Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Lek, I'm getting really sick of you evading this question. Answer it, or I'll bring it to the rest of staff's attention that you're breaking rule #1.
(November 9, 2014 at 4:53 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Lek, are you going to answer this?
Well, God was the one offended and it was to him that the price was owed. Jesus paid the price to the Father. And yes, Jesus is God, so in effect God took the punishment for our sins. The amount he paid was whatever was necessary--however much that was. I don't know for sure everything that Jesus suffered, but it seems that it was total separation from the Father, because he asked God why he had abandoned him. I think that was the ultimate punishment for humanity--existence with total separation from God.
(November 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Lek, I'm getting really sick of you evading this question. Answer it, or I'll bring it to the rest of staff's attention that you're breaking rule #1.
Well, God was the one offended and it was to him that the price was owed. Jesus paid the price to the Father. And yes, Jesus is God, so in effect God took the punishment for our sins. The amount he paid was whatever was necessary--however much that was. I don't know for sure everything that Jesus suffered, but it seems that it was total separation from the Father, because he asked God why he had abandoned him. I think that was the ultimate punishment for humanity--existence with total separation from God.
So... God paid God the price? Seems pretty arbitrary. How is this something you can really get behind? How is this something you actually believe? Don't you see how silly it is?
(November 10, 2014 at 3:31 pm)Godschild Wrote: the suicide rate of those in porn is large, they believe it's their only way out and if you do not believe me research it for yourself.
GC
Yeah, actually I did look it up. About one case of suicide per year between 1970 and 2010 in the US porn industry. Seems extremely high indeed.
I find it strange you would go to a Christian site that helps former porn performers to get your stats.
Shame you stopped short of the truth. You like most here just skim the surface of anything that might show the truth. let's take a closer look.
1) The average life expectancy of porn performers is 36.2 years.
2) 208 porn performers died prematurely from aids, suicide, homicide, drugs, accidental and medical in 2014.
3) #1 suicide method of porn performers is hanging.
4) 67 porn stars that PinkCross knows of have died by suicides.
5) 66% of porn performers have herpes, an incurable disease.
6) 2369 cases of Chlamydia and 1389 cases of Gonorrhea reported among performers since 2004.
7) Over 100 straights and gays have died from Aids.
8) 36 porn stars that PinkCross knows of have died of HIV, suicide, homicide and drugs between 2007 and 2010.
9) Child pornography is one of the fastest growing businesses online, and the content is becoming much worse. In 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation found 1536 individual child abuse domains.
There's more and some shines a bad light on many Christians. You are like most here you skim over things that reveal the truth, try harder next time.
Porn Quotes
"This industry is full of people who hate-literally Hate women." Julie Meadows former porn star.
"I find myself not that much unlike the slaves and slave traders of some 400 years ago. I participate in the most heinous of ALL trades- The Buying and Selling of Human Flesh. I trade my own flesh for monetary compensation and I sell the flesh of others for the same." Lexington Steele porn performer/producer.
Think I'm talking out of my butt now Cthulhu Dreaming and I did not move the goal post, I defined my position clearer.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(November 10, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Lek Wrote: The bible never claims that they were morally justified and God didn't condone them. I keep saying this, but it seems to go over your heads.
...
Sounds like you're saying your standards are correct just because....they are.
God sanctions a civil war against the Benjamites, which kills tens of thousands, in response to this rape, yet he is silent on the issue of the man forcing his concubine to be raped in his place. I think god says a lot in his silence. Furthermore, after said war, the other tribes slaughter all the men, children, and non-virgin women/girls of another city just so that they can take their women captive (Jewish women) and force them to marry the remaining Benjamites that escaped so that their tribe doesn't die out. God says nothing about this. There's a lot of things god says nothing about, yet as pointed out before, he calls for people to be killed if they work on his rest day. My goal is not to identify a "correct" standard of morality. It is to point out that the morality of the bible is inconsistent and useless to a more developed society, where we recognize that all individuals have rights and should be treated equally. I'm saying that comparatively, the general morality of the modern world results in fairer treatment of all people than the moral account we see in the bible.
