Things about different religions that you were always afraid to ask #2

[Emma]

Things about different religions that you were always afraid to ask (showthread.php?t=41641)

Please continue here...

[Mundungus Fletc]

Only posting 'cos it's a new thread but looking for bible translation I found two lovely ones.

"The wicked Bible" that managed to leave 'not' out of the seventh commandment. (A popular one that I imagine.)

And "the unrighteous bible" that had "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God?" in Corinthians I

[purplehawk]

'morning, Dung. :lol:

I apologize for my gaffe listing Catholicism separately from Christianity in the old thread. I know Catholics are Christians. After twelve years in Catholic schools, I know that pretty well. :p

I do so need to get to church this morning! Miss Priss chose a sleep-over for her 8th birthday celebration, thus we have six extra little girls chattering and squealing over their breakfast.

[Mundungus Fletc]

s'OK
I do so need to get to church this morning! Miss Priss chose a sleep-over for her 8th birthday celebration, thus we have six extra little girls chattering and squealing over their breakfast.
Deppest sympathy - it's well past lunchtime here but I wouldn't be ready for that.

[purplehawk]

Neither am I. :evil:

[marauderlupin]

Why aren't Catholics considered Christian? When I was young and naive, I had a couple of religious friends try to convince me that Catholics had their own religion. They read the bible and they worship Jesus. I don't get it.

[purplehawk]

Aren't Catholics more or less the original Christians? At least insofar as Europeans are concerned?

[marauderlupin]

:no: I've been lied to. They said that Orthodox people were the original Christians but they were wrong about something (lol. isn't everyone?). Well, the girls were Mormon and Protestant or Anglican...something like that.

Seriously the Catholic thing irks me because I think they're a very cool sect. I like the way they worship. It's very grand.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Aren't Catholics more or less the original Christians? At least insofar as Europeans are concerned?
Well I would be bound to agree with this but actually there are complications. Until the eleventh centrury the Catholic and Orthodox xhurches were in communion - in effect a single church. There was an almighty row resulting in the split. So each has a claim to be the 'original church.'

[purplehawk]

Complications? That's hardly surprising, :rotfl: We may all worship similarly but that doesn't stop us from fighting each other tooth and nail.

[offca]

Well I would be bound to agree with this but actually there are complications. Until the eleventh centrury the Catholic and Orthodox xhurches were in communion - in effect a single church. There was an almighty row resulting in the split. So each has a claim to be the 'original church.'

I would just add, that on the beginning - up to V cent., there were many sects - firstly known as "messianic Jews", then groups of pagan Christians, but quite close to Judaism, and these who cut out from Judaism, but still were divided in many groups (especially the problem of understanding the nature of Jesus).

From the moment of Church having political power (Constantine - IV cent) - the Church has power to kill off (literally) every sect that isn't as the main one.

so - it's not that it is the "original one" - it is the most powerful, that had enough political power to destroy any sect. But still - some survived, mostly the ones, which were far from Rome - like Orthodox, Etiopian, Syrian etc.

In XVI Church was just too weak to fight successfully with new sects - but of course tried.

EDIT: i tried to find previous version - was it under different title? The link doesn't work for me, and I'm lost :sigh: Thanks for help.

[marauderlupin]

Previous Version (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=41641)

[offca]

Thank you, it works :)

[simplybecky]

If I'm remembering correctly, I learned that after Christ left the earth, the different parts of the Christian church broke off into different sects. They each followed what they were taught by the various apostles in their areas, and they each had a bit of the truth, but no one really had the full truth. Around 300 AD, the emporer Diocletian ordered an edict to kill Christians because they were causing so much trouble amongst the different sects. By 325 AD, Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration, ordering the Christians, if they were going to last as a religion at all, to come together to figure out what they believed once and for all and to stop all the warring between sects. About a thousand plus bishops came together and wrote the Nicean Creed (I believe that's what it was called, named for Nicea, the place where the meeting was held), which was a list of basic Christian beliefs that they all agreed on.

