"my Savior Is Tougher Than Nails"

[cksalmon]

As I've said before, until the LDS church can learn to see something like skateboarding (or breaking bricks!) as a possible act of worship, there will always be people that the LDS church will never reach, always under their radar.

I appreciate your point here, rhino. I think if Christians were consistent (I'm certainly not), everything would be an act of worship.

I'm reminded of a little John Piper devotional entitled, "How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God."

Best.

CKS

[PacMan]

Rhino,

I think weâ??re much closer to agreeing than otherwise.

But it also doesn't mean that people who shout (or dance or play electric guitar) do not make this distinction! I agree, some people could get mixed up, but that doesn't mean that all who do it are guilty of blasphemy. You do not know their heart or conviction, so you cannot judge. It is worship if it is directed to God with a eye for His glory. How that is done, as long as it does not conflict with established principles of right and wrong, does not matter.

I agree fully. Iâ??m not passing out guilt-bars here like candy. They could do it very innocentlyâ?¦but I still believe it is blasphemy. Understand, at NO moment have I passed judgment. Iâ??m refrained purposefully. But I reject the notion of what worship isâ?¦you never answered my question concerning someone in the Netherlands wearing a â??Bong for Jesusâ? shirtâ?¦the very case in recent news.

But again, why is it excessive? Why is it blasphemous? Are Catholics likewise blasphemous in praying the rosary, or Eastern Orthodox in praying the Jesus Prayer? And when does one cross the line from "using" to "over-using"? I think using the Jews as a standard would convict us all of constant blasphemy. Again, I simply don't see any objective standard at work here, just your own opinion. And I think that blasphemy is a pretty serious charge to be tossing about on your say-so alone.

Why is it excessive? Because these songs use vain repetition over, and over, and overâ?¦without purpose! Say His name once then say, â??We love youâ?¦â? over and over and over. And yesâ?¦I believe Catholic recitations are blasphemousâ?¦but thatâ??s me. â??Over-usingâ? is when itâ??s thoughtless, and the main word in a song. While the definitions are certain, of course qualifying them are difficult. Is there thus no blasphemy as long as you put the word â??Christianâ?¦â? before it?

For me, your attitude embodies the very attitude that Paul was so concerned to combat in Colossians and Corinthians. People have differing convictions about holy days, eating meat, etc. These distinctions do not matter, and we should bear with those who have different convictions from us on matters not relating to right/wrong. Do you think your attitude would fall under Paul's recrimination?

Then you donâ??t understand my position. I havenâ??t judged people for it. I think its silly, and lacking creativityâ?¦but I believe it staunchly fits the definition of blasphemy. I donâ??t see how Paul would disagree, particularly since using the name of the Lord in vain (without cause, meaning, or in excess) is one of the 10 Commandments. Letâ??s not split-hairs too finely, my friend.

PacMan

[Ron Beron]

I'd be laughing my head off and taking pictures. Or better yet, I would record it on film.

And then I'd say: Yes, Jesus loves you, but please go sing in the garage. Your Mom and I were listening to Mo Tab before we came in here and we would now like to continue listening to them.

I did...hehehehe He's 25 years old now and has sold out to the world of business.

[rhinomelon]

I think weâ??re much closer to agreeing than otherwise.

I don't see how. What you consider blasphemy, I consider a possible expression of worship. Kind of a large difference there.

But I reject the notion of what worship isâ?¦you never answered my question concerning someone in the Netherlands wearing a â??Bong for Jesusâ? shirtâ?¦the very case in recent news.

I seriously doubt that the purpose of the shirt is to call attention to God and His glory. That crosses the line into mockery. Not to mention that I already stated that anything that violates the standards God has already given cannot be seen as an act of worship. This would rule out being a porn star or pimp for Jesus, for example.

Why is it excessive? Because these songs use vain repetition over, and over, and overâ?¦without purpose! Say His name once then say, â??We love youâ?¦â? over and over and over. And yesâ?¦I believe Catholic recitations are blasphemousâ?¦but thatâ??s me. â??Over-usingâ? is when itâ??s thoughtless, and the main word in a song.

What makes repetition vain? How do you know that saying the name of the Lord in worship is "without purpose"? How do you know it is thoughtless? It is not the actual repetition that is the problem, but the person's heart. Again, you are merely judging by appearances, using your own culture as a template. It's not going to go very far.

Then you donâ??t understand my position. I havenâ??t judged people for it.

Yet you accuse them of committing blasphemy (however good-intentioned). How does that work?

I donâ??t see how Paul would disagree, particularly since using the name of the Lord in vain (without cause, meaning, or in excess) is one of the 10 Commandments.

So saying God's name over and over again with cause and with meaning would not be blasphemous?

I'm not splitting hairs at all. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that the way you are throwing around the term blasphemy almost necessitates splitting hairs, otherwise we are all guilty in some way or another. Whether we say the same prayer over our meals every time, or say the same prayer each Sunday (as both LDS and those mainstream Christians in liturgical traditions do). Heck, even practicing lines for the latest LDS film about Jesus will be filled with blasphemy!

I see very little to back up your assertions except your own opinion. What may be vain repetition (and therefore blasphemous) for you may be a time of deep spiritual worship for someone else, calling out to God with both the mouth and the soul. There is no objective standard you seem able to apply, so it really just depends on your personal preferences and convictions, in terms of what is repetitious and meaningless and pointless. This is the very thing Paul warned the earliest Christians against, trying to hold up all other people to your own personal convictions, when those convictions are not part of the gospel of Christ.

appreciate your point here, rhino. I think if Christians were consistent (I'm certainly not), everything would be an act of worship.

I'm reminded of a little John Piper devotional entitled, "How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God."

I Corinthians 10:31--"Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Unless, of course, you eat or drink repeatedly. Then it's blasphemy

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

[RE: Bong For Jesus-

I seriously doubt that the purpose of the shirt is to call attention to God and His glory. That crosses the line into mockery. Not to mention that I already stated that anything that violates the standards God has already given cannot be seen as an act of worship. This would rule out being a porn star or pimp for Jesus, for example.

