Jesus the man or Jesus the Son of God

[Fist and Faith]

So my problem is this... Nine posts before that, the second post of page 2, luci got the ball rolling:

however i frequently see "died for your sins". can i assume "sins" refers to the eating of the proverbial and possibly allegorical "apple"? (disobedience)

was it the act of disobediance that caused the "disconnect"? or was the disconnect the punishment for disobedience? or was there something in the apple? (being semi-funny but also serious, not mocking)

(Oops. I just accidentally Thanked that post as I was moving the mouse around. But I guess it is an appropriate Thanks. Heh) And that was in response to Hashi's talk of the connection with God having been broken, which started in the second post of the thread. So how do I split all of this out??

[danlo]

(did I miss something, or is luci now a Ludite? ---I'll try to catch up-been busy...)

[Hashi Lebwohl]

How can we have been "in God's image" without the knowledge of good and evil? God had that knowledge all along. We were ignorant without it. And I maintain that free will without it is adisability, and giving us free will without it was a sham. Acquiring it put us more in God's image.

Allow me to tap the Vorlons on the shoulder to answer that one: the mirror never sees itself; the reflection never is itself.

Being created in God's image did not make us like God. Lucifer--who doesn't really care about humans, you know, he does what he does only to try and nitpick at God--told them a couple of partial truths/partial lies. He said that they would "be like God", which became true in a sense--they now had knowledge of good and evil but they didn't get anything else. He also told them that by eating of the fruit they would not die even though God told them they would; true enough--they didn't die...that day. Death came later on.

I have to admit--I do not envy you the task of trying to split this thread. I certainly wouldn't want to try.

[aliantha]

And to make the task of splitting even harder for poor Fist:

Are Lucifer and Satan separate beings, or different names for the same being? And are we certain that the Serpent is actually one of these beings? Or is Serpent just the First Snake (like a Kipling story: "how Snake came to crawl on his belly")?

Fist and I were texting about this yesterday. I think the assumption is that the serpent is Satan/Lucifer, but it never explicitly says so in the text.

For Fist, this then brings into question the timing of Satan's fall from Heaven.

Personally, I think Yahweh was a young god who set up the Garden of Eden as an experiment ("let's drop a couple of people in there with a Big Temptation and see what happens!") and didn't realize the full implications of the result 'til after Adam and Eve ate the fruit. ("Oh no, now they know about good and evil! If they eat from the *other* tree, then they'll be like us gods!") Then he had to do damage control -- kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden, etc. It wasn't 'til millennia later that he figured out the final solution. (This has the advantage of explaining why the First Couple ran into other, unrelated, people after the gates of Eden were locked behind them -- A&E and the Snake were created simply for this experiment.)

Of course, you can also look at the story simply as a creation myth -- this is why humans wear clothing and don't live forever, this is why the snake crawls on his belly -- similar to creation myths the world over. Which, as a Pagan, is the significance I give it.

[Fist and Faith]

How can we have been "in God's image" without the knowledge of good and evil? God had that knowledge all along. We were ignorant without it. And I maintain that free will without it is adisability, and giving us free will without it was a sham. Acquiring it put us more in God's image.

Allow me to tap the Vorlons on the shoulder to answer that one: the mirror never sees itself; the reflection never is itself.

Being created in God's image did not make us like God. Lucifer--who doesn't really care about humans, you know, he does what he does only to try and nitpick at God--told them a couple of partial truths/partial lies. He said that they would "be like God", which became true in a sense--they now had knowledge of good and evil but they didn't get anything else.

Well then how are we, as God put it, "in our image, in our likeness"? (There's that our again.)

Of course, I say physically. Genesis is where it says we're in his image, and Genesis is where God is walking around.

Also, I guess it's worth noting that God made man in his image in Genesis 1:26-27; but didn't make Adam until 2:7, for the purpose of looking after Eden. (Which explains how Cain found a wife.) But I guess we can assume that Adam was also in God's image, and that the first people God created also lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

He also told them that by eating of the fruit they would not die even though God told them they would; true enough--they didn't die...that day. Death came later on.

Yes, and it was God's doing. He said: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." What he should have said was: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, I will deny thee the fruit of the tree of life."

I have to admit--I do not envy you the task of trying to split this thread. I certainly wouldn't want to try.

Amen!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Well then how are we, as God put it, "in our image, in our likeness"? (There's that our again.)