I don't know how or when the different sects split up about after that point, but I do remember learning that this is where it was decided that God does not have a body of flesh and bone (which contradicts what Christ teaches in Luke 24: 36-39). I really don't know about the foundations of the Catholic Church, but I can tell you that the LDS Church believes that after Christ left the earth and the apostles were killed, the earth was filled with the "Great Apostacy" (prophecied in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3), and that the church was later restored to the earth by Christ, through the prophet Joseph Smith. Hopefully that gives you some idea of the foundations of the LDS Church :p

[offca]

I found it from long time ago, but I hope it will help someone:


I have kind of a dumb question...I have been told that the first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament (Bereishith, Shemoth, Vayiqra, Bamidbar, and Devarim, in Hebrew) is called the Torah by Jews. Is it also correct that the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim are collectively known as the Torah? Or am I confused about that?
Torah in its narrow meaning is a name for Five Books of Moses. But - it wider meaning can be "a Teaching of God" "The Instruction" (the word Torah comes from root meaning "to instruct" "to teach") - and can mean all God's teaching.

Torah is divided on Torah Shebechtav - "The Written Torah" - Which is Five Books of Moses, Neviim=Prophets, and Kethuvim=Writings and Torah Shebe'alpe - "The Oral Torah" - which is the oral Tradition, a commentary to main text of God's commandments. Jews believe that both were given to Moses on Sinai. One was written down, the second Moses taught to Elders, they taught to Judges, they to... and so on thru all generations. on the edge of destruction, after the Holy Temple was destroyed, some of the rabbis decided to write down the complex details about commandments, as they were taught - which happend around IICE. The most important "book" inOral Tradigion is of course Talmud, but not only - also midrashim (stories based on Written Torah), moral and ethical teachings, and also esoterical teachings (kabbalah).

I hoped I could help with that :)
If anyone has any questions about Judaism - i will be more than happy to answer them (of best of my knowledge).

And great topic - I've learned a lot, and still catching up! Thank you!

[purplehawk]

And great topic - I've learned a lot, and still catching up! Thank you!

Thanks, Offca. I hope this thread becomes "the" place to discuss our many religious faiths without any continual emphasis on any one particular faith.

[invisiblemunky]

Question for catholics, are the 12 disciples the same as the 12 apostles? Which Bible do you use?

The apostles were men chosen by Christ while the disciples were followers (not chosen). There were 12 apostles and something like 150 disciples. I guess you sort of consider the apostles as bishops and disciples as priests, since the apostles were of a higher position being chosen by Christ Himself. But the terms are used interchangeably today.
And Catholics are Christians and were referred as such until the break in the 1500's. After that the Protestants were referred to as Christians.

[agpotter]

Hey, everyone, just found the new thread.... :)

[simplybecky]

In the LDS Church, disciples are spoken of as Christ's followers. There are 12 apostles guiding and directing the church, as well as the First Presidency, and they are guided by the Lord who is at the head. However, all of those people who follow Christ and share his teachings with the world are considered disciples.


EDIT: Nice to have you back, agpotter :p

[Mundungus Fletc]

Offca I have a question regarding the Jewish bible; when was it first 'set in stone' so to speak (I.e. when was it decided what books were in and what were not.) The reason I ask is that the Christian Old Testament contain(ed/s) books that were not in the Jewish Bible by the sixteenth century (The first and second book of Esdras, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Daniel3 and first and second Maccabees)

Martin Luther translating from a sixteenth century Hebrew text ditched them (as he tried to ditch some of the books in the New testament because he doubted their veracity) Some protestants kept them (The were in the King James Bible until 1880 or so.) but they are not now included in Protestant bibles.

I have read that perhaps they are excluded from the Jewish bible because they were written in the diaspora and not in Israel proper. Or that they were originally written in Greek (Hebrew versions were found in the Dead Sea Scrollls but they may have been tarnslations.)