I disagree; I have personally met with Christians who strongly held that marijuana was of God, and to be used in worship of Jesus Christ. They were quoting scritpures to back up their claims, many from Genesis. They really believed it; it wasn't just a joke to them. I admit there are some who use it as a joke, or wear the shirt as a joke, but there are indeed people who believe it is a part of their worship.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The effect was to somehow almost reduce the murder of Jesus Christ to some sort of commodity pop-culture slogan. While I sensed the sincerity of the wearer, I wondered where this sort of casual treatement stands in regards to reverencing the sacred.

Six

I call it "jesus junk" it is very popular here in the south.

Pa Pa

[rhinomelon]

I call it "jesus junk" it is very popular here in the south.

One of my favorite shirts is one that says across the front "They'll know we are Christians by our T-shirts". The cynical side of me rejoices at such things...

I disagree; I have personally met with Christians who strongly held that marijuana was of God, and to be used in worship of Jesus Christ. They were quoting scritpures to back up their claims, many from Genesis. They really believed it; it wasn't just a joke to them. I admit there are some who use it as a joke, or wear the shirt as a joke, but there are indeed people who believe it is a part of their worship.

Every group has their nutcases. I've met at least one LDS who believed much the same thing (all that stuff about God creating all the herbs of the ground for our use and all that). But the fact that it is harmful and addictive and illegal means that this would not be an acceptable form of worship.

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

I seriously doubt that the purpose of the shirt is to call attention to God and His glory. That crosses the line into mockery. Not to mention that I already stated that anything that violates the standards God has already given cannot be seen as an act of worship. This would rule out being a porn star or pimp for Jesus, for example.

Says who? You? Youâ??re getting caught in the same dilemma. How can you blatantly assume that one act is not ok and that another is? The difference between pimping and bonging, is that one violates the standards God set in the Bible. If such drugs are not illicit, whatâ??s the big deal? Last time I checked, thereâ??s not a lot of talking concerning bongs. So for you to say itâ??s wrong is completely hypocritical.

What makes repetition vain? How do you know that saying the name of the Lord in worship is "without purpose"? How do you know it is thoughtless? It is not the actual repetition that is the problem, but the person's heart. Again, you are merely judging by appearances, using your own culture as a template. It's not going to go very far.

2 Things:

1) Over and over, and over again is vain. Excessive is vain.

2) The personâ??s heart isnâ??t a determinate of what is blasphemy and what is not. Tell that to the guy that tried to steady the ark of the covenant.

Yet you accuse them of committing blasphemy (however good-intentioned). How does that work?

Easyâ?¦theyâ??re doing something ignorantly. I donâ??t see how thatâ??s condemning.

So saying God's name over and over again with cause and with meaning would not be blasphemous?

Again, I told you I was uninterested in being baited into quantifying it. If the cause is because they lack complete creativity, and find it an easy way to get bang on the buck, I donâ??t find that convincing. I donâ??t believe there is any reason to need to use the name of God again, and again, and again. When it becomes the most populous word in the song, I think thatâ??s a good indication thereâ??s vain repetition going on.

I'm not splitting hairs at all. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that the way you are throwing around the term blasphemy almost necessitates splitting hairs, otherwise we are all guilty in some way or another.

We probably are. Howâ??s tu quoque help you?

Whether we say the same prayer over our meals every time, or say the same prayer each Sunday (as both LDS and those mainstream Christians in liturgical traditions do). Heck, even practicing lines for the latest LDS film about Jesus will be filled with blasphemy!

I am really surprised at how nonsensical you have become! Youâ??re being ridiculous, and bordering stupid (and I say that because I know youâ??re not). Listen my friend, I have never made considerations to recitations, or â??quoting linesâ? from a film. I have said nothing concerning talking â??ofâ? God, but have specifically said that blasphemy is the vain repetition OF HIS NAME. Stop the red herrings.

I see very little to back up your assertions except your own opinion.

OK, fine. Then YOU define blasphemy. I was using the definition thatâ??s consistently been applied since OT times.

This is the very thing Paul warned the earliest Christians against, trying to hold up all other people to your own personal convictions, when those convictions are not part of the gospel of Christ.

Then what place does the following have?

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Is it a hollow commandment? No one EVER thinks theyâ??re at fault once we â??know their heart.â?? According to your logic, this is a senseless and albeit useless commandment!

I Corinthians 10:31--"Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Unless, of course, you eat or drink repeatedly. Then it's blasphemy.

I always thought more of you to twist an argument so disingenuously.

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

I always thought more of you to twist an argument so disingenuously.

Hence the winking smiley. I guess I was assuming that humor was still acceptable in this thread.

If such drugs are not illicit, whatâ??s the big deal? Last time I checked, thereâ??s not a lot of talking concerning bongs. So for you to say itâ??s wrong is completely hypocritical.

Last time I checked, marijuana was illegal. So it's not hypocrisy to hold Christians to the biblical admonition to obey those in authority. I would also put forward the biblical references regarding keeping a clear mind and avoiding drunkeness and the like, as other reasons to state that comparing doing drugs to singing a (repetitious) song is comparing apples and oranges.

How can you blatantly assume that one act is not ok and that another is?

These aren't my assumptions, but are clear biblical standards. For me, this is about as objective as it can get with such an ephemeral topic.

1) Over and over, and over again is vain. Excessive is vain.

Why? I'm not seeing the connection. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder. You yourself have pointed out the futility of trying to attach an objective standard to it.

2) The personâ??s heart isnâ??t a determinate of what is blasphemy and what is not. Tell that to the guy that tried to steady the ark of the covenant.

That is a good point, although I haven't seen any biblical references regarding singing songs in a certain way as warranting the death penalty (or even being worthy of blasphemy when being done in worship).

Easyâ?¦theyâ??re doing something ignorantly. I donâ??t see how thatâ??s condemning.

So now you condemn them as ignorant as well as (unintentionally) blasphemous?

I donâ??t believe there is any reason to need to use the name of God again, and again, and again. When it becomes the most populous word in the song, I think thatâ??s a good indication thereâ??s vain repetition going on.