I would have to find the original Hebrew verb being used, the one that has been translated as "to be similar to" to see which exact form was used and what other possible translations might be.

God is allowed to use the magesterial case, by which one refers to one's self in the plural.

[Fist and Faith]

Well then how are we, as God put it, "in our image, in our likeness"? (There's that our again.)

I would have to find the original Hebrew verb being used, the one that has been translated as "to be similar to" to see which exact form was used and what other possible translations might be.

I'm interested in knowing. Especially since it says "in our image" and "in our likeness".

God is allowed to use the magesterial case, by which one refers to one's self in the plural.

Yes, I suppose God would be allowed to do that. Heh. But is that what it means in the Bible when God says "in our image" and "like us"? It certainly reads like he's speaking to someone else when he's talking about how Adam can't be allowed to live forever.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The Trinity already existed. Both the Holy Spirit and The Word (Christ) were with God the Father; He is talking to them.

[aliantha]

The Trinity already existed. Both the Holy Spirit and The Word (Christ) were with God the Father; He is talking to them.

But they're all the same being. So God talks to himself! Wow, we really *are* made in his image...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I know exactly what you mean. I talk to the computers and printers here when I am trying to get them to work.

[Fist and Faith]

I'd thought of the Trinity thing, too. But that's really not how it seems in Genesis. The way God's talking, the three aspects would have to be way more distinct, right from the very beginning (before, for example, the Word part became Jesus), than I'd expect from different aspects of the same being.

[rusmeister]

The Trinity already existed. Both the Holy Spirit and The Word (Christ) were with God the Father; He is talking to them.

But they're all the same being. So God talks to himself! Wow, we really *are* made in his image...

That really IS the case. Who do you think God means in Genesis when He says "We"?
It has profound implications as distinct from the monolithic God of Judaism and Islam. It means that God is a society; that God is capable of loving God and not having it be simple egotism - that God IS love (although that love may often have the characteristic of a surgeon cutting us up in order to save us).

A PS to Fist: I have gotten a response from Father John and have realized a major misunderstanding, fueled by my haste and lack of research. Wanting all my ducks in a row, I hope to have a final response for you by early next week. It's really important to me to establish that your good questions CAN be answered, and that you're not going to be able to do any end runs on the Church, as I have learned for myself. (But, once I've done that, I'll expect you to do leg-work yourself in the future if you really want answers to the five hundred logical questions that would inevitably come up between what you know - or think you know) about the best Christian claims and what is actually out there.) It's not "proof" in the sense of natural science, but it IS a complete and non-self-contradictory world view. One definite conclusion I think you will HAVE to draw is that not all Christian traditions are created equal, and that some are more equal than others - meaning that some really are deeper than others.

[rusmeister]

I'd thought of the Trinity thing, too. But that's really not how it seems in Genesis. The way God's talking, the three aspects would have to be way more distinct, right from the very beginning (before, for example, the Word part became Jesus), than I'd expect from different aspects of the same being.

I think Lewis addressed this, in our general problem of trying to understand what is admittedly a Mystery in Orthodox - the idea that the Being is BOTH really Three AND really One, when he spoke of the problem of two-dimensional beings trying to grasp the concept of a cube. Basically, he said that they would either exaggerate the distinction and discount the unity or vice-versa.

[aliantha]

The Trinity already existed. Both the Holy Spirit and The Word (Christ) were with God the Father; He is talking to them.

But they're all the same being. So God talks to himself! Wow, we really *are* made in his image...

That really IS the case. Who do you think God means in Genesis when He says "We"?

What do you *mean*, what do I think God means when he says "we"? As a polytheist, I believe he's talking to his fellow gods.

It has profound implications as distinct from the monolithic God of Judaism and Islam.

Ohhh no you don't. The Torah is essentially the Old Testament. Which means the God who you say is calling himself "we" in Genesis isn't -- or isn't *just* -- the Christian Trinity. He is also the monolithic God of Judaism -- the same God, by the way, who gave Abraham a Commandment that says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If there *aren't* any other gods, why did he phrase it that way? Why not say, "Thou shalt believe in Me, the one and only God"?

You, sir, are putting a latter-day spin on a text that predates your religion. Which is exactly what you accuse those Sola Scriptura Protestants of doing, *and* why you say they're wrong.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'd thought of the Trinity thing, too. But that's really not how it seems in Genesis. The way God's talking, the three aspects would have to be way more distinct, right from the very beginning (before, for example, the Word part became Jesus), than I'd expect from different aspects of the same being.

