of war on the government that you must win if you plan to avail yourself of those programs.
And then once you win the fight, you realize that, not only are these programs designed poorly so that you cannot built yourself up while on them, they also provide only enough to keep you off the street, but you are still forced into destitution - unless you made a crapton of money before you became disabled, for instance, what you get per month wouldn't even equal a minimum wage job. There is no way you could live on your own on $800 per month. Other nations give you free houses and free cars if you end up disabled, but our system simply hands you permanent poverty through no fault of your own.
One must consider the history of poverty in relation to Christianity. In most European nations as well as in America there were poorhouses before there were social programs. If you were unemployed, if you were elderly and didn't have children to take care of you, or if you were disabled, you ended up in the poorhouse if you were not independently wealthy. Poorhouses were thoroughly miserable places to live and whether you were simply lazy or horribly disabled, it didn't matter. You were treated very poorly with harsh rules, forced labor, appalling living conditions, prison rations, and scorn from the staff. This was done on purpose because poorhouses were designed to be so miserable that people wouldn't want to stay there - getting a job would be preferable.
But what of the people who were too old, too sick, too disabled to work? Oh, well, the Christians had their own rationale for their poor treatment. You see, Christians then decided that if you were disabled or sick or dirt poor in your twilight years, that was YOUR fault. Somehow, in some way, you angered God and your disability or your loneliness is your punishment. You wouldn't be in the poorhouse if your morality was up to snuff, so if you were in one for a reason other than shirking work, it was because you are an immoral person. You did something - didn't matter what, didn't matter if there was proof - to get God riled enough to put you there.
If you think it's different today, it's not. Our social programs are still met with a lot of resistance and right-wing Christians are always looking for ways to cut funding. Just look at the irrational opposition to the Affordable Care Act. I mean, it's one thing to not want it, quite another to be so stupidly irrational that you're willing to destroy the country to prevent its implementation. But that's literally what we have.
Plus, our social programs are designed to mimic the poorhouses of old. Granted today you are afforded more freedom in the sense that you don't have to live in a big room with 100 other people, but the quality and the amount of help is not even at the subsistance level - just as it was in a poorhouse.
It is quite different in secular nations. If you want to know the real link between history and social programs, it has to do with attitudes coming out of WWII. I won't go into a long diatribe (because I already have), so I'll outline the basic theory:
European and Asian nations bore the brunt of the destruction. Cities were annihilated, civilians butchered, invading armies raped and pillaged their way through their conquests. There were genocides and holocausts, people by their tens of thousands starved to death every day. People burned their furniture to keep warm. The deprivation was astounding. What's more, they began to question the existence of God because - if there was a God, why didn't he do something about that horrible war?
America, of course, suffered NONE of that. The worst Americans had to deal with was rationing and long hours at work (which was actually good for the wallet since it got us out of the Great Depression). When the war was finally over, the other nations decided not to go back to the way things were and, understanding true deprivation, created very robust social programs. President Roosevelt was actually going to push a 2nd Bill of Rights that would have made things like health care and having a home actual rights, but alas he died and the idea died with him.
Given that the war lowered religiosity in those other nations quite dramatically and they have the best social programs while here the war did nothing to lower religiosity and our social programs are skeletal at best, well, if there isn't causation, there is definitely correlation between Christianity and social programs. But in the opposite way that you see it. Christians in this country believe that all assistance to the poor and disabled should come from charity instead of the government - but that's a foolish idea for reasons I won't get into here. Secular nations who aren't constantly paranoid of their own governments and who do not see the Bible as the highest law of the land have done MUCH better by way of their less fortunate than America ever has - and probably ever will.
<snip>
Shirina, I'm a Christian as you know. And I cannot argue against your overall views above because Christians as a group have acted nationally in such an unchristian fashion it is as if Satan himself were leading us.
We have absolutely abandoned any moral high ground we should be holding by the way we have acted over and over with the poorest and most needy in our nation, by considering virtually every person who is down and out is a crook. On the Christian thread there was even a sub-thread about "how do you treat pan-handlers." Many of the responses, not all, were shameful at best.