You don't believe that, I agree. But I've seen little or no reason why other people should believe as you do. This is all just your personal opinion.

Listen my friend, I have never made considerations to recitations, or â??quoting linesâ? from a film. I have said nothing concerning talking â??ofâ? God, but have specifically said that blasphemy is the vain repetition OF HIS NAME. Stop the red herrings.

It is certainly not a red herring. The Lord's name is used quite frequently in sacrament meetings, liturgical services, and in the filming of religious productions. If an LDS film has a scene in it in which someone is praying to God (God's Army comes to mind), does the fact that they undoubtedly had to do multiple takes of the scene make the actor guilty of blasphemy? The Lord's name is definitely being used, repeatedly. This seems to be all it takes to meet your definition of blasphemy.

OK, fine. Then YOU define blasphemy. I was using the definition thatâ??s consistently been applied since OT times.

Blasphemy was being used pretty accurately earlier in the thread, in my opinion. It is mocking something sacred, making light of something that should not be. It seemed like everyone had a good working definition, until you came along and redefined it and widened it considerably (to a ridiculous extreme, in my opinion). And a dictionary definition: "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.

The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct. "

Also, from a Bible dictionary, just for kicks: "In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.). Our Lord was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; comp. Matt. 9:3; Mark 2:7). They who deny his Messiahship blaspheme Jesus (Luke 22:65; John 10:36). Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10) is regarded by some as a continued and obstinate rejection of the gospel, and hence is an unpardonable sin, simply because as long as a sinner remains in unbelief he voluntarily excludes himself from pardon. Others regard the expression as designating the sin of attributing to the power of Satan those miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Spirit's agency."

I would hardly call singing a song in worship (albeit a rather repetitious one) "speaking evil of God" or "denying the Messiahship of Christ". These kinds of things are what I think of when blasphemy is mentioned, which might help you understand why I take your charge so seriously.

Is it a hollow commandment? No one EVER thinks theyâ??re at fault once we â??know their heart.â?? According to your logic, this is a senseless and albeit useless commandment!

No it is not a hollow commandment by any means. But again, why would singing God's name(s) in worship be considered taking His name in vain? Also, with regard to the Paul passage, convictions can be diverse in areas in which there is no clear biblical teachings, or in areas not central to the gospel. The name of God certainly is important and central, so that commandment would certainly hold weight. I just see no reason to believe that certain worship songs violate that commandment, because their whole purpose is to worship God, not mock Him or treat His name irreverently.

I would also point out that the heart indeed matters a great deal (although it is not all that matters, I agree with you). One person saying the name of Christ in worship is a very different thing from a person saying the name of Christ after smacking his thumb with a hammer. The outward action is the same; the heart behind it is completely different.

I'm not meaning this to get out of hand or overly emotional, but it is a pretty serious issue, as you'd agree.

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

I'm not meaning this to get out of hand or overly emotional, but it is a pretty serious issue, as you'd agree.

Well...this is where I was getting about us "agreeing." More importantly than the letter of the law (which I think we're arguing) is the spirit of it...which has a lot to do with the heart. I don't think the honest at heart at these Christian Rock concerts are going to hell for their choice in music, assuming they do it in good conscience. That's the most important undertone of it all

But it's still blasphemy...

Hence the winking smiley. I guess I was assuming that humor was still acceptable in this thread.

Very well. Once is humorous. Three times makes we wonder if you're really getting it.

Last time I checked, marijuana was illegal. So it's not hypocrisy to hold Christians to the biblical admonition to obey those in authority. I would also put forward the biblical references regarding keeping a clear mind and avoiding drunkeness and the like, as other reasons to state that comparing doing drugs to singing a (repetitious) song is comparing apples and oranges.

Goodnessâ?¦thatâ??s why I said the Netherlands. And if you have a scriptures that relates directly to drugs (not winebibbers), Iâ??d like to see it.

Why? I'm not seeing the connection. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you agree that an 'excessive' use of our Deity's name is blasphemy? I understand you disagree in its qualification...but let's see what we do agree on.

That is a good point, although I haven't seen any biblical references regarding singing songs in a certain way as warranting the death penalty (or even being worthy of blasphemy when being done in worship).

Your mixing the paradigmâ?¦we donâ??t put people to death anyway for blatant blasphemy. Your absurdum is unwarranted.

So now you condemn them as ignorant as well as (unintentionally) blasphemous?

Ummâ?¦.if someone does something wrong, but doesnâ??t understand it is wrong, thatâ??d make them ignorant yet innocent. Do you prefer, na

[PacMan]

Rhino,

P.S. Concerning the bolded part, if His name is used in a monotonous string....how is that not vain?

Computer, computer, blue computer, computer, bannana, computer, orange, computer, pretty computer, dell computer, awesome computer, computer, computer.

Don't you consider the usage of the word, "computer," vain?

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

But it's still blasphemy...

Why is Christian rock blasphemy? It is not repetitive (for the most part). It is certainly not mocking God, nor is it irreverent.

Goodnessâ?¦thatâ??s why I said the Netherlands. And if you have a scriptures that relates directly to drugs (not winebibbers), Iâ??d like to see it.

The scriptures concerning drunkenness and winebibbing would apply equally well to drugs and marijuana, I believe. I Corinthians 3 speaks of our bodies as temples of God, and tells us not to destroy our bodies. Other passages speak against drunkenness, and illicit drugs impair one's mind and body in much the same fashion, only worse! So while it's not explicitly mentioned, the principles by which we can make our decisions regarding drugs are in scripture.

Do you agree that an 'excessive' use of our Deity's name is blasphemy? I understand you disagree in its qualification...but let's see what we do agree on.

I think that "excessive" is a bad term to use in this context, as it already implies a value judgment. Do I believe that multiple and repetitive use of God's name is blasphemy? In and of itself, no. The purpose behind it is what matters.

Your mixing the paradigmâ?¦we donâ??t put people to death anyway for blatant blasphemy. Your absurdum is unwarranted.

Hence the parenthetical clarification. I wasn't saying you were supporting the death penalty for singing repetitive worship songs.