(November 10, 2014 at 7:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This does not automatically confer authority. How do you justify asserting that this is how god gained his supposed authority?
Since when was an order, made potentially without authority, a means by which authority can be derived? And what thought process did god use to "set the standards" there?
Okay. You don't agree that God creating us gives him the right to set the standards for our condiuct. I believe that our creator is the source of ultimate morality for everyone. Do you believe that there are ultimate moral standards that apply to every person? If you do then where did it come from? If it's just your opinion, then why do you hold God to your standards?
Quote:But when we get to atrocities that are condoned- or indeed, performed- by god, you just shrug them off and say it's different because god's doing them. So how can your morality be at all consistent if there are such unjustified exceptions?
As I keep saying over and over--God's actions were just, based on our sins. Of course, you disagree with the concept, but this is what the bible says and as a christian this is what I believe.
Quote:No, they're not. We don't have slavery, for one. For another, it's illegal to kill someone of another religion, or no religion at all. To the extent that western morality has taken anything from the bible- and one could easily remind you that the bible took all of its morality from earlier, secular texts- it has improved it.
Again, during the old testament times people were under God's judgement. The new testament tells christians to treat their slaves with love and respect. I don't know, but I assume that these were voluntary contracted slaves. The bible doesn't say that we're allowed to kill some of another or no religion.
Quote:Which is, as I've said, the wrong question to ask, because morality is not derived from the authority of the person speaking on it. If it was, then you believe n relativistic morality that can change on a dime; all your high minded talk about being repulsed by actions in the bible is all a matter of coincidence and has nothing to do with the act itself.
Stop asking the wrong question, and start asking the right one: nobody can be forced to abide by any standard of morality. If I so choose I can reject your god's moral commandments with ease; does that mean that god's morality is flawed too? That it carries no weight and should be discarded? That's what you're trying to intimate about our morality, right? But it equally applies to yours; your accusations cut both ways.
Instead of answering my question, you keep telling me to stop asking the wrong question? You've gone on and on about reasons to adopt certain moral standards, but why should someone else agree with you if they reason differently? Why should God abide by your standards other that they are logical to you?
Quote:Because he wouldn't be able to rationally justify his killing in a way that wouldn't also apply to him. Social morality isn't concerned with the whims of the individual, it needs to be consistently applied to everyone regardless of who they are, or else it's just a preferential series of rules, not a moral system.
I'm sure many murderers would justify their actions and "survival of the fittest" and would agree that it applies to themselves as well.
Quote:Can you justify those beliefs in a non-question begging or special pleading manner, without recourse to unproven assertions?
I justify these beliefs because I get them from the bible. Do you believe that abortion, fornication and divorce are okay? If so, is it because they meet your standards of not hurting anybody? If so, can you back up your belief with concrete supporting evidence?[/quote]
(November 10, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Lek Wrote: Okay. You don't agree that God creating us gives him the right to set the standards for our condiuct. I believe that our creator is the source of ultimate morality for everyone. Do you believe that there are ultimate moral standards that apply to every person? If you do then where did it come from? If it's just your opinion, then why do you hold God to your standards?
Oh, come on, I've answered this question a while back. I believe that there is an objective framework which applies to everyone, and that framework is reality, which we all share and can reliably predict the outcomes thereof. In reality, we are all the same species, and we are all the same kind of thing; evolved beings with a tendency toward social grouping and cooperation. We need certain things, our pain response developed to signal that negative things are happening to us, when we're sick we suffer... these are the facts which apply to every single person without exception, and they are sufficient from which to derive general moral rules, which cover most any moral context.
Is everyone obligated to follow them? No, of course not. But then, nobody is obligated to follow any moral rules. It doesn't mean that they aren't effective or properly justified, just that some people are intent on doing immoral things. You call that sin, I call that a failure to properly justify a given action in a non-fallacious way. We both observe that it happens. But at least, when I'm pressed to explain my moral decisions, I can provide a concise and rationally justified reason for them. So can you, I'm willing to bet, and you actually kinda need to; if you seriously can't supply a reason why murder is wrong beyond "god said not to," then there is something very wrong with your moral compass.