[Pegasus]

Another question for Catholics: When I visited a Catholic mass at a city cathedral, I was the only one dressed up. Even the people conducting the meeting were wearing jeans and everyday shoes under their robes. I'm wondering if that's the norm, or if my city is especially casual.

[Mundungus Fletc]

In Britain Catholics tend not to dress up for mass unless it's a special occasion. You wear the sort of clothes you would when visiting family. If you ever have the chance to go to a first communion Mass you will see everyone in all their finery.

[purplehawk]

In Britain Catholics tend not to dress up for mass unless it's a special occasion. You wear the sort of clothes you would when visiting family. If you ever have the chance to go to a first communion Mass you will see everyone in all their finery.

The same is true here in the States for the most part. The older people always dress up, while the younger ones dress more casually - regardless of denomination. I see the same thing in my Presbyterian church. We have a casual service at 10:00 and a more formal service at 11:15. The latter is attended by more of the older members.

[offca]

About Jewish codification.

I believe the disscusion about some of the Books (of course majority wasn't a problem) was still in mishnaic times (around 150BCE-200CE). Very important was if there was a tradition that the text "makes [spiritually] unclean" - something that is kodesh (holy) cannot be touched - and touched make tame=unclean (in spiritual meaning).
Next thing was, as already said, the language in which text was written - Jews believe that Hebrew is holy language, in which God spoken. no other languge has such power, holiness etc. That's why, if a text was in original written in Greek - isn't as holy.

As far as I remember from my first year in University (ages ago :evil: ) the codification stopped finally around II cent CE - and only some of the texts were "problematic" (the later apocrypha, or Songs of Songs and Kohelet) - the rest was known as "holy" for centuries already.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Thanks Offca.
and only some of the texts were "problematic" (the later apocrypha, or Songs of Songs and Kohelet)
The 'song of songs' is certainly 'problematic'

[offca]

But later, and now it is treated as most holy and precious - as describing the wonderful and beauty love between God and Israel :)

[purplehawk]

Thanks, Offca. Does anyone know the history of how the scriptures came to be written in so many different languages? I'm speaking, of course, of the ancient scriptures - not anything more recent.

[Mundungus Fletc]

The New testament was written in Greek or Hebrew wasn't it?

[purplehawk]

I think so, but from what Offca has said the Greek writings weren't weighted as heavily as those written in Hebrew?

[Dementor Dave]

I do beleive the Old Testament was in Aramaic and Hebrew, while the New was primarily Greek. The reason is relatively simple, those were the languages of the day when it being passed along as gospels. During the assimilation of the bible is when things get really "icky"

[purplehawk]

Dave, please put on your scholar hat and tell us more?

[Dementor Dave]

Dave, please put on your scholar hat and tell us more?

I'm seperated from my precious notes at present. Perhaps later tonight.

[purplehawk]

When you and they get back together, we'll be ready to listen. :tu:

[offca]

the so called "Old Testament" is written in Hebrew, exept for a pasage in Daniel that's in arameic. In Jewish writings Arameic started to be seen in Gemara - commentary around Mishna (basic law codex, written in Hebrew, gathered in IIcent. CE). There are commentaries and Midrashim ("stories" around biblical themes, personalities), that are written in "rabinical Hebrew" - it's still Hebrew, but with some changes in grammar, words, slightly going into direction of Aramaic.
The Gemara which was written in Israel was in Hebrew - so called Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem's Talmud), only the one written by sages in diaspora in Bavel (today Iraq, Persia) is in Aramaic.

Greek was of course common language among people close to "authorities" - like arystocracy, the rich etc., no one who was close to religion/tradition was switching to greek.

So even if Aramaic was a bit different - but still close enough to Hebrew, and was using same alphabet, while Greek was a symbol of different culture, of polytheism and political occupation (and also hellenisation of the Jewish tradition - Jews who were talking Greek were mostlly "lost" for their people).


A lot of ancient writings were saved thanks to translations - like translations of Greek philosophers in Arabic, Jewish commentaries in Arabic or Spanish... Thanks to them, we have much more now :)

These were fascinating times... so many cultures, traditions, nations and faiths living next do each other...