Ummâ?¦.if someone does something wrong, but doesnâ??t understand it is wrong, thatâ??d make them ignorant yet innocent. Do you prefer, na

[rhinomelon]

I never said that it was denying the Messiahship of Christ, nor is that the exclusive definition. Iâ??m not calling people Satanist, or anything of the like. There are multiple definitions, and in the OTâ?¦simply SAYING the name of the Lord was blasphemy.

You asked me for my definition of blasphemy, so I gave it to you. I never said you were calling people Satanists. Knock off the red herrings. And I seem to remember many people calling out to God in the OT, and not getting struck down for blasphemy.

I DO, as the dictionary define, believe that rock music BY NATURE is irreverentâ??do you disagree? Using an irreverant medium would make it blasphemous!

What dictionary are you using? Rock music is simply a style of music (although some of it's lyrics and musicians have certainly been irreverent and worse). There is nothing intrinsically irreverent about a certain style of music at all! It's just rhythms and notes! It is not an irreverent medium in and of itself. The lyrics make all the difference here.

Weâ??ve been over the reverence thingâ?¦but I didnâ??t say that it is meant to mock Him. But they certainly use it in vain. What of substance (or less) is added the 6th, or 8th, or 30th time His name is mentioned? Probablyâ?¦.nothing. THAT MAKES IT VAIN REPETITON.

Just out of curiosity, what is your working definition of "vain"? Also, you appear to allow the possibility that repetition can have substance (as in it "probably" doesn't). Your blanket condemnation of all repetition might indeed have some holes in it?

The outward action is the same; the heart behind it is completely different.

Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is quite relevant. It is the person's inward motivation and heart that make all the difference between reverence and worship (as in the case of someone singing at church), and wrongfully and disrespectfully using God's name (as in a person hitting their thumb with a hammer). Your judgment of blasphemy is based entirely on the outward expression (i.e. "too repetitive"), and completely ignores the crux of the issue.

I would also point out that when the Scriptures speak of taking God's name in vain, the term used is translated in the following ways: "1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood

a) emptiness, nothingness, vanity

emptiness of speech, lying

c) worthlessness (of conduct)"

Which of these can you accurately determine from an outward expression? These are all internal matters of the heart! It is not the words themselves that matter so much, but the intent, purpose and motivation of the person saying them matters a great deal.

Anyway, look forward to hearing your thoughts! Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

Why is Christian rock blasphemy? It is not repetitive (for the most part). It is certainly not mocking God, nor is it irreverent.

I think itâ??s blasphemous because 1) often it repeatedly uses the name of deity, 2) it is used vainly because the usage does not add anything of substance, be it creatively, grammatically, etc., 3) it is irreverent because ROCK, inherently is irreverent. Why?

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 19:11 - 12)

We can speak of this, or the burning of the bosom of the Apostles that for one reason or another, they almost missed completely. The Lord speaks quietly, humbly, and reverentlyâ?¦ We neednâ??t shout at Himâ?¦Iâ??m sure His ears work much better than ours. In a sense, we should take off our shoes when entering His presence. Thatâ??s also why people have â??Sundayâ??s Best,â? be it a beautiful dress or simple jeansâ?¦we give the Lord our best, and we listen quietly to what He has to say. Now, grantedâ?¦our meetings at times can certainly be a little dull because of it. But, there are messages that I would never have received had I been rockâ??n out.

I think that "excessive" is a bad term to use in this context, as it already implies a value judgment.

Why use the name of the Lord so casually, when doing so adds nothing to the song? That, again, is a vain usage.

The purpose behind it is what matters.

You may believe that if you wish. Abortion is abortion whether someone knows itâ??s wrong or not.

I don't know how to quantify "vain", although you seem to have a handle on it. Again, intent definitely matters. That fact does not negate the commandment at all. God definitely has an opinion on the matter, but I don't think you or I know exactly what that is.

Then please, donâ??t be critical of me when I HAVE suggested a definition. Clearly, a vain usage of the Lordâ??s name is wrong. If you donâ??t know how to quantify it, then I daresay you havenâ??t a position in the world to correct me.

Way to avoid the issue. Let's make it an official LDS church production then. The actors must say prayers and use Christ's name in multiple takes, not in praying but in acting. Are they then guilty of blasphemy? Is the LDS church encouraging blasphemy?

Actually, the church has a strict policy on NOT video-taping or recording images, such as ordinances, etc. Moreover, vain (as in pointless) doesnâ??t hold if youâ??re takingâ?¦takes. Recall, I didnâ??t exclude â??creativeâ? nor excellence from being substantive.

Is repetition of God's name for the purpose of focusing on Him in worship and devotion always blasphemous?

Wellâ?¦letâ??s flip the tables. Qualify â??repetition.â? If itâ??s 2 or 3 dozen times when 2 or 3 will doâ?¦thatâ??d likely be blasphemous, but I canâ??t know enough to speak exclusively and say, â??YES!â?

Not in and of itself, no. Some of the best music that draws me close to God in worship, or that challenges me in my faith, comes from Christian rock. Hardly irreverent, quite the opposite!

Weâ??re going to hit a wall here, simply because â??rockâ? has so many sub-genres. Surely soft rock isnâ??t intrinsically irreverent, but hard rock is. In the limited experience I have had with Christian Rock, it seems that it is allover the Rock spectrumâ?¦with the theme creating the genre. Assuming vain repetition isnâ??t at issue, surely a â??soft-rockâ? Christian song would likely not be a big issue. God could still speak in a whisperâ?¦I wouldnâ??t criticize that (although I really dislike it personallyâ??even the LDS stuff).

Cheers,

PacMan

[PacMan]

Rhino,

And I seem to remember many people calling out to God in the OT, and not getting struck down for blasphemy.

Goodness…you’re impossible. Now many people calling on God is counted as repetitive?

Rock…just posted clarification in the previous post.

Just out of curiosity, what is your working definition of "vain"? Also, you appear to allow the possibility that repetition can have substance (as in it "probably" doesn't). Your blanket condemnation of all repetition might indeed have some holes in it?