Quote:As I keep saying over and over--God's actions were just, based on our sins. Of course, you disagree with the concept, but this is what the bible says and as a christian this is what I believe.
Believe whatever you like. Just understand that your reasons for doing so are completely circular; you're believing for bad reasons.
Quote:Again, during the old testament times people were under God's judgement. The new testament tells christians to treat their slaves with love and respect. I don't know, but I assume that these were voluntary contracted slaves. The bible doesn't say that we're allowed to kill some of another or no religion.
On the slave thing, you're just wrong; there's a parable in the new testament about a slave who escapes- obviously he doesn't want to be there- and the good, virtuous christian man who takes him back to his master, which is considered a good act. Additionally, you'll find that the passage on slaves in the NT actually says to obey your earthly masters, even the cruel ones, and it never bothers to repeal any of the old testament rules on slavery either, so one could easily make an argument that those are the rules the NT is operating under. That being said, are you in favor of slavery as it is described in the bible?
As regards killing someone of another religion, the bible says that if a member of your family tries to turn you to another religion, "yours shall be the first hand on them to put them to death."
Quote:Instead of answering my question, you keep telling me to stop asking the wrong question? You've gone on and on about reasons to adopt certain moral standards, but why should someone else agree with you if they reason differently? Why should God abide by your standards other that they are logical to you?
It's not just "logical to me," because there aren't multiple valid logical syllogisms regarding the comprehensive moral facts; simply put, there is no non-fallacious way to argue for cold blooded murder, when one keeps in mind the factual premises that underpin our nature as human beings. At one point or another there will always be a hidden special pleading exception or fallacy waiting to be pointed out. Someone could reason differently, but they could not do so in a way that is a logically valid argument. That's the nature of a moral system that respects objective facts and reasoned argument.
And god shouldn't abide by my morals because they're logical to me, he should do so because they're logical in general. Logic is not something I get to dictate, it is the framework in which I am forced to work, not the other way around. The rules of logic are external to me, they are objective ways of interrogating an argument. Let me ask you this: if a proposition is both logically sound and supported by facts, if it is true, in other words, what possible reason could you provide for god claiming that it is false?
And if there isn't one... that's kinda the end of the discussion. If god has no reason to reject a true thing, and I can show that my moral determinations are true, in that they are factually supported and reasonable, then god has no reason to reject my moral determinations.
Quote:I'm sure many murderers would justify their actions and "survival of the fittest" and would agree that it applies to themselves as well.
Oh, so you don't understand survival of the fittest either? Well, okay...
"Fittest," does not simply mean strongest, or most needlessly ruthless. In biological terms fitness refers to how well a given organism utilizes both its environment and survival niche to, well, survive. It's "most fit to survive," not "most literally physically fit." For humans, the survival niche is cooperation and social grouping; in a human society a murderer is least fit, not most. Any murderer using survival of the fittest as their justification would be factually wrong, and therefore not be in possession of a valid moral argument.
That was easy.
Quote:I justify these beliefs because I get them from the bible.
Circular reasoning, fallacy, invalid moral argument. Next.
Quote: Do you believe that abortion, fornication and divorce are okay? If so, is it because they meet your standards of not hurting anybody? If so, can you back up your belief with concrete supporting evidence?
[/quote]
Yes, yes, and yes... but that's a really long conversation, citing multiple variables and contextual caveats. I could do it- in fact I already have the arguments lined up in my mind- but I don't have the several hours it would take for me to present them, and then predict your- no doubt numerous- objections to them, present answers to all those.... and then just have you resort back to the bible.
In short, I really have no interest in a lengthy, one sided interrogation that'll just end up with you failing to even acknowledge that my position has any validity in the end.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(November 10, 2014 at 8:24 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: So... God paid God the price? Seems pretty arbitrary. How is this something you can really get behind? How is this something you actually believe? Don't you see how silly it is?