[purplehawk]

These were fascinating times... so many cultures, traditions, nations and faiths living next do each other...

We still have that today... though with every sect claiming superiority and being the only sure way to salvation, it's difficult for us to focus on what we share in common. That's a sad indictment on the greed and power-mongering so prevalent among some of our religious leaders.

[HP_ROCKS]

Not sure where.. But I am pretty sure I read someone ask about Jehovah's Witnesses? (thinking maybe it was Purp?, but not sure)

I am not a Jehovah's Witness anymore... (Pagan for years) but was raised in that church so may be able to answer questions.. (I'll give it a shot at least)

[rainbow84uk]

this is such a good thread...

wish i could answer some questions but none at the moment that i can contribute to! but i'll keep on reading, it's so interesting! :-)

lauren xxx

[Pegasus]

Not sure where.. But I am pretty sure I read someone ask about Jehovah's Witnesses? (thinking maybe it was Purp?, but not sure)

I am not a Jehovah's Witness anymore... (Pagan for years) but was raised in that church so may be able to answer questions.. (I'll give it a shot at least)
That was me. As I said in an earlier post, I did a little research on the official website a few years ago out of curiosity. In my faith, God the Father and Jesus Christ his Son are two different people, and Jehovah is the name of Jesus rather than God. Neither is more "holy" than the other. I've been trying to understand the basic beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses from this context. i thought I remembered the Witnesses believing in Jesus, but not as a Supreme Being, but the last time I looked at the official site it was talking about being Christian, so I'm confused.
It may seem silly, but I am very interested in all kinds of religions and cultures, so perhaps you can fill me in. :)

[HP_ROCKS]

Okay... so let me see ...

From what I remember (been a while).. JW believe in both God and Jesus. Jehovah is God to them, Jesus is the son. I'm pretty sure that to them Jehovah is a Higher power, being from the beginning and all, but not to say that Jesus doesnt have any importance. They believe Jesus came down and did great things, and died (not sure if they believe that he died on the cross or on a single piece of wood), and that he was resurrected.
They are Christians, but dont follow alot of things the other sects, or denominations or whatever they're called, do.


Does that help any?

[Romy]

this is such a good thread...

wish i could answer some questions but none at the moment that i can contribute to! but i'll keep on reading, it's so interesting! :-)

lauren xxxHey, you´re back, Lauren. Hi. :)

In my faith, God the Father and Jesus Christ his Son are two different people, and Jehovah is the name of Jesus rather than God. I´ve never heard of Jehova (or Jahwe, take your pick) as being another name for Jesus. I always thought it was the old Jewish name for God.

Neither is more "holy" than the other.Shouldn´t, technically, God be more holy, as Jesus has only half his genes? :p Mary is the acknowledged mother, after all.
While we´re at it, how holy is the Holy Ghost, the only one in the trio who has "holy" in his name. Does that give him special credit? :evil: :p

[GryffindorSeeker]

Shouldn´t, technically, God be more holy, as Jesus has only half his genes? :p Mary is the acknowledged mother, after all.
Well, we (LDS) believe that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins. He was the firstborn of our Heavenly Father, and is our advocate with the Father. We believed he created the heavens and the earth, and that he is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Saviour of the New.

[purplehawk]

You folks belief Jesus created the heavens and the earth?

[agpotter]

Yes, we believe that Jesus created the Heavens and the Earth under Heavenly Father's instruction and guidance. It was created spiritually first by Heavenly Father, but then He instructed Jesus to go forward and create it physically.

[purplehawk]

What is your basis for that argument?

[agpotter]

Erm..... Basis? Argument? How about it's doctrinal from our religion and our scriptures? In fact, I'm pretty sure much of it's in the King James translation of the Bible (the one we believe is translated correctly).

You asked a question, and I answered it. :huh:

[purplehawk]

It's just that my King James - and every other Bible I've read - credits God Himself with the creation of the heavens and of the earth. So I was wondering about the source of your version of events.