What? My reasoning have holes? Surely you’re mistaken…

Vain…in excess; without merit or substance; proudly

Sound good? Repetition isn’t necessarily the problem…it’s when the utility (studied of economics) of each use reduces substantially until there’s a utility of 0. If the umpteenth-usage brings no substance, it by definition would be considered “vain.”

On the contrary, it is quite relevant. It is the person's inward motivation and heart that make all the difference between reverence and worship (as in the case of someone singing at church), and wrongfully and disrespectfully using God's name (as in a person hitting their thumb with a hammer). Your judgment of blasphemy is based entirely on the outward expression (i.e. "too repetitive"), and completely ignores the crux of the issue.

Again…ask the guy that steadied the ark. Surely things aren’t as black or white as I make them appear, but I do believe there’s a whole lot more black or white than there is grey.

Now, you haven’t said this overtly, but it’s almost like your insinuating that as long as something isn’t known to be a wrong act, it is therefore not that wrong act. Is that accurate?

1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood

EMPTINESS!! I like it! WORTHLESS!! I like it! If it’s utility (substantive usefulness) is zilch, I’d call in vain.

Which of these can you accurately determine from an outward expression?

Common sense. Just like in court, if a reasonable person would believe that 10 uses of the word were adequate, and that 30 more adds little to no additional value, then we can conclude in such cases, it would be for the sake of vanity. If the artist himself had trouble articulating how the umpteenth usage of God’s name were necessary, we could conclude all the more clearly that it is certainly, a vain usage of the word. If you’re telling a story, or a narrative and the subject continues to reappear…I think it’s appropriate to refer to whom you’re speaking. But in droned chorus lines and shallow appeals flavored with revolving adjectives, I don’t know that I’d by that.

Ciao,

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

I think itâ??s blasphemous because 1) often it repeatedly uses the name of deity, 2) it is used vainly because the usage does not add anything of substance, be it creatively, grammatically, etc., 3) it is irreverent because ROCK, inherently is irreverent. Why?

(1) As to repetition, do you then believe that all repetition of the name of the Deity is inherently wrong, regardless of purpose or motivation?

(2) This is a statement of personal preference, because as you know, substance in music and poetry is always in the eye of the beholder--there is no objective standard. People respond differently to different things, it's a simple fact.

(3) Also a statement of personal preference, not an objective statement. I'm also genuinely curious as to what is is about rock music that makes you believe that the style of music itself is inherently irreverent.

The Lord speaks quietly, humbly, and reverentlyâ?¦ We neednâ??t shout at Himâ?¦Iâ??m sure His ears work much better than ours. In a sense, we should take off our shoes when entering His presence.

I agree that God speaks this way, but I disagree that this is the only way. This is also the God who spoke from Mount Sinai and scared the people half to death! I would also point out that if silence and quiet reverence were the only ways to worship God, He would hardly have included many of the Psalms in the Bible. Worship can indeed be noisy, and I don't see how it could be argued otherwise from Scripture!

Why use the name of the Lord so casually, when doing so adds nothing to the song? That, again, is a vain usage.

To you it may not add anything to the song, but to others it does. What makes your preference trump theirs?

You may believe that if you wish. Abortion is abortion whether someone knows itâ??s wrong or not.

Comparing worship songs to abortion is comparing apples and oranges. Abortion is clearly wrong scripturally, while singing worship songs is not. Repetition is never addressed in Scripture.

Then please, donâ??t be critical of me when I HAVE suggested a definition. Clearly, a vain usage of the Lordâ??s name is wrong. If you donâ??t know how to quantify it, then I daresay you havenâ??t a position in the world to correct me.

I posted a definition earlier. Vain refers to empty of meaning, pointless, etc. It does not refer to repetition per se. If the person repeats the name of Christ and is perfectly aware of its meaning and gravity, that does not meet the definition of "vain", in my opinion. A person could say the name once without any sense of worship or meaning, and they would be taking it in vain. Another person could say it a thousand times with meaning, worship and reverence, and they are not taking the name in vain. Indeed, monks in various traditions do just that, and have tremendous spiritual experiences (I would encourage you to read some material on the Jesus Prayer in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, quite moving and powerful!).

Moreover, vain (as in pointless) doesnâ??t hold if youâ??re takingâ?¦takes. Recall, I didnâ??t exclude â??creativeâ? nor excellence from being substantive.

I'm sensing something of a double standard here. Both Christian rock and the making of religious films involve repeating the name(s) of God at certain points. What makes one blasphemous and the other not (besides whether you like it or not)?

Wellâ?¦letâ??s flip the tables. Qualify â??repetition.â? If itâ??s 2 or 3 dozen times when 2 or 3 will doâ?¦thatâ??d likely be blasphemous, but I canâ??t know enough to speak exclusively and say, â??YES!â?

"Repetition" means repeating something. Whether three times in a single song, or 52 times a year on Sundays. And I'm glad you can admit that you cannot speak conclusively on this issue. But it seems as though you have many times in this thread. You label certain things as blasphemous without qualification, for example. There is no wiggle room, it seems.

Weâ??re going to hit a wall here, simply because â??rockâ? has so many sub-genres. Surely soft rock isnâ??t intrinsically irreverent, but hard rock is.

What makes the difference? Where does it cross the line? What makes soft rock okay, but hard rock not (again, other than your personal preference and taste)?

Take care, everyone

[Deborah]

Tee-shirt mentality cannot be applied successfully to holy principles, as I see it.

Or bumper sticker mentality. Honk for Jesus really is offensive on some level, though I know the person doing that is not aware that it is irreverant.

I do think that LDS, though seeing Jesus as more of a personal Savior, also view him with greater reverence, which I find ironic.

[PacMan]

Rhino,

(1) As to repetition, do you then believe that all repetition of the name of the Deity is inherently wrong, regardless of purpose or motivation?

Needless repetition—Yes.

(2) This is a statement of personal preference, because as you know, substance in music and poetry is always in the eye of the beholder--there is no objective standard. People respond differently to different things, it's a simple fact.