I was so disgusted with the direction my own church, Southern Baptists, began to move, that I left it. And I am a licensed minister, have spoken in dozens of churches, and once served in the administration of an SBC college. But when they began supporting politics that sanctioned treating people as less than human--and I mean that literally--you will find many "christians" more willing to see money given for animal shelters than to take care of our homeless--and when they began spending more time pointing fingers at those without a "normal" sexual orientation while having their pews filled with divorced and remarried individuals whom they are more than willing to "forgive," I had had enough. And I left.
There are parts of religious services I still miss. However, the overriding message from too many pulpits is now accusatory of other people as opposed to exhorting their membership to act fairly and compassionately toward everyone. And it's the reason we can no longer be a beacon of hope for the masses of people who most need Jesus' message. It's the reason we cannot speak with the power of a message that would call to those of you who reject Christianity out of hand. It's the reason that when God does return, His judgment will start in the Houses of God--those very churches.
We should be championing health coverage for all--paid for by taxes. We should spend our health dollars with more concern for health than health "care," which is something all of those European nations do--their costs actually are not lower than ours when you include unemployment coverage, mental health care, housing for homeless, significant paid time off for big life events like having a baby or loss of a loved one. In this nation, our worship of the dollar is greater than our concern with human beings. And that is the message of the anti-Christ.
It is shameful that one of the greatest advocates for taking care of homeless people was George Carlin, a profane and vulgar comedian who knew more about the hearts of christians than most christians do.
Our christians, who fly the national flag proudly in virtually every church in the country, somehow have reached the conclusion that God is in this nation rather than this nation is one small part of God's world. There is no humility. There is no recognition that we are no better than anyone else that God created, and that He brought us into His fold to care about all the others who either can't care or won't care for themselves. That is the true message of Jesus. That is the message we have forgotten.
And even as I type these words, I have tears filling my eyes, because I am ashamed of what we have become.
There are a few Christians that have a different view, and I encourage you to read a slightly older book which will at least give you a glimpse of what Christians as a whole SHOULD be, rather than what we are. It's entitled God's Politics by Jim Wallis. From the Amazon blog about his book---
Quote:
Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and solely pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?
Mr. Wallis is the kind of Christian I wish to emulate. I just wish many more Christians desired the same.
My apology to you for the terrible witness we American Christians as a group have provided to the world.
No matter how you try to ease the appearance of the Bible's sanctioning of slavery, murder, and genocide, the fact still remains that the Bible STILL sanctions slavery, the beating of slaves, the selling of children into slavery, murder, and genocide. The Bible is what was used to condemn Jesus to die. The Bible helped make that happen. Jesus himself chided the Pharisees for other innocent lives they murdered. ALL sanctioned and directed by the influence of Moses, his false God of terrorism, and his false doctrine of terrorism.
I'm sorry, you're still stuck in a rut of arguing from outdated information concerning Moses as an actual figure, and I still fail to see the point of all this? Who are you trying to convince? And what are you trying to accomplish? Everything you've pointed out is common knowledge. You just seem hell-bent with your axe to grind ha ha! And no matter how often I ask you to reread my posts with a little more care, you still come away with them with an incorrect view of what I am trying to say.
In other words, you're not really participating in a conversation, unless your idea of one is to stick to one's guns - no matter if it's been pointed out by several people who are much better versed in the ANE than you are that it pays to take a closer look at the entire situation, rather than simplifying it as "Hey, the Bible's bad, guys. It supports horrible things, ya' know?" It's all been done before, and honestly - with a bit more learnedness and a better grasp of the facts.
You might be surprised to learn, then, that the nations with the best social programs are also the most secular with low levels of religiosity.
I think I disagree with you on this, and would like to see a source for that information.
It appears to me that one can always focus on the negative that Judeo-Christianity has produced, and ignore the positive influences it has had on Civilization - but that gets us nowhere, really, except furthering one's personal anti-religious agenda. If you're interested in digging a little deeper into what I mentioned in the passage you quoted, I can give you a citation to the study on the issue. Apart from that, there are plenty of competent resources easily available on the impact (both good and bad) that the Judeo-Christian Tradition has had on Western Civilization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
The reason why it is easy, Whoppers, is because slavery isn't an "ancient practice" as you've termed it. Historically speaking, America had slavery just yesterday - and guess what was used to justify it? Yep, the Bible. No matter what the Bible actually says or means, the reality is that having those verses in a holy book is dangerous because not very many interpret the scriptures the way you do, and many folks do practice Sola Scriptura.