Which is why I said that God speaks using the magisterial case.

[Savor Dam]

The Torah is essentially the Old Testament.

Not to be too picky, but no. There is considerably more material in the Old Testament than just the Torah, which is just the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The more complete Judaic scriptures are referred to as the Tanach and include 24 books; the five books of the Torah as well as those of the prophets and other writings. While my knowledge is limited of the Old Testament which appears in the Bibles of Catholic and Protestant sects (and I believe those sects differ in the content of their Old Testaments), my understanding is that those versions contain even more material than does the Tanach.

[rusmeister]

But they're all the same being. So God talks to himself! Wow, we really *are* made in his image...

That really IS the case. Who do you think God means in Genesis when He says "We"?

What do you *mean*, what do I think God means when he says "we"? As a polytheist, I believe he's talking to his fellow gods.

It has profound implications as distinct from the monolithic God of Judaism and Islam.

Ohhh no you don't. The Torah is essentially the Old Testament. Which means the God who you say is calling himself "we" in Genesis isn't -- or isn't *just* -- the Christian Trinity. He is also the monolithic God of Judaism -- the same God, by the way, who gave Abraham a Commandment that says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If there *aren't* any other gods, why did he phrase it that way? Why not say, "Thou shalt believe in Me, the one and only God"?

You, sir, are putting a latter-day spin on a text that predates your religion. Which is exactly what you accuse those Sola Scriptura Protestants of doing, *and* why you say they're wrong.

Well, being a neo-pagan, I'd think you wouldn't believe that that particular god, claiming to be One God, exists at all and so didn't say anything.

The Torah is the first part of what we call the Old Testament.
Since Christianity claims further revelation - that revelation did not end with the Torah and the prophets, and that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies,

We DO believe in other heavenly powers - good as well as evil. Angels are the most frequently mentioned, but seraphim and cherubim (plural forms) are mentioned. But while they may be awesome and fearsome, we do not stand in the same relationship to them as to God, which is mystically with God as Father and Jesus Christ as the Bridegroom of us - the Church. Even the most 'manly men' among the patriarchs are corporately feminine in relation to God.

It's not a "latter-day spin". It's revelation that follows up on and fulfills the Old Testament and makes sense of it. And it is not I at all who did it. I accept the interpretation as satisfying my reason and intellect as far as it can, and I realize that I could NOT have come up with it on my own. That's a difference from Sola Scriptura.

You notice that Jesus lapsed into that 'magisterial case' Hashi referred to when He said, "I keep sending you prophets and wise men..." I think that's going to bring me back to Lewis. I think it is a great pity that many here will not read Lewis. If he were read in-depth, then conversations here would be on an entirely different level. I'll bet a good half would just ignore him (that being the easiest way to not deal with the issues), and of the more intellectually honest remainder a small fraction would convert, and the rest would debate and disagree much more intelligently and on a higher plane. The simplistic objections and ideas that dominate our culture would be dismissed. That is my opinion (and not a dogma of the Orthodox Church ).

[rusmeister]

What follows is an example of what I mean by ' a higher plane of discussion' - that this is not an arrogant claim, but an objective fact; that the objections are very old, and have been dealt with before, and that if we wish to consider ourselves intelligent, it behooves us to learn what those responses were:

“Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with the tremendous difference that it really happened.” — C. S. Lewis

‘What are we to make of Jesus Christ?’ This is a question, which has, in a sense, a frantically comic side. For the real question is not what are we to make of Christ, but what is He to make of us? The picture of a fly sitting deciding what it is going to make of an elephant has comic elements about it. But perhaps the questioner meant what are we to make of Him in the sense of ‘How are we to solve the historical problem set us by the recorded sayings and acts of this Man?’ This problem is to reconcile two things. On the one hand you have got the almost generally admitted depth and sanity of His moral teaching, which is not very seriously questioned, even by those who are opposed to Christianity. In fact, I find when I am arguing with very anti-God people that they rather make a point of saying, ‘I am entirely in favour of the moral teaching of Christianity’ — and there seems to be a general agreement that in the teaching of this Man and of His immediate followers, moral truth is exhibited at its purest and best. It is not sloppy idealism; it is full of wisdom and shrewdness. The whole thing is realistic, fresh to the highest degree, the product of a sane mind. That is one phenomenon.