No. I can understand why you think it' silly but, I don't think it's silly at all. I think the fact that billions have and do believe should one to at least seriously consider it.[/quote] It is arbitrary. God is just, as well as loving. Those two facts put together caused God to pay the price for us. The price was paid because he is just, and he made the sacrifice because he is loving. My faith is something I wouldn't give up for anything. I couldn't be an atheist because it would preclude the belief in the supernatural. I always look at the beginning and the end--to the extremes. There are two ultimate possibilities about the origin of the natural universe; either it always existed (which I see view as a supernatural characteristic), or it came from something totally immaterial (like God). Also, either the universe has no boundary and goes on forever (like God) or there is an outer boundary. But what then is beyond that? Perhaps heaven.
Why christianity? I'm not sure. I believe it's the Holy Spirit working in me. I'm going to stick with it. If you're right and I'm wrong, Ill be nothing after I die and I won't be aware of whether I was right or wrong, so it won't really matter anyway. Even though I'm already having fun, I won't be sorry for all the strange sex, drugs and all those other things that I could have had because I won't exist to remember it.
November 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm (This post was last modified: November 10, 2014 at 11:20 pm by Drich.)
(November 10, 2014 at 12:33 am)dyresand Wrote:
(November 9, 2014 at 11:36 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: ...according to Drich, whose reasons regarding the significance behind the given evaluative statements are as subject to critique as anyone else's.
and we agree god is immoral because he can do immoral things and get away with it.
God can only be considered 'immoral' because self righteous man invented a standard in which he can justify killing babies and selling whole continents of people off into slavery while in the same breath condemn God for using the same accts to protect his chosen people.
(November 10, 2014 at 9:43 am)genkaus Wrote:
(November 9, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Drich Wrote: In short, it is what God says about a given act that assigns its "moral value" and not what people think of a given act that makes it right and wrong.
Euthyphro's second horn for the win.
Oh, it's the second now? You sure?
Because if you remember you marched out the first one last time.
(November 10, 2014 at 10:03 am)abaris Wrote: The goal posts have already been moved by Lek taking issue with our disgust over the story at hand. Sadly, he hasn't shown up lately to be a part of the ongoing discussion.
im you huckleberry.
Quote:You and him are constantly hiding behind your bible and behind god's supposed morality being above what you call pop culture.
you do know the meaning the the term pop culture do you not? It's one that describes a generational fad or even belief. For instance what popular culture though of fags 60 years ago, and what are though of homosexuals today.. Or what was though of murdering unborn babies 60 years ago verses aborting a fetus today..
The act does not change it is the societal view of a given act that does change. To judge any other person outside your particular version of pop morality is the purest act of self righteousness there is.
Quote: I take issue with that for a simple reason. You are persons and not some robots acting according to some operating system following certain routines.
So said Himilar as well.
Quote:So let me ask again, using the story at hand. In your mind, is it OK for the host to pimp out the women in order to spare his guest to be raped?
Quote:I know perfectly well that in ancient oriental societies the guest was considered sacred. And women had next to no value besides selling them as brides. But that's not the issue here. Somehow this story made it's way into the bible and so it still has some significance to people believing. And we're living in the frigging 21st century and not in the bronze age.
in your selfrighteous rant you never bother to ever turn the page did you?
Your a douche. You better take down your YouTube video before someone like me decides to call people like you out by simply turning the page
Quote:And there's another story, similar to this one. The story of Lot, pimping out his daughter to be gang raped to spare the angels. In your mind, is that OK? Would you deliver one of your children to certain abuse by a crazed mob, just because it's in this book?
In both cases what you failed to grasp is that the 'host' was looking to save their respective cities from judgement. Or did you not turn the page on the story of lot either?
So in the book of JUDGES (where examples of Israel/a given tribe commits a horrific sin, and God send a Judge to punish the wicked as per chapter 20 in your case) and in lot's case the two hosts were trying to save their whole cities/tribe from God's wrath and judgement.
Would you be willing sacrifice one life in desperation to try and save everyone else in your city? In your race? Not that either of these men did what they offered, they were just desperate and threw it out there in hopes that the evil they were trying to gaurd against would be quenched.
Quote:In my mind these are easy questions for someone living in a modern society.
TURN THE PAGE "modern man" [/quote]
(November 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote:
(November 10, 2014 at 12:33 am)dyresand Wrote: and we agree god is immoral because he can do immoral things and get away with it.