True, to some degree. If it is of substance, however, I daresay the subjectivity begins to fade. His name, I believe, should be used when it is necessary...not simply when possible.

(3) Also a statement of personal preference, not an objective statement. I'm also genuinely curious as to what is is about rock music that makes you believe that the style of music itself is inherently irreverent.

I went into this.

I agree that God speaks this way, but I disagree that this is the only way. This is also the God who spoke from Mount Sinai and scared the people half to death!

OK…if your goal is to piss Him off so He yells at you, go with that.

I would also point out that if silence and quiet reverence were the only ways to worship God, He would hardly have included many of the Psalms in the Bible. Worship can indeed be noisy, and I don't see how it could be argued otherwise from Scripture!

Strawman. I didn’t say that silence and quiet reverence were the only ways to worship God. In fact I never said rock music was not a way to do so. I DID say that I believe that dance, and other times when we use our talents, etc., for good (even entertainment) is a method of worshiping God. Such worship needn’t be particularly reverent, although certainly not irreverent. However, there are certainly genres of rock that are inherently irreverent. Classic or soft may not be one of them…but others certainly are.

Noisy? Such as? Let’s speed things up to the present, or at least a more similar paradigm…would you care to point out a NT example of noisy worship?

To you it may not add anything to the song, but to others it does. What makes your preference trump theirs?

Huh? Do you disagree that the casual use of the Lord’s name adds something to a song? I understand that disagreeing what is, or is not “casual” may be at issue…but to blatantly reject the notion? This conversation is going to go nowhere quickly.

Comparing worship songs to abortion is comparing apples and oranges. Abortion is clearly wrong scripturally, while singing worship songs is not. Repetition is never addressed in Scripture.

Your example and the issue at hand are apples and oranges. You made the case that blasphemy has everything to do with the heart, and it’s simply not correct. What is, and what is not, is simply defined by the understanding of the individual. Sin may be, but a state of being is not. Bong hits for Jesus?

I posted a definition earlier. Vain refers to empty of meaning, pointless, etc.

And such uses are blasphemy.

If the person repeats the name of Christ and is perfectly aware of its meaning and gravity, that does not meet the definition of "vain", in my opinion.

Yet, if it adds NOTHING more to the song, etc., how is that not empty?

Another person could say it a thousand times with meaning, worship and reverence, and they are not taking the name in vain.

This and excessive repletion are mutually exclusive.

I'm sensing something of a double standard here. Both Christian rock and the making of religious films involve repeating the name(s) of God at certain points.

Then parallel it correctly: Making such film or practicing the first line of, “A mighty fortress is our God” would be an equitable pair…you can’t simply use the existence of one, to the creation of another. Non sequitur.

There is no wiggle room, it seems.

Hmm…I’ve already told you I can’t qualify or quantify every single case. As soon as the Lord himself comes looking for a definition, then I’ll get back to you—but as of yet, He hasn’t (and I don’t think He particularly cares about my opinion on the matter).

What makes the difference? Where does it cross the line? What makes soft rock okay, but hard rock not (again, other than your personal preference and taste)?

Hold on…are you disagreeing that the beat or meter can influence reverence?

PacMan

P.S. I think another way to look at it is take someone that is dear to you, perhaps a parent or grandmother…maybe Martin Luter King. Now pump up the metronome to 300 beats and start yelling repeatedly, “My Dad was the bomb, he’s so cool, he’s freak’n awesome!” or perhaps, “My grandmother was a pimp in the kitchen!”

Or, when was the last time that you saw a rock band at a funeral, with a head banging song dedicated to the deceased? Probably never…but why? Because, generally it’d be considered irreverent and disrespectful, right? Now certainly Christ lives…but His position and gift is still most solemn.

PacMan

[cjcampbell]

One of the relatives wore a religious T-shirt with an image of glistening, bloody nails which included the headline, "MY SAVIOR IS TOUGHER THAN NAILS" set in bold graphic distressed text.

The effect was to somehow almost reduce the murder of Jesus Christ to some sort of commodity pop-culture slogan. While I sensed the sincerity of the wearer, I wondered where this sort of casual treatement stands in regards to reverencing the sacred.

This kind of Madison Avenue type sloganeering offends me. It seems to cheapen the atonement and it does in my mind reduce God to a commodity. It sometimes even seems blasphemous. It drives the Spirit away. In many ways, it seems to me be taking the name of the Savior in vain. I don't think God saves you because you wear a t-shirt like that. I think God saves you because you accept the atonement and repent.

[rhinomelon]

In many ways, it seems to me be taking the name of the Savior in vain. I don't think God saves you because you wear a t-shirt like that. I think God saves you because you accept the atonement and repent.

As I've been saying for most of this thread, it may be taking the Lord's name in vain to you, but to the person wearing the shirt or singing the song, it may hold a deeper meaning and be a form of worship. Especially in the realm of music, different people have different tastes, and having that musical form in a way that pleasing God is surely an act of worship. But I also agree with you, that wearing such a shirt or listening to Christian music does not save a person at all. It is indeed all about repentance and faith in Christ. Some people simply choose to express their faith in ways that don't sit well with other people from other traditions.

Now, to the fun stuff...

Needless repetitionâ??Yes.

Okay, and what defines what is needless, and what repetition is okay?

True, to some degree. If it is of substance, however, I daresay the subjectivity begins to fade. His name, I believe, should be used when it is necessary...not simply when possible.

Is it not necessary to call out to the Lord at all times? I would certainly like to praise the Lord and call to Him whenever possible. But in any case, you seem to agree with my point and then dismiss it. Substance is in the eye of the beholder (which you said was true). This means that a song that has substance for me may be seen as nothing more than vain repetition for you. Subjectivity does not fade at all.

I went into this.

Not really. You merely stated your opinion and then gave no reason to back it up (even reasons stemming from your own opinions would be helpful!). You simply said rock music is irreverent, and left it at that (while oddly making an exception for "soft rock").

OKâ?¦if your goal is to piss Him off so He yells at you, go with that.