[Rosie Cotton]

Expansion: Adam (can't remember his angelic name, but I think it's Michael. Stupid me! I can't remember) helped create the Earth with Christ, though Christ was the head of the operation after Heavenly Father instructed Him to do so.

[agpotter]

Ah... I understand. Suffice it to say that our scriptures indicate further about the creation. I mean, in essence, God DID create the universe, but He made use of the help of His Son in doing so.

I'm sure there's another LDS on here who might be able to be more specific about the subject. It has a lot to do with modern revelation and our scriptures (i.e. The Book of Mormon).

[purplehawk]

No thanks, please. Not to be disrespectful, but after that last go-round on "dark and loathsome," I've had enough of the Book of Mormon to last a lifetime.

[Rosie Cotton]

There is some information about it in some books that are translations of books written by prophets of old. There's Joseph Smith-Matthew, Moses, and the Book of Abraham. I'll see if I can find the exact scripture for you on-line.

[agpotter]

Thanks Rosie.

And purplehawk, if you're not interested in hearing something that has to do with The Book of Mormon, why are you asking us in the first place? There are a lot of things in scriptures (including the Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc.) that don't make sense to us right now. How could many of them make much sense, considering how narrow our perspective is??? It's about faith and trust (and pixie dust?.... heh). We don't have all the answers, or we would be God ourselves (which none of us is, I'm pretty sure).

[purplehawk]

I wanted to know if the source of your version of the creation came from Joseph Smith. It did, and that's enough for me.

[agpotter]

Not completely from Joseph Smith, though. It came through the prophets of old TO Joseph Smith.

Anyway, glad to answer your question.

[Rosie Cotton]

Actually, it came from God, through Moses or Abraham, and then through Joseph Smith's translation of them. However, if you don't want to know why we believe what we believe, than the subject is closed. We can't explain something to you, if we aren't allowed to use The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Moses, Abraham, Joseph History, Articles of Faith, Official Proclamations or Joseph Smith-Matthew.

[purplehawk]

Most Christian faiths don't acknowledge him as a prophet. Mine certainly doesn't.

ETA: Look, I don't want a fight. I'm feeling less than charitable right now toward the teachings of your church - which shouldn't surprise anyone after that abominable earlier discussion. What I read in that last thread was deeply troubling to me. It's something I've since discussed with my pastor and with my church service group.

[Rosie Cotton]

We're not trying to prove things to you, purplehawk. We're simply saying what we believe and why we believe it. If I confused you and lead you to believe I was trying to prove something to you, I'm sorry.

Subject closed. Let's not talk of it anymore.

[halfbreedlover]

Let's see, something to revise this discussion....

Are there any Quakers on this forum? That religion has always fascinated me. They are reliably liberal, and they don't take the bible quite so literally. It was Quakers' houses that were many of the stops on the Underground Railroad (to give you some idea of their enlightened attitudes towards blacks). They also gave women a higher place in their church, long before others thought of doing so.

I hear they follow another type of creation story, one that is very different from the main one followed by Christians. In fact, they don't even consider themselves Christians. Does anyone know anything about them? Are there any on this board?

[Kaitie]

I'm a late comer on this topic but it has nonetheless disturbed me.

God is a revealer of truth, He is the source of truth and light, He is no respecter of persons. Just as Cain's descendents were marked with a curse--so were the Lamanites. I do not understand why one mark is acceptable and the other is disturbing--both come from God disciplining His children.

A question directed to the LDS is going to be based on LDS doctrine just as a question about Islam is going to be based on the Qu'ran. Asking an LDS person to answer a question without using their doctrine is impossible.

That said, the spirit of contention is in this thread--and from what I see the only thing that was accomplished was a person is now anti-mormon and a bunch of mormons are feeling wrongfooted because someone believes something about their church that is false. Not a good thing. If someone really wants to know the truth--no matter how many books, quotes, conversations, biblical, book of mormon, qu'ran references--all they have to do is ask God. Plain and simple. Ask and ye shall receive.