I said it was "easy" to apply modern ethical standards to an ancient text and condemn it - I wasn't talking about the much, MUCH later instance of American Slavery. (for instance, I've read a supposed objective book on the history of ancient Athens, and the author starts from the position that Democracy is the best form of Government so Athens was awesome, but condemns them for their treatment of of women and their stance on slavery. This isn't scientific history, this is personal bias intruding to an extreme degree and the author's bad habit of applying modern ethical standards to an ancient people, which is anachronism at it's finest!). I've already pointed out early in the thread that the Civil War was basically a war fought over two separate groups' interpretation of the Bible (and because of the multivocal nature of the Biblical text, they both had proper interpretations - though I do disagree with the South's), so I'm well aware of the lasting influence that the Bible has had on American Slavery, but also aware of the Bible's influence on the abolition of slavery and the Freedom Movement in general. As I pointed out above, critics of religion are fond of focusing on the negative, since this suits their agenda rather well. And with that said, slavery didn't exactly get a boost from the Bible. It has been far more prevalent in countries that lacked the Bible's influence than within one, which is exactly why I urged some posters to do a little more research on slavery in general, and especially in the ANE - the context in which the Bible' law-codes arose.
The danger is not in having the verses in the Bible - we cannot censor or edit the past. What we can do is educate people to have a better Biblical literacy so they can realize that the Bible is not the Word of God and should not emulated. But with that said, the last time I checked - American Slavery is a thing of the past, so... we're just drudging up the past to critique the current status of the Bible? Is that what's happening here, because that's a bit silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
The major problems with Christianity comes from joining the New Testament with the Old and passing along the idea that Jesus and God were one and the same. Doing these two things essentially wrote Christianity a blank check to pick and choose whatever ancient Hebrew law it wanted to and bring it forward to the present day (i.e. homosexual issues and contraception).
First, the law must stand. (established)
Second, the law must be fulfilled as stood.(placed into effect)
Third, Nothing happens until it is fulfilled to absolute completeness. (Fulfillment pending)
Fourth, explanation of the degree of difficulty of anyone capable of fulfilling the law as stood. (In other words, condemnation upon all who break even the least of the Commandments is judged as guilty) (Judgment)
Fifth, Condemnation=the penalty =death
Sixth, (execution) sentence of death carried out.
Seventh, rest for the soul and the beginning of the new life. (Spiritual)
That is what I see in that verse based upon the rest of the bible and the established works of God.
Explanation: Man could not be created "as god" without being separate from God. (Note the lower case and upper case letter G?)
Separation from God is death! That was the natural sequence of consequence in God's creation of our individual self with free will.
It was unavoidable and God knew it from the get go.
Rather then condemn the whole of His creation,(Mankind) to a lost state, He chose to redeem it by sacrificing only one individual by which salvation would come to the world as a whole. That individual was/is Jesus.
Only the God (upper case G) of the whole creation could redeem His own creation.
In the form of a man, as a son of man/Son of God, could the law find fulfillment as established by God Himself.
Not only did Jesus fulfill the law completed and accurately, He also paid the price of our condemnation and restored us to a state of complete forgiveness and........ to life everlasting.
He, then shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven, as the verse rightly states.
That, in short, in a nut shell, is all the works of God for the love of all mNKIND.
Blessed are we, weather we know it or not, acknowledge it or not.
Blessings, AJ
Any law making it a capitol crime to work on some Sabbath dreamed up by a murderer is insane. Much less anyone deem it holy and the works of God. Jesus was a victim of those laws. There is nothing holy about torchuring and murdering thousands of people because they decided to worship God in their own peaceful, creative way(golden calf worshippers). The Bible is a violation of basic human rights. It is a crime against humanity to enact such laws. For anyone to be thankful of these laws and for the brutal murder of ANYONE who is victimized by them is borderline psychopathic. This "sacrifice" you speak of doesn't make sense to me. If you wanted to express eternal guidance and compassion, all you have to do is explain it. You don't need to spill innocent blood. The NT is an example of a truly senseless murder of an innocent man. There is no need for it. You could say the words "I love you after you die, and clear into your rebirth". Mission accomplished. No senseless murders needed. No crimes against humanity performed by a vengeful, jealous immoral "God" of terrorism needed.
A real ex Catholic would have said, "Et *** spiritu tu."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