God wasn't "pissed" (is that irreverent talking about God?) at Mount Sinai when he spoke to the people. Moses brought them there to the foot of the mountain, and God spoke the Law to them directly. The people freaked out and persuaded Moses to go up and talk to God and get the Law, because they couldn't handle His voice. As the Bible says, God spoke in many diverse ways to his people and the prophets. Not just a still small voice.

I didnâ??t say that silence and quiet reverence were the only ways to worship God. In fact I never said rock music was not a way to do so. I DID say that I believe that dance, and other times when we use our talents, etc., for good (even entertainment) is a method of worshiping God. Such worship neednâ??t be particularly reverent, although certainly not irreverent. However, there are certainly genres of rock that are inherently irreverent. Classic or soft may not be one of themâ?¦but others certainly are.

You use silence and reverence as the continual benchmark for true, reverent worship. You discount rock music (with the exception of soft rock, for some reason), because it's too noisy or too fast for you. And please do tell me what makes any genre of rock music "inherently irreverent".

Noisy? Such as? Letâ??s speed things up to the present, or at least a more similar paradigmâ?¦would you care to point out a NT example of noisy worship?

Old Testament worship involved trumpets, cymbals, stringed instruments and shouting. Unless they kept it to a nice pianissimo, "noisy" is exactly how I'd describe it. And interestingly, the Bible also using the term approvingly:

"Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps.

And he appointed [certain] of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel:

1Ch 16:5 Asaph the chief, and next to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obededom: and Jeiel with psalteries and with harps; but Asaph made a sound with cymbals;

1Ch 16:6 Benaiah also and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God. "

"Psa 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. "

"Psa 66:1

[PacMan]

Rhino,

Okay, and what defines what is needless, and what repetition is okay?

Iâ??ve already given such examples. When the â??utilityâ? reaches 0, then itâ??s needless. When the use of such names is grammatical nonsense, and adds nothing of substance, used casually, and applied to â??irreverentâ? musicâ?¦I think itâ??s a good indicator. Now I understand what youâ??re sayingâ?¦who determines such things? As I said, I think people would hold different standards at the funerals of their parents, grandparents, a soldier killed in war or a brutalized little child. Such music would be inappropriate because itâ??s irreverent. If we disagree on that, then I think our notions for common sense differ considerably.

Is it not necessary to call out to the Lord at all times? I would certainly like to praise the Lord and call to Him whenever possible.

Stop!!! I never said to stop prayingâ?¦and I never said you should stop using his name to do such! Iâ??m suggesting that simply using His name casually is inappropriate. But I daresay that when you pray, you likely donâ??t stream out a non-sensical barrage of L-L-L-G-G-G-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G!!

God wasn't "pissed" (is that irreverent talking about God?) at Mount Sinai when he spoke to the people.

I see your reference nowâ?¦letâ??s use some common senseâ?¦if God wants to talk to a group, wouldnâ??t it make sense to talk louder so they could all hear? But letâ??s go with itâ?¦when was the last time the Lord used a booming voice at a Christian Rock concert that overcame the music so everyone could listen to his audible, coherent voice? I certainly could be wrong, but I have a feeling those instances are few (0) considering the many times a soft whisper is used.

You use silence and reverence as the continual benchmark for true, reverent worship.

I never said silence! And yesâ?¦reverence is a good benchmark forâ?¦REVERNT worship.

On your OT scriptures, the Hebrew for â??noiseâ? is often used for â??shouting for joy,â? etc. I donâ??t know that it means the same as the Englishâ?¦often related to something unpleasant. A classical concert wouldnâ??t thought to be â??noisy,â? but certainly that is the use here. Butâ?¦I do believe I asked for a NT exampleâ?¦ The reason I asked was that there are some fairly distinct differences between the new and the old law. Jehova of the OT was seen as more fearsome and vengefulâ?¦whereas Jesus was humble, kind and loving. I think the style of worship has much to do with the paradigm in which they held God.

Casual use of the Lord's name is sinful, I agree. But what determines "casual" is not an objective standard, but is in the eye of the beholder. If the Lord's name is spoken or sung a hundred times in worshiping Him, that is not casual. Repetition, in and of itself, is not blasphemous or vain.

And just saying the name over, and over, and overâ?¦is vain. Thereâ??s nothing to it, and its become casual. And considering it is in the â??eye of the beholder,â? I donâ??t understand what remain to be won.

Agreed, but being empty of meaning and/or pointless is not something you can objectively judge for other people, so it really does depend on the heart of the person.

On the contraryâ?¦people do things all the time not realizing it. Some people say â??pissed,â? then when pointed out that itâ??s probably irreverent, they take a look back and say, â??yeah, theyâ??re probably right about that.â?? We do not think consciously about everything said, sung, and done. Things become casual as restrictions for using them are relaxed. I do not understand how each utterance has equal meaning. In fact, given the way us humans workâ?¦I just canâ??t accept it.

However, there is no biblical teaching on how many times a person can say the Lord's name without blasphemy, or on what kinds of music are acceptable or not. These are open areas in which the heart of the person definitely counts for a great deal.

And I havenâ??t disagreed. The â??GREAT DEALâ? is what effect does it have on the individualâ??s immortal soul, and oneâ??s heart is probably the #1 factor. Iâ??m not condemning people, but that doesnâ??t mean you canâ??t define a practice for what it is.

If it really doesn't add anything to the song, then it is indeed empty. But if it adds to the song for those who sing it, then it isn't empty, and is indeed worshipful. "Adding nothing to the song" is again in the eye of the beholder (or singer, as the case may be).

I donâ??t necessarily disagreeâ?¦I just donâ??t understand how someone can qualify nor quantify what is added by the umpteenth repetition, when it holds no grammatical, etc., value. Do we now need to get into a discussion about what is, and what is not grammatically correct?

So you agree that it depends on the person's heart, and that repetition is not inherently blasphemous?

Noâ?¦thatâ??s not what I said. If I read the scriptures allowed all day, I would repeat certain words hundreds, if not thousands of times. Repetition itself is not the problem. But if I sit on the couch saying G-G-G-G-G-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G-L-G all day (even if the sum is less than reading the scriptures), that monotonous and useless repetition would most definitely be held differently.