God can only be considered 'immoral' because self righteous man invented a standard in which he can justify killing babies and selling whole continents of people off into slavery while in the same breath condemn God for using the same accts to protect his chosen people.
(November 10, 2014 at 9:43 am)genkaus Wrote: Euthyphro's second horn for the win.
Oh, it's the second now? You sure?
Because if you remember you marched out the first one last time.
(November 10, 2014 at 10:03 am)abaris Wrote: The goal posts have already been moved by Lek taking issue with our disgust over the story at hand. Sadly, he hasn't shown up lately to be a part of the ongoing discussion.
im your huckleberry.
Quote:You and him are constantly hiding behind your bible and behind god's supposed morality being above what you call pop culture.
you do know the meaning the the term pop culture do you not? It's one that describes a generational fad or even belief. For instance what popular culture though of fags 60 years ago, and what are though of homosexuals today.. Or what was though of murdering unborn babies 60 years ago verses aborting a fetus today..
The act does not change it is the societal view of a given act that does change. To judge any other person outside your particular version of pop morality is the purest act of self righteousness there is.
Quote: I take issue with that for a simple reason. You are persons and not some robots acting according to some operating system following certain routines.
So said Himilar as well.
Quote:So let me ask again, using the story at hand. In your mind, is it OK for the host to pimp out the women in order to spare his guest to be raped?
Quote:I know perfectly well that in ancient oriental societies the guest was considered sacred. And women had next to no value besides selling them as brides. But that's not the issue here. Somehow this story made it's way into the bible and so it still has some significance to people believing. And we're living in the frigging 21st century and not in the bronze age.
in your selfrighteous rant you never bother to ever turn the page did you?
Your a douche. You better take down your YouTube video before someone like me decides to call people like you out by simply turning the page
Quote:And there's another story, similar to this one. The story of Lot, pimping out his daughter to be gang raped to spare the angels. In your mind, is that OK? Would you deliver one of your children to certain abuse by a crazed mob, just because it's in this book?
In both cases what you failed to grasp is that the 'host' was looking to save their respective cities from judgement. Or did you not turn the page on the story of lot either?
So in the book of JUDGES (where examples of Israel/a given tribe commits a horrific sin, and God send a Judge to punish the wicked as per chapter 20 in your case) and in lot's case the two hosts were trying to save their whole cities/tribe from God's wrath and judgement.
Would you be willing sacrifice one life in desperation to try and save everyone else in your city? In your race? Not that either of these men did what they offered, they were just desperate and threw it out there in hopes that the evil they were trying to gaurd against would be quenched.
Quote:In my mind these are easy questions for someone living in a modern society.
November 11, 2014 at 4:42 am (This post was last modified: November 11, 2014 at 4:44 am by Wyrd of Gawd.)
(November 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote:
(November 10, 2014 at 12:33 am)dyresand Wrote: and we agree god is immoral because he can do immoral things and get away with it.
God can only be considered 'immoral' because self righteous man invented a standard in which he can justify killing babies and selling whole continents of people off into slavery while in the same breath condemn God for using the same accts to protect his chosen people.
(November 10, 2014 at 9:43 am)genkaus Wrote: Euthyphro's second horn for the win.
Oh, it's the second now? You sure?
Because if you remember you marched out the first one last time.
(November 10, 2014 at 10:03 am)abaris Wrote: The goal posts have already been moved by Lek taking issue with our disgust over the story at hand. Sadly, he hasn't shown up lately to be a part of the ongoing discussion.
im you huckleberry.
Quote:You and him are constantly hiding behind your bible and behind god's supposed morality being above what you call pop culture.
you do know the meaning the the term pop culture do you not? It's one that describes a generational fad or even belief. For instance what popular culture though of fags 60 years ago, and what are though of homosexuals today.. Or what was though of murdering unborn babies 60 years ago verses aborting a fetus today..
The act does not change it is the societal view of a given act that does change. To judge any other person outside your particular version of pop morality is the purest act of self righteousness there is.
Quote: I take issue with that for a simple reason. You are persons and not some robots acting according to some operating system following certain routines.
So said Himilar as well.