The other phenomenon is the quite appalling nature of this Man’s theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim, which this Man seems to be making, is not merely made at one moment of His career. There is, of course, the one moment, which led to His execution. The moment at which the High Priest said to Him, ‘Who are you?’ ‘I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see me appearing at the end of all history as the judge of the universe.’ But that claim, in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into his conversation you will find this sort of claim running throughout the whole thing. For instance, He went about saying to people, ‘I forgive your sins’. Now it is quite natural for a man to forgive something you do to him. Thus if somebody cheats me out of five pounds it is quite possible and reasonable for me to say, ‘Well, I forgive him, we will say no more about it.’ What on earth would you say if somebody had done you out of five pounds and I said, ‘That is all right, I forgive him? Then there is a curious thing, which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill about it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark — ‘I keep on sending you prophets and wise men.’ Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world. Here is another curious remark: in almost every religion there are unpleasant observances like fasting. This Man suddenly remarks one day, ‘No one need fast while I am here.’ Who is this man who remarks one day, ‘No one need fast while I am here.’ Who is this Man who remarks that His mere presence suspends all normal rules? Who is the person who can suddenly tell the School they can have a half-holiday? Sometimes the statements put forward the assumption that He, the Speaker, is completely without sin or fault. This is always the attitude. ‘You, to whom I am talking, are all sinners,’ and He never remotely suggests that this same reproach can be brought against Him. He says again, ‘I am the begotten of the One God, before Abraham was, I am,’ And remember what the words ‘I am’ were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.

Well, that is the other side. On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most same and humble of men. There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him: ‘Are you the son of Brahma?’ he would have said, ‘My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.’ If you had gone to Socrates and asked, ‘Are you Zeus?’ he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, ‘Are you Allah?’ he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, ‘Are you Heaven?’ I think he would have probably replied, ‘Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.’ The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion, which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are not looking for a piece of toast to suit you you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met him. He produced mainly three effects — Hatred — Terror — Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.

What are we to do about reconciling the two contradictory phenomena? One attempt consists in saying that the man did not really say these things; but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that he had said them. This is difficult because His followers were all Jews; that is, they belonged to that Nation which of all others was most convinced that there was only one God — that there could not possibly be another. It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religious leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such a mistake. On the contrary we get the impression that none of His immediate followers or even of the New Testament writers embraced the doctrine at all easily.

Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there is no conversation that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.

Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, ‘The importance of the Resurrection is that is gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.’ On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ’s case we were privileged to see it happening. This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writers thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door, which had always been locked, had for the very first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don’t mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had had to assure them that He was not a ghost. The point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new. The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has arisen in the universe. Something new had appeared in the universe: as new as the first coming of organic life. This Man, after death, does not get divided into ‘ghost’ and ‘corpse’. A new mode of being has arisen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it?

The question is, I suppose, whether any hypothesis covers the facts so well as the Christian hypothesis. That hypothesis is that God has come down into the created universe, down to manhood — and come up again, pulling it up with Him. The alternative hypothesis is not legend, nor exaggeration, nor the apparitions of a ghost. It is either lunacy or lies. Unless one can take the second alternative (and I can’t) one turns to the Christian theory.

‘What are we to make of Christ?’ There is no question of what we can make of Him; it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story.

The things he says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, ‘This is the truth about the universe. This is the way you ought to go,’ but He says, ‘I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.’ He says, ‘No man can reach absolute reality, except through Me. Try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved.; He says, ‘If you are ashamed of Me, if, when you hear this call, you turn the other way, I also will look the other way when I come again as God without disguise. If anything whatever is keeping you from God and from me, whatever it is, throw it away. If it is your eye, pull it out. If it is your hand, cut it off. If you put yourself first you will be last. Come to Me everyone who is carrying a heavy load, I will set that right. Your sins, all of them, are wiped out, I can do that. I am Re-birth, I am Life. Eat ME, drink Me, I am your Food. And finally, do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole Universe.’ That is the issue.

What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?
From: "God in the Dock" — C. S. Lewis

[aliantha]

I stand corrected about the contents of the Torah. But Genesis is definitely included, from what you all have said. So my comment stands -- the God who says "we" in the story of Adam and Eve is the Jewish God, not the Christian Triune God.