Let me put it this way: Beat and meter do influence reverence, but they do so in different ways for different people. Some people may respond to slower songs, while others actually experience greater reverence with faster tempos and livelier music. Worship with African congregations will be different than worship with Utah congregations. This is a wonderful, beautiful fact of life. People experience and display reverence differently, and I say praise God for that diversity!

And I donâ??t have a problem with itâ?¦nor do I see how they are aiken to a rock band.

You've never been to an Irish wake, have you? Early Christian funerals were actually joyous affairs, celebrating the decedent's passing on to God. Funerals, like worship, are affairs that are profoundly affected by culture, and vary greatly around the world. And I would agree that Christ's gift is solemn, but it is also joyous, celebratory, and alive! Worship encompasses all these aspects.

Iâ??m talking about those at these concertsâ?¦the typical judeo-Christian American. Letâ??s make this simple for startersâ?¦would you blast away rock music at the funeral of a little sister whom died in a tragic accident? I just donâ??t see that such a display would be reverent.

But it all goes back to the eye of the beholder, eh?

Ciao,

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

Just the fact that you keep using funerals as the standard by which to judge reverence speaks volumes to me about how far apart we are on what true worship really is. For me it is quite telling.

[PacMan]

Clearly it's an example. But I can certainly tell you that if He came in the room, I'd keep my head low and not say much at all. I certainly would not lift my arms, make "noise" and treat him as a rock star. I don't understand why we'd treat His name any differently than we'd treat Him if He walked in the room.

Yes...I think our defintions are certainly and drastically different.

Peace,

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

The reason I asked was that there are some fairly distinct differences between the new and the old law. Jehova of the OT was seen as more fearsome and vengefulâ?¦whereas Jesus was humble, kind and loving. I think the style of worship has much to do with the paradigm in which they held God.

I disagree. The Old Testament has four times as much to say about the love, grace and mercy of God as the New Testament does. And Jesus is certainly not removed from judgement and punishment either. There is no difference between God in the OT and God in the NT, in terms of these characteristics. I would also point out that the Christians in the NT were mostly Jews, who would be well versed in the Psalms with all their emphasis on worship in various ways. Do you have any references to suggest that the church suddenly excised these "noisier" aspects of worship from their practice?

And just saying the name over, and over, and overâ?¦is vain. Thereâ??s nothing to it, and its become casual.

In worship it is not "just saying the name over, and over". It is repetition with the objective of focusing the mind and soul on God, pushing other concerns to the side as much as possible. If people are just saying the name over and over with no heart or reverence, then I agree it's casual and blasphemous. But again, that depends on the heart, which you and I cannot judge for another person (let alone an entire segment of the population).

Iâ??ve already given such examples. When the â??utilityâ? reaches 0, then itâ??s needless. When the use of such names is grammatical nonsense, and adds nothing of substance, used casually, and applied to â??irreverentâ? musicâ?¦I think itâ??s a good indicator.

Calling out someone's name in the context of a relationship is hardly a grammatical concern. All of the above is your own personal preference and musical taste. As far as I can tell, the only reason that you believe rock music to be inherently irreverent is because you wouldn't play it at a funeral. Kind of an odd comparison, if you ask me.

I see your reference nowâ?¦letâ??s use some common senseâ?¦if God wants to talk to a group, wouldnâ??t it make sense to talk louder so they could all hear? But letâ??s go with itâ?¦when was the last time the Lord used a booming voice at a Christian Rock concert that overcame the music so everyone could listen to his audible, coherent voice? I certainly could be wrong, but I have a feeling those instances are few (0) considering the many times a soft whisper is used.

Is the point of worship to get God to speak to us, or for us to praise God? There is a time and place for both, I believe. There are times to speak and times to listen. But as a personal example, one of the most powerful spiritual experiences of my high school years occurred at a Christian rock concert. I truly experienced God's presence in a powerful way, and the effects of that experience have stuck with me to this day.

We do not think consciously about everything said, sung, and done. Things become casual as restrictions for using them are relaxed. I do not understand how each utterance has equal meaning. In fact, given the way us humans workâ?¦I just canâ??t accept it.

Actually, anything can become casual and routine, no matter how restricted it is. How many people do you think take the sacrament every Sunday without thinking? How many deacons just read out the prayer of consecration without thinking about it? This says nothing about the practice itself, but the heart of the person doing it.

Iâ??m not condemning people, but that doesnâ??t mean you canâ??t define a practice for what it is.

As long as the definition is an objective one, and not simply dependent upon the whim of the individual making the judgment. I believe your case rests almost entirely on the latter criteria.

I just donâ??t understand how someone can qualify nor quantify what is added by the umpteenth repetition, when it holds no grammatical, etc., value. Do we now need to get into a discussion about what is, and what is not grammatically correct?

As to the first sentence, if you don't understand, perhaps you should either try to understand, or stop condemning a practice you don't understand. As to the second sentence, correct grammar is not a concern for worship.

And I donâ??t have a problem with itâ?¦nor do I see how they are aiken to a rock band.

Different styles of music resonate with different people. It's a simple fact of life. Whether it is African drums or New Orleans blues, or rock music or choir and organ, it is all music that can be used to worship God.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Clearly it's an example. But I can certainly tell you that if He came in the room, I'd keep my head low and not say much at all. I certainly would not lift my arms, make "noise" and treat him as a rock star.

It is an example, but a very telling one. Is there anything better to which you could compare your vision of true worship, other than a funeral? And a western-culture funeral at that?

I realize that you would react a certain way to Christ if he walked into the room. Other people would react differently. Is your response the only acceptable one? It's like that song that's been bouncing around the radio for the past few years, "I Can Only Imagine". It's soft rock, so maybe you've heard it. The singer sings of going to heaven and meeting Christ, and wondering what he would do. Would he stand in his presence, fall to his knees, sing hallelujahs, remain silent? He can only imagine, at this point. Different reactions for different people. Different styles of worship and music for different people and different cultures.

Take care, everyone