I would like to officially invite the spirit back into the room.

[purplehawk]

Let's see, something to revise this discussion....

Are there any Quakers on this forum? That religion has always fascinated me. They are reliably liberal, and they don't take the bible quite so literally. It was Quakers' houses that were many of the stops on the Underground Railroad (to give you some idea of their enlightened attitudes towards blacks). They also gave women a higher place in their church, long before others thought of doing so.

I hear they follow another type of creation story, one that is very different from the main one followed by Christians. In fact, they don't even consider themselves Christians. Does anyone know anything about them? Are there any on this board?

I don't know much about them beyond their history with the Underground Railroad and the fact Richard Nixon was a Friend. On a personal note, Quakers in southern Ohio during the slavery years often hid escapees in and around property owned by members of my family, the branch descended from Thomas Jefferson. The house is still there and until very recently was derelict and practically falling down on itself. Some of the remaining grandchildren have taken on the task of putting it back together, stone by stone, and then (hopefully) restoring the interior.

Here's a link to a pamphlet I found online about the Society of Friends.

Facts About Friends (http://www.quaker.org/friends.html)

[Masterfroggy]

I have a question, that has bothered me for some time and think that someone here might help me
in
I Nephi : 4-2
Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.
it speaks of the Red sea, yet the term yam suf [from Exodus13 ] means reed sea, if as is claimed that the book of Mormon is translated from a true source how did this error come about as most recent Translations have had this glaring error corrected

[Pegasus]

I've never heard of a "reed sea"; both 1 Nephi and Exodus 13 say "Red Sea," and there it is, right on the maps in the appendix.
But I thought we were through with the Book of Mormon.

[Masterfroggy]

I've never heard of a "reed sea"; both 1 Nephi and Exodus 13 say "Red Sea," and there it is, right on the maps in the appendix.
But I thought we were through with the Book of Mormon.The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea." Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph. The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7.

The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam suph as "Sea of Reeds" or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning

Oh right we have given up on the Book of Morman, may I ask why

[Pegasus]

Oh right we have given up on the Book of Morman, may I ask why

Because certain parties have asked that we do so and because I'm really, really tired of arguing. This thread was created for the sake of learning about each other's religions, not arguing the validity of said religions. I really don't want the Spirit Division shut down.

[Masterfroggy]

Because certain parties have asked that we do so and because I'm really, really tired of arguing.Ok,

[Ginny1976]

I have a question, that has bothered me for some time and think that someone here might help me
in
I Nephi : 4-2
Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.
it speaks of the Red sea, yet the term yam suf [from Exodus13 ] means reed sea, if as is claimed that the book of Mormon is translated from a true source how did this error come about as most recent Translations have had this glaring error corrected
Could you give me the verse from Exodus? Was it in Exodus 14? That's where I found the part about the sea in my King James version. And was the error supposed to be in the Book of Mormon? And which translations? The Book of Mormon was only translated once. I'm sorry, I'm just confused about your question.

edit: Oops! too late!

[Pegasus]

Could you give me the verse from Exodus? Was it in Exodus 14? That's where I found the part about the sea in my King James version. And was the error supposed to be in the Book of Mormon? And which translations? The Book of Mormon was only translated once. I'm sorry, I'm just confused about your question.

edit: Oops! too late!
(See Bible Dictionary: Red Sea page 760. There's a complete discussion of the Red Sea and its significance, in addition to every scripture pertaining to it.)

[Bee]

I was just noticing that a few pages back there was some discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses... I was raised (or... am being raised) as a JW and so I can give you some current info/perspective if you're interested. Just ask.

[agpotter]

....Although I don't think it's fair that The Book of Mormon be completely excluded from discussion... Like someone said, I wouldn't expect people of other religions to answer questions without using their scriptures or other sacred writings. Where do we all think the doctrine comes from after all?

Anyway, I also don't want this shut down, so meh.

[Morgoth]

Closing this down. Don't send me owls on the issue, am not interested.