Well, being a neo-pagan, I'd think you wouldn't believe that that particular god, claiming to be One God, exists at all and so didn't say anything.

I don't have a problem with admitting that your God exists. You're the one with the problem -- refusing to acknowledge the existence of all the other gods.

As for "if you would just read Lewis, you'd convert," I've got a quote of my own. This was posted on a blog in response to a post on a Christian blog titled, "How to Talk to Pagans."

I can't get over the notion that, in a different context, this same post could be called "How to Talk to Black People" or "How to Get a Women's Libber to Date You."

She goes on to quote some of the blog entry's talking points:

"Do … focus on Jesus."


Right. Because, first, most Pagans have never heard of him and are just dying to have even more Jesus stuffed down their throats. Kali fuck, you can't live in this society for 5 minutes without having Jebuz, Jebuz, Jebuz rammed down your gullet, so for sure a great way to have a conversation with most Pagans is to focus on Jesus. (When talking to the mark, er, um, customer, keep referring to the product.) Look, while the number of "cradle Pagans" is growing, the majority of Pagans living in America today were raised in Christian families. Like many of us, I, for one, got more Jesus growing up than I got fluoride, physical education, exposure to classical music, or history of the Americas before Columbus. I've forgotten more about Jesus than most Christians ever learn. I know Jesus; I had, for years, an intimate relationship with Jesus, and I left him. "Focusing" on him is as respectful to me as it would be for you to focus every conversation with me on my ex. I don't feel a need to spend my conversations with every Christian "focusing" on Hecate or Columbia. My relationship with those Goddesses is personal and I can't think of a single reason why you'd care. Accord me the same respect. I realize that leaves you with no reason to talk to me, since apparently the only reason for you to talk to me, even though I am "people, just like you," is to convert me to Jesus. That's ok. Keep on moving.

And:

"Not only should you not expect Pagans to take the bible as authoritative as you do, you should not expect them to take any scripture as authoritative as you do."


Sigh. You know, this isn't a bad point, if you accept the premise that the Christian's only real goal is to convert the Pagan. Telling me that I have to accept Jesus as my personal savior because your holy book says that I have to do that to get into your heaven is pretty silly, given that I don't accept your holy book. But, Kali Fuck: "take the bible as authoritative as you do"? Again, I live in my left brain. If you can't write English (hint: Buy an "ly" or revise the sentence), you're not going to have a very good conversation with me. And my Book of Shadows sure doesn't look anything like the Book of Common Prayer (one of the great products of the English language, BTW) or a Catholic missal. But keep on misconstruing.

Finally, there's:

"Don't … be afraid to challenge, as long as you’re respectful
Through many years of experience I’ve found Pagans aren’t beyond being challenged, provided the challenge is respectful, and preferably within the context of relationship. . . . With such a history of bad blood between Pagans and Christians[,] I can’t promise you won’t have a bad experience, that you won’t ever experience rejection, even following these tips. But I can say that most the time, if you approach Pagans with the right attitude, you’ll find them quite open to conversation about things of the Spirit."


Yes, it's true. There are a few of us who won't melt if you challenge us. Weird, huh? And if you just approach those Negroes in a nice way, you can talk to them about almost anything. Well, OK, speak slowly, cuz they do, and be sure to say how articulate that Dr. King was. Be nice, and don't use the "N-Word," cuz even the ones who aren't too techy will go off on that, for some odd reason. But you can challenge some of them, for sure, if you do it nicely. And even those women's libbers can be calmed down and appeased to the point where you can often get their phone number; can't promise that some aren't so bitter that they won't reject you, but, hey, just use "feeling words," and keep trying! If you keep your sentences short and just speak loudly, even your Hispanic gardener can understand what you're saying.

I'm not even going to discuss the "Don't dump on women, gays, and the environment." Patriarchy; soaking in it; all I'm saying.

Here's an idea. Stop approaching every human being on the planet as a "customer" and see how that changes you. Spend some time talking to your Jesus about that. Meanwhile, you can ask me about the Nats' latest game without a guide book.

You're not here to have a conversation, rus -- you're here to try to convert people. The above pretty much sums up how I feel about that.

[Orlion]

One definite conclusion I think you will HAVE to draw is that not all Christian traditions are created equal, and that some are more equal than others - meaning that some really are deeper than others.

Emphasis mine, so that people will know where the following comment will come from:

COMMUNIST!!!