Quote:So let me ask again, using the story at hand. In your mind, is it OK for the host to pimp out the women in order to spare his guest to be raped?
Quote:I know perfectly well that in ancient oriental societies the guest was considered sacred. And women had next to no value besides selling them as brides. But that's not the issue here. Somehow this story made it's way into the bible and so it still has some significance to people believing. And we're living in the frigging 21st century and not in the bronze age.
in your selfrighteous rant you never bother to ever turn the page did you?
Your a douche. You better take down your YouTube video before someone like me decides to call people like you out by simply turning the page
Quote:And there's another story, similar to this one. The story of Lot, pimping out his daughter to be gang raped to spare the angels. In your mind, is that OK? Would you deliver one of your children to certain abuse by a crazed mob, just because it's in this book?
In both cases what you failed to grasp is that the 'host' was looking to save their respective cities from judgement. Or did you not turn the page on the story of lot either?
So in the book of JUDGES (where examples of Israel/a given tribe commits a horrific sin, and God send a Judge to punish the wicked as per chapter 20 in your case) and in lot's case the two hosts were trying to save their whole cities/tribe from God's wrath and judgement.
Would you be willing sacrifice one life in desperation to try and save everyone else in your city? In your race? Not that either of these men did what they offered, they were just desperate and threw it out there in hopes that the evil they were trying to gaurd against would be quenched.
Quote:In my mind these are easy questions for someone living in a modern society.
TURN THE PAGE "modern man"
(November 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote: God can only be considered 'immoral' because self righteous man invented a standard in which he can justify killing babies and selling whole continents of people off into slavery while in the same breath condemn God for using the same accts to protect his chosen people.
Oh, it's the second now? You sure?
Because if you remember you marched out the first one last time.
im your huckleberry.
you do know the meaning the the term pop culture do you not? It's one that describes a generational fad or even belief. For instance what popular culture though of fags 60 years ago, and what are though of homosexuals today.. Or what was though of murdering unborn babies 60 years ago verses aborting a fetus today..
The act does not change it is the societal view of a given act that does change. To judge any other person outside your particular version of pop morality is the purest act of self righteousness there is.
in your selfrighteous rant you never bother to ever turn the page did you?
Your a douche. You better take down your YouTube video before someone like me decides to call people like you out by simply turning the page
In both cases what you failed to grasp is that the 'host' was looking to save their respective cities from judgement. Or did you not turn the page on the story of lot either?
So in the book of JUDGES (where examples of Israel/a given tribe commits a horrific sin, and God send a Judge to punish the wicked as per chapter 20 in your case) and in lot's case the two hosts were trying to save their whole cities/tribe from God's wrath and judgement.
Would you be willing sacrifice one life in desperation to try and save everyone else in your city? In your race? Not that either of these men did what they offered, they were just desperate and threw it out there in hopes that the evil they were trying to gaurd against would be quenched.
TURN THE PAGE "modern man"
[/quote]
[/quote]
The problem with the stories of the dummies being willing to sacrifice children and women to protect strangers is that they had no real right to do that. Sure, they considered children and women as being nothing and they thought that they could treat them anyway they wanted to, even kill them if they wanted to. But by doing that they were being as sinful as the mobs were who were trying to attack the strangers.
If they wanted to sacrifice anyone they should have sacrificed themselves. Instead they eagerly tossed their own household members to the pack to be abused. In effect they were committing the graver sin.
Mark 8:36 (NLT) = "36 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"
November 11, 2014 at 7:34 am (This post was last modified: November 11, 2014 at 7:35 am by Drich.)
Indeed. Neither lot's actions nor the actions of the man or the host were up held in the bible. They were acts of desperation. In judges the fact that the man was a Levite was mentioned because he was of the one tribe that could judge another on the behalf of God. And call down on the tribe on that town/tribe what happened in chapter 20. Like wise with lot. Again, a sinful man looking to save a wicked city and his perfered way of life.
What the op does not seem to understand and the point you have missed as well is the acts here were not a prescription of Godly living. They were examples of wicked men trying to appease a wicked soceity, and keep it from judgement. Which again is what both stories is